Technical Paper

QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE IN BITUMINOUS

ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN INDIA

Prithvi Singh Kandhal1 Rajan Choudhary2 Abhinay Kumar3

ABSTRACT
Implementation of Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) is necessary to ensure consistent and quality
bituminous road construction in India. It should replace the present system of generally reporting “passing” test
results only during construction, which is unacceptable and leads to premature failures.
Quality control is the responsibility of the construction contractor who should prepare and execute a QC plan for the
bituminous paving project. Quality assurance is the responsibility of the owner (such as NHAI, representative of NHAI,
or a concessionaire). For quality assurance paving project is first divided into lots and sublots. Quality assurance is
done with the help of Percent Within Limits (PWL) and pay factors (price adjustments), which are determined for
each lot from test values of sublots.
This paper describes the QC/QA system in detail and the way it should be implemented in India after some pilot
projects. For QA a computer software program based on Excel has been developed at IIT Guwahati exclusively for
this paper and is available online. With this program it is quite easy to calculate the mean, standard deviation, and
PWL once the five sublot test results are entered along with the minimum and maximum specified limits for the test
parameter.

1. INTRODUCTION 2. CURRENT SCENARIO OF QC/QA IN INDIA

Experience in the developed countries such as the US
has shown that implementation of Quality Control
(QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) concept is necessary
to obtain consistent and good quality bituminous
road construction. QC and QA have been defined by
AASHTO as follows[1].
Quality Control: The activities that have to do with
making the quality of a product what it should be. It is
the responsibility of the construction contractor.
Quality Assurance: The activities that have to do with
making sure that the quality of a product is what it
should be. It is the responsibility of the highway agency
such as National Highway Authority of India.
The QC/QA concept is new for India and needs to
be implemented as soon as possible to assure quality
bituminous road construction. There is hardly any
quality assurance system in place in India at the present
time, which is unacceptable.
There is no well-established system existing for
proper Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA)
for bituminous construction in India. Quality Control
(QC) involves preparation and execution of a QC Plan
by the contractor. Quality Assurance (QA) involves
quality check and acceptance/rejection of the project
lots by the owner. Both QC and QA are not practiced in
India in a desirable manner, which is the subject of this
paper. The two main types of concession agreements
followed presently in India for construction of major
highway projects are: (1) Engineering, Procurement
and Construction (EPC) agreement, and (2) Hybrid
Annuity (HA) agreement.
Under the EPC agreement, the construction period is
usually 2 years and defect liability/maintenance period
is 5 years, whereas in the HA mode the construction
period is usually 3 years and defect liability/maintenance

1
Associate Director Emeritus, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, USA. Currently in Jaipur,
E-mail: pkandhal@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Guwahati, E-mail: rajandce@iitg.ernet.in
3
PhD Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Guwahati, E-mail: abhinayk29@gmail.com

INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018 11

 Technical Paper
period is 10/12 years. About 90 percent of the total
construction cost in EPC agreement is regulated by the
government and is paid to contractor in 4 installments
of 5-6 months each, and the remaining 10 percent is
paid during the defect liability period. In the HA mode,
40 percent cost is regulated by the government and
is paid during the construction period. Remaining 60
percent of the project cost, which was borne by the
concessionaire during the construction period, is paid
on bi-annual basis during the defect liability period in
installments.
As per the Indian specifications and concession
agreement provisions, QC aspects are to be ensured
through the concessionaire, contractor as well by an
independent body. The independent body is called
Authority Engineer in case of EPC agreement and
Independent Engineer in case of the HA mode.
Most contractors follow the MoRTH Specifications
and the Indian Roads Congress Standard
IRC:111-2009 for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes,
which specifies the minimum frequency of tests to be
performed by the contractor during production and
laying of bituminous mixes[2]. Some examples are as
follows:
Bitumen content and 3 tests for each 400 tons of
gradation mix (minimum 2 per day)
Marshall tests including 3 tests for each 400 tons of
mix (minimum 2 per day)
voids analysis and & flow
Density in the field after 1 test per 700 sq m area
compaction
Specifications provide tolerance limits for the Job-Mix
Formula (JMF) parameters such as follows:
Bitumen content ±0.3 %
Gradation Varies according to sieve
size (as given in MoRTH
5th Revision)
Compaction in field Minimum 92% of
maximum specific gravity
of mix
QA should be carried out by the owner (such as NHAI,
its representative or concessionaire). This aspect of QA
is essentially missing currently in India. Agencies that
are responsible for QA rely on the QC process alone.
Under current practice, the owner such as NHAI or its
representative “certify” all the tests/processes/checks
done for QC. Instead of ensuring the quality of work
12 INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018
through an independent test/process (supposed to be
included under QA), they usually act as “witness” to
tests/checks carried out by the construction contractor.
Moreover, in the existing specification/concession
agreements, there are no clear guidelines on the
acceptance/rejection criteria for any variability in
the production and construction process. (This paper
provides such reasonably clear guidelines.] Under
this scenario, contractors or sub-contractors have a
tendency to bring/ensure all the results (through fair or
unfair means) within the specified ranges or acceptable
limits.They are afraid of some action by the owner if
a result outside the tolerances is reported. This has
been observed by the first author while investigating
some premature failures of national highways in India.
All construction records were of no use because they
showed passing results only despite the fact that NHAI
had an Independent Engineer (IE) to oversee the
construction quality.
It must be realized that variations in test results of
bituminous mixes is quite natural and common. Test
results can be affected by the inherent variability of
the materials; asphalt mix; sampling errors; and testing
errors. For example, a segregated hot mix sample can
decrease or increase the bitumen content test value from
what the real value is[3]. Therefore, it is common that
some test results may be outside the tolerance limits of
the specifications. The proposed QA process will help
to address such expected variations in bituminous road
construction[4].
3. MOVE TOWARDS STATISTICAL QA
SPECIFICATIONS
As mentioned earlier, the system in-place in India at
the present time for QA is based on tests performed
under QC program, mainly on single samples (so-called
‘representative’ samples) on the basis of which decision
is made whether to accept or reject the material/process.
In cases where results are not found to be within the
specified upper and lower limits, additional samples
called ‘check’ or ‘confirmatory’ samples are tested. It
cannot be denied that the existing system creates a lot of
confusion amongst the agencies responsible for QC/QA
regarding judging the overall quality. Therefore, there
is an urgent need to shift from the current ‘pass or fail’
system to a more rational system based on statistical
analysis of the results obtained. The statistically based
QA system will be described in detail, the QC System
is presented first.
 Technical Paper
3.1 Quality Control by Contractor
Quality Control (QC), also known as “process control”,
is the responsibility of construction contractor. Before
beginning the production of bituminous mixes,
contractor must test all the source (constituent)
materials such as coarse aggregate; fine aggregate; filler
(if any); and paving bitumen and get them approved by
the owner (usually government agency). Then a Job-
Mix Formula (JMF) is developed and approved by the
owner.
The contractor develops a Quality Control (QC) plan
to ensure JMF is reproduced by the hot mix plant with
specified tolerances. The QC Plan must include:
● Frequency of sampling and testing
● Steps to keep the process under control; to quickly
determine when process has gone out of control;
and to respond adequately to bring the process
back under control
The frequency of sampling and testing is not generally
dictated by the owner. Usually it is more than that
recommended by the owner to avoid potential rejection/
price adjustments.
The owner usually does require that control charts
are maintained by the contractor for process control.
Outline of a control chart showing upper and lower
specification limits is given in Fig. 1[5]. Whenever a test
value is obtained it is plotted on the control chart just
like a patient’s body temperature chart maintained in a
hospital.
Fig. 1 Typical Control Chart(5)
Control charts are maintained for bitumen content;
gradation (all sieves); Marshall stability and flow;
void parameters such as air voids, VMA (voids
in mineral aggregate), VFB (voids filled with
bitumen); theoretical maximum specific gravity
of mix, Gmm. Control chart for air voids is shown in
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Control Chart for Air Voids in Compacted
Marshall Specimens(5)
Control charts offer the following benefits:
● Early detection of an impending problem,
● Identify the cause(s) of problem from other control
charts,
● Decrease variability,
● Decrease inspection frequency, and
● Reduce potential rejection/price adjustments by
the owner
Control charts help to identify (diagnose) the cause(s)
of the problem and to take necessary measures to bring
the process under control. For example, if the air voids
in the compacted Marshall specimens are on the low
side it could be due to high bitumen content and/or
change in gradation (especially excessive amounts of
0.075 mm material) noted on those respective control
charts.
3.2 Quality Assurance (QA) by Owner
Quality assurance is the responsibility of the owner
(usually the government agency or its representative)
who determines whether the quality of the product is
what it should be. QA is not based on testing a few
samples per day, which is the case in India at the present
time. If one sample fails it is difficult to quantify the
quality of the paving project. Let’s consider an example.
On a national highway project, the JMF bitumen content
was established at 5.2 ± 0.3 percent (range of 4.9 to
5.5 percent). Five bitumen contents were determined
on a 2-km section of this highway: 5.1, 4.8, 5.2, 5.3,
and 5.4 percent. Only one of the bitumen contents
(4.8%) is outside the acceptable tolerance limits. What
does it mean? Should the paving of the entire 2-km
section be rejected based on one test result? Should
more additional samples be taken at the same or nearby
location until bitumen content passes?
INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018 13
 Technical Paper
This is where statistics is used without any bias as a tool
to make informed decisions and to resolve disputes.
Statistical tools such as mean, standard deviation,
normal distribution curve, Percent Within Limits
(PWL), and pay factors are used for quality assurance.
Therefore, QA is conducted on a statistically based
quality evaluation system. A detailed discussion of this
statistical approach follows.
For acceptance purposes, the paving project is divided
into lots and sublots. A ‘lot’ means a quantity of
material produced from a single source under similar
conditions. In the context of asphalt pavement, it
typically represents asphalt mix production in a single
day. It can also be a specified tonnage such as 400 tons.
The project is accepted on lot by lot basis. If one lot
is substandard, the contractor is penalized with price
adjustment or rejection of that lot only, rather than the
whole project. This reduces the risk for both contractor
and owner.
Sublots are divisions of a lot used for sampling purposes
and may be of an approximate length of 100-150 m of
bituminous paving. Generally, 5 sublots are considered
within a lot. Samples are taken from each sublot for
performing tests such as bitumen content, gradation,
and Marshall Test. Sampling within the sublot is done
at random by using X and Y coordinates obtained from
a table of random numbers. If random locations are
selected within the whole lot, they may not be spread
out as shown in top of Figure 3. Rather, a stratified
sampling plan is adopted in which a lot is divided into
5 equal sublots and then one random sample is obtained
from each sublot as shown in bottom of Fig. 3. Such a
sampling plan is adopted for obtaining loose bituminous
mix behind the paver for determining mix composition
(bitumen content and gradation) or obtaining cores for
determining compaction level. Alternatively, loose mix
can also be collected at random from trucks leaving the
hot mix plant based on time or tonnage.
Fig. 3 Sampling from Lots and Sublots
14 INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018
If so desired by the contractor, the owner or his
representative can split the loose hot mix and provide
one-half to the contractor for verification.
In the statistically based quality evaluation system, two
or three important quality parameters are selected for
testing and evaluation. This is because so many test
parameters such as bitumen content; gradation on all
sieve sizes; Marshall test void parameters, stability
and flow; and in-situ density after compaction, make
the process rather complex. Moreover, many test
parameters are correlated with each other and there is
no need to test all of them.
The following three test parameters are widely used for
acceptance and price adjustments and are considered
reasonably adequate:
● Bitumen content
● Air voids in the compacted Marshall specimens
● Percent compaction in the field based on maximum
specific gravity of mix
Proper bitumen content is necessary for the performance
of the bituminous pavement. Excessive bitumen
content would result in bleeding and/or rutting whereas
deficient bitumen content would significantly reduce
the durability of the bituminous pavement[5]. Proper
air void content in the compacted Marshall specimens
is also important for the performance of the pavement.
Air void content of less than 3 percent increases the
potential for rutting whereas air void content above
5 or 6 percent increases the potential for premature
aging (oxidation) of the bituminous pavement, which
may also induce raveling and stripping. Laboratory
air voids also indirectly control the mix composition
(bitumen content and gradation of aggregate). Percent
compaction in the field is the single most important
test parameter for the performance of bituminous
pavement. The composition of bituminous mix may be
perfect but deficient compaction (high air voids in the
mat) is likely to cause premature deterioration of the
bituminous pavement such as raveling and potholes.
After the five sublot samples representing one lot are
tested for the desired parameter(s), the test values are
analyzed statistically to determine the percentage of
this lot which is within specified tolerance limits, that
is, Percent Within Limits (PWL).
Based on the mean and standard deviation of the 5
results, a normal distribution curve is fit to the data. A
normal distribution curve is a ‘bell-shaped’ symmetric
curve that describes the statistical distribution of
engineering measurements, such as asphalt binder
content, mix density, or gradation data of bituminous
 Technical Paper
mixes. Fig. 4 shows two normal distribution curves
‘a’ and ‘b’. Observe that both curves have the same
mean but the standard deviation for ‘b’ is larger than
‘a’, due to which curve ‘b’ has higher spread or scatter
than curve ‘a’. In other words, curve ‘b’ represents high
variability.
Using the specifications limits, the fitted normal
distribution curve, is further used to compute two
parameters: percent defective (PD) and percent within
limits (PWL). PD indicates percentage of a lot falling
outside the specification limits. PWL, on the other
hand, indicates percentage of the lot conforming to the
specification limits. Fig. 5 illustrates the concepts of PD
and PWL for two cases of double-limit and single-limit
specifications. An example of double-limit specification
is the requirement of design binder content to be in the
range of ± 0.3% from optimum
Fig. 4 Normal Distribution Curves
(a) Double-Limit Specification
(b) Single-Limit Specification
Fig. 5 Concept of PD and PWL
binder content of 5% (say), i.e. lower limit = 4.7%; upper
limit = 5.3%. An example of single-limit specification
is requirement of % compaction in the field, which is
92% minimum of the mix theoretical maximum specific
gravity, Gmm.
Referring to Fig. 5, PD is defined as the area (expressed
as percent of the total) under the normal curve lying
outside (either towards left or right or both) of the
specified upper and lower limits. Consequently, PWL
can be defined as per Equation 1:
PWL = 100 – (PDU + PDL); for double-limit (1a)
PWL = 100 – PD; for single-limit (1b)
For a fitted normal distribution, the quantities PD and
PWL can be calculated using any convenient software
such as MS Excel. Excel includes an in-built function
NORMDIST that computes area under a normal
distribution curve from negative infinity to a given
value with a given mean and a standard deviation.
A computer software program based on Excel has been
developed at IIT Guwahati exclusively for this paper. It
is very easy to use and can be accessed at the following
internet link to calculate the mean, standard deviation,
and PWL once the five sublot test results are entered
along with the minimum and maximum specified limits.
The link for the program developed at IITG is:
http://www.iitg.ac.in/rajandce/homepage/index.html#
[click on “Other Contributions” tab]
4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES ON PWL
CALCULATIONS
The following two examples of binder content and %
compaction in the field have been worked out using the
software mentioned above. Review of reported sublot
test values and calculated PWL should familiarize the
reader with the expected trends. To obtain high PWL
values, a lot (with lower and upper limits) should have
the sample mean close to the target (such as JMF binder
content) and low standard deviation (less spread). If
any one condition is not met, PWL is likely to be lower.
4.1 Example 1 on Binder Content
Table 1 gives the binder content test values for 7 lots
(Lot A through Lot G) each lot consisting of 5 sublots.
Figs. 7, 8, 9, and 10 show the normal distribution
curves along with specified low and high limits for
binder content. Lot A represents a case when a good
quality control is maintained as seen from the mean
(same as the optimum binder content of 5.0 %) and a
low standard deviation. For this case, the PWL is 98.4%
(Fig. 6).
INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018 15
 Technical Paper
Table 1 PWL Data for Binder Content Lot D and Lot E represent the cases when the binder
(Target: 5%, Lower Limit: 4.6%; Upper Limit: 5.4%) contents are found within the limits but with a high
spread (standard deviation of 0.44), which also results
  Lot A Lot Lot C Lot D Lot Lot F Lot G in low PWL values of about 63 percent (Fig. 8).
B E
Results: 4.9 4.70 5.30 4.6 4.6 4.5 5.1
  5.0 4.70 5.20 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.2
4.8 4.70 5.30 5.4 4.6 5.0 5.0
5.1 4.80 5.50 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.9
5.2 4.50 5.30 5.4 5.4 5.1 5.5
Mean 5.0 4.7 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.1
Std Dev 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.44 0.44 0.27 0.23
PDU, % 0.96 0.00 23.26 23.26 13.67 4.43 12.94
PDL, % 0.64 23.26 0.00 13.67 23.26 10.41 0.95
PWL,% 98.4 76.7 76.7 63.1 63.1 85.2 86.1
Fig. 8 Normal Distribution Curve for Binder Contents for
Lot D (Firm) and Lot E (Dotted)
Lot F and Lot G represent two cases where the binder
contents have mean near 5.0% (the OBC) with PWL
of around 85% even though in both cases, one binder
content (4.5% in Lot F, and 5.5% in Lot G) is however
outside the limits (Fig. 9).

Fig. 6 Normal Distribution Curve for Bitumen Content (Lot A)

Lot B represents a case where the values are near to the

lower specification limit of 4.6%, and one sublot result
fails to meet the minimum limit of 4.6% (Fig. 7).
Fig. 9 Normal distribution curve for binder contents for Lot
F (firm) and Lot G (dotted)
4.2 Example 2 on Percent Compaction
Table 2 gives the percent compaction data for 5 lots
(Lot A through Lot E), each lot consisting of 5 sublots.
Figs. 10, 11, 12, and 13 show the normal distribution
curves along with the minimum acceptable compaction
level (92% of mix Gmm).
Table 2 PWL Data for Percent Compaction
(Target: Minimum 92% of Mix Gmm)
  Lot A Lot B Lot C Lot D Lot E
Results: 92.2 93.0 91.0 92.0 92.3
Fig. 7 Normal Distribution Curve for Binder Contents for
91.0 91.0 91.0 94.0 92.2
Lot B (Firm) and Lot C (Dotted) 92.5 93.5 95.8 94.5 92.4
Lot C represents a case where the values are near to the 93.0 93.0 96.0 93.0 92.8
93.0 93.0 95.4 94.0 93.3
upper specification limit of 5.4%, and one sublot result Mean 92.3 92.7 93.8 93.5 92.6
exceeds the maximum limit of 5.4%. In both cases Std Dev 0.82 0.97 2.60 1.00 0.45
(Lot B and Lot C), the PWL remains almost the same PD, % 34.0 23.6 24.0 6.7 9.3
(Fig. 7), but is lower than that in the Lot A. PWL, % 66.0 76.4 76.0 93.3 90.7

16 INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018

 Technical Paper
For Lot A, one compaction result is failing (91%)
and all others are very close to the limit (92%). With
this combination, one is able to get PWL greater than
65 percent (Fig. 10). Lot B represents a scenario similar
to lot A (one result failing, 91%), however remaining
compaction results are well-above the 92% minimum
limit (Fig. 11). A PWL of 76.4% is obtained in this case.
Fig. 10 Normal Distribution Curve for Percent Compaction
for Lot A
Fig. 11 Normal Distribution Curve for Percent Compaction
for Lot B
In Lot C, two results are failing but high % compaction
values for remaining three sublots eventually results in
a high PWL of about 75% (Fig. 12).
Fig. 12 Normal Distribution Curve for Percent Compaction
for Lot C
Lot D and Lot E represent two lots that have low
standard deviation with all results in the range of
92-94% (Fig. 13). PWL above 90% is achieved in both
cases. It is a general expectation that the construction
agencies will not go for over-compaction as it will
increase the cost of construction along with other
performance related issues of rutting and bleeding.
Many highway agencies in the US specify an upper
limit of 97% compaction to avoid such a situation.
Fig. 13 Normal Distribution Curve for Percent Compaction
for Lot D (Firm) and Lot E (Dotted)
4.3 Outlier Values
Sometimes it is observed that one sublot has a
questionable test value which is very different from
the remaining 4 test values. It can be an outlier which
can be established by routine statistical analysis of the
5 test values. There can be some assignable cause for
such outlier, which should be investigated in the field.
In such cases, the normal distribution should be based
on the remaining 4 test values.
5. PAY FACTORS BASED ON PWL
Once the PWL is determined for each lot, the
contractor is paid based on it. States in the US have
different tables for pay factors based on PWL.
Table 3 is one example. Pay Factor (PF) is the
percentage of contract cost to be paid to the contractor
for a Lot based on its quality evaluation. Many states in
the US such as New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia,
and Delaware use the following equation to determine
the pay factor (PF) based on PWL[6]:
PF = 55 + 0.5 × PWL
Most states reject the lot if the PWL is less than 60. In
that case the lot has to be removed and replaced.
Suitable pay factor table can be developed in India
based on experience gained on some pilot projects.
The following points need to be kept in view:
A small number of test results outside the specification
limits is a normal phenomenon and not necessarily
detrimental to the pavement performance. There is high
requirement to understand this for bringing a change in
the current mindset.
Payment is based on PWL and should allow for both
potential penalty and bonus.
Generally, 90% PWL allows 100% payment.
PWL below 60% is generally not acceptable and
requires rejection/replacement of the lot.
Statistics based end-result specifications for QA have
been used by many Departments of Transportation
INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018 17
 Technical Paper
(DOTs) in the US, including the state of Pennsylvania
[7]. Such specifications have significantly improved
the quality of hot-mix asphalt produced [8]. It is high
time that such a system for QC/QA gets implemented
in India as well.
Table 3 Example of Pay Adjustment Schedule
PWL (percent) Pay factor (percent)
96-100 105
90-95 PWL + 10
60-89 0.5 PWL + 55
Below 60 Reject
Based on experience in the US, about 5 to 10% asphalt
paving lots require some price adjustment. Pilot
projects need to be considered in India to familiarize
both contractors and owners with the PWL approach
and assess the impact of pay factors without actually
imposing the price adjustments.
5.1 Resolution of Differences between Owner and
Contractor Test Results
What if the contractor disputes the owner’s QA test
data? This can be resolved by retesting the retained
sublot samples in presence of the contractor. Retest
does not always give the same test results as shown in
Table 4.
Table 4 Original and Retest Values of Bitumen Contents
Test Bitumen contents in sublots
1 2 3 4
Original 6.0 5.6 6.4 5.8
Retest 6.1 5.7 6.3 5.7
Determine the mean and standard deviation of both lots
(original and retested) and conduct a paired t-test to
determine if the two sets of results came from the same
population or not. If yes, the original test results prevail
and the contractor is charged the cost of retests. If no,
the retest results prevail and are used for recomputing
the PWL and associated pay factor since testing was
done in contractor’s presence. It must be realized that
decision cannot be made by considering means of
original and retest values only.
6. SUMMARY
Implementation of quality control and quality assurance
(QC/QA) is necessary to ensure consistent and quality
bituminous road construction in India. It should replace
the present system of generally reporting “passing” test
results only during construction, which is unacceptable
and highly unfavorable for the long-term performance
of a bituminous paving project. A change in the current
mindset of highway engineers is required to realize that
18 INDIAN HIGHWAYS│OCTOBER 2018
small number of test results outside the specification
limits is normal and not necessarily detrimental to the
performance of the bituminous pavement. Pavements
with reasonable Percent Within Limits (PWL) lower
than 100% should also be accepted.
Quality control is the responsibility of the construction
contractor who should be required to submit a QC Plan
before executing the paving project. Quality assurance
is the responsibility of the owner (such as NHAI, its
representative or a concessionaire) who should divide
the paving project into lots and sublots; test sample from
each sublot; and determine the Percent Within Limits
(PWL) of each lot based on test values of at least 5
sublots and associated pay factors (price adjustments).
A large volume of actual hot mix production test data
has been gathered and analyzed in many developed
countries such as US. Since hot mix plants are similar,
these values can be adopted in India as a starting point.
Some QC/QA pilot projects should be undertaken
in India as soon as possible to familiarize both the
contractors and owners with this concept and to assess
the impact of PWL and pay factors.
A computer software program based on Excel has been
developed at IIT Guwahati for this paper. It is very easy
to use and can be accessed at the internet link provided
in the paper to calculate the mean, standard deviation,
and PWL, once the five sublot test results are entered
along with the minimum and maximum specified limits.
5
6.1 7. REFERENCES
6.1 i. AASHTO. Implementation Manual for Quality Assurance,
1996.
ii. Indian Roads Congress. Specifications for Dense Graded
Bituminous Mixes. IRC:111-2009.
iii. Kandhal, P.S. and S.A. Cross. Effect of Aggregate Gradation
on Measured Asphalt Content. Transportation Research
Board, Transportation Research Record 1417, 1993.
iv. Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, and E.R. Brown. Hot Mix Asphalt
Materials, Mix Design and Construction. US Textbook.
NAPA Education Foundation, Maryland 1996.
v. Kandhal, P.S. Bituminous Road Construction in India.
Textbook. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, July 2016.
vi. Akkinepally, R. and N. Attoh-Okine. Quality Control and
Quality Assurance of Hot Mix Asphalt Construction in
Delaware. Delaware Center for Transportation Report DCT
173, July 2006.
vii. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Specifications
for Highways, Publication 408, 1990.
viii. Kandhal, P.S., Cominsky, R.J., Maurer, D., and Motter, J.B.
Development and Implementation of Statistically-based End
Result Specifications for Hot Mix Asphalt in Pennsylvania,
Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research
Record1389, 1993.