6 July, 2010

Shri A. V. Sinha
Chairman, IRC Flexible Pavement Committee
Director General (Roads)
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110 001

Subject:Draft IRC: SP: 53, “Guidelines on Use of Polymer and

Rubber Modified Bitumen in Road Construction” dated 29
April 2010.

Dear Shri Sinha:

I came to know about the existence of the subject draft on 26 June 2010 when
I attended a seminar in Delhi. One of the attendees there kindly arranged a
copy of this draft for me. I wish I had been furnished a copy of this draft
directly earlier (although I was in the US for about 2 months, a soft copy could
have been sent as usual via e-mail) because:

 I am member of the IRC Flexible Pavement committee (FPC), which is

responsible for IRC: SP: 53 and also a member of the Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS) Committee PCD 6 which is responsible for IS: 15462,
“Polymer and Rubber Modified Bitumen – Specification”. I am not
associated with any manufacturer of modified bitumen.
 I believe I have a reasonable knowledge of all types of bituminous
binders (including penetration grades, viscosity grades, CRMB and PMB).
I have published over technical papers on these bituminous binders;
authored a chapter on bituminous binders in the National Center for
Asphalt Technology (NCAT) textbook; and have conducted workshops on
bituminous binders in many countries.

Any way, I have reviewed this draft now and offer my comments as follows:

 The subject draft SP: 53 proposes a “single” specification for all types of
PMBs and CRMB. Although it is ideal to do so, it is simply not possible
technically to develop a common specification for apples (say CRMB) and
oranges (say elastomer PMB). It can be possible only if the specification
for PMB is diluted to accommodate CRMB, as has been done in this draft.
It is widely believed by asphalt paving technologists in the world that the
performance of PMB (especially elastomers) is far superior to that of the
CRMB. That is why, given choice, most BOT contractors in India prefer
the use of PMB rather than CRMB. Therefore, diluting the PMB
specification would lower their quality, which would be highly detrimental
to the performance of out heavy traffic roads carrying overloaded trucks.
For example, if 3% SBS is required to meet the current PMB
specification, the supplier may have to add only 1% SBS to meet the
“diluted” specification. In that case, the contractors and government
agencies would lose faith in PMBs and the quality of our roads will suffer.
 Example: current SP: 53 Specification specifies 75% minimum elastic
recovery for neat elastomer PMB binder (Table 2). In the draft common
specification, elastic recovery has been reduced to 50 – 60% to
accommodate CRMB. It is not understood as to why we are so obsessed
with equating CRMB with PMBs.

 Because of the inherent problems associated with the use of CRMB

(settlement and degradation of rubber after 6-8 hours), only four states
in the US (Arizona, Florida, Texas, and California) out of the 50 states
are using CRMB routinely. Although I knew it already, last week I sought
the opinion of my colleagues in these states on the subject f CRMB
versus PMB. The following information was provided by them:

(a). Three states also use Performance Grades PG 76-22 for heavy traffic
roads. However, they have different specification for CRMB (called asphalt-
rubber in the US) and PMBs because the CRMB cannot meet PG 76-22
specification requirements. On heavy traffic roads they prefer and specify
PG 76-22 made with polymers. Florida uses CRMB only in friction courses.

(b). Not only CRMB and PMBs are different materials and therefore need
different specifications; it is also not possible to use the Dynamic Shear
Rheometer (DSR) for testing CRMB because it has discreet rubber particles.
The proposed draft SP: 53 requires DSR to be used for testing CRMB also,
which is not technically possible at the present time.

(c). Specifications cannot be developed in isolation just by juggling numbers

here and there but need to be based on extensive, actual test data obtained
from the field samples, which is lacking in India.

(d). Since CRMB and PMB are different materials with different field
performance, the four states specify the binder type to be used on specific
projects considering the traffic and mix type.

(e). A “next generation” of asphalt-rubber is being examined in Florida,

Texas, and Arizona, which can potentially meet PG 76-22 requirements. It is
called terminal blend asphalt –rubber, which is manufactured by blending
digested ground tyre rubber with some SBS polymer.

Considering the preceding discussion, I recommend we maintain existing 4

tables in SP: 53 with different specifications for 4 different modified binders
(elastomer PMB, plastomer PMB, NRMB, and CRMB). If anything, we must
consider enhancing the quality of elastomer PMB (which are generally
preferred by highway engineers in the US) by increasing the minimum
elastic recovery at 25 C of its TFO residue from 50 to 60% similar to ASTM
D 5976 (Specifications for elastomer PMB ). Elastic recovery test on TFO
residue is more important than that on the neat binder.
We should also include a statement in SP: 53 that all modified binders are
not equal in performance, therefore, the type of modified binder should be
specified for each project based on traffic and climatic conditions.

The following are some other comments on the draft SP: 53 dated 29 April
2010:

Section 7. Manufacturing
We must not specify with flow diagram etc. as to how the modified binders
should be manufactured so long as they are homogeneous and the end
product meets the specification requirement for that specific binder. Some
companies have proprietary manufacturing processes, which may not
necessarily meet the proposed manufacturing processes but still produce an
acceptable product.

It is good that blending is now also allowed for all modified binders at a
central blending plant or at site with proper quality testing controls.

Section 8. Specification Requirements

As mentioned earlier, delete Table 2 and reinstate the existing 4 tables.

Section 9.5. Storage Temperature and Time

The four states in the US which use CRMB require that it be used within 6-8
hours of manufacture so that rubber does not degrade and lose its
elasticity. Despite claims, there is no documentary evidence in India that
the rubber does not degrade when stored for 4 days as proposed in the
Table in Section 9.5.2. Therefore, CRMB must be used within 6-8 hours after
production.

Section 10. Design of Mixes

Delete Table 3 Requirements of Mix Prepared with Modified Binder. Just
refer to IRC:111-2009 Specifications for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes,
which has a similar table and also uses AASHTO T 283 for moisture
susceptibility. Arbitrarily increasing the minimum modified binder content in
Table 3 is not desirable technically since the Marshall mix design is required
to be done following MS-2 any way. Higher binder contents are likely to
cause flushing/bleeding of pavements. This would also encourage cheating
by reducing the actual binder content during mix production to avoid
flushing/bleeding problem.

Annexure 1

Delete the Complex Modulus G* procedure using the Dynamis Shear

Rheometer (DSR). This requirement should also be deleted from IS:
15462:2004 Table 1 for plastomer PMB. This is an unrealistic demand
because there are only 4 or 5 DSRs in India and the equipment is very
complex. Also, just for information, there is no relationship between elastic
recovery and G* sin delta. Elastic recovery is related to phase angle. That is
why; some states in the US specify maximum phase angle in lieu of elastic
recovery in “PG plus” type specifications.
Torsion Recovery Test

This is the best feature in draft SP: 53. It is a good practical test for field
quality control and should be encouraged.

Last comment
I believe the product specifications for all types of bituminous binders fall
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Committee
PCD 6, which is responsible for IS:15462:2004, “Polymer and Rubber
Modified Bitumen – Specification”. The Indian Roads Congress should not
develop its own product specifications for bituminous binders. That would
unnecessarily create confusion in project contracts where both SP: 53 and
IS: 15462 are generally mentioned. SP: 53 should refer to “current” IS:
15462 for product specifications without repeating them and should limit
itself to guidelines of using modified binders as the title of SP: 53 suggests.
This is an important point, which must be noted by Prof. Sikdar, Chairman
of BIS Committee PCD 6.

Finally, I hope you will seriously consider my technical comment in revising

SP: 53. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
This letter is being sent to over 600 highway engineers in India so that you
may get additional input from them in revising SP: 53.

Best regards,
Prof. Prithvi Singh Kandhal