Delhi Postal Registration No dl-sw-17/4194/16-18

under ‘u’ Number u(sw)-12/2016-2018

At Lodi Road, PSO on dated 28-29.08.2017 licence to post
ISSN 0376-7256 Newspaper Regd. No. 25597/73 without prepayment

september, 2017
dl-sw-17/4194/16-18
Indian Highways published on 28 august, 2017
`20/- september, 2017

sa infrastructure consultants pvt. ltd

Indian Highways
(An ISO 9001-2008 Certified Company)

smart innovative infra solutions - working towards better tomorrow

About saicpl
SA infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd along with its subsidiary UPHAM International Corporation and QUEST
Engineers & Consultants are focused on delivering multi-disciplinary infra projects with innovative ideas of
International Standards. The Group forms an ambious consortium of consultancy firms with commitment to
provide high quality specialized consultation into the field of Highways, Structures and Design. Volume: 45 Number: 9 Total Pages: 48

Sectors

Highways Bridges Waterways Railways Sewage Treatment Plant

Services
SA Infrastructure synchronizes every aspect of engineering with imbibed commitment to deliver high quality infrastructure and development
consultation that glorifies a new world. We have successfully carried out numerous consultancy projects in Civil Infrastructure development
transportation, primary & secondary highway networks, Project Management under BOT/Annuity Model, Resource Management, Social aspects
including poverty alleviation and institutional support.

Highways : Including Access Controlled Expressway and upgradation of

existing 2/4 Lanes.
Projects
Bridges : Including VUP, Flyovers, rehabilitation, ROB and Inspection
Report and Conditional Survey.

Metro-Rail Services : Including design of underground and elevated metro

stations, viaducts, architect design of stations and technical services.

Traffic & Transportation and intelligent Transport System - Including

preparation of Urban and Regional Transportation Plans, Land-use
Transport Modeling for Policy Testing and Traffic Predictions. Traffic
Management Plans, Road Safety Audit, Public Transport Planning and
Management.

Urban Infrastructure Development : Including preparation of Plans,

development of townships, infra corridors, water supply, sanitation and
power supply etc.

Water Resources : Including irrigation Flood Control, Ground water

exploration, Environmental and Social Aspects.

BOT/Annuity : Including project identification, Detailed Survey, Feasibility Mahatma Gandhi Setu, Patna
Study, Detailed Engineering and Design, Economic and Financial Viability
analysis.

Corporate Address : 1101, 11th Floor, Tower A-II, Ansal Corporate Park, Sector 142, Noida - 201 301, Uttar Pradesh India
Tel : +91-120-6148000 / Fax : +91-120-6148090 www.sainfra.com Email - info@sainfra.com

Edited and Published by Shri S.K. Nirmal, Secretary General, Indian Road Congress, IRC HQ, Sector-6, R.K. Puram,
Kama Koti Marg, New Delhi - 110 002. Printed by Shri S.K. Nirmal on behalf of the Indian Roads Congress
at M/s. India Offset Press, New Delhi-110 064
https://www.irc.nic.in
 Technical Paper

Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt Mixes Based on Surface

Chemistry of Aggregates and Asphalt Binders

Ayyanna Habal1 Dharamveer Singh2

ABSTRACT
In the present study, moisture sensitivity of different aggregates-asphalt binders was evaluated
using Surface Free Energy (SFE) approach. Three different asphalt binders: VG 30, PMB 40 and
CRMB 60, and two types of aggregates: granite and limestone were selected in this study. The SFE
components of the asphalt binders were measured using Wilhelmy plate method, while SFE of
granite and limestone aggregates were adopted from the literature. Thereafter, work of adhesion,
work of cohesion, work of debonding in presence of water, and energy ratio (ER) were calculated
to evaluate moisture sensitivity of asphalt-aggregate system. The results indicate that limestone
aggregate had a higher moisture resistant potential with all types of asphalt binders compared to
those of granite aggregate. Further, PMB 40 showed better bond with selected aggregates followed
by CRMB 60 and VG 30 asphalt binders. It was found that asphalt binder and aggregates types
can have a significant influence on moisture sensitivity of aggregates-asphalt binder system. It is
expected that the present study would be a positive step in direction of mechanistic evaluation of
moisture damage potential of asphalt mixes in India.
1. INTRODUCTION tests are developed to evaluate moisture damage
A flexible pavement is primarily constructed with of asphalt mixes. However; these tests provide a
bituminous mix composed of aggregates and gross estimate of cumulative effects of material
asphalt binders. This kind of pavement suffers and mixture properties on moisture sensitivity
different types of distresses such as stripping, of asphalt mixtures. None of these tests provide
raveling, moisture damage, cracking, rutting a better correlation with field performance of a
and pothole formation. The moisture damage is pavement. In addition, the tests are not adequate to
one of the primary reasons for premature failure explain mechanism which causes moisture damage
of most of flexible pavements. The moisture in asphalt mixes (Imad et al. 2014, Williams et al.
damage in asphalt mixes can be due to loss of 2010).
bond between aggregate and asphalt interface To overcome these shortcomings, recently many
known as adhesive failure or it can be a failure of researchers (Ghabchi et al 2013, Arbani et al. 2011,
bond between asphalt binder or mastic (mixture Bhasin et al. 2007, Little et al. 2007, Wasiuddin
of asphalt binder and aggregate fines passing et al. 2005, Hefer et al. 2005, Cheng et al. 2002,)
75 μm) known as cohesive failure (Little and Jones suggested Surface Free Energy (SFE) concept
2003). The surface chemistry of aggregate and to mechanistically evaluate moisture-induced
asphalt binders plays an important role to produce damage potential of asphalt mixes. The SFE approach
a moisture resistant mix. A number of laboratory is based on surface chemistry of materials, which
tests: Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR), Hamburg can be used to quantify bonding of aggregate-asphalt
Wheel Tracking (HWT), boiling and static water binder system. The SFE components of binders can
1
Ph.D. Student, Deptt of Civil Engg, I.I.T. Bombay, Mumbai-400 076, India E-mail: ayyanna.habal@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Deptt. Civil Engg, I.I.T. Bombay, Mumbai-400 076, India, E-mail: dvsingh@iitb.ac.in

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, September 2017 11

 Technical Paper
be estimated based on contact angle measured using
Wilhelmy plate method. While, for aggregates, SFE
components are determined using Universal sorption
device. Wasiuddin et al. (2005) measured the SFE of
PG 70-28 and PG 64-22 using Wilhelmy plate device
and suggested that SFE concept can be used to
develop new test methods for identifying moisture
damage susceptible mixes during mix design
stage. Similarly, Hefer et al. (2006) studied the SFE
components of asphalt binders using Wilhelmy plate
method and determined compatibility of aggregates
with asphalt binders. It was reported that the SFE
concept can be used to select most compatible asphalt
binder and aggregate combination. In another study,
Arbani et al. (2012) evaluated moisture susceptibility
of warm mix binders using SFE concept. They reported
that warm mix additive reduces the adhesion between
asphalt and aggregate. In recent study Ghabchi
et al. (2013) evaluated the effects of a warm mix-
additive, on the SFE components of PG 64-22 asphalt
binder using Wilhelmy plate method and found that
this increases the SFE of asphalt binder and work
of adhesion of asphalt binder – aggregates system.
In another study, Tian et al. (2013) conducted shear
strength and boiled tests to validate adhesion properties
of asphalt binder and aggregate and suggested that the
SFE theory can be used as a quantitative evaluation
method on asphalt and aggregate adhesion.
Currently, no study has been conducted in India to
utilize the SFE approach for evaluating moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes. The literature showed
that same grade of bitumen or same type of aggregates
from different sources may result in different surface
free energy. Therefore, compatibility of aggregate-
asphalt binder may change with source, chemical
composition, and type of aggregate/asphalt binder.
Thus, the present study was undertaken to study
moisture sensitivity of VG 30, PMB 40 and CRMB
60 asphalt binders with different types of aggregates
(granite and limestone) using the SFE concept. The
selected unmodified and modified (polymer and
crumb rubber) binders and limestone and basalt
aggregates are commonly used for construction of
flexible pavements in India. Also, limestone and
basalt aggregates have different surface chemistry and
chemical composition, and hence they were selected
in this study. The moisture sensitivity of six different
combinations of aggregate-asphalt binders (3 asphalt
binders x 2 aggregates) were evaluated in this study
based on the SFE approach. It is expected that the
present study would be a positive step in direction of
mechanistic evaluation of asphalt mixes in India.
12 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, September 2017
2. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were to:
(a) Measure contact angle of VG 30, PMB 40 and
CRMB 60 asphalt binders using Wilhelmy plate
method, and estimate their SFE components.
(b) Evaluate moisture sensitivity of limestone
and granite aggregates in combination with
VG 30, PMB 40 and CRMB 60 asphalt
binders based SFE approach.
3. BACKGROUND ON SURFACE FREE
ENERGY
The SFE of a material is defined as the magnitude of
work required to create a unit area of a new surface
in a vacuum. The SFE is commonly denoted by the
Greek letter ‘γ’. The units of SFE are ergs/cm2 or mJ/
m2 (Oss et al. 1988). According to acid-base theory
(Oss et al. 1988), SFE of any material is divided
into three components namely: Lifshitz-van der
Waals component (γLW), Lewis acid component (γ+),
and Lewis base component (γˉ). These components
are used together to estimate total SFE (γ) as per
Equations 1 and 2.
γ = γ LW+ γAB ... (1)
Where,
γAB =  ... (2)
The work of cohesion (WBB) of asphalt binder can be
calculated using Equation 3.
WBB = 2γB ... (3)
Similarly work of adhesion between asphalt binder
(B) and aggregate (A) is work required to separate
asphalt binder coating from aggregate surface at
their interface in vacuum (Little and Bhasin 2006)
expressed in Equation 4.
WAB =  ... (4)
Where, γLW, γ+, and γˉ are Lifshitz-van der Waals
component, Lewis acid component and Lewis base
components respectively. Subscripts A and B indicates
Aggregate and Asphalt binder respectively.
Water tries to separate asphalt binder coating from
aggregate, due to this action the total SFE of the
system reduces. The reduction of system energy in
presence of water is known as work of debonding
as shown in Equation 5.
 ... (5)
 Technical Paper
Where, γAW, γBW, and γAB are interfacial energy between
aggregate-water, asphalt binder-water and aggregate-
asphalt binder respectively.
Bhasin et al (2006) suggested to estimate energy ratio
(ER) of aggregate-asphalt binder system to evaluate
moisture sensitivity. The ER is defined as ratio of
wettability (WAB-WBB) to the work of debonding
in presence of water as shown in Equation
6. A higher value of ER, implies better moisture
resistant mix and vice versa.
ER =  ... (6)
4. MATERIALS AND TEST METHODOLOGY
In this study three types of asphalt binders: VG 30,
polymer modified binder, PMB 40 and crumb rubber
modified binder, CRMB 60 commonly used in India
for construction of flexible pavements were selected.
In addition, two types of aggregates: limestone and
granite were selected to evaluate their compatibility
with asphalt binders. The SFE components of asphalt
binders were measured using Wilhelmy plate method
with three probe liquids namely: Distilled water,
glycerol and formamide. The SFE components of two
types of aggregates namely: granite, and limestone
were adopted from the literature (Little and Bhasin
2006). Fig. 1 shows experimental plan.
Fig. 1 Experimental Methodology
4.1 SFE of Asphalt Binders Using Wilhelmy Plate
Method
Fig. 2 shows schematic of the Wilhelmy plate
device used in this study. The Wilhelmy plate method
is an indirect method to measure dynamic contact
angle (Hefer et al. 2006). In this method, a glass
plate coated with asphalt binder is immersed into
a probe liquid and weight difference is measured
with help of a high precision micro balance, which
is used to estimate dynamic contact angle (Hefer
et al. 2006). In this study, microscope cover glass
plates of size 24 mm x 50 mm x No-1.5 were used
as substrates for preparing asphalt binder samples.
The glass plate was coated with selected asphalt
binder (Fig. 3). Thickness of asphalt binder coating
over glass plate was measured using digital Vernier
caliper, the average thickness was approximately
0.15 ± 0.02 mm for VG 30 and PMB 40 binders and
it was 0.6 ± 0.02 mm for CRMB 60. Four replicate
of samples for each probe liquids (water, formamide
and glycerol) were prepared and tested. Based on
contact angles measured from three probe liquids, the
SFE components of asphalt binders were estimated
using Equation 7. The results of contact angle and
SFE components of asphalt binders are presented in
results and discussion section.
Fig. 2 Schematic of Wilhelmy Plate Device
 ... (7)
Where, subscript li indicates ith probe liquid and
subscript s refers to the solid surface.
Fig. 3 a) Sample Preparation, b) DCA Test in Progress
INDIAN HIGHWAYS, September 2017 13
 Technical Paper
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Contact Angle of Asphalt Binders
The measured dynamic contact angles of VG 30,
PMB 40 and CRMB 60 binders with different
probe liquids are presented in Fig. 4. It can be seen
that the contact angle measured from water were
highest for PMB 40 binder followed by CRMB 60,
and VG 30, however, a different trend was observed
for formamide and glycerol. It is important to note
that the measured contact angle may not give any
idea of coating or spreading of asphalt binders on
aggregates. The measured dynamic contact angles
are used to estimate the SFE components of asphalt
binder using Equation 7.
Fig. 4 Contact angle of Asphalt Binder
5.2 Surface Free Energy Components of Asphalt
Binders
The SFE components of VG 30, PMB 40 and
CRMB 60 asphalt binders were evaluated by
acid-base theory (Oss et al. 1988) and results are
presented in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 SFE Components of Asphalt Binders
The VG 30 asphalt binder was basic in nature
with γ– component 10.99 mJ/m2 and PMB 40 was
14 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, September 2017
acidic in nature with γ+ component 4.96 mJ/m2.
The CRMB 60 asphalt binder had nearly equal
γ+ (2.20 mJ/m2) and γ– (2.68 mJ/m2) components.
The total SFE of VG 30, CRMB 60 and PMB 40
were 12.71, 11.00 and 9.05 mJ/m2, respectively,
which is lesser than SFE of water (72.8 mJ/m2),
and hence, water may have a high tendency to
replace asphalt binder from aggregate surface.
5.3 Surface Free Energy Components of
Aggregates
Usually, the SFE of aggregates is measured by USD
method using different probe vapors like, water,
n-hexane, and Methyl Propyl Ketone (MPK).
In the present study, the SFE data of two types
of aggregates (limestone and granite) shown in
Table 1, were taken from the literature (Little and
Bhasin 2006). The granite aggregate had higher
γ– component (412.0 mJ/m2) compared limestone
(259.0 mJ/m2) aggregates. Both the aggregates
had negligible γ+ component (0.0 and 2.4 mJ/m2).
Generally the SFE of aggregates is relatively high
compared to asphalt binder.
Table 1 SFE Components of Aggregates
Aggregate Type SFE Components, mJ/m2
γLW γ+ γ– γAB γTotal
Granite 48.8 0.0 412.0 0.0 48.80
Limestone 44.1 2.4 259.0 49.55 93.70
The γ+ and γ– components of aggregates and
asphalt binders have significant influence on
their adhesion and debonding potential. Since
VG 30 asphalt binder had a high basic component
(10.99 mJ/m2), it was expected that it might
have a poor bond with granite aggregates which
also had a high base component. Since PMB 40
had high γ+ (acidic) component compared to
VG 30 and CRMB 60, it might create a better
bond with selected aggregates. It is important to
note that SFE components can give a primary idea
on bonding behaviour; however, it is important to
estimate work of adhesion, debonding, and energy
ratio to estimate a rational parameter to quantify
compatibility and moisture sensitivity of aggregate-
asphalt binder system.
5.4 Work of Adhesion
The work of adhesion indicates bonding between
aggregate and asphalt binder in dry state. A
higher work of adhesion shows a good bond and
 Technical Paper

vice versa. The Fig. 6 presents work of adhesion
between aggregates (limestone and granite)
and different types of asphalt binders (VG 30,
PMB 40, and CRMB 60). The PMB 40 provided the
highest work of adhesion followed by CRMB 60
and VG 30 for both type of aggregates. The results
show that granite aggregate can have a better bond
with PMB 40 and CRMB 60 asphalt binder except
VG 30, compared to those of limestone aggregate.
showed lower work of debonding with selected
asphalt binders compared to granite aggregate,
indicating that limestone aggregate can provide
good moisture resistance. It can be noted that
work of adhesion showed granite as a stronger
aggregates, however, this can be considered as
bond in a dry state of aggregate-asphalt binder
system. The work of debonding shows energy in
presence of water.

Fig. 6 Work of Adhesion Between Aggregates

and Asphalt Binders
5.5 Work of Debonding
The work of debonding indicates decrease in the SFE
of aggregate-asphalt system in presence of water.
A higher absolute value of work of debonding for a
mix shows more sensitive to moisture damage and
vice versa. Fig. 7 presents work of debonding for
combination of aggregate-asphalt binder system.
It can be observed that PMB 40 provided lower
magnitude of work of debonding followed by
CRMB 60 and VG 30 for both type of aggregates.
The results show PMB 40 provides good moisture
resistance followed by CRMB 60 and VG 30 with
the selected aggregates.
While comparing work of debonding for both the
aggregates, it was found that limestone aggregate
Table 2 Energy Parameters for different Combination of Aggregate-Asphalt System
Fig. 7 Work of Debonding for Aggregate-Asphalt
Binder System
5.6 Energy Ratio (ER)
Since work of adhesion and work of debonding
alone may be used to estimate moisture damage
potential of asphalt mixes (Tian et al. 2013),
researchers have suggested to estimate a rational
parameter, Energy Ratio (ER) to consider both
the parameters (work of adhesion and work
of debonding together). A higher value of ER
indicates a better moisture resistant mix and vice
versa (Bhasin et al 2006). Table 2 summarizes
ER for different combinations of asphalt binder
and aggregate system and Fig. 8 gives a graphical
comparison.

Aggregate- Asphalt Binder WAB Energy Ratio Ranking

System (mJ/m2) (mJ/m )2 (ER)
VG 30 - granite 58.64 -133.10 0.25 6
CRMB 60 - granite 94.83 -84.45 0.86 4
PMB 40 - granite 121.19 -56.02 1.84 2
VG 30 - limestone 63.86 -97.75 0.39 5
CRMB 60 - limestone 85.69 -63.45 1.00 3
PMB 40 - limestone 103.85 -43.23 1.98 1

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, September 2017 15

 Technical Paper

through laboratory tests and may also be correlated

with field performance of a pavement.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The present study evaluated moisture sensitivity
of three types of asphalt binders (VG 30, CRMB 60
and PMB 40) with two types of aggregates
(limestone and granite) based on surface free
energy approach. The following conclusions can
be drawn based on the results and discussion
presented above.
1) The surface chemistry of binders can be mea-
sured using SFE method. The results showed
Fig. 8 Energy Ratio for Different Combination of that VG 30 asphalt binder was basic in nature
Aggregate-Asphalt while PMB 40 was acidic in nature.
2) The granite aggregate had higher basic
The ER for limestone aggregate with VG 30,
component compared limestone aggregate. The
CRMB 60 and PMB 40 was found to be 0.39, 1.00
SFE of aggregates is relatively high compared
and 1.98, respectively (Table 2), indicating that to asphalt binder.
limestone aggregate may exhibit a better bonding
3) The work of adhesion indicates that in dry
with PMB 40, followed by CRMB 60 and VG 30.
state, granite can have a stronger bond, how-
Similarly, for granite aggregates, ER was found
ever, it may lose strength in presence of wa-
to be 0.25, 0.86 and 1.84 for VG 30, CRMB 60
ter, and in such situation limestone aggregate
and PMB 40, respectively, showing a strong bond
exhibited a better moisture resistant. Thus, the
of granite aggregates with PMB 40 followed by
work of adhesion and work of debonding alone
CRMB 60 and VG 30 asphalt binder. Overall, order may not indicate a ranking of the aggregate-
of bond between aggregate-asphalt binder systems asphalt binder system and hence it is always
was found to be highest for polymer modified advisable to estimate energy ratio.
binder, PMB 40 asphalt binder, and it was lowest
4) The ER shows that PMB 40 provides better
for unmodified binder, VG 30. A similar thought
bond with limestone and granite aggregate
was drawn based on individual components of the
followed by CRMB 60 and VG 30 asphalt
SFE for aggregates and asphalt binders. The result
binders.
shows that highly basic granite aggregate may
5) The ER ratio indicates that limestone
make a poor bond with basic binder (VG 30). The
aggregate can gives a better bond with all types
limestone aggregate showed a better bond with all
of asphalt binders compared with granite ag-
types of asphalt binders compared to the granite
gregate. The PMB 40- limestone aggregate was
aggregate. Based on ER, the ranking of aggregate-
found to be the highest rank (least moisture
asphalt binder system was found to be as follows:
sensitivity), while VG 30- granite was lowest
PMB 40-limestone > PMB 40-granite > CRMB 60-
in rank (high moisture sensitivity).
limestone > CRMB 60-granite > VG 30-limestone
The study is based on the limited dataset, and
> VG 30-granite. Overall, PMB4 40- limestone
it is recommended that the results presented
aggregate was found to be the highest rank (least
herein be validated through laboratory tests
moisture sensitivity), while VG 30- granite was
and through field performance of a pavement.
lowest in rank (high moisture sensitivity).
REFERENCES
It can be concluded that surface chemistry of
1. Arabani, M., and Hamedi. H., (2011) “Using
aggregate and asphalt binder can have a significant the Surface Free Energy Method to Evaluate the
impact on their bonding potential. The value of Effects of Polymeric Aggregate Treatment on
ER ratio may provide a good input to ensure a Moisture Damage in Hot Mix Asphalt”. Journal
moisture resistant pavement. It is recommended of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 23,
that the results presented in this study be validated No. 6, pp. 802-818.

16 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, September 2017

 Technical Paper

2. Arabani, M., Roshani. H., and Hamedi. H., (2012)
“Estimating Moisture Sensitivity of Warm Mix
Asphalt Modified with Zycosoil as an Antistrip
Agent Using Surface Free Energy Method”.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 889-897.
3. Bhasin. A., and Little, D. N., (2007). "Character-
ization of Aggregate Surface Energy using the
Universal Sorption Device", Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 19,
No.8, pp-634-641.
4. C. Della Volpe & S. Siboni (2000) Acid–Base
Surface Free Energies of Solids and the Definition
of Scales in the Good–Van Oss–Chaudhury Theory,
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 14:2,
235-272.
5. Cheng. D., Little. D. N., Lytton. R. L., and Holste.
J. (2002) “Use of Surface Free Energy Properties of
the Asphalt- Aggregate System to Predict Moisture
Damage Potential”. Journal of the Association of
Asphalt Paving Technologists, AAPT, Vol. 71,
pp. 59-88.
6. Ghabchi. R., Singh. D., Zaman. M, Tian. Q. (2013)
“Laboratory Study of Warm Mix Asphalt for
Moisture Damage Potential Using Surface Free
Energy Method”. Airfield and Highway Pavement
2013: pp. 54-63.
7. Ghabchi. R., Singh. D., Zaman. M, Tian. Q. (2013)
“Mechanistic evaluation of the effect of WMA
Additives on Wettability and Moisture Susceptibil-
ity Properties of Asphalt Mixes”. Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, ASTM Vol. 41, No. 6,
8. Hefer, A.W., Bhasin, A., and Little, D.N., (2006).
"Bitumen Surface Energy Characterization using
a Contact Angle Approach", Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 18, No.6,
pp. 759-767.
9. Imad L. Al-Qadi, Ibrahim M. Abuawad,
Heena Dhasmana, Aaron R. Coenen, and James
S. Trepanier. (2014) “Effects of Various Asphalt
Binder Additives/Modifiers on Moisture-
Susceptible Asphaltic Mixtures”. Research Report
FHWA-ICT-14-004, ISSN: 0197-9191 Illinois
Center for Transportation, Urbana, IL 61801.
10. Little, D. N., and David R. Jones IV. (2003)
“Chemical and Mechanical Processes of Mois-
ture Damage in Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements.”
Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt Pavements A
National Seminar, San Diego, California.

IRC TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER, 2017

DATE DAY TIME VENUE NAME OF COMMITTEE MEETING
01-09-17 11.00 AM Maintenance and Rehabilitation Committee(B-8)
Fri IRC, R.K.P
01-09-17 10.30 AM Loads and Stresses Committee(B-2)
08-09-17 Fri 11.00 AM IRC, R.K.P Formwork and Temporary Structures Committee(B-7)
Foundation, Sub-Structure, Protective Works and Masonry
09-09-17
Sat 11.00 AM IRC, R.K.P Structures Committee(B-3)
09-09-17 Rigid Pavement Committee (H-3)
09-09-17 Sat 2.30 PM Composite Pavement Committee (H-9)
13-09-17 Wed 10.00 AM IRC, R.K.P Sub-Group B-9.3
15-09-17 10.30 AM Loads and Stresses Committee (B-2)
Fri IRC, R.K.P
15-09-17 03.00 PM Bearings, Joints and Appurtenances Committee (B-6)
16-09-17 10.30 AM Bearings, Joints and Appurtenances Committee (B-6)
Sat IRC, R.K.P
16-09-17 02.30 PM Loads and Stresses Committee(B-2)
22-09-17 11.00 AM Steel and Composite Structures Committee (B-5)
Fri IRC, R.K.P
22-09-17 10.30 AM Loads and Stresses Committee (B-2)
23-09-17 Sat 10.30 AM IRC, R.K.P Urban Roads, Streets and Transport Committee(H-8)
General Design Features (Bridges and Grade Separated
25-09-17 Mon 03.00 IRC, R.K.P
Structures Committee (B-1)

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, September 2017 17