Mumbai Trans Harbour Link Package 1 Sewri Interchange Pavement Design
Mumbai Trans Harbour Link Package 1 Sewri Interchange Pavement Design
Mumbai Trans Harbour Link Package 1 Sewri Interchange Pavement Design
Parallelvej 2
2800 Kongens Lyngby
MUMBAI TRANS HARBOUR LINK Denmark
PACKAGE 1 TEL
FAX
+45 56 40 00 00
+45 56 40 99 99
WWW cowi.com
SEWRI INTERCHANGE
PAVEMENT DESIGN
TECHNICAL NOTE
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 2
3 Pavement Design 4
3.1 Assumptions 4
3.2 Methodology of Pavement Design 7
3.3 Strain Analysis 8
3.4 Pavement Design Output 9
4 Conclusion/Recommendation 9
A109933 MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880
1 Introduction
The proposed MTHL corridor will be a raised structure on Land Viaduct, near
Sewri Interchange. The corridor will cater to/from the existing eastern freeway
via Ramps A, B, C1 and E as shown in the figure below.
This Technical Note is a part of the Initial Design stage, and hence the design is
based on assumed geotechnical parameters. The actual pavement design shall
be based on actual site data will be a part of the detail design stage.
IRC: 37-2012 has been followed for the design of the pavement.
The Stress analysis software IIT Pave has been used for computation of stresses
and strains in Flexible Pavement.
Horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous layer and the Vertical strain
on top of subgrade are considered as critical parameters for Pavement Design to
limit cracking and rutting in bituminous layer and non-bituminous layers
respectively.
The maximum permissible tensile strain is calculated using the equations below.
For Traffic up to 30 msa the equation with 80% reliability is used, whereas for
traffic greater than 30 msa the equation with 90% reliability is used:
. 1
0.854
› = 2.21 × 10 × × (For 80% reliability)
. 1 0.854
› = 0.711 × 10 × × (For 90% reliability)
.
› = 4.1656 × 10 × (For 80% reliability)
.
› = 1.41 × 10 × (For 90% reliability)
3 Pavement Design
3.1 Assumptions
The cumulative number of standard axles for the entire design period of 20
years is calculated based on the traffic forecast data in ER, and not on any
assumed growth rate.
The ER does not mention the vehicular distribution on each ramp, hence we
have analysed 3 cases, namely 30%, 50% and 100% distributions on Ramps C2
and F. We consider these Ramps to have similar traffic volumes as they have the
same destination and origin point/area, respectively. This consideration is also
following ER document, where the traffic volume Unit in the table is given per
direction.
› Case 1- 30% of the full traffic volume will use these ramps to/from Sewri
Port area and remaining traffic will be distributed to Eastern Freeway in
both North and South Directions (Ramp B and C1, respectively);
This exercise is presented so the client may compare the extreme situations,
and be able to check the differences between the resulting pavement structures,
being able to decide with reliable confidence for a balanced and safe solution.
Table-1 below shows the actual traffic and hence the VDF.
The need for remedial measures in case existing soil has extensive swelling
and/or shrinkage characteristic shall be ascertained at the detail design stage.
Hence, the effective CBR to be used for the pavement design, as per IRC 37-
2012 Fig. 5.1 is 12%.
However, in the detailed design stage the actual geotechnical parameters will
have to be used for arriving at the effective CBR.
› Temperature = 35°C
365 × (1 + )" − 1
= ×$×%×&
The cumulative number of standard axles (MSA) and the effective CBR are used
to read off the values of different pavement layers from Plate 7 & 8 of IRC: 37-
2012.
The values of maximum permissible strains are calculated for Fatigue and
Rutting models, using the calculated pavement layers.
These pavement layers are then tested for Rutting and Fatigue by using IITPAVE
software. The pavement layer thicknesses along with the engineering
parameters of these layers are input into IITPAVE to arrive at the actual strains
at specified analysis points.
The actual strains are compared with the maximum permissible strains. If the
actual strains are within limits then the pavement layers are adopted. Else, the
layer thicknesses are iterated until the actual strain is within the permissible
limit.
Since, the actual strains in the above table are within permissible values, after
the final iteration, the corresponding pavement layer thicknesses are adopted.
Case 1: Traffic spilling onto Ramp C2 (or Ramp F) is 30% of the total traffic on
MTHL in that direction.
Case 2: Traffic spilling onto Ramp C2 (or Ramp F) is 50% of the total traffic on
MTHL in that direction.
Case 3: Traffic spilling onto Ramp C2 (or Ramp F) is 100% of the total traffic
on MTHL in that direction.
A comprehensive analysis is carried out for the 3 cases and the results posted in
the Table-3 below.
For case 1, the type of bitumen used is VG30 whereas for cases 2 and 3
modified bitumen is used so as to increase its rut life. This is also in accordance
to pavements on structures as specified under Section VI-1 of Employer's
Requirements ERG-59.
4 Conclusion/Recommendation
Regarding the risk due to non-surety of traffic distribution from MTHL to ramps
& vice versa, we recommend using Case 2: 50% distribution. The total
pavement thickness is comparable to Case 1, but with lesser risk of traffic
distribution and added fatigue and rutting life due to the use of modified
bitumen.