upgrading standards of riding quality in bituminous ... . upgrading standards-full.pdf ·...

International Journal of Industrial

Engineering& Technology (IJIET)

ISSN 2277-4769

Vol. 3, Issue 3, Aug 2013, 21-34

© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

UPGRADING STANDARDS OF RIDING QUALITY IN BITUMINOUS CONCRETE –

A CASE STUDY

BANT SINGH1 & SRIJIT BISWAS FIE

2

1Research Scholar, Manav Rachna International University, Chief Engineer, Haryana PWD (B&R),

Presently Chief General Manager (Tech), National Highways Authority of India, Dwarka, New Delhi, India

2Professor & Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Manav Rachna International University, Faridabad, India

ABSTRACT

The highways play a major role in the development of a country which is going at a very fast speed. The roads

carry 85% passenger traffic and 70% of the freight traffic. With the availability of modern plants and equipment, the speed

of construction of highways has further increased. Moreover, with the use of e-quality control system, the quality and

quantity of the construction of a highway is assured. The present standards of riding quality have been fixed keeping in

view the use of normal equipment and old system of construction. In this age of e-technology, the standards of riding

quality needs to be relooked and upgraded so as to have a better riding quality of the road. This paper involves a case study

which has been carried out to find out the solution of a real life problem faced by an engineer during the construction of a

highway. In this paper, we present a methodology to upgrade the standards of riding quality of flexible pavements using e-

quality control system. To understand the methodology, a field case study is also presented here.

KEYWORDS: E-Control, GPS, Riding, Roughness, Tolerances

INTRODUCTION

General

The economic development of the country largely depends on the road network and the quality of the roads. In

India, there are 4.1 million km of roads out of which National Highways are 71,772 km, Expressways are 200 km, State

Highways are 1,66,130 km, Major District Roads are 2,66,058 km and Rural Roads are 36,05,633 km. At present, out of

71,772 km of National Highways, only 23% of the road length is 4-lane or more than 4-lane, 54% of the road length is only

2-lane whereas the balance 23% are only single lane or intermediate lane. The present traffic growth in the country is about

7.5% whereas in the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi, it is about 11%. The fast traffic growth and Indian economy

has increased the demand of road infrastructure. Historically, the budgetary resources from the Government have been the

major source of financing for infrastructure projects such as road projects in India. But the development of the road

network has failed to keep pace with the growth in the traffic. The reduction of the budgetary allocation towards road

construction/upgradation on account of budgeting demands from other sources such as social and economical infrastructure

etc. have resulted in deficiencies in the road network leading to capacity constraints, delay, congestion, fuel wastage and

high vehicle operating cost.

In view of these facts, as it was not possible to meet the road network requirement of upgradation of National

Highways from public funds alone, the Govt. of India has taken a policy decision to develop the National Highways on

Built, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis with Public Private Partnership which aims at financing, designing, implementing

and operating public sector facilities and services through partnerships between public agencies and private sector entities.

Due to the active participation of the private entities in the upgradation of the highways, the quality of roads is improving

22 Bant Singh & Srijit Biswas Fie

day by day. Due to availability and use of modern sophisticated instruments in the road construction, the quality of roads

has improved a lot. Further, with the use of e-quality control system [1], the quality and quantity of the product is assured.

The existing acceptance criteria of sample testing which is not matching with the speed of the construction also needs to be

modified [2]. The use of electronic sensor paver gives the perfectness of the road surface as per desired levels. So, a better

riding quality can be achieved with the use of these electronically controlled equipment. In the present age, everyone wants

to travel on a safe road having excellent riding quality and hindrance free flow of traffic. The present standards of riding

quality have been fixed keeping in view the normal use of machinery and old system of construction of highways. In case

of highways where e-quality control system is used in which each and every activity of construction is electronically

controlled, the old standards of riding quality and tolerance limits in Bituminous Concrete (BC) layer needs to be relooked

and new better standards should be fixed so as to provide a better comfort to the road users.

Tolerance Limits in Aggregates and Bitumen Content

Road construction can be labour-intensive, mechanized or a combination of both depending on the importance of

road and the availability of funds. With rapid industrialization and huge investment in road sector, the road building is

becoming equipment oriented day by day. Computer, in-built in the plant, automatically controls the quality of the product.

In BC, the contractor sets up the plant to get the percentages of the various ingredients in the actual mix as per job mix

formula within the permissible limits of tolerance and the material is accepted within these limits. In the codal

provisions/specifications, the tolerance limits have been given, so that the work can be accepted within those tolerance

limits. The existing tolerance limits have been kept keeping in view the normal equipment and system of quality control

which permits higher range of tolerance for acceptance.

In this electronic age, the modern equipments are used which automatically control the various ingredients of

product and check the quality of product. Now, with the use of e-quality control system where all the activities of a

highway construction are electronically controlled and which assures the quality and quantity of the work, the tolerance

limits prescribed in the codes needs to be re-looked and revised. The case study for the revised tolerance limits for Wet

Mix Macadam (WMM) & Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) has been carried out by the author [3] whereas for BC is

being presented here.

Pavement Riding Quality

The pavement riding quality not only determines the riding comfort but also has significant influence on the cost

of vehicles operation, requirement of road maintenance and on the safety of movement with consequent effect on the road

transport as a whole. Automatic Road Unevenness Recorder comprises of a Trailer of single wheel with a pneumatic tyre

mounted on chassis over which are installed profile recording and integrating devices.

The machine has panel board fitted with two electronic counters for counting the unevenness index value in cm

and length in meter. The digital meter for unevenness index value is also fitted on the panel board with an arrangement for

setting distance value from 50 mtr to 1000 mtrs. The operating speed of the machine is 30 to 40 km per hour and is towed

by a vehicle.

The vertical reciprocating motion of the axle is converted into unidirectional rotatory motion by the integrator

unit; the accumulation of this unidirectional motion is recorded by operating sensor inserted in the circuit of electronic

counter of accumulated unevenness. The average of the cumulative unevenness values of each wheel paths of each km was

converted from the processor into unevenness index in mm per km.

Upgrading Standards of Riding Quality in Bituminous Concrete –A Case Study 23

The average Unevenness Index value of both the directions was represented as the unevenness of a particular

kilometer. The bump integrator was calibrated before use.

Requirements of Existing Specifications

As per Ministry of Road Transport & Highways specifications [4], the Unevenness Index of the pavement shall

not be more than 2000 mm per km when measured with Bump Integrator fitted in a vehicle or an equivalent device

approved by the Engineer. As per IRC:SP 16-2004 [5] the road stretches with bituminous concrete surfacing has been

categorized as-

Good : Roughness < 2000 mm/km.

Average : Roughness between 2000 mm/km and 3000 mm/km.

Poor : Roughness > 3000 mm/km.

METHODOLOGY

Firstly, we selected a project to carry out the work in field. The modern equipment such as batch mix type hot

mix plant with electronic sensor which automatically controls proportion of different fractions and bitumen, cone crusher

(integrated stone crushing & screening plant), automatic wet mix plant with moisture content controller, paver finisher with

electronic sensor, vibratory road roller, nuclear density meter automatic road unevenness recorder, total station & GPS etc.

are used at site.

All the relevant data collected at site at various stages is placed on web site.Various physical tests are conducted

to know the variations in different ingredients. Before going to our next session of case study, let us introduce briefly the e-

quality control system.e-quality control is a system in which all the major activities at construction stage are electronically

controlled through the modern equipment having computerized control [6] and the live data along with live photoFigure s

in real time is placed on the website in respect of the followings:

E-Control on Receipt of Bitumen

Generally the bitumen is received from the oil refineries. To control the pilferage of bitumen, the live

photoFigure s of the bitumen tankers taken during its weighing on automatic computerized weighing machine are placed in

live time on the website with project ID indicating tanker & indent number, weight of loaded & empty tanker etc.

E-Control on Mixing of Material at Plant Site

The batch mix type hot mix plant with electronic sensor (which automatically controls the proportion of different

fractions of aggregates and bitumen) is used. The proportions of various ingredients required for BC are set upon the

computer of batch type hot mix plant. The live data with project ID indicating tipper no., type of material, temperature (of

aggregates, bitumen & mixed material) and percentage of bitumen etc. is placed on the website.

E-Control on Weighing Machine Site

As soon as the tipper is filled with the mixed bituminous material, it is brought to the automatic weighing machine

to carry out the weight. A camera & GPS instruments are also installed at the weighting machine site and the live data

along with photoFigure is placed on the website indicating tipper number, type of material, weight of loaded & empty

tipper etc.


E-Control on Vehicles

A Vehicle Tracking System along with various devices such as vehicle diagnostic sensors, fuel sensor & Global

Positional System (GPS) etc. is attached with each tipper carrying out the material to check the route of the vehicle at all

times, fuel consumption per km., kms traveled by the vehicle in a day, working hours of vehicles/day, halt hours of

vehicles/day, idle hours of vehicles/day & speed of vehicles etc. [7]

E-Control on Work Site

On the start of the work with a particular tipper on the site, its photoFigure during unloading in the hopper of the

paver is taken and the live data along with location (RD) is placed on website indicating tipper number, weight of material,

temperature of material, etc.

The same exercise is repeated at the end point where material of this particular tipper finishes. Thus it controls

the material used in a particular reach.

E-Control on Testing of Samples

Every Engineer is given a laptop enabled with GPS and Camera. While conducting the test, the live data is placed

on website which includes the location where test is being conducted along with the photoFigure of the person conducting

the test. Thus, the system checks bogus entries of tests.

A CASE STUDY

To go ahead with the case study, a section of sanctioned project “Construction of NH-4 (Belgaum-Dharwad from

km.433 to km.515) is selected which is being executed in the State of Karnataka, India” at an estimated cost of Rs.480.00

crores on DBFO (Design, Built, Finance & Operation) pattern.

The execution of work is being carried out by National Highways Authority of India according to technical

specifications laid down by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H), and IRC:SP-2000 [8].

During the case study, in first phase we carried out the study of tolerance limits of aggregates and in second phase

on bitumen content in BC. Finally, the riding quality parameters were studied.

Tolerance limits in Bituminous Concrete (BC)

To study the variations at various stages of construction of bituminous concrete, the material of the same

truck/tipper was tested at different stages of construction as under:

Just after loading in the tipper.

At the time when tipper reaches at work site.

After laying at site

After compaction.

AGGREGATES

The data of 10 such tippers is placed below in Table-1 giving the gradation of various ingredients at various stages

of construction:


Table 1: Gradation Data of BC at various Stages

Sr.

No.

Tipper

No. Location

Sieve Size in mm

19 13.2 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.600 0.300 0.150 0.075

1 RJ 06 G

3762

On loading 100 90.22 77.35 57.07 47.07 36.10 29.99 20.55 14.64 7.06

At work site 100 88.32 75.05 58.30 45.32 39.10 30.12 20.84 14.28 5.33

After laying 100 89.54 74.84 54.35 47.52 39.22 28.32 21.35 15.55 5.54

After compaction 100 91.22 75.95 55.10 47.10 37.55 31.00 22.50 14.55 6.00

2 TN 30

A 6610

On loading 100 92.33 75.07 55.28 47.29 38.09 28.50 21.33 15.94 6.88

At work site 100 88.10 78.14 57.30 46.32 38.00 29.12 22.10 15.28 7.00

After laying 100 89.16 78.20 56.75 47.12 37.89 30.10 21.35 15.89 7.10


3 RJ 06 G

4128

On loading 100 88.45 79.35 58.10 45.28 36.28 30.56 20.24 14.34 6.10

At work site 100 90.25 79.21 58.22 44.35 38.47 28.32 21.35 15.50 7.00

After laying 100 90.10 79.88 55.55 46.35 38.20 29.14 20.15 15.31 7.02


4 TN 30

L 0913

On loading 100 87.85 80.02 55.50 43.10 35.32 29.11 21.35 15.24 5.84

At work site 100 90.00 75.30 53.15 46.35 36.00 30.55 22.88 15.88 6.80

After laying 100 89.45 79.36 54.65 44.18 36.79 30.00 21.25 14.88 6.99


5 TN 30

L 0913

On loading 100 91.34 79.22 56.28 46.84 36.24 27.84 21.84 13.94 7.00

At work site 100 89.40 75.15 57.34 45.32 37.00 28.35 21.10 14.00 6.12

After laying 100 88.25 75.20 55.04 43.92 36.23 28.00 22.05 13.50 6.50


6 TN 30

L 0913

On loading 100 90.13 78.92 55.84 44.50 35.84 30.81 20.24 14.89 7.12

At work site 100 89.02 75.58 55.10 44.86 36.14 30.00 21.00 14.00 6.00

After laying 100 88.50 74.89 54.88 47.32 36.10 29.12 22.14 14.38 5.94


7 TN 30

L 0913

On loading 100 89.22 80.14 58.15 46.35 36.33 28.48 21.35 15.00 6.44

At work site 100 90.15 77.20 59.12 46.12 37.25 30.00 21.10 15.80 6.90

After laying 100 90.12 77.55 58.12 47.10 37.80 28.91 20.15 14.35 5.80


8 TN 30

L 0913

On loading 100 88.87 81.66 55.32 46.18 35.22 30.10 21.84 13.24 6.00

At work site 100 89.12 80.14 58.38 44.98 35.12 28.90 20.10 14.12 6.25

After laying 100 93.25 78.35 57.36 45.10 37.32 30.10 19.88 15.00 5.90


9 TN 30

L 0913

On loading 100 90.55 80.24 57.18 45.38 36.32 28.32 21.33 15.98 6.88

At work site 100 92.00 77.35 54.84 46.12 38.10 30.00 22.00 14.10 7.05

After laying 100 92.10 78.32 55.10 45.91 38.22 29.12 19.68 14.02 6.50


10 TN 30

L 0913

On loading 100 88.94 77.15 54.84 46.14 36.00 29.92 20.0 14.21 6.22

At work site 100 90.14 75.48 55.15 47.15 38.12 30.15 22.10 15.95 6.50

After laying 100 90.15 74.55 58.35 45.35 37.55 29.50 21.12 14.85 7.10


The above data is further presented in Figur 1 to 10 for %age passing through sieves 13.2mm, 9.5mm, 4.75mm,

2.36mm, 1.18mm, 0.6mm, 0.3mm, 0.15mm and 0.075mm (the Figure of 19mm is not shown as there is no variation) to

check the variation of aggregates

87

89

91

93

95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→

%ag

e p

assin

g t

hro

ug

h 1

3.2

mm

sie

ve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After compaction

Figure 1: For 13.2mm Sieve Size (BC)


73

75

77

79

81

83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→

%ag

e p

assin

g t

hro

ug

h 9

.5m

m

sie

ve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction

Figure 2: For 9.5mm Sieve Size (BC)

52

54

56

58

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→

%ag

e p

assin

g t

hro

ug

h 4

.75m

m

sie

ve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction

Figure 3: For 4.75 mm Sieve Size (BC)

42

44

46

48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→

%a

ge

pa

ss

ing

th

rou

gh

2.3

6m

m

sie

ve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction


35

37

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→

%a

ge

pa

ss

ing

th

rou

gh

0.3

mm

sie

ve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction


27

29

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→

%ag

e p

assin

g t

hro

ug

h

0.0

15m

m s

ieve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction


19

21

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→%

ag

e p

assin

g t

hro

ug

h

0.0

75m

m s

ieve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction



13

15

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→%

ag

e p

assin

g t

hro

ug

h

0.0

75m

m s

ieve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction


4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

→ Tipper No.

→%

ag

e p

assin

g t

hro

ug

h

0.0

75m

m s

ieve

After loading

At work site

After laying

After

compaction


From the data presented in Figure 1 to 10, the variations in %ages of aggregates passing through various sieves

during various stages of construction are presented below in Table No.2 along with the codal provisions and recommended

tolerance limits:

Table 2: Variations for Various Sizes of Aggregates in BC

S.NO Description

%Age Passing through Sieve

As Per Code As per tests

Conducted

Recommended

Tolerance Limits

1 Aggregate passing 19mm sieve 100% 100% 100% 2 Aggregate passing 13.2mm sieve 79-100% 87-93% 85-95%

3 Aggregate passing 9.5mm sieve 70-88% 74-83% 72-85%








Bitumen Content

The data collected in respect of bitumen content in BC for 10 tippers during various stages of construction is

presented below in Table 3

Table 3: Comparison of Bitumen as per Data Set on System, Actual Tests at Plant Site & after Laying

S.

N. Description RJ06G3762

TN30A6

610

RJ06G

4128

TN30

L0913

TN30

L0913

TN30

L0913

TN30

L0913

TN30

L0913

TN30

L0913

TN30

L0913

1. % of Bitumen set on system 5.40% 5.40% 5.40% 5.40% 5.40% 5.40% 5.40% 5.40% 5.40% 5.40%

2. % of Bitumen as per test at

plant site

5.39% 5.38% 5.41% 5.43% 5.38% 5.42% 5.41% 5.40% 5.39% 5.37%

3 % of Bitumen as per test

after laying (core extraction) 5.41% 5.39% 5.40% 5.41% 5.40% 5.41% 5.43% 5.42% 5.41% 5.39%

4 Difference of Sl. No.1 & 2 (-)

0.01%

(-)

0.02%

(+)

0.01%

(+)

0.02%

(-)

0.02%

(+)

0.02%

(+)

0.01%

0% (-)

0.01%

(-)

0.03%

5 Difference of Sl. No.1 & 3 (+)

0.01%

(-)

0.01% 0%

(+)

0.01% 0%

(+)

0.01%

(+)

0.03%

(+)

0.02%

(+)

0.01%

(-)

0.01%


The % age of bitumen set on system at plant site & bitumen found in BC material during actual testing at plant

site & after laying has been shown in a Figure presentation – Figure No.10 – tipper-wise.

5.35

5.37

5.39

5.41

5.43

5.45

% o

f

Bit

um

en

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tipper No.

% of Bitumen set on

system

% of Bitumen as per

test at plant site

% of Bitumen as per

test after laying

(core extraction)

Figure 10

From the above Figure No.10, it is clear that there is a variation in the bitumen contents in the samples in the

range from (-) 0.03% to (+) 0.03%. Thus, the codal provisions for permissible tolerances of (+) 0.3% in bitumen

contentseems to be on very much higher side and are recommended for revision as given in Table 4

Table 4: Tolerances for Bitumen Content in BC from Job Mix Formula

S.No. Description Tolerances

Permissible as Per Code Recommended

1. Binder content + 0.3% + 0.05%

Assessment of Riding Quality

Let us discuss the concept of assessment of riding quality. Before carrying out the test, some preliminaries are

discussed below:

The installation and operation of the equipment has been checked which is in order and meets the requirements

prescribed in its operational manual. The tyre pressure of wheel is maintained at 2.1 kg/cm2 as per requirements.

The instrument has been calibrated prior to its use for measurement as prescribed in its operational manual.

The operators are familiar with the Bump Integrator & other equipment associated with its operation using its Test

Model before commencing a Riding Quality Test.

A speed of 31 to 33 km per hour has been maintained during the Test. The readings are taken for each

carriageway independently.

The equipment has run on two lanes in both the directions once and the average of two values taken as roughness

index.

Pavement unevenness/roughness of two lane carriageway has obtained from the average of the values of the two

lane recorded.

Now, we will carry out the riding quality test in two phases – one for Left Carriage Way from km 466.000 to 476.000

and second Right Carriage Way from km 437.000 to 447.000


Study of Left Carriage Way (LCW) (from km 466.000 to 476.000)

Equipment Used : Bump Integrator (Automatic Road Unevenness Recorder), ARUR (STECO-

120)

Vehicle Speed : 30 To 40 kmh (As per IRC:SP:16-2004)

Vehicle Speed during Test : 31 to 33 KMPH

Date of Testing : 12.02.2013

LCW of 6-Lane Highway : Lane-1 - Median side; Lane-2 - Central lane; Lane-3 - Shoulder side

Table 5: Uneven Index of Lane 1 – LCW

Sl. No.

Chainage

(km.) Carriage

way

Length Observed

in ARUR

STECO-120

Bumps (in cm)

Observed in ARUR

STECO-120

Unevenness Index

(mm/km) after

Applying

Calibration Factor

From To (in m) (in km) Trial-1 Trial-2 Avg. Lane- 1

1 466 467 LCW 1000 1 123 127 125 1220

2 467 468 LCW 1000 1 134 131 132.5 1293

3 468 469 LCW 1000 1 117 120 118.5 1157

4 469 470 LCW 1000 1 126 127 126.5 1235

5 472 471 LCW 1000 1 118 121 119.5 1167

6 471 472 LCW 1000 1 129 130 129.5 1264

7 472 473 LCW 1000 1 137 131 134 1308

8 473 474 LCW 1000 1 133 135 134 1308

9 474 475 LCW 1000 1 128 126 127 1240

10 475 476 LCW 1000 1 125 122 123.5 1206

(Chainage-wise unevenness index)

500

800

1100

1400

1700

2000

466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475

→ Chainage

→

Pavem

en

t

rou

gh

ness

Pavement

Roughness

Figure 11: Lane 1-LCW


Sl. No.

Chainage

(km.) Carriage

way

Length Observed

in ARUR STECO-

120

Bumps (in Cm) Observed in

ARUR STECO-120

Unevenness Index

(mm/km) after

Applying

Calibration Factor

From To (in m) (in km) Trial-1 Trial-2 Avg. Lane-2

1 466 467 LCW 1000 1 124 126 125 1220

2 467 468 LCW 1000 1 131 137 134 1308

3 468 469 LCW 1000 1 115 118 116.5 1137

4 469 470 LCW 1000 1 129 130 129.5 1264

5 472 471 LCW 1000 1 116 119 117.5 1147

6 471 472 LCW 1000 1 131 133 132 1289 7 472 473 LCW 1000 1 133 135 134 1308 8 473 474 LCW 1000 1 135 131 133 1298 9 474 475 LCW 1000 1 127 125 126 1230 10 475 476 LCW 1000 1 125 122 123.5 1206


Table 7: (Uneven Index of Lane 3 - LCW)

Sl. No.

Chainage

(km.) Carriage

Way

Length Observed

in ARUR

STECO-120

Bumps (in Cm) Observed in

ARUR STECO-120

Unevenness Index

(mm/km) after

Applying Calibration

Factor

From To (in m) (in km) Trial-1 Trial-2 Avg. Lane-3

1 466 467 LCW 1000 1 123 125 124 1210

2 467 468 LCW 1000 1 135 137 136 1328 3 468 469 LCW 1000 1 116 118 117 1142 4 469 470 LCW 1000 1 127 128 127.5 1245

5 472 471 LCW 1000 1 117 119 118 1152 6 471 472 LCW 1000 1 128 132 130 1269 7 472 473 LCW 1000 1 135 137 136 1328 8 473 474 LCW 1000 1 131 136 133.5 1303 9 474 475 LCW 1000 1 126 126 126 1230

10 475 476 LCW 1000 1 123 125 124 1210


500

800

1100

1400

1700

2000

466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475

→ Chainage

→

Pavem

en

t ro

ug

hn

ess

Pavement

Roughness

Figure 12: (Lane 3 - LCW)


S.

No.

Chainage

(km.)

Unevenness Index (mm/km) Permissible

Limit 2000

(mm/km)

Recommended

Roughness Index

(mm/km)

Lane-

1 Lane-2

Lane-

3

Average

LCW RCW

1 466 467 1220 1220 1210 1217 RP 2000 1500

2 467 468 1293 1308 1328 1310 RP 2000 1500

3 468 469 1157 1137 1142 1145 RP 2000 1500

4 469 470 1235 1264 1245 1248 RP 2000 1500

5 470 471 1167 1147 1152 1155 RP 2000 1500

6 471 472 1264 1289 1269 1274 RP 2000 1500

7 472 473 1308 1308 1328 1315 RP 2000 1500

8 473 474 1308 1298 1303 1303 RP 2000 1500

9 474 475 1240 1230 1230 1233 RP 2000 1500

10 475 476 1206 1206 1210 1207 RP 2000 1500

RP: Rigid Pavement

Study of Right Carriage Way (RCW) (from km 437.000 to 447.000)

Table 9: (Uneven Index of Lane 1 – RCW)

Sl.

No.

Chainage

(km.) Carriag

e Way

Length Observed

in ARUR

STECO-120

Bumps (in cm) Observed

in ARUR STECO-120

Unevenness

Index (mm/km)

after Applying

Calibration

Factor

From To (in m) (in km) Trial-1 Trial-2 Avg. Lane- 1

1 437.000 438.000 RCW 1000 1 131 135 133 1298


Table 9: Contd.,

2 438.000 439.000 RCW 1000 1 128 129 128.5 1254

3 439.000 439.900 RCW 900 0.9 132 133 132.5 1293

4 440.600 441.000 RCW 400 0.4 135 137 136 1328

5 441.000 442.000 RCW 1000 1 126 129 127.5 1245

6 442.000 443.000 RCW 1000 1 127 129 128 1250

7 443.000 444.000 RCW 1000 1 127 126 126.5 1235

8 444.000 445.000 RCW 1000 1 132 129 130.5 1274

9 445.000 446.000 RCW 1000 1 136 136 136 1328

10 446.000 447.000 RCW 1000 1 135 138 136.5 1333


500

800

1100

1400

1700

2000

438 439 439.9 441 442 443 444 445 446 447

→ Chainage

→

Pavem

en

t

rou

gh

ness

Pavement

Roughness

Figure 13: Lane 1 – RCW

The test in km.440 has been carried out in the reach from km.439.000 to 439.900 and in km.441 from km.440.600

to km.441.000 only.

Table 10: Uneven Index of Lane 2 – RCW

Sl.

No.

Chainage

(km.) Carriage

Way

Length

Observed in

ARUR

STECO-120

Bumps (in cm) Observed in

ARUR STECO-120

Unevenness Index

(mm/km) after

Applying

Calibration

Factor

From To (in m) (in

km) Trial-1 Trial-2 Avg. Lane-2

1 437.000 438.000 RCW 1000 1 130 135 132.5 1293

2 438.000 439.000 RCW 1000 1 128 130 129 1259

3 439.000 439.900 RCW 900 0.9 132 131 131.5 1284

4 440.600 441.000 RCW 400 0.4 136 136 136 1328

5 441.000 442.000 RCW 1000 1 128 127 127.5 1245

6 442.000 443.000 RCW 1000 1 127 128 127.5 1245

7 443.000 444.000 RCW 1000 1 126 126 126 1230

8 444.000 445.000 RCW 1000 1 133 130 131.5 1284

9 445.000 446.000 RCW 1000 1 135 134 134.5 1313

10 446.000 447.000 RCW 1000 1 135 137 136 1328


500

800

1100

1400

1700

2000

438 439 439.9 441 442 443 444 445 446 447

→ Chainage

→

Pavem

en

t ro

ug

hn

ess

Pavement

Roughness



The test in km.440 has been carried out in the reach from km.439.000 to 439.900 and in km.441 from

km.440.600 to km.441.000 only.

Table 11: Uneven Index of Lane 3 – RCW

Sl.

No.

Chainage

(km.) Carriag

e way

Length Observed

in ARUR

STECO-120

Bumps (in cm) Observed

in ARUR STECO-120

Unevenness Index

(mm/km) after Applying

Calibration Factor

From To (in m) (in

km)

Trial-

1

Trial-

2 Avg. Lane-3

1 437.000 438.000 RCW 1000 1 130 134 132 1289

2 438.000 439.000 RCW 1000 1 129 127 128 1250

3 439.000 439.900 RCW 900 0.9 132 133 132.5 1293

4 440.600 441.000 RCW 400 0.4 135 137 136 1328

5 441.000 442.000 RCW 1000 1 128 129 128.5 1254

6 442.000 443.000 RCW 1000 1 128 128 128 1250

7 443.000 444.000 RCW 1000 1 127 128 127.5 1245

8 444.000 445.000 RCW 1000 1 132 130 131 1279

9 445.000 446.000 RCW 1000 1 135 136 135.5 1323

10 446.000 447.000 RCW 1000 1 136 135 135.5 1323


500

800

1100

1400

1700

2000

438 439 439.9 441 442 443 444 445 446 447

→ Chainage

→

Pa

ve

me

nt

rou

gh

ne

ss

Pavement

Roughness


The test in km.440 has been carried out in the reach from km.439.000 to 439.900 and in km.441 from km.440.600

to km.441.000 only.

Table 12: Test Reports

S.

No.

Chainage

(km.)

Unevenness Index (mm/km) Permissible

Limit 2000

(mm/km)

Recommended

Roughness

Index

(mm/km)

Lane-

1

Lane-

2

Lane-

3

Average

LCW RCW

1 437.000 438.000 1298 1293 1289 RP 1293 2000 1500

2 438.000 439.000 1254 1259 1250 RP 1254 2000 1500

3 439.000 439.900 1293 1284 1293 RP 1290 2000 1500

4 440.600 441.000 1328 1328 1328 RP 1328 2000 1500

5 441.000 442.000 1245 1245 1254 RP 1248 2000 1500

6 442.000 443.000 1250 1245 1250 RP 1248 2000 1500

7 443.000 444.000 1235 1230 1245 RP 1237 2000 1500

8 444.000 445.000 1274 1284 1279 RP 1279 2000 1500

9 445.000 446.000 1328 1313 1323 RP 1321 2000 1500

10 446.000 447.000 1333 1328 1323 RP 1328 2000 1500

RP: Rigid Pavement

RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

The result of the case study shows that the variation in the aggregates passing through 13.2mm sieve is 87-93%

only against the permissible limit of 79-100% as per codal provisions. Similar is the position of the percentage of

aggregates passing through various other sieves as shown in Table No.2. It shows that with the use of e-quality control

system in bituminous concrete layer, there is less variation in the %age of aggregates passing through the sieves during


various stages of construction as compare to the permitted tolerance limits in the specifications. Thus, the lower tolerance

limits are required than prescribed limits in the codes. Accordingly, the lower values of tolerance limits are recommended

as given in Table No.2. The reduction in these tolerance limits will not only give a better quality of the product but also a

longer life of the road. In case of permissible variation in the bitumen contents, the case study shows that the variation in

the bitumen content in most of the cases is from (+) 0.01% to (-) 0.01%. However, considering all the cases taken during

the case study as given in Table No.3, the variation is from (+) 0.03% to (-) 0.03% whereas the allowable variation as per

codal provisions in bitumen content in case of bituminous concrete is (±) 0.3%. This permissible limit in the specifications

seems to be on higher side and needs to be revised. Of course, in the case study the variation of bitumen content in BC

comes only from (+) 0.03% to (-) 0.03%, yet the tolerance limit in case is recommended as (±) 0.05% as given in Table

No.4. The results of the case study for unevenness index, as given in Table No.9 for Left Carriageway from km.466.000 to

km.475.000, shows the variation in unevenness index from 1145 to 1315 against the permissible requirement of 2000

mm/km. Similarly, the variation on Right Carriageway from km.437.000 to km.447.000 is from 1237 to 1328 mm/km as

given in Table No.13. From these results of case study, it is clear that the use of e-quality control system has further

resulted in improving the riding quality of the road. Thus, the permissible limit of unevenness index for riding quality of

2000 mm/km needs to be further reduced for a better riding quality. It is, therefore, recommended to introduce a new limit

of unevenness index of less than 1500 mm/km in the specifications as given in para-1.4 for excellent riding quality.

However, it is further recommended that wherever the unevenness index value is falling below 2000 mm/km, the frictional

resistance needs to be restored due to safety reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

With the use of e-quality control system, the riding quality of the highways improves which gives a better comfort

to the road users. The existing tolerance limits of aggregates and bitumen content in BC have been kept keeping in view

the use of normal machinery in the construction of highways and seem to be on higher side. With the use of bay batch type

hot mix plant, the various ingredients of the materials used in the bituminous concrete are totally controlled. So, in a

system where all the activities are electronically controlled, lower tolerance limits then prescribed in the codal provisions

are required for sizes of aggregates and bitumen content. The electronic censored paver controls the thicknesses of layers

and maintains the perfect surface as per requirements which further improve the riding quality of the road. Thus, a new

limit of unevenness index of 1500 mm/km is recommended for achieving an excellent riding quality on the highway

subject to the condition that the frictional resistance on the highway is restored from safety point of view.

REFERENCES

1. Bant Singh and Dr. Srijit Biswas; Modeling for Assured Quality Control in Flexible Pavements through e-Control

– A Case Study; IJSER, ISSN 2229-5518, Volume 4, Issue 4, April (2013)

2. Bant Singh and Dr. Srijit Biswas; Modification of Acceptance Criteria of Sample Testing in Flexible Pavements;

IJSER, ISSN 02229-5518, Volume 4, Issue 6, June (2013)

3. Bant Singh and Dr. Srijit Biswas; Effect of e-quality Control on Tolerance Limits in WMM & DBM in highway

construction – A Case Study; IJARET, ISSN 0976-6480, Volume 4, Issue 2, March-April (2013)

4. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (Fourth Revision) – 2001; Specifications for Roads & Bridge Works.

5. IRC:SP:16-2004; Guidelines for Surface Evenness of Highway Pavements (First Revision).

6. Bant Singh, Dr. Srijit Biswas and Dr. Parveen Aggarwal; 2012, “Use of updated machinery for Monitoring of


Quality & Quantity of a Pavement – A case study on e-quality control”; IJIET, ISSN 0974-3146, Volume-4,

Number-3 (2012), pp.137-147

7. Bant Singh, Dr. Srijit Biswas and Dr. Parveen Aggarwal; Modeling of Economical & Efficient Use of Vehicles

through e-Control for Construction of a Highway; IJERT, ISSN 0974-3154, Volume 5, Number 3 (2012)

8. IRC:SP:57-2000; Guidelines for Quality Systems for Road Construction.

upgrading standards of riding quality in bituminous ... . upgrading standards-full.pdf ·...

Documents