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.
24 Bant Singh & Srijit Biswas Fie
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:
Upgrading Standards of Riding Quality in Bituminous Concrete –A Case Study 25
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
After compaction 100 92.55 76.35 58.88 48.00 38.22 30.54 22.55 16.00 7.00
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
After compaction 100 93.88 80.21 58.15 47.55 38.94 30.87 21.45 14.58 7.20
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
After compaction 100 91.14 78.24 56.35 46.32 37.50 30.94 22.84 15.91 7.50
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
After compaction 100 91.5 77.30 58.10 46.70 38.31 30.10 22.50 14.33 7.20
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
After compaction 100 90.00 79.12 55.90 47.81 37.00 30.90 22.35 14.97 6.51
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
After compaction 100 93.00 80.12 59.32 47.55 38.90 29.58 21.35 15.80 7.00
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
After compaction 100 94.11 82.31 58.15 47.32 38.12 30.89 21.30 15.91 7.00
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
After compaction 100 92.40 81.50 60.00 46.88 39.00 30.15 22.15 15.52 7.50
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
After compaction 100 93.15 75.35 58.40 47.55 38.78 30.47 22.14 15.14 7.20
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)
26 Bant Singh & Srijit Biswas Fie
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
Figure 4: For 2.36 mm Sieve Size (BC)
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
Figure 5: For 1.18 mm Sieve Size (BC)
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
Figure 6: For 0.600 mm Sieve Size (BC)
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
Figure 7: For 0.300 mm Sieve Size (BC)
Upgrading Standards of Riding Quality in Bituminous Concrete –A Case Study 27
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
Figure 8: For 0.150 mm Sieve Size (BC)
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
Figure 9: For 0.075 mm Sieve Size (BC)
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%
4 Aggregate passing 4.75mm sieve 53-71% 54-60% 53-63%
5 Aggregate passing 2.36mm sieve 42-58% 43-48% 42-52%
6 Aggregate passing 1.18mm sieve 34-48% 35-40% 34-44%
7 Aggregate passing 0.6mm sieve 26-38% 27-31% 26-35%
8 Aggregate passing 0.3mm sieve 18-28% 19-23% 18-25%
9 Aggregate passing 0.15mm sieve 12-20% 13-16% 12-18%
10 Aggregate passing 0.075mm sieve 4-10% 5-8% 4-9%
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%
28 Bant Singh & Srijit Biswas Fie
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
Upgrading Standards of Riding Quality in Bituminous Concrete –A Case Study 29
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
Table 6: Uneven Index of Lane 2 – 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
30 Bant Singh & Srijit Biswas Fie
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
(Chainage-wise unevenness index)
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)
Table 8: Uneven Index of 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
Upgrading Standards of Riding Quality in Bituminous Concrete –A Case Study 31
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
(Chainage-wise unevenness index)
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
(Chainage-wise unevenness index)
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
Figure 14: Lane 2 – RCW
32 Bant Singh & Srijit Biswas Fie
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
(Chainage-wise unevenness index)
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
Figure 15: Lane 3 – 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 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
Upgrading Standards of Riding Quality in Bituminous Concrete –A Case Study 33
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
34 Bant Singh & Srijit Biswas Fie
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.
Top Related