QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE IN BITUMINOUS

ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN INDIA

Prithvi Singh Kandhal1, Rajan Choudhary2 and Abhinay Kumar3

[Paper published in Indian Roads Congress, Indian Highways, Volume 46, October 2018]

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.

Keywords: quality control, quality assurance, percent within limits, pay factor, hot mix asphalt

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

1
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.

2. CURRENT SCENARIO OF QC/QA IN INDIA

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 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 instalments
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
instalments.

2
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 gradation
Marshall tests including
voids analysis and & flow
Density in the field after
compaction
3 tests for each 400 tons of mix (minimum 2 per day)
3 tests for each 400 tons of mix (minimum 2 per day)
1 test per 700 sq m area

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
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.

3
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.

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

4
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 Figure
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.

Figure 1. Typical control chart (after Reference 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 Figure 2.

5
 Figure 2. Control chart for air voids in compacted Marshall specimens (after Reference 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.

6
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?

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 Figure 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.

7
 Figure 3. Sampling from lots and sublots

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
8
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 mixes. Figure 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. Figure 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 ±

9
 Figure 4. Normal distribution curves

(a) Double-limit specification

(b) Single-limit specification

Figure 5. Concept of PD and PWL

0.3% from optimum 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 Figure 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)

10
 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. Figures 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% (Figure 6).

Table 1. PWL Data for binder content

(Target: 5%, Lower limit: 4.6%; Upper limit: 5.4%)
Lot A Lot B Lot C Lot D Lot E Lot F Lot G
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

11
 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

Figure 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% (Figure 7).

Lot C represents a case where the values are near to the upper specification limit of 5.4%, and
one sublot result exceeds the maximum limit of 5.4%. In both cases (Lot B and Lot C), the PWL
remains almost the same (Figure 7), but is lower than that in the Lot A.

12
Figure 7. Normal distribution curve for binder contents for Lot B (firm) and Lot C (dotted)

Lot D and Lot E represent the cases when the binder contents are found within the limits but with
a high spread (standard deviation of 0.44), which also results in low PWL values of about 63
percent (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Normal distribution curve for binder contents for Lot D (firm) and Lot E (dotted)

13
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 (Figure 9).

Figure 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. Figures 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
:
91.0 91.0 91.0 94.0 92.2
92.5 93.5 95.8 94.5 92.4
93.0 93.0 96.0 93.0 92.8
93.0 93.0 95.4 94.0 93.3

14
 Mean 92.3 92.7 93.8 93.5 92.6
Std Dev 0.82 0.97 2.60 1.00 0.45

PD, % 34.0 23.6 24.0 6.7 9.3

PWL, 66.0 76.4 76.0 93.3 90.7
%

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 (Figure 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 (Figure 11). A PWL of 76.4% is obtained in this
case.

Figure 10. Normal distribution curve for percent compaction for Lot A

15
 Figure 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% (Figure 12).

Figure 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% (Figure 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

16
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.

Figure 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

17
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 (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.

18
 Table 4. Original and retest values of bitumen contents

Test Bitumen contents in sublots

1 2 3 4 5
Original 6.0 5.6 6.4 5.8 6.1
Retest 6.1 5.7 6.3 5.7 6.1

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 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

19
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.

REFERENCES

1. AASHTO. Implementation Manual for Quality Assurance, 1996.

2. Indian Roads Congress. Specifications for Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes. IRC:111-
2009, 2009.
3. Kandhal, P.S. and S.A. Cross. Effect of Aggregate Gradation on Measured Asphalt
Content. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Record 1417, 1993.
4. 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.
5. Kandhal, P.S. Bituminous Road Construction in India. Textbook. Prentice Hall of India,
New Delhi, July 2016.
6. 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.
7. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Specifications for Highways, Publication
408, 1990.
8. 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 Record 1389,
1993.

20
21