Points to be discussed in Workshop at NHAI HQ from

G R Infraprojects Limited (GRIL)

Points related to Rigid Pavement:

1. In IRC 58-2015, it is given that the regression equations are given for the panel size of 4.5m
in length by 3.5m in width. Is it necessary to stick to the width of 3.5m or up-to what width
the regression equations can be used? If we provide a panel width of 5m, then the KGP
Slab software is to be used which is not available or else provide the regression equations
for up-to a slab width of 5m which are mostly seen in the highway configuration.
2. If any undulation occurs beyond the specified limits in the rigid pavement construction,
then what will be the rectification criteria? Do we need to provide a mastic asphalt coat or
we have do the diamond grinding or any other remedial measure?
3. Clause no 6.5.3 of IRC 58-2015 states that the different GSB gradings as specified in
MORTH does not satisfy the drainage requirement, the permeability comes less than
12m/day. To overcome the drainage problem modified GSB gradings are specified in
Annexure VI as per International Practices. This contradicts the drainage criterias as
mentioned in IRC 37, IRC 58, MORTH and IRC SP 42.

Points related to Flexible Pavement:

1. Resemblance of Resilient Modulus (as per ASTM D-4123) and Indirect Tensile Stiffness
Modulus (as per EN 12697-26). Can the EN 12697 be performed to get MR value?
2. The Falling Weight Deflectometer code specifies KGPback software to be used to back-
calculate the strength of the layers. KGPBack is based on 3 layer system analysis while if
we provide CTB or RAP based layers in the pavement, it becomes 5 / 4 layer system for
which KGPBack cannot be used.
3. The range of modulus for bituminous is given from 750 to 3000MPa in IRC 115 which
does not resemble the actual picture of the pavement.
4. Permeability of different grade of GSB should be provided specifically along with the
permeability of CTSB. IRC 37 asks the permeability of 300m/day which is unachievable /
irreverent, while the IRC SP 42 (Design of Road Drainage) specifies the permeability of
35m/day for Gr VI of GSB. So, which code should prevail in case of drainage criteria IRC
37 or IRC SP 42? The IRC 37 specifies the use of AASHTO-93 design guide in drainage
in which the MORTH GSB Gr VI resembles with AASHTO Gr II, for which AASHTO
provides permeability coefficient of 35m/day and IRC 37 specifies 300m/day and for the
same the contractor / concessionaire is pressurized to provide the permeability result for
GSB/CTSB. The permeability of GSB/CTSB is thickness dependent while no proper
provision is provided.
5. In page no 58 and 62 of IRC 37-2012, the coefficient of permeability for GSB/CTSB is
given as 300mm/day irrespective of 300m/day mentioned in the code.
6. In the revised draft of IRC 37-(2017), refers in Table V-1 in Annexure V, refers that Gr III
and IV of MORTH can be used as drainage layer which contradicts the Clause no 5.2.1 of
IRC SP 42 (Road Drainage) which tells that Gr V and VI can be used as sub-base-cum
drainage layer.
7. VG 40 grade of bitumen doesnt provide the MR value of 3000MPa to the mix, it mainly
depends upon the aggregate property and the mix design. If the design is proper and the
aggregate specific gravity is about 2.8 then with VG 30 mix the 3000MPa value can be
achieved.
8. The minimum ITS value is not specified, only the TSR value is specified. There should be
the criteria of minimum ITS value.
9. The use of 90% reliability criteria is fixed in the FWD code (IRC115) irrespective of traffic
loading.
10. The cost of MR testing at the CRRI and IITs is around 2lac (GST extra) for testing of one
set (3 samples) of bituminous mix which is quite high for a contractor / concessionaire to
conduct this test frequently.