Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Premature distress on high-rainfall mountain highways is rarely attributable to a single factor. This paper presents a forensic case study of Km 5.0-72.8 of the Samdrup Jongkhar-Trashigang Primary National Highway in eastern Bhutan, where two contrasting distress regimes were observed during July-September 2026: widespread cracking, potholes, and localized slippage in Km 5-40, and recurrent slippage/shoving concentrated in the loaded downhill lane, particularly at curves and gradients, in Km 40-72.8. Pavement history, distress morphology, pavement-condition indexing, falling-weight-deflectometer (FWD) response, core/material properties, interlayer bond indicators, drainage, geometry, and directional axle loading are integrated into a mechanism-based rehabilitation framework. Five homogeneous performance sections are delineated. The evidence indicates that HS-2 (Km 20-40) warrants structural strengthening, whereas HS-3 to HS-5 is governed primarily by interface/shear and moisture risk and should not be treated by uniform deep overlay. The paper proposes a staged response: remove the failed shear plane, correct moisture paths, restore interlayer bond, use dense bituminous reconstruction, and reserve polymer-modified bitumen or stone mastic asphalt for verified high-shear locations. Instrumented trial sections and quality-control hold points are recommended before corridor-wide treatment. The case demonstrates why surface condition, structural capacity, interlayer integrity, and directional traffic demand must be diagnosed separately before rehabilitation is selected.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deepak Baskandi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: