Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Minor Project Final
Minor Project Final
A
PROJECT
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REUIREMENTS
BACHELORS OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted by
DIVYANSH MITTAL
(11610093)
1
DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATION OF
FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT
2
CERTIFICATE
We hereby certify that the work presented in this Project report entitled “Design and Cost
Estimation of Flexible and Rigid Pavement” submitted to National Institute of
Technology Kurukshetra in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering, is an authentic record of our own work
carried out during the period from July 2019 to November 2019 under the able guidance of
Dr. S.N. Sachdeva, Professor & Head of Civil Engineering Department, National Institute
of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana.
Date:
This is to certify that the above statement made by the students is correct to the best of my
knowledge.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to express our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. S.N. Sachdeva for his constant support and
encouragement throughout the project. This project work would not have been possible without
his able guidance. We would also like to thank the Civil Engineering Department for providing
us with the necessary facilities for completion of the project.
4
CONTENTS
Page No.
CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Difference between Flexible and Rigid Pavement
1.3 Project Topic and Its Importance
1.4 Objectives of The Project
1.5 Scope of The project
1.6 Presentation of The Project
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
2.2 Literature Review
2.3 IRC:37-2012 Guidelines for Flexible Pavement
2.4 IRC:58-2012 Guidelines for Rigid Pavement
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
3.2 Input Parameters
3.3 Design of Flexible Pavement
3.4 Design of Rigid Pavement
3.5 Cost Estimation
CHAPTER 4
PAVEMENT DESIGN
4.1 General
4.2 Design of Flexible Pavement
4.3 Design of Rigid Pavement
4.4 Summary of Design
CHAPTER 5
COST ESTIMATION
5.1 General
5.2 Analysis of Rates for Various Layers
5.3 Cost Estimation
5.4 Cost Comparison
5.5 Effect of Traffic on Cost of Flexible and Rigid Pavement
5.6 Effect of CBR on Cost of Flexible and Rigid Pavement
CHAPTER 6
5
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 General
6.2 Flexible Pavement
6.3 Rigid Pavement
6.4 Cost
REFERENCES
6
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
The pavement is crucial part of any road project and needs to withstand traffic load
without deteriorating or deforming to the extent that it becomes unusable during the design life
period. A highway pavement is a structure consisting of superimposed layers of processed
materials above the natural soil sub-grade, whose primary function is to distribute the applied
vehicle loads to the sub-grade. The pavement structure should be able to provide a surface of
acceptable riding quality, adequate skid resistance, favourable light reflecting characteristics,
and low noise pollution. The ultimate aim is to ensure that the transmitted stresses due to wheel
load are sufficiently reduced, so that they will not exceed bearing capacity of the sub-grade.
Pavements are generally classified into two categories based on the structural
behaviour:
7
Flexible Pavement
Rigid Pavement
A flexible pavement consists of various layers of granular materials and is provided with
a layer of bituminous materials on top. A rigid pavement, on the other hand, consists of
a cement concrete pavement laid on a well prepared granular sub-base.
Roads in India are primarily bitumen -based macadamised roads. However, the number
of concrete roads is increasing. Concrete roads were less popular prior to the 1990s because of
low availability of cement; however, with large supplies of cement in the country, and the
advantages of concrete roads, they are gaining popularity. Concrete roads are durable, weather-
proof and require lower maintenance compared to bituminous roads. Moreover, new concrete
pavement technology has developed such as "cool pavement", "quiet pavement" and
"permeable pavement", which has made concrete more attractive and eco-friendly.
8
Table 1.1 Difference between Flexible and Rigid pavement
Characteristics Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement
Material Bituminous road or Cement concrete road
black top pavement
Load Transfer Grain to grain load Slab action takes place
transfer
Deformation under Pointed deformation Whole of the slab under
load under load takes place goes deformation
Nature of stress Usually compressive Wheel load and
stress is caused due to temperature variation
traffic load. causes tensile stresses
of high magnitude.
Stage Construction Possible Not possible
No. of layers More number of layers. Slab can rest directly
over the subgrade
Cost Initial cost is low Initial cost is high
Joint Joints are not required Joints are required
Durability Durability is less Durability is high
Life Life span is short about Life span is long about
15 years. 30 years.
Repair Repair work is easy Repair work is tough.
Maintenance cost Maintenance cost is Maintenance cost is
high. low.
Curing Requires less curing Requires more curing
time. time.
Effect of Temperature variation Temperature variation
temperature has no effect on stress effects the stress
variation. variation.
Night visibility Poor night visibility due Good night visibility.
to use of bitumen.
Progress of Fast Slow
construction
Skilled supervision Available Not easily available
9
the cost estimation of designed pavement sections and aims to study the effect of varying CBR
and traffic on their thickness and construction cost.
Improper design leads to the early failure of pavements. It also affects the riding quality
of the road. In this project various design aspects of both flexible and rigid pavements are
covered. A properly designed pavement is not only safe from structural failure point of view
but also economical.
Cost estimation is important factor for any road project. In this project cost estimation
and comparison is done for both flexible and rigid pavement. It will help to decide about the
economy of these two types of pavements for given conditions of subgrade strength and traffic
on the road. In this project the effect of variation of subgrade strength and traffic on the
thickness and cost of pavement is aimed to be covered which will help work out the economy
of these two types of pavements.
The economic growth of a country is dependent upon highway development. Improperly
planned, designed, constructed and maintained highways can disrupt the social and economic
characteristics of any country. Common adverse impacts to highway development include
noise and vibration generation, damage of natural landscape, and the destruction of social and
cultural structure. Highway infrastructure must be constructed and maintained to high qualities
and standards. In this project, both flexible and rigid pavements are designed as per IRC
guidelines. Rigid pavement has been designed with earthen shoulders.
The key for increasing the structural safety of highway systems is to design, build, and
maintain them according to the traffic and environmental conditions. This project includes
design of flexible and rigid pavements with variation of CBR of subgrade and traffic values.
Thickness of pavement is designed with varying traffic values taking into consideration the
safety measures.
The project entitled “Design and Cost Estimation of Flexible and Rigid pavement”
10
consists of designing of Flexible and Rigid pavement using the latest guidelines of IRC given
in IRC: 37-2012 and IRC: 58-2015. The main objectives of the project are:
i. To do the design of a flexible and a rigid pavement for the varying values of CBR of
subgrade and traffic.
ii. To determine the effect of variation of subgrade strength on the thickness of pavement.
iv. To do the cost estimation of both the pavements for varying design thicknesses and
compare the costs.
v. To discuss the effect of variation of subgrade strength and traffic on the cost of the
pavement.
vi. To discuss the economy of Flexible and Rigid pavements under varying conditions of
subgrade strength and traffic.
The project covers the design and cost estimation of a four lane carriageway road (7x2
m). The effective CBR of the subgrade is varied from 3% to 8% and initial traffic of
commercial vehicles on the road is considered as 500, 2000, 4000 & 6000CVPD. The design
has been done as per IRC:37-2012 guidelines for flexible pavements and IRC: 58-2015
guidelines for rigid pavements. Rigid pavement has been designed with earthen shoulders.
For cost estimation, rates of material and labour are as per Haryana Government, whereas rate
of machinery is based upon MoRTH Standard Data Book.
The First Chapter of Introduction includes the general introduction, objectives and
scope of the project.
The Second Chapter of Literature Review outlines the relevant IRC guidelines
required in the project.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 iGENERAL
The iguidelines ion idesign iof iflexible ipavement iwere ifirst ibrought iout iin i1970, iwhich
i were ibased ion iCalifornia iBearing iRatio i(CBR) iof iSubgrade iand itraffic iin iterms iof inumber iof
i commercial ivehicles i(more ithan i3 itones iladen iweight).
These iguidelines iwere irevised i1984 iin iwhich idesign itraffic iwas iconsidered iin iterms iof
i cumulative inumber iof iequivalent istandard iaxle iload iof i80 iKN iin imillions iof istandard iaxles i(msa)
and idesign ichart iwere iprovided ifor itraffic iup ito i30 imsa iusing ian iempirical iapproach. i
i
These iguidelines iwere irevised iagain iin i2001 iwhen ipavements iwere irequired ito ibe
designed ifor itraffic ias ihigh ias i150 imsa. iThe irevised iguidelines iused ia isemi imechanistic
i
i approach iand ithe isoftware, iIITPAVE iwas ideveloped ifor ithe ianalysis iand idesign iof iflexible
pavements. iMultilayer ielastic ilayer itheory iwas iadopted ifor istress ianalysis iof ithe ilayered ielastic
i
system.
i
The ivolume iof ithe itandem iand imulti-axle ivehicles ihas iincreased imany ifold iand iheavier
i loads iare icommon. iExperience ihas ibeen igained ion ithe iuse iof inew iform iof iconstruction iand
i materials isuch ias istone imatrix iasphalt, imodified ibitumen, ifoamed ibitumen, ibitumen iemulsion,
i warm iasphalt, icementitious ibasis iand isub-bases isince ithe ilast irevision iof iguidelines. iAttention
i is ifocused ion ifatigue iresistant ibituminous imixes iwith iviscosity ibinders ifor iheavy itraffic iwith ia
i view ito iconstruct ihigh iperformance ilong ilife ibituminous ipavements.
The ifocus ifrom ithe iuse iof ilarge-scale iconventional iaggregates iis ishifted ias iconventional
i material ilike iaggregates iis ibecoming iprogressively iscarce ias iwell ias ilegal irestrictions ion
i quarrying iwhile ithe iconstruction iactivity ihas iexpanded iphenomenally.
The iIRC: i37-2001 iwas ibased ion ia imechanistic iempirical iapproach, iwhich iconsidered ithe
i design ilife iof ipavement ito ilast itill ithe ifatigue icracking iin ibituminous isurface iextended ito i20 i i i i i i
iiiii percent iof ithe ipavement isurface iarea ior irutting iin ithe ipavement ireached ithe iterminal irutting
i of i20mm, iwhichever ihappens iearlier. iThe isame iapproach iand ithe icriteria iare ifollowed iin ithese
i guidelines ias iwell, iexcept ithat ithe icracking iand irutting ihave ibeen irestricted ito i10 ipercent iof ithe
i area ifor idesign itraffic iexceeding i30 imsa. iThese iguidelines iaim iat ipavement idesign iby
i including ialternate imaterials.
13
The iguidelines irecommend ithat ithe ifollowing iaspects ishould ibe igiven iconsiderations
while idesigning ito iachieve ibetter iperforming ipavements:
i
Guidelines ifor ithe irigid ipavement ifor ihighways iwere ifirst ipublished iin i1974. iThe ifirst
i revision iof ithe iguidelines iwas imade iin i1998 iafter ithe iupward irevision iof ithe ilegal ilimit iof ithe
maximum iladen iload iof icommercial ivehicles ifrom i8160 ikg ito i10200 ikg. iThe isecond irevision
i
was ibrought iin i2002 ito iinclude ifatigue idamage iconcept iof idesign. iA icomputer iprogram
i
i IITRIGID iwas ifirst iused ifor ithe icomputation iof ithe iflexural istress idue ito isingle iand itandem
i axle iloads.
Taking iinto iaccount iof ithe iadvancements ithat ihave itaken iplace iin ithe iarea iof irigid
i pavements iduring ithe irecent iyears, ia irevised idraft iof ithe iguidelines iwas iprepared iand iwas
i presented iin ithe irigid ipavements icommittee imeeting iheld iin iOctober i2010, ia inumber iof
i additional isuggestions iwere imade iin ithe imeeting iof ithe imembers, ilast irevision iof ithe icode iwas
i done iin i2015.
The iguidelines icover ithe idesign iof iplain ijointed icement iconcrete ipavements iwith iand
i without itied iconcrete ishoulders. iThe iguidelines iare iapplicable ito iroads ihaving ian iaverage idaily
i commercial itraffic ivolume iof imore ithan i450 i(vehicles iwith iladen iweight iexceeding i3 itonnes).
i IRC iSP:62 imay ibe ireferred ifor ithe idesign iof ilow ivolume iRural iroads.
iiii The ipresent iversion iof iIRC:58 iaims iat irationalizing ithe idesign iprocedure iby ibringing iit,
i as ifar ias ipossible iat ipar iwith icurrent itrends iin ide isign, ias iwell ias iby iincluding ithe ispectrum iof
i axle iloads ias iper ipresent iday ivehicle ifleet, iconsidering icumulative ifatigue idamage idue ito ithe
14
i combined ieffect iof iloads iand ipavement itemperature ivariations. iThe iguidelines ialso iinclude
procedure ifor idesign iof ipavements iwith iwidened iouter ilane, itied iconcrete ishoulder, ipavements
i
i bonded ito icemented isubbase, idesign iof ilongitudinal ijoints, iexpansion iand icontraction ijoints.
The isalient ifeatures iof ithe icurrent iguidelines iare:
1. iDesign iof ipavements iconsidering ithe icombined iflexural istress iunder ithe isimultaneous iaction
i of iload iand itemperature igradient ifor idifferent icategories iof iaxle.
2. iDesign ifor iBottom-Up ifatigue icracking icaused iby isingle iand itandem iaxle iload irepetitions.
3. iDesign ifor iTop-Down ifatigue icracking icaused iby isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxle iload
i applications.
4. iConsideration iof iin-built ipermanent icurl iin ithe ianalysis iof iflexural istresses.
5. iDesign iguidelines ifor ipavement iwithout iconcrete ishoulders iand iwith itied iconcreteishoulders.
6. iConsideration iof iConcrete islabs iwith iunbounded ias iwell ias ibounded icement iboundisubbase.
7. iDesign iof ipavements iwith iwidened iouter ilanes.
Ameri iet. ial i(2012) ihave iused ifinite ielement imethod ito ianalyse iand idesign ipavements.
i Finite ielement imethod iis iable ito ianalyse istability, itime idependent iproblems iand iproblems iwith
i material inonlinearity. iIn ithis ipaper, ia igreat inumber iof ithe iprevalent ipavements ihave ibeen
i analyzed iby imeans iof itwo itechniques: iFinite ielement imethod iand itheory iof imultilayer isystem.
16
i Eventually, ifrom istatistical iviewpoint, ithe iresults iof ianalysis ion ithese itwo itechniques ihave
i been icompared iby isignificance iparameter iand icorrelation icoefficient. iThe iresults iof ithis istudy
i indicate ithat iresults iof ianalysis ion ifinite ielements iare imost iappropriately icompiled iwith iresults
i came ifrom itheory iof imultilayer isystem iand ithere iis ino isignificant idifference iamong ithe imean
i values iin iboth itechniques.
Jain iet. ial i(2013) idiscuss iabout ithe idesign imethods ithat itraditionally ibeing ifollowed
i and iexamine ithe i“Design iof irigid iand iflexible ipavements iby ivarious imethods iand itheir icost
i analysis iby ieach imethod”. iFlexible ipavements iare ipreferred iover icement iconcrete iroads ias ithey
i have ia igreat iadvantage ithat ithese ican ibe istrengthened iand iimproved iin istages iwith ithe igrowth
i of itraffic iand ialso itheir isurfaces ican ibe imilled iand irecycled ifor irehabilitation. iThe iflexible
i pavement iis iless iexpansive ialso iwith iregard ito iinitial iinvestment iand imaintenance. iAlthough
i rigid ipavement iis iexpansive ibut iless imaintenance iand ihave igood idesign iperiod. iIt iis iobserved
i that iflexible ipavements iare imore ieconomical ifor ilesser ivolume iof itraffic. iThe ilife iof iflexible
i pavement iis inear iabout i15 iyears iwhose iinitial icost iis iless ineeds ia iperiodic imaintenance iafter ia
i certain iperiod iand imaintenance icosts ivery ihigh. iThe ilife iof irigid ipavement iis imuch imore ithan
i the iflexible ipavement iof iabout i40 iyears, iapproximately i2.5 itimes ilife iof iflexible ipavement
i whose iinitial icost iis imuch imore ithan iflexible ipavement ibut imaintenance icost iis ivery iless.
Dilip iet.al i(2013) idiscuss ithe iuncertainty iin imaterial iproperties iand itraffic
i characterization iin ithe idesign iof iflexible ipavements. iThis ihas iled ito isignificant iefforts iin irecent
i years ito iincorporate ireliability imethods iand iprobabilistic idesign iprocedures ifor ithe idesign,
i rehabilitation, iand imaintenance iof ipavements. iThis istudy icarries iout ithe ireliability ianalysis ifor
i a iflexible ipavement isection ibased ion ithe ifirst-order ireliability imethod iand isecond-order
i reliability imethod itechniques iand ithe icrude iMonte iCarlo iSimulation. iThe istudy ialso iadvocates
i the iuse iof inarrow ibounds ito ithe iprobability iof ifailure, iwhich iprovides ia ibetter iestimate iof ithe
i probability iof ifailure, ias ivalidated ifrom ithe iresults iobtained ifrom iMonte iCarlo iSimulation.
Maharaj iand iGill i(2014) iperformed iaxisymmetric ifinite ielement ianalysis iby ivarying
i different iparameters ito idevelop idesign icharts. iThe iparameters ivaried iare ithickness iof ipavement,
i pressure iand ielastic imodulus iof isubgrade. iThe ipavement iand ibase icourse ihas ibeen iidealized ias ilinear
i elastic imaterial iwhile ithe isubgrade ihas ibeen iidealized ias inonlinear imaterial iby iDrucker-Prager iyield
i criterion. iThe ipavement, ibase icourse iand isoil ihave ibeen idiscretized iby ifour inoded iisoparametric ifinite
i elements. iFour itypes iof idesign icharts ihave ibeen ideveloped. iEach iof ithe idesign icharts ihas ithree
i parameters. iFor itwo iknown iparameters, ithe ithird iparameters ican ibe iobtained.
17
2.2.2 iLiterature iReview iof iRigid iPavements
Chou i(1983) ianalyzed istress iconditions iin iconcrete ipavements iusing ithe ifinite ielement
i method ifor islabs ion ielastic isubgrades. iThe istudy iconsisted iof ithe ifollowing iparts: i(1) iThe ieffect
i of ithe iefficiency iof iload itransfer iacross ithe ijoints; i(2) ithe iloading ipositions ithat iproduce ithe
i most icritical istress iand ideflection iconditions iin ithe ipavement; i(3) ithe ieffect iof itemperature
i warping iand igaps iunder ithe ipavement; i(4) ithe inonlinear ieffect idue ito ithe ipartial icontact
i between ithe islabs iand ithe isupporting isubgrade; i(5) ithe istress iconditions iin ithe icontinuously
i reinforced iconcrete ipavements.
Krauthammer iand iWestern i(1988) ifocus ion ithe irelationship ibetween ishear itransfer
i capabilities iacross ipavement ijoints iand ithe ieffects ion ithe ibehavior iof ithe ipavement. iThe
i approach iof ithe ipresent istudy iis ito idevelop ia inumerical imodel ithat icould iaccurately irepresent
i the imechanism ifor ishear itransfer iacross ireinforced iconcrete ipavement ijoints iand iimplement iit
i in ian iexisting ifinite ielement icode. iThe itool iis ithen iused ifor ithe ianalysis iof ivarious ipavements
i for iwhich iexperimental idata iare iavailable; ithe imodel iis ifurther irefined iuntil ithe inumerical
i results iare iin igood iagreement iwith ithe iexperimental iinformation.
Hadi iand iArfiadi i(2001) istates ithat ithe idesign iof irigid ipavements iinvolves iassuming ia
i pavement istructure ithen iusing ia inumber iof itables iand ifigures ito icalculate ithe itwo igoverning
i design icriteria, ithe iflexural ifatigue iof ithe iconcrete ibase iand ithe ierosion iof ithe isub-grade/sub-
base. iEach iof ithese itwo icriteria ineeds ito ibe iless ithan i100%. iThe idesigner ineeds ito iensure ithat
i both icriteria iare inear i100% iso ithat isafe iand ieconomical idesigns iare iachieved. iThis ipaper
i presents ia iformulation ifor ithe iproblem iof ioptimum irigid iroad ipavement idesign iby idefining ithe
i objective ifunction, iwhich iis ithe itotal icost iof ipavement imaterials, iand iall ithe iconstraints ithat
i influence ithe idesign. iA igenetic ialgorithm iis iused ito ifind ithe ioptimum idesign. iThe iresults
i obtained ifrom ithe igenetic ialgorithm iare icompared iwith iresults iobtained ifrom ia iNewton-
Raphson ibased ioptimization isolver.
Darestani iet. ial i(2006) istates ithat ia inumber iof iinput iparameters iare ineeded ito icalculate
i the irequired iconcrete ibase ithickness ibased ion ithe icumulative idamage iprocess idue ito ifatigue iof
i concrete iand ierosion iof isubbase ior isubgrade imaterials. iThis ipaper iviews ithe idesign iguide,
i introduces ia idesign isoftware ispecially ideveloped ito istudy ithe iguide iand ihighlights isome
i important ipoints. iResults iof ithe icurrent istudy ishow ithe icomplex iinterdependence iof ithe imany
i parameters.
Long and Shatnawi (2011) address the structural performance of experimental rigid
pavements constructed in California. The experimental project consists of seven Portland
Cement concrete pavement sections with various layer structures. Falling weight deflectometer
18
was utilized to conduct deflection testing for back calculation of layer moduli and subgrade
reaction moduli, evaluation of joint load transfer capacity, and detection of voids under the
slabs. In addition, pavement distress condition was also evaluated as it relates to the integrity
of pavement structure. The major findings in this study indicate that thick slab and lean concrete
base lower the pavement deflection response and prevent the formation of voids under the slab
corners, but lean concrete base has no significant effect on subgrade reaction moduli values.
Cojocaru et.al (2013) present the results of the research undertaken by them in the
frame of the postdoctoral program DPOSTDOC. After a short introduction on the actual status
of structural design of airport pavements, the modeling and the structural design of airport rigid
pavements, constructed with conventional and various recycled materials, using the finite
element method, is described. The main objective of this research program was to elaborate a
design method which, beside the complex landing gear including six footprint tires, all specific
parameters related with the recycled materials and with conventional and reinforce roll
compacted concrete technologies are included. Finally, practical design diagrams for structural
design of the concrete slabs, including their specific correlation function, used for the
construction of the Airbus-A380 runway are presented.
19
i estimated iby istudying iand ianalyzing ithe ifollowing idata:
1. iThe ipast itrends iof itraffic igrowth
2. iDemand ielasticity iof itraffic iwith irespect ito imacro-economic iparameters i(likeiGDP ior iSDP) i i i
i i i i i i i i and iexpected idemand idue ito ispecific idevelopments iand iland iuse ichanges ilikely ito itake
i place iduring idesign ilife.
If ithe idata ifor ithe iannual igrowth irate iof icumulative ivehicles iis inot iavailable ior iif iit iis
i less ithan i5 ipercent, ia igrowth irate iof i5 ipercent ishould ibe iused.
2.3.2 iDesign iLife
The idesign iis idefined iin iterms iof ithe icumulative inumber iof istandard iaxles iin imsa ithat
i can ibe icarried ibefore ia imajor istrengthening, irehabilitation ior icapacity iaugmentation iof ithe
i pavement iis inecessary.
It iis irecommended ithat ipavement ifor iNational iHighways iand iState iHighways ishould ibe
i designed ifor ia iminimum ilife iof i15 iyears. iExpressways iand iUrban iRoads imay ibe idesigned ifor ia
i longer ilife iof i20 iyears ior ihigher iusing iinnovative idesign iadopting ihigh ifatigue ibituminous
i mixes. iIn ithe ilight iexperience iin iIndia iand iabroad ihigh ivolume iroads iwith idesign itraffic ithan
i 200 imsa iand iperpetual ipavement ican ialso ibe idesigned iusing ithe iprinciples istated iin iguidelines.
i For iother icategories, ia idesign ilife iof i10-15 iyears imay ibe iadopted. i i i i
If istage iconstruction iis iadopted, ithickness iof igranular ilayer ishould ibe iprovided ifor ithe
full idesign iperiod. iIn ithe icase iof icemented ibases iand isub-bases, istage iconstruction imay ilead
i
i failure ibecause iof ihigh iflexural istresses iin icemented ilayer iand itherefore, inot irecommended.
2.3.3 iVehicle iDamage iFactor
The iguidelines iuse iVehicle iDamage iFactor i(VDF) iin iestimation iof icumulative imsa ifor
i thicker idesign iof ipavement.
The ivehicle idamage ifactor iis ia imultiplier ito iconvert ithe inumber iof icommercial ivehicles
i of idifferent iaxle iloads iand iaxle iconfiguration iinto ithe inumber iof irepetitions iof ia istandard iaxle
i load iof imagnitude i80 iKN. iIt iis idefined ias iequivalent inumber iof istandard iaxles iper icommercial
i vehicle. iThe iVDF ivaries iwith ithe ivehicle iaxle iconfiguration iand iaxle iloading.
It ishould ibe iused ifor iconverting idifferent iaxle iload irepetitions iinto iequivalent istandard
i load irepetitions. iSince ithe iVDF ivalues iin iAASTHO iRoad itest ifor iflexible iand irigid ipavements
i are inot imuch idifferent, ifor iheavy iduty ipavements, ithe icomputed iVDF ivalues iare iassumed ito ibe
i same ifor ibituminous iwith icemented iand igranular ibases. iThe ifollowing iequation i2.1, i2.2, i2.3
i and i2.4 iare igiven ibelow. i i.
20
Single iaxle iwith isingle iwheel ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……..2.1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI iiiiii 604
……… 2.2
Single iaxle iwith idual iwheel ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i
Tandem iaxle iwith idual iwheels ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
. . . . ….…2.3
i i i i
Tridem iaxle iwith idual iwheels ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 ii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiii
……….. 2.4 …ii i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i i i i 2244
21
2.3.4 iDistribution iof iCommercialiTraffic iover ithe iCarriageway
Distribution iof icommercial itraffic iin ieach idirection iand iin ieach ilane iis irequired ifor
i determining ithe itotal iequivalent istandard iaxle iload iapplication ito ibe iconsidered iin ithe idesign.
i In ithe iabsence iof iadequate iand iconclusive idata, ithe ifollowing idistribution imay ibe iassumed
until imore ireliable idata ion iplacement iof icommercial ivehicles ion ithe icarriageway ilanes iare
i
available:
i
The idesign iof idual itwo ilane icarriageway ishould ibe ibased ion i75% iof itotal inumbers iof
i commercial ivehicle iin ieach idirection. iFoe idual ithree ilane icarriageway iand idual ifour ilane
i carriageway, ithe idistribution ifactor iwill ibe i60% iand i45% irespectively.
Where ithere iis ino isignificant idifference ibetween itraffic iin ieach iof ithe itwo idirections
i design itraffic ifor ieach idirection imay ibe itaken ias ihalf iof ithe isome iof itraffic iin iboth idirections.
i Where isignificant idifference ibetween ithe itwo istreams iexist, ipavement ithickness iin ieach
i direction ican ibe idifferent iand idesigned iaccordingly.
For itwo-way itwo-lane iroads, ipavement ithickness ishould ibe isame ifor iboth ithe ilanes
i even iif iVDF ivalues iare idifferent iin idifferent idirections iand idesigned ifor ihigher iVDF.VDF iis ia
i critical ifactor ifor iestimation iof itotal itraffic.
22
For idivided icarriageways, ieach idirection imay ihave idifferent ithickness iof ipavement iif
i the iaxle iload ipatterns iare isignificantly idifferent.
2.3.5 iComputation iof i iDesign iTraffic
The idesign itraffic iin iterms iof icumulative inumber iof istandard iaxle ito ibe icarried iduring
i the idesign ilife iof ithe iroad iis icalculated iusing ithe ifollowing iequation
.Where, i𝑁 i= i i365 i∗ i[(1 i+ i𝑟)𝑛 i− i1] i∗ i𝐴 i∗ i𝐷 i∗ iF
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i N=Cumulative inumber iof istandard iaxles ito ibe icatered ifor iin ithe idesign iin iterms imsa
i A=Initial itraffic iin ithe iyear iof iconstruction iin iterms iof inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iper iday
i (CPVD)
i D=Lane idistribution ifactor, iF=Vehicle idamage ifactor, in i=Design ilife iin iyears
r=annual igrowth irate iof icommercial ivehicles iin idecimals i(e.g. ifor i5 ipercent iannual igrowth irate,
i r= i0.05).
ii The itraffic iin ithe iyear iof icompletion iis iestimated iusing ifollowing iformula: iA=P*(1+r)X
Where,
iiii P=Number iof icommercial ivehicle ias iper ilast icount.
iiii X=Number iof iyear ibetween ithe ilast icount iand ithe iyear iof icompletion iof iconstruction.
2.3.6 iSubgrade
2.3.6.1 iRequirements iof iCBR iof iSubgrade
The iSubgrade iis itop i500 imm iof ithe iembankment iimmediately ibelow ithe ibottom iof
i the ipavement, iand iis imade iup iof iin-situ imaterial i,select isoil i,stabilize isoil ithat iforms ithe
i foundation iof ia ipavement i.It ishould ibe iwell icompacted ito ilimit ithe iscope iof irutting iin ipavement
i due ito iadditional idensification iduring ithe iservice ilife iof ipavement. iSubgrade ishall ibe
compacted ito ia iminimum i97 ipercent iof ilaboratoryidryidensityiachieved iwith iheavy icompaction ias
i
i per iIS:2720(Part i8) ifor iExpressways, iNational iHighways, iState iHighways, iMajor iDistrict
i Roads iand iother iheavily itrafficked iroads.
The iselect isoil iforming ithe isubgrade ishould ihave ia iminimum iCBR iof i8 ipercent ifor
i roads ihaving itraffic iof i450 icommercial ivehicles iper iday ior ihigher.
2.3.6.2 iEffective iCBR
Where ithere iis isignificant idifference ibetween ithe iCBRs iof ithe iselect isubgrade iin
i embankment isoils, ithe idesign ishould ibe ibased ion ieffective iCBR. iThe ieffective iCBR iof ithe
i subgrade ican ibe idetermined ifrom ifigure i2.1
23
Fig. i2.1 iEffective iCBR iof iSubgrade
iiiiiiiiiiii CBR iof iCompacted iBorrow iMaterial i500 imm ithick.
In icase ithe iborrow imaterial iis iplaced iover ithe irocky ifoundation, ithe ieffective iCBR imay
ibe ilarger iwhen ithe iCBR iof ithe iborrow imaterial. iUse iof ithe iCBR iof iborrow imaterial imay ibe
i adopted ifor ipavement idesign iwith iproper isafeguards iagainst idevelopment iof ipore iwater
i pressure ibetween ithe ifoundation iand iborrow imaterial.
2.3.6.3 iDetermination iof iResilient iModulus
Resilient imodulus iis ithe imeasure iof ielastic ibehavior idetermined iby irecoverable
i deformation iin ithe ilaboratory itest. iThe imodulus iis ian iimportant iparameter iin ithe idesign iand ithe
iperformance iof ipavement. iThis ican ibe idetermined iin ithe ilaboratory iby iconducting itest ias iper
i procedure ispecified iAASHTOT307 i99(2003) i(1). iSince ithe irepetitive itri iaxial itesting ifacility iis
i not iwidely iavailable iand iis iexpensive, ithe idefault iresilient imodulus ican ibe iestimated ifrom
i generally iacceptable icorrelation:
The irelation ibetween iresilient imodulus iand ieffective iCBR i(%) iis igiven iin iequation i2.5
i and i2.6 ibelow.
MR(MPa)=10*CBRfor iCBR≤5 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i2.5
MR(MPa)=17.6*(CBR)0.64 ifor iCBR>5 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i2.6
2.3.6.4 iPoison iratio
Recommended ivalue iis i0.25.
2.3.7.2 iResilient iModulus iof iGranular iLayer iis igiven iin iequation i2.7
Mr_gsb=0.2*h0.45*Mr_subgrade i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i.2. i7
Where, ih=thickness iof igranular isub ibase iand ibase ilayer iin imm.
2.3.7.3 iPoisson’s iRatio
Poisson’s iRatio iof igranular ibases iand isub ibases iis irecommended ias i.35.
2.3.8 iBituminous iLayer
2.3.8.1 iGeneral
Bituminous ilayer iis itop imost ilayer iof ithe iflexible ipavement iand iit iis isubjected ito imost
i of ithe iwear iand itear icaused idue ito itraffic. iTherefore, ibituminous. ilayer ishould ibeiconstructed
i with ithe istronger imaterials ias icomparison ito igranular ilayers.
2.3.8.2 iResilient iModulus iof iBituminous iLayer
Resilient imodulus iof ibituminous ilayer iis igiven iin itable i2.1.
Table i2.1 iResilient iModulus iof iBituminous iLayer
Mix iType Temperature i℃
20 25 30 35 40
BC i& iDBM ifor iVG10 2300 2000 1450 1000 800
Bitumen
BC i& iDBM ifor iVG30 3500 3000 2500 1700 1250
Bitumen
BC i& iDBM ifor iVG40 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000
Bitumen
25
BC i& iDBM ifor imodified 5700 3800 2400 1650 1300
Bitumen
BM iwith iVG10 ibitumen 500 iMPa iat i35℃
BM iwith iVG30 ibitumen 700 iMPa iat i35℃
1% icementitious imaterial)
26
vii. Single iwheel iload iand ithe ityre ipressure iare ito ibe iprovided i(tyre ipressure iof i.56
i MPa ihas ibeen iused ifor icalibration iof ifatigue iequation iat isame ipressure ican ibe iused
i or istress ianalysis. iChange iof ipressure ieven iup ito i80 iMPa ihas ia ismall ieffect iupon
i stress ivalue iin ilower ilayer).
viii. Then ithe inumber iof ipoints iof ia istress icomputation iis ito ibe igiven ithrough ithe
i dropdown imenu ifor ianalysis.
ix. Then icorresponding ito idifferent ipoints ithe ivalues iof iZ idepth iin imm iand ithe
i corresponding ivalue iof iradial idistances ifrom iwheel icentre i(r) iin imm iare ito ibe igiven
i (wheel icentre ito icentre idistance iof i310 imm iis iconsidered).
x. Provide iwhether ianalysis iis ifor isingle iwheel iload ior idual iwheel iload iby iclicking
i one ior idual iwheel iload iis ithe imost icommon icase.
xi. The ioutput iof iprogram iwill iprovide istresses, istrains iand ideflections iat ithe idesired
i points. iNext icheck iif ithe icomputed istrains iare iless ithan ithe ipermissible istrain. iIf
i not ithan irun ithe iprogram iwith ia inew ithickness icombination itill ithe ipermissible
i strain ivalue iare iachieved. iepT, iepR iand iepZ iwill ibe ithe ioutputs ithat iwill iof iinterest.
xii. In imost icases ithe itensile istrain iat ithe ibottom iof ibituminous ilayer iis ihigher iin ithe
i longitudinal idirection i(epT) irather ithan iin iradial idirection i(epR). iIf itensile istrain iin
i the ibituminous ilayer iis ihigh, iincrease ithe ithickness iof ibituminous ilayer.
xiii. Vertical isubgrade istrain i(epZ) ishould ibe iless ithan ithe ipermissible ivalue ifor ithe
i design itraffic. iIf ithe ivertical isubgrade istrain iis ihigher, iincrease ithe ithickness iof isub
i base ilayer.
xiv. Stress ivalue ican ialso ibe ieasily icomputed iby ichanging idirectly ithe iinput ifile iis ito ibe
i written iin ithe iformat ias iillustrated iin ithe imanual iand ibrowse ithe iinput ifile iby
i clicking i‘Edit iExisting iFile’ ion ihome iscreen iof iIITPAVE.
27
i on iNational iHighways icarry imuch iheavier iloads ithan ithe ilegal ilimits. iData ion iaxle iload
i spectrum iof ithe icommercial ivehicles iis irequired ito iestimate ithe irepetitions iof isingle, itandem i&
i tridem iaxles iin ieach idirection iexpected iduring ithe idesign iperiod. iMinimum ipercentages iof
i commercial ivehicles ito ibe iweighed
Single iaxle i10 iKN
Tandem iaxle i20 iKN
Tridem iaxle i30 iKN
For imost iof ithe icommercial ivehicles, ithe icommunity iused ityre iinflation ipressures irange
i from iabout
0.7 iMPa ito i1.0 iMPa. iIt iis ifound ithat istresses iin iconcrete ipavements ihaving ithickness iof i200 imm
i or ihigher iare inot iaffected isignificantly iby ithe ivariation iof ityre ipressure. iA ityre ipressure iof i0.8
i MPa iis iadopted ifor idesign iin ithese iguidelines.
2.4.2 iWheel iBase iCharacteristics
Information ion itypical ispacing ibetween isuccessive iaxles iof icommercial ivehicles iis
necessary ito iidentify ithe iproportion iof iaxles ithat ishould ibe iconsidered ifor iestimating itop-down
i
i fatigue icracking icaused iby iaxle iloads iduring inight iperiod iwhen ithe islab ihas ithe itendency iof
i curling iup idue ito inegative itemperature idifferential. iData ion ithe ispacing iof ithe iaxle imay ibe
collected iduring ithe itraffic isurvey. iAs idiscussed iin isubsequent isections iof ithese iguidelines, iif
i
i the ispacing ibetween iany ipair iof iaxles iis iless ithan ispacing iof itransverse ijoint, isuch iaxle ineed ito
i be iconsidered iin ithe idesign itraffic ifor icomputing itop idown ifatigue icracking idamage. iWheel
i bases iof itrucks iof idifferent imodels igenerally irange ifrom i3.6m ito imore ithan i5.0m iwhereas ithe
i commonly iused ispacing iof itransverse ijoints iis i4.5m. iThus iaxles iwith ispacing iof imore ithan i4.5m
are inot iexpected ito icontribute ito itop idown ifatigue icracking. iHowever, iif ithe iactual ispacing iof
i
i transverse ijoints iis idifferent ifrom i4.5m, idesign itraffic ifor iestimation iof itop- idown icracking
i damage imay ibe iselected iappropriately. iThe ipercentage iof icommercial ivehicles iwith ispacing
between ithe ifront iand ithe ifirst irear iaxleiless ithanithe iproposed ispacing iof ithe itransverse ijoints iin ithe
i
28
2.4.4 Traffic iConsideration
during ithe iday ihours iare igenerally iresponsible ifor ibottom iup icracking iwhereas ithe inight itime
i
compared ito ithe isituation iwhere ithe ilane imarkings imatch iwith ilongitudinal ijoints. iTaking iinto
i
i consideration ithese iissues, iit iis irecommended i25 ipercent iof ithe itotal itwo iway icommercial
i traffic imay ibe iconsidered ias idesign itraffic ifor itwo-lane itwo-way iroads ifor ithe ianalysis iof
i bottom-up icracking. iIn ithe icase iof ifour-lane iand iother imulti-lane idivided ihighways, i25 ipercent
i of ithe itotal itraffic iin ithe idirection iof ipredominant itraffic imay ibe iconsidered ifor idesign iof
i pavement ifor ibottom-up icracking.
The idesign itraffic ifor itop-down icracking itraffic ianalysis iwill ibe ia iportion iof ithe
i design itraffic iconsidered ifor ibottom-up icracking ianalysis. iOnly ithose icommercial ivehicles iwith
29
the ispacing ibetween ithe ifront iaxle iand ithe ifirst irear iaxle iless ithan ithe ispacing iof itransverse ijoints
i
should ibe iconsidered ifor itop-down icracking ianalysis. iThis ipercentage ishould ibe iestablished
i
i from iaxle iload/traffic isurvey. iA idefault ivalue iof ififty ipercent iof ithe idesign itraffic iused ifor
i bottom- iup itraffic ianalysis imay ibe iconsidered.
1. In icase iof inew ihighway ilinks, iwhere ino itraffic icount idata iis iavailable, idata ifrom
i roads iof isimilar iclassification iand iimportance imay ibe iused ito ipredict ithe idesign
i trafficiintensity.
2. Expected inumber iof iapplications iof idifferent iaxle iload igroups iduring ithe idesign
i period ican ibe iestimated iusing ithe idetails iof icommercial itraffic ivolume iexpected irate
i of igrowth iof icommercial itraffic iand ithe iinformation iabout iaxle iload ispectrum iand
i the inumber iof isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxles iobtained ifrom iaxle iload isurvey. iSince
ifront iaxles i(steering iaxle) iwith isingle iwheels ion ieither iside icause ionly inegligible
i bottom-up ifatigue idamage, iit iis ionly ithe irear iaxles ithat imay ibe iincluded iin ithe iaxle
i load ispectrum.
3. The icumulative inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iduring ithe idesign iperiod imay ibe
i estimated ifrom ithe ifollowing iexpression ias ishown iin iEquation i2.8
C i= i(365*A*((1+R)N-1))/ ir i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……..…(2.8)
Where
C i= iCumulative inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iduring ithe idesign iperiod
A i= iInitial inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iper iday iin ithe iyear iwhen ithe iroad iis iopened ito
i traffic.
r i=Annual irate iof igrowth iof icommercial itraffic ivolume i(expressed ias idecimal)
N i= iDesign iperiod iin iyears
characteristics ishould ibe iused ifor ianalysis. iIn ithe iabsence iof iany ilocal idata, ithe imaximum
i
30
temperature idifferential ivalues igiven iin iTable2.2 imay ibe iadopted ifor ipavement idesign. iThe
i
i variation iof itemperature iwith idepth iis inon-linear iduring ithe iday itime iand inearly ilinear iduring
i night ihours. iThe imaximum itemperature idifferential iduring ithe inight iis inearly ihalf iof ithe iday
i time imaximum itemperature idifferential. i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Table i2.2 iRecommended iTemperature iDifferentials ifor iConcrete iSlabs
Zones State i/ iRegion i 150 imm 200 imm 250 imm 300-400
i
i mm
1 Hilly iregion iUttarakhand, iwest 12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8
i Bengal, J&k,
i i HP, Arunachal
i
i Pradesh
2 Punjab, iUP, iUttaranchal, iGujrat, 12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8
i Rajasthan, iHaryana, inorth iMP,
i excluding ihilly iregions
3 Bihar, iJharkhand, iwest iBengal 15.6 16.4 16.6 16.8
i aasam, ieastern iodisha, iexcluding
i hilly iregions iand icoastal iareas.
4 Maharastra, iKarnataka, isouth iMP, 17.3 19 20.3 21
i chattisgarh, iandhra ipradesh
5 Kerala, isouth itamilnadu, iexcluding 15 16.4 17.6 18.1
i hilly iregions iand icoastal iareas i
6 Coastal iareas ibounded iby ihills 14.6 15.8 16.2 17.0
7 Coastal iareas iunbounded iby ihills 15.5 17 19 19.2
Note: iThe iabove itemperature idata iwas irecommended iby iCentral iRoad iResearch iInstitute, iNew
iDelhi. iThe idata ifor icold ihilly iregions iof iJammu i& iKashmir, iHimachal iPradesh, iWest iBengal,
iUttarakhand iand iArunachal iPradesh iare isuggested iin iRow-1 iin iabsence iof iavailable irecords.
2.4.6 iEmbankment iSoil iand iCharacteristics iof iSubgrade iand iSubbase iEmbankment
2.4.6.1 iCBR iof iembankment isoil iplaced ibelow ithe i500mm iselect isubgrade ishould ibe
idetermined ifor iestimating ithe ieffective iCBR iof isubgrade iand iits i‘k’ ivalue ifor idesign.
2.4.6.2 iThe inature iof iembankment ifoundation istrata isuch ias iexpansive isoil, imarine iclays, isoft
iclays, iblack icotton isoil, ietc. ineeds ito ibe istudied ito itake ispecial imeasures ilike iconsolidation iof
ithe istrata iby iaccelerated i pore ipressure idissipation, iremoval iof iexpansive iblack icotton isoil istrata
iand ireplacement iby inon-expansive isoil, iuse iof igeo isynthetics ito iarrest itension icracks ior isoil
istabilization ietc. iSoil iswell ican ibe icontrolled iby isurcharge iloads, iby iplacing ithe iswelling isoils
31
iin ilower ipart iof ithe iembankment. iSelective igrading iand isoil imixing iis ialso ihelpful. iIn ideep icut
isections, iconstruction iremoves isurcharge iloads iand iallows isoil ito iswell. i It iis itherefore
iadvisable ito iexcavate ideep icuts iin iadvance iof iother igrading iwork ito iallow iexpansion ito ioccur
iand istabilize. iExpansive isoil ishould ibe icompacted iat i1-3% iabove iOptimum iMoisture iContent
i(OMC) ias idetermined iby iStandard iProctor. iUse iof ithe iOMC ifrom ithe iModified iProctor iwill
ileave ithe isoil itoo idry iand imore iprone ito ifuture iexpansion. iThe isoil ishould inot ibe iallowed ito idry
iout iexcessively ibefore iGSB iand iother ilayers iare ilaid. iIf inon-expansive isoils iare inot
Subgrade
2.4.6.3 iThe isubgrade iis iusually iconsidered ias ia iWinkler ifoundation, ialso iknown ias idense iliquid
ifoundation. i In iWinkler imodel, iit iis iassumed ithat ithe ifoundation iis imade iup iof isprings
isupporting ithe iconcrete islab. iThe istrength iof isubgrade iis iexpressed iin iterms iof imodulus iof
isubgrade ireaction, ik, iwhich iis idefined ias ithe ipressure iper iunit ideflection iof ithe ifoundation ias
idetermined iby iplate iload itests. iThe ik-value iis idetermined ifrom ithe ipressure isustained iat ia
ideflection iof i1.25mm. iAs ik-value iis iinfluenced iby itest iplate idiameter, ithe istandard itest iis ito ibe
icarried iout iwith ia i750mm idiameter iplate. iIS i9214- i1974 i“Method iof iDetermination iof
iModulus iof iSubgrade iReaction iof iSoil iin ithe iField” imay ibe ireferred ifor i guidance iin ithe iregard.
iA ifrequency iof ione itest iper ikm iper ilane iis irecommended ifor iassessment iof ik-value. iIf ithe
ifoundation ichanges iwith irespect ito isubgrade isoil, itype iof isubbase ior inature iof ifoundation i(i.e
2.4.6.4 iThough i750mm iis istandard iplate idiameter, ismaller iplate idiameter ican ibe iused iin icase iof
ihomogenous ifoundation ifrom ipractical iconsideration iand ithe itest ivalues iobtained iwith iplates
iof ismaller idiameter imay ibe iconverted ito ithe istandard i750mm iplate iusing iEquation i(2.9).
Where,
φ i= iplate idiameter
K750 i= imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction i(MPa/m) iwith iplate idiameter iof i750 imm i
The iestimate iobtained ifrom iEquation i2 iis iregarded ias iapproximate ionly. iHowever, iin
icase iof ilayered iconstruction, ithe itests iconducted iwith ismaller iplates igive igreater iweightage ito
ithe istronger itop ilayer iand idirect iconversion ito i750 imm iplate ivalues iusing iEquation i2 iresults iin
2.4.6.5 iThe isubgrade isoil istrength iand iconsequently ithe istrength iof ithe ifoundation ias ia iwhole,
iis iaffected iby iits imoisture icontent. iSince ithe ik-value icannot ibe idetermined iin ithe ifield iat
idifferent imoisture icontents iand idensities, iCBR itests imay ibe icarried iout iat ifield imoisture
icontent iand ifield idensity iboth iin isoaked iand iun-soaked iconditions iand ithe imeasured ik-value
ifrom iplate iload itest imay ibe icorrected iin ithe iratio iof iCBR ivalues iunder isoaked iand iun-soaked
32
iconditions ito iobtain ithe ik-value icorresponding ito ithe iweakest icondition iof isubgrade. iThe iplate
iload itest iis itime-consuming iand iexpensive; itherefore, ithe idesign ik-value i is ioften iestimated
ifrom isoaked iCBR ivalue. iThe irelationship ibetween ithe iCBR iand ik-value iillustrated iin iTable i2.3
ii Table i2.3 i iRelationship ibetween ik-value iand iCBR ivalue ifor ihomogenous isoil isubgrade
The iin-situ iCBR iof ithe isubgrade isoil ican ialso ibe idetermined iquickly ifrom ithe
iDynamic iCone iPenetrometer i(60 iCone) itests iusing ithe ifollowing iequation i2.10.
Where
2.4.6.6 iThe imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction iof ithe isubgrade iof ian iin-service ipavement ior iof ia
iprepared- ifoundation ican ialso ibe idetermined iby iconducting iFalling iWeight iDeflectometer
i(FWD) itests. iThe ik- ivalue iof ithe isubgrade iback icalculated ifrom ithe iFWD itest idata iis ithe
idynamic ik-value. iThe icorresponding istatic ik-value, iwhich ishould ibe iused ifor ianalysis, ican ibe
iestimated ias i50% iof ithe idynamic ik-value iobtained ifrom ithe iFWD itest.
2.4.6.7 iIt iis iadvisable ito iprovide ifilter iand idrainage ilayers iabove ithe isubgrade ifor idrainage iof
iwater ito iprevent i(1) iexcessive isoftening iof isubgrade iand isubbase iand i(2) ierosion iof ithe
isubgrade iand isubbase iparticularly iunder iadverse imoisture icondition iand iheavy idynamic iloads.
i IRC:15, i IRC: iSP:42 iand iIRC: iSP:SO, imay ibe irefer ifor ifurther idetails. iSynthetic igee-composite
ilayer ican ialso ibe iused iat ithe iinterface iof isubgrade iand igranular isubbase ilayer ifor ifiltration iand
idrainage. i It iwill inot iallow imigration iof ifine iparticles iof isubgrade isoil ito ithe igranular idrainage
ilayer iabove.
Sub iBase
2.4.6.8 iThe imain ipurpose iof ithe isub ibase iis ito iprovide ia iuniform, istable iand ipermanent isupport
ito ithe iconcrete islab ilaid iover iit. iIt imust ihave isufficient istrength iso ithat iit iis inot isubjected ito
idisintegration iand ierosion iunder iheavy itraffic iand iadverse ienvironmental iconditions isuch ias
iexcessive imoisture, ifreezing iand ithawing. iIn ithe ilight iof ithese irequirements iSub ibase iof iDry
i Lean iConcrete i(DLC) ihaving ia i7-day iaverage icompressive istrength iof i10 iMPa idetermined ias
iper i IRC-SP:49 iis irecommended. iMinimum irecommended ithickness iof iDLC ifor imajor
33
2.4.6.9 iIn icase iof ithe iproblematic isubgrades isuch ias iclayey iand iexpansive isoils iappropriate
iprovisions ishall ibe imade ifor iblanket icourse iin iaddition ito ithe isub ibase ias iper ithe irelevant
2.4.6.10 iEffective ik-values iof idifferent icombinations iof isubgrades iand isub ibase i(untreated
igranular iand icement itreated igranular) ican ibe iestimated ifrom iTable i2.4.
For iconcrete ipavements ilaid iover ia ibituminous isub ibase, ik-value ican ibe iadopted ifrom
i IRC: iSP:76. iK- ivalue ifor idifferent icombinations iof iDLC isubbase i(with iDLC ihaving iminimum
i7-day icompressive istrength iof i10 iMPa) ithickness ilaid iover igranular iSub ibase iconsisting iof
idrainage iand ifilter ilayers ican ibe iadopted ifrom iTable i2.4. iThe icontribution iof ithe igranular iSub
ibase iplaced ibelow ithe iDLC ilayer ican ibe iignored ifor iestimating ithe ieffective imodulus iof
isubgrades ireaction iof ithe ifoundation. iThe ivalue igiven iin iTable i2.5 iare ibased ion itheoretical
ianalysis iand ian iupper ilimit iof i300MPa/m iis irecommended iconsidering ithe iloss iof isubgrades
k-value iof Effective ik i(MPa/m) iof iuntreated Effective ik i(MPa/m) iof icement itreated
subgrade granular isubbase iof ithickness i(mm) subbase iof ithickness i(mm)
28 39 44 53 76 108 141
84 92 102 119 - - -
Effective ik ifor i100 imm iDLC, i(MPa/m) 56 97 166 208 278 389*
(300)
Effective ik ifor i150 imm iDLC, i(MPa/m) 97 138 208 277 412* 300
(300)
34
2.4.7 iConcrete iStrength
2.4.7.1 iFlexure istrength iof iconcrete iis irequired ifor ithe ipurpose iof idesign iof iconcrete islab.
iFlexure istrength ican ibe iobtained iafter itesting ithe iconcrete ibreak ias iper iprocedure i given iin i IS
i516. iAlternatively, iit ican ibe iderived ifrom ithe icharacteristics icompressive istrength iof iconcrete
2.4.7.2 iUsually iconcrete idesign iis ibased ion i28 idays istrength. iIn ithe iconcrete ipavement, i90 idays
istrength ican ibe ipermitted iin iview iof ithe ifact ithat iduring iinitial iperiod iof i90 idays, ithe inumber iof
irepetitions iof iload iis ivery ismall iand ihad inegligible ieffect ion icumulative ifatigue idamage iof
iconcrete. i Increasing ithe i28 idays iflexural istrength iby ia ifactor iof i1.1 iis irecommended ito iget i90
idays istrength. i In ino icase i28 idays iflexural istrength iof ipavement iquality iconcrete ishould ibe iless
2.4.7.3 iTarget imean iflexural istrength ito ibe iachieved iwhile idesigning ithe iMix ishould ibe isuch
ithat ithere iis i95% iprobability, ithat ithe icharacteristic istrength iwould ibe iachieved iwhen ithe iMix
iis iproduced iin ithe ifield. iThe itarget imean iflexural istrength iis igiven iby ithe ifollowing iEquation
i(2.12)
where, iFcr i= iCharacteristic imean iflexural istrength iat i28 idays, iMPa
Za i= iA ifactor icorresponding ito ithe idesired iconfidence ilevel, iwhich iis i1.96 ifor i5% itolerance
ilevel ia i= istandard ideviation iof ifield itest isamples, iMPa
The iModulus iof iElasticity iand iPoisson’s iratio iof icement icovered iare iknown ito ivary
iwith iconcrete imaterials iand istrength. iThe ielastic imodulus iincreases iwith iincrease iin istrength
iand iPoisson’s iratio idecreases iwith iincrease iin ithe imodulus iof ielasticity. iWhile iit iis idesirable
ithat ithe ivalues iof ithese iparameters iare iascertained iexperimentally ifor ithe iconcrete imix iand ifor
ithe imaterials iactually ito ibe iused iin ithe iconstruction, ithis iinformation imay inot ialways ibe
iavailable iat ithe idesign istage. iA i25% ivariation iin iE iand imu ivalues iwill ihave ionly ia imarginal
ieffect ion ithe iflexural istresses iin ithe ipavement iconcrete. iFollowing ivalues iwere iadopted ifor
istress ianalysis ifor ithe iconcrete iwith i28 idays iflexural istrength iof i4.5 iMPa i(4.95 ifor i90 iday
istrength).
35
Modulus iof iElasticity iof iconcrete, iE i= i30,000 iMPa
The icoefficient iof ithermal iexpansion iof iconcrete iis idependent ito ia igreat iextent ion ithe
iroute iof iaggregates iused iin iconcrete. iHowever, ifor idesign ipurpose ia ivalue iof iα= i10×10
-6
i°C
i
Due ito irepeated iapplication iof iflexural istress iby itraffic iloads, iprogressive ifatigue
idamage itakes iplace iin ithe icement iconcrete islab iin ithe iform iof igradual idevelopment iof imicro-
cracks iespecially iwhen iratio ibetween ithe iapplied iflexural istress iand ithe iflexural istrength iof
iconcrete iis ihigh. iThis iratio iis itermed ias: iStress iRatio i(SR). i If ithe iSR iless ithan i0.45, ithe i
iconcrete iis iexpected ito isustain iinfinite inumber iof irepetitions. iAs ithe iStress iratio iincreases, ithe
inumber iof iload irepetitions irequired ito icause icracking idecreases ithe irelation ibetween ifatigue
ilife i(N) iand istress iratio iis igiven iin iEquation i(2.13) iand i(2.14);
In-service icement iconcrete ipavements iare isubjected ito istresses idue ito ia ivariety iof
ifactors iacting isimultaneously. iThe iseverest icombination iof idifferent ifactors ithat iinduce ithe
imaximum istress iin ithe ipavement iwill igive ithe icritical istress icondition.
The iflexural istress idue ito ithe icombined iaction iof itraffic itoads iand itemperature
idifferential ibetween ithe itop iand ibottom ifibers iof ithe iconcrete islab iis iconsidered ifor idesign iof
ipavement ithickness. iThe ieffect iof imoisture ichange iis iopposite ito ithat iof itemperature ichange
iand iis inot inormally iconsidered icritical ito ithickness idesign. iThe iflexural istress iat ithe ibottom
ilayer iof ithe iconcrete islab iis ithe imaximum iduring ithe iday ihours iwhen ithe iaxle iloads iact imidway
ion ithe ipavement islab iwhile ithere iis ia ipositive itemperature igradient ias iillustrated iin iFig i2.2 iand
i2.3. iThis icondition iis ilikely ito iproduce ibottom-up icracking i(BUC).
Fig i2.2 iAxle iload iplaced iin ithe imiddle iof islab iduring imid-day
36
i Location iof iMaximum iTensile iStresses iat ibottom iof islab iwithout itied iconcrete ishoulders
Fig i2.3 i iPlacement iof iAxles ifor iMaximum iEdge iFlexural istress iat iBottom iof ithe iSlab
iwithout iTied iConcrete iShoulders
2.4.8.2 iLocations iof ipoints iof imaximum iflexural istress iat ithe ibottom iof ithe ipavement i1 islab
iwithout itied iconcrete ishoulder ifor isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxles iare ishown iin iFig i2.3. iThe
itire iimprints iare itangential ito ithe ilongitudinal iedge. iFor itied iconcrete ishoulders ialso, ithe
imaximum istress ioccurs iat ithe isame ilocations. iSingle iaxles icause ihighest istress ifollowed iby
itandem iand itridem iaxles irespectively. iSpacing ibetween iindividual iaxles ifor itandem iand itridem
iaxles ivaries ifrom i1.30 im ito iabout i1.40 im. iThere iis ipractically ino idifference iin istresses ifor iaxle
ispacing ibetween i1.30 im iand i1.40 im. iA iSpacing iof i1.30 im ihas ibeen iused iin ithese iguidelines ifor
istress icomputation.
2.4.8.3 iDuring ithe inight ihours, ithe itop isurface iis icooler ithan ithe ibottom isurface iand ithe iends iof
ithe islab icurl iup iresulting iin iloss iof isupport ifor ithe islab ias ishown iin iFig i2.4. iDue ito ithe irestraint
iprovided iby ithe iself-weight iof iconcrete iand iby ithe idowel iconnections, itemperature itensile
istresses iare icaused iat ithe itop. iFig i2.4. ishows ithe iplacement iof iaxle iloads iclose ito itransverse
iJoints iwhen ithere iis inegative itemperature igradient iduring inight iperiod icausing ihigh iflexural
istresses iin ithe itop ilayer ileading ito itop-down icracking. iPositioning iof iaxles iof idifferent
iconfigurations ion ithe islab iwith isuccessive iaxles iplaced iclose ito ithe itransverse ijoints iis ishown
iin iFig i2.5. iThese iaxle ipositions ican iinitiate itop-down icracking i(TDC) iduring ithe inight ihours
iwhen ithe iPavement ihas ithe itendency ito icurl iup. iBuilt-in ipermanent icurl iinduced iduring ithe
37
Fig i2.4 i iPlacement iof iAxles iof ia iCommercial ivehicle ion ia iSlab icurled iDuring iNight iHour
Fig i2.5 i iDifferent iAxle iLoad iPosition iCausing iTensile iStresses iat ithe iTop i iFiber iof ithe i
iSlab i iwith iTied iConcrete iShoulder
2.4.9.1 iSince ithe iloads icausing ifailure iof ipavements iare imostly iapplied iby isingle, itandem,
itridem iand iother imultiple iaxles, istresses ishould ibe idetermined ifor ithe iconditions iillustrated iin
iFigures iThe i IITRIGID isoftware iused ifor ithe ipreparation iof ithe iprevious iversion iof i1RC:58 ifor
ithe icomputation iof iflexural istress iin ithe iedge iregion i17 idue ito isingle iand itandem iaxle iloads iwas
ibased ion iPicket iand iRay i(1951) i's iwork ion icomputation iof istresses iin iinfinite islabs. iThe
38
isoftware iis istill ivalid ifor icomputation iof iload istress iin ithe iedge iregion iof ipavements iwithout
itied iconcrete iShoulders iif ithere iis ino itemperature igradient iin ithe islab. iFinite iElement iMethod
appropriate ifor istress icomputation ifor ia iwide ivariety iof iload iand itemperature, igeometry iand
iboundary iconditions. iFinite ielement ianalysis ihas ibeen icarried iout iusing i IITSLAB-11, ia
isoftware ideveloped i IIT iKharagpur, ito icompute iflexural istress idue ito ithe icombined iaction iof
iload i(single, itandem iand itridem iaxles) iand idifferent itemperature idifferentials i(positive iand
inegative).
2.4.9.2 iFor ian iaxle iload iof i200kN iand izero itemperature idifferential, iit ican ibe iseen ithat iflexural
istresses idecrease iwith iincrease iin ik- ivalues ifor iall ithicknesses. iif ithere iis ia ipositive itemperature
idifferential iof i17°C, ithe iwarping istresses iare ihigh ifor ithicker islabs iand iit iresults iin ihigher
iflexural istresses iin islabs ifor ihigher ik-values iwhile iflexural istresses iare ilower ifor ihigher ik-
values ifor ithinner islabs. iFor ia ithickness iin ithe iregion iof i270mm, ithere iis ipractically ino ieffect iof
imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction ion iflexural istresses. iIncreasing ithe isubgrade imodulus ito ihigh
ivalues idoes inot ihelp iin ithickness idesign idue ito ihigh icurling istresses icaused iby ia istiff isupport.
2.4.9.3 iThe ifollowing icombinations iof ipavements iand iloading iwere iconsidered ifor ithe ianalysis
iof ibottom-up iand itop-down icracking. iFor ibottom-up icracking icase, ithe icombination iof iload
iand ipositive inon-linear itemperature idifferential ihas ibeen iconsidered iwhereas ifor itop-down
icracking ianalysis, ithe icombination iof iload; iand inegative ilinear itemperature idifferential ihas
ibeen itaken. iFor ibottom-up icracking ianalysis, isingle/tandem iaxles ihave ibeen iplaced ion ithe islab
iin ithe ipositions iindicated. i In ibottom-up icracking icase, isingle iaxle iload icauses ithe ilargest iedge
istress ifollowed iby itandem iand itridem iaxles. iSince ithe istresses idue ito itridem iaxles iare ismall,
ithey iwere inot iconsidered ifor istress ianalysis ifor ibottom-up icracking icase. iAs iindicated, ionly
ione iaxle iof isingle/tandem/tridem iaxle iunits ihas ibeen iconsidered ifor ianalysis iin icombination
iwith ifront iaxle. iFront iaxle iweight ihas ibeen iassumed ito ibe i50 ipercent iof ithe iweight iof ione iaxle
2.4.10.1 iThe ifollowing isteps imay ibe ifollowed ifor idesign. iExamples iof idesign iof idifferent
icategories iof iconcrete ipavements iusing ithe icurrent iguidelines iare igiven iin iAppendix.
Step i3: iCompute ithe irepetitions iof iaxle iloads iof idifferent imagnitudes iand idifferent icategories
iduring ithe idesign ilife.
39
step i4: iFind ithe iproportions iof iaxle iload irepetitions ioperating iduring ithe iday iand inight iperiods.
Step i5: iEstimate ithe iaxle iload irepetitions iin ithe ispecified isix-hour-period iduring ithe iday itime.
iThe imaximum itemperature idifferential iis iassumed ito iremain iconstant iduring ithe i6 ihours ifor
Step i6: iEstimate ithe iaxle iload irepetitions iin ithe ispecified isix-hour iperiod iduring ithe inight ithe
imaximum inegative itemperature idifferential iduring inight iis itaken ias ihalf iof iday-time imaximum
itemperature idifferential. iBuilt iin inegative itemperature idifferential iof i50"C ideveloped iduring
ithe isetting iof ithe iconcrete iis ito ibe iadded ito ithe itemperature idifferential ifor ithe ianalysis iof itop-
idown icracking. iOnly ithose ivehicles iwith ispacing ibetween ithe ifront i(steering) iaxle iand ithe
itransverse ijoint ispacing ineed ito ibe iconsidered ifor itop-down icracking ianalysis.
Step7: iCompute ithe iflexural istresses iat ithe iedge idue ito ithe isingle iand itandem iaxle iloads ifor ithe
icombined ieffect iof iaxle iloads iand ipositive itemperature idifferential iduring ithe iday itime.
idetermine ithe istress iratio i(Flexural istress/ iModulus iof iRupture) iand ievaluate ithe icumulative
ifatigue idamage i(CFD) itor isingle iand itandem iaxle iloads. iSum iof ithe itwo iCFDs ishould ibe iless
ithan i1.0 ifor ithe islab ito ibe isafe iagainst ibottom-up icracking.
Step i8: iCompute ithe iflexural istress iin ithe icentral iarea iof ithe ipavement islab iwith ithe ifront iaxle
inear ithe iapproaching itransverse ijoint iand ithe irear iaxle iclose ito ithe ifollowing ijoint iin ithe isame
ipanel iunder inegative itemperature idifferential. iDetermine ithe istress iratio iand ievaluate ithe iCFD
ifor idifferent iaxle iloads ifor ithe ianalysis iof itop-down icracking. iCFD ishould ibe iless ithan i1.0 ifor
2.4.10.2 iThe ientire idesign iprocess iis iprogrammed ion ian iexcel isheet iand iis iincluded iin ia iCD
ienclosed iwith ithese iguidelines. iThis iwill ienable ithe idesigner ito imake iseveral itrials
iconveniently. iThe idesign ihas ito iprovide itraffic idata isuch ias irate iof itraffic igrowth, iaxle iload
ispectrum, iproportion iof isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxles, iproportion iof itrucks iwith iwheel ibase
iless ithan itransverse ijoint ispacing i(say i4.5 im). iAll irelevant itraffic iand imaterial idata iare iinputs ito
2.4.10.3 iIt iis iworth inoting ithat iconcrete istrength iincreases iwith iage. iThe iexcel isheets iprovide
idesigns iby iconsidering i90-day istrength iof ipaving iconcrete. iAny iother istrength iincluding ithat iof
ihigh-performance iconcrete ican ibe ithe iinput. i90-day istrength ican isafely ibe iused ibecause iof ithe
ifollowing iconsiderations.
40
i) Design traffic for edge stress calculation is taken as 25 percent against only 2 to 3 percent
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
ii) Assumption of low terminal load transfer efficiency at transverse and longitudinal joints
i i i i i i i i i i i
ifor istress icalculation. iLoad iinduced iflexural istress iin ithe iearly iyears iof ipavements iwill
ionly ibe ia iFraction iof icomputed istress. iThe iconservative iassumption iof ihighest
itemperature idifferential ibeing iconstant ifor i6 ihours, iboth iduring ithe iday imid inight ihours
Conservative irecommendation iof idowel ibar idesign. iThere iis ihardly iany igap ibetween ithe
iconcrete islabs iat itransverse ijoints idue ito ithe iabsence iof iexpansion ijoints ibut ia igap iof i5mm iis
iassumed iin ithe idesign iof idowel ibar. iThe imoisture igradient iacross ithe idepth iof ithe iconcrete iis
iopposite ito ithat iof ithe itemperature. igradient iand ihence ithe icurling icaused iby itemperature
igradient iis inullified ito isome iextent iby ithe iwarping icaused iby ithe imoisture igradient.
(A). iGreat icare iis ineeded iin ithe idesign iand iconstruction iof ijoints iin icement iconcrete ipavements,
ias ithese iare icritical ilocations ihaving isignificant ieffect ion ithe ipavement iperformance. iThe ijoints
(B). iCement iConcrete iPavements ihave itransverse iand ilongitudinal ijoints. iDifferent itypes iof
itransverse ijoints iare:
1. iContraction ijoints
2. iConstruction ijoints
3. iExpansion ijoint
4. iLongitudinal ijoint
(C). iContraction ijoints iare itransverse ijoints iwhich irelieve ithe itensile istresses iin iconcrete
ipavements. iThe ijoint ispacing iof ia iconcrete ipavement idepends iupon ithe itype iof icoarse
iaggregates iand ithe iaverage itemperature ifluctuation iin idifferent iseasons. iThe ispacing iof
icontraction ijoints ishould ibe ilimited ito i4.5 im ito iprevent itop idown icracking iduring ithe inight
ihours,
41
(D). iExpansion ijoints iare itransverse ijoints ito iallow iexpansion iof iconcrete islab idue ito irise iin
iaverage itemperature iin isummer imonths. iThese ijoints iare idifficult ito imaintain iand ithey i get
other iincompressible imaterials icausing ilocking iof ithe ijoints iand ipreventing iexpansion iof
iconcrete islabs. iThey iare, itherefore, ino ilonger iin iuse iexcept inear ipermanent istructure ilike
(E). iConstruction ijoints ishould, ias ifar ias ipossible, ibe iplaced iat ithe ilocation iof icontraction ijoints
iexcept iin icase iof iemergency iwhen ia ikey ijoint imay ibe iused.
i(F). ilongitudinal ijoints iare irequired iin ipavements iof iwidth igreater ithan i4.5 im ito iallow ifor
itransverse icontraction iand iwarping,
(A). iLoad itransfer ito irelieve ipart iof ithe iload istresses iin iedge iand icorner iregions iof ipavement
islab iat itransverse ijoints iis iprovided iby imeans iof imild isteel iround idowel ibars. i In icoastal iand
ihigh iRainfall iareas icoated/corrosion iresistant idowel ibars iare ioften iused ito iprovide ilong iterm
iload itransfer. iThe icoating imay ibe izinc ior ilead ibased ipaint ior iepoxy icoating. iDowel ibars ienable
iriding iquality ito ibe imaintained iby ipreventing ifaulting iat ithe ijoints. iFor igeneral iprovisions iin
irespect iof idowel ibars, istipulations ilaid idown iin iIRC: i15 imay ibe ifollowed. iMore idowel ibars
imay ibe iprovided iunder ithe iwheel ipath iof iheavy i commercial ivehicles iin ithe ilight iof ipast
iexperience. iDesigner imay iuse ihis/her idiscretion iafter ia istudy iof ithe itraffic ipattern.
(B). iFrom ithe iexperience igained iall iover ithe iworld, iit iis ifound ithat iit iis ionly ithe ibearing istress
iin ithe iconcrete ithat iis iresponsible ifor ithe iperformance iof idowel ibars iat ithe ijoints. iHigh iconcrete
ibearing istress ican ifracture ithe iconcrete isurrounding ithe idowel ibars, ileading i to ithe ilooseness iof
ithe idowel ibar iand ithe ideterioration iof ithe iload itransfer isystem iwith ieventual ifaulting iof ithe
islab. iLarger idiameter idowel ibars iare ifound ito iprovide ibetter iperformance. iMaximum ibearing
istress i(Fb max) ibetween ithe iconcrete iand idowel ibar iis iobtained ifrom iEquation i(2.15).
i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
β= irelative istiffness iof ithe ibar iembedded iin iconcrete, iin imm; i i
z= ijoint iwidth i(5 imm ifor icontraction ijoint iand i20 imm ifor iexpansion ijoint), iin imm
42
P1 i= iload itransferred iby idesign idowel ibar, ikN
(C). iThe imodulus iof idowel isupport iranges ifrom i80,000 ito i415,000MPa/m. iA itypical ivalue
i415000MPa imay ibe iadopted ifor idesign isince ionly ithe ifourth iroot iof ithe ik-value iaffects ithe
Each idowel ibars ishould ibe idesigned ifor ithe imaximum iload ibeing itransferred iby iit ifor ithe
iallowable ibearing ipressure. iEquation i(2.15), ibased ion ithe iexpression igiven iby ithe iAmerican
i Institute i(ACI) iCommittee-225 imay ihe iused ifor icalculation ithe iallowable ibearing istress ion
iconcrete.
Where,
(D). iSince ithe iinitial iload itransfer iefficiency i(LTE) iat ithe itransverse ijoint iis ialmost i100 ipercent
iand iit itakes ia ilong itime ifor ithe i LTE ito idecrease iwith itraffic irepetitions, i90 idays icompressive
istrength ican isafely ibe iused ifor ithe icomputation iof iallowable iBearing istress.
(E). iFor iheavy itraffic, igreater ithan i450 iCVPD, idowels iare ito ibe iprovided iat ithe icontraction
ijoints isince iaggregate iinter-lock icannot ibe irelied iupon ito ieffect iload itransfer iacross ithe ijoint ito
iprevent ifaulting idue ito ithe irepeated iloading iof iheavy iaxles. iJoint iwidths iof i5 imm iand i20 imm
imay ibe itaken ifor istress icomputation iin idowel ibar iat icontraction iand iexpansion ijoint
irespectively. iRecommended idiameter iand ilength iof idowel ibars iare igiven iin iTable i2.6
43
(F). iDowel iGroup iAction
When iloads iare iapplied iat ia ijoint, ia iportion iof ithe iload iis itransferred ito ithe iother iside
iof ithe islab ithrough ithe idowel ibars. iIf ithe iload iis inear ithe ijoint iof ia ipavement islab itied ito ia
iconcrete ishoulder, ia ipart iof ithe iload iis itransferred ito ithe ishoulder ialso. i
Repeated iloading icauses isome ilooseness ibetween ithe idowel ibars iand ithe iconcrete
i slab iand irecent istudies iindicate ithat ithe idowel ibars iwithin ia idistance iof ione iAssuming ia ilinear
i variation iof ithe iload icarried iby idifferent idowel ibars iwithin i1.0, ithe imaximum iload icarried iby ia
i dowel ibar ican ibe icomputed.
The ilongitudinal ijoint iis iexpected ito iopen iup i(in iany icase iof iheavy itraffic, iexpansive,
isubgrades) iand itie ibars imay ibe iprovided iin iaccordance iwith ithe itraffic, iexpansive
irecommendation iof i IRC: i15. iFor ithe isake iof iconvenience iof ithe idesigner idesign iprocedure
(A). iThe iarea iof isteel irequired iper imeter ilength iof ijoint imay ibe icomputed iusing iEquation
i(2.16).
In iwhich,
As = ibfw i/Sst
ii …………. i2.16
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i
As i= iarea iof isteel iin imm2, irequired iper im ilength iof ijoint i
f=coefficient iof ifriction ibetween ipavement iand ithe isub ibase/base i(usually itaken ias i1.5) i
(B). iThe ilength iof iany itie ibar ishould ibe iat ileast itwice ithat irequired ito idevelop ia ibond istrength
iequal ito ithe iworking istress iof ithe isteel. iThe iformula ifor iestimating ithe ilength iof itie ibar iis igiven
In iwhich:
iiii
44
Acs=Cross isectional iof ione itie ibar, iin imm2
(C). iTo ipermit iwarping iat ithe ijoint, ithe imaximum idiameter iof itie ibars imay ibe ilimited ito i16 imm,
iand ito iavoid iconcentration iof itensile istress ithey ishould inot ibe ispaced imore ithan i750 imm iapart.
iThe icalculated ilength, iL, imay ibe iincreased iby i50 ito i80 imm ito iaccount ifor iany iinaccuracy ithat
(D). iReinforced iCement iConcrete ineeds ito ibe iprovided iin ipavement ipanels iin icurved iPortions
iof iradius iless ithan i45 im iand iat iunderpasses, ion isteep igradients, iand ifor islabs ihaving iman-hole
icover islab ihaving iL/B i(length ito ibreadth) iratio imore ithan i1.5 iand iin iother isimilar isituations.
(E). iTypical itie ibar idetails ifor iuse iat icentral ilongitudinal ijoint iin idouble-lane irigid ipavements
iwith ia ilane iwidth iof i3.50 imeter igiven iin iTable i2.7 iThe isame ispecifications imay ibe iused ifor ithe
Table i2.7 i iDetails iof iTie iBars ifor iLongitudinal iJoint iof iTwo iLane iRigid iPavements
Slab Diameter Spacing iin Spacing iin Min. ilength Min. ilength
ithickness iplain ibars ideformed iin iplain iin ideformed
(mm) i
45
2.4.13 iRegression iEquations ifor iFlexural iStress iin iConcrete iSlab
Regressions iequations iare igiven iin ithis iappendix ifor iestimation iof ithe imaximum
itensile istress iin ithe islab iin ithe iedge iregion idue ito ithe icombined ieffect iof iaxle iloads iand
itemperature idifferential. iThe iequations iare igiven ifor ibottom-up iFor icracking icase iillustrated
ithrough iFigs. i2.2 iand i2.3 iand ifor itop-downcase idepicted iin iFigs. i2.4 iand i2.5. iFlexural istress ifor
ibottom-up icase ihas ibeen icomputed ifor inon-linear ipositive itemperature idifferential ioccurring iin
The istress itor itop idown icracking icase iis ifor ithe icombination iof iaxle iloads iand ilinear
inegative itemperature idifferential iin ithe islab ioccurring iduring inight itime. iFor ithe icomputation
iof istress ifor ibottom-up icracking ianalysis, ionly ithe irear iaxle iwith itwo iwheels ion ieither iside iof
ieach iaxle ihave ibeen iconsidered ias ithe ifront iaxles ido inot icontribute ito iany isignificant ifatigue
idamage. iFor itop-down, icracking. irear iaxle iis iconsidered iat ione iend iand ithe ifront iaxle iat ithe
iother iend. iOnly ione iaxle iof ithe itandem iand itridem iaxles iis iassumed ito ibe iplaced ion ithe islab
iunder iconsideration. iThus, ifor ia itandem iaxle, i50 ipercent iof ithe itandem iaxle iweight iis
iconsidered ifor ianalysis. iFor ia itridem iaxle i33 ipercent iof ithe itridem iaxle iweight imay ibe itaken ifor
ianalysis. iThe icorresponding ifront iaxle iis itaken ias i50 ipercent iof ithe irear iaxle iaxle, i(25 ipercent
iof irear itandem iaxle iand ione isixth iof irear itridem iaxle).
2.4.13.1Expressions i ifor i imaximum i itensile istress iat ithe ibottom iof islab(for ibottom iup icracking
icase)
46
S i= i0.238 i+ i7.02 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i2.41 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0585 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………2.23 i i i i i i
i
2.4.13.2 iExpression iFor iMaximum iTensile iStress iAt iThe iTop iOf iThe iSlab i(For iTop-Down
iCracking iCase)
For ithe ianalysis iof itop-down icracking, ionly irear iaxle iload iis ithe iinput. iFront iaxle iload iis
assumed ito ibe i50% iof ithe irear iaxle iload i(tandem/tridem).
∆T-. iminimum itemperature idifferential iin i°C iduring iday itime ifor ibottom-up icracking isum iof
ithe imaximum inight itime inegative itemperature idifferential iand ibuilt-in inegative itemperature
47
E i=elastic imodulus iof iconcrete, iMPa
No ifatigue idamage iestimated ifor ifront i(steering) iaxles ifor ibottom-up icracking icase
For iTop-down icracking ianalysis: i- i100 ipercent iof irear isingle iaxle, i50 ipercent iof irear
itandem iaxle, iand i33 ipercent iof irear itridem iaxle. iNo ifront iaxle iweight iis irequired ito ibe igiven ias
iinput ifor itop-down icracking icase. i50 ipercent iof irear isingle iaxle, i25 ipercent iof irear itandem iaxle,
i16.5 ipercent iof irear itridem iaxle, ihas ibeen iconsidered iin ithe ifinite ielement ianalysis ias ithe ifront
iaxle iweights ifor isingle, itandem iand itridem irear iaxles irespectively.
B i= i0.66 ifor itransverse ijoint iwith idowel ibars i(load itransfer iefficiency iwas itaken ias i50 ipercent).
B= i0.90 ifor itransverse ijoint iwithout idowel ibars i(load itransfer iefficiency iwas itaken ias i10
ipercent.
48
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 GENERAL
The project design and cost estimation of a flexible and rigid pavement is done using
IRC 37:2012 and IRC 58:2015 respectively. These guidelines have been discussed in
previous chapter. The cost estimation has been done for both the cases with a view to
determine Economy of Flexible Pavement construction versus Rigid Pavement construction.
The cost estimation is carried out as per the MoRTH Standard Data Book. The rates
of materials and labour have been ascertained from the local PWD B&R Office and the D.C.
Office respectively whereas cost of machinery is taken from the data book with due inflation.
The Methodology of the project is shown in Fig 3.1 in the form of a Flow Diagram.
Topic Selection
Review of Literature
Cost Estimation
49
Conclusion
Fig.3.1 Methodology of Project
The standard design catalogues given in IRC code have been used to adopt the design
thickness values for CBR values of the subgrade 3,4,6,8 percent and for traffic of
500,2000,4000,6000, Commercial Vehicles Per Day(CVPD) in both directions for 7 meters
wide dual carriageway road assumed to be located in Kurukshetra, Haryana. Cost Estimation
is done for 7 meters width and 1 km road length in Kurukshetra, Haryana. Note that Earthen
shoulders have been considered in Rigid Pavement.
Flexible Pavement is designed using IRC 37:2012 guidelines which we have already
discussed in previous chapter.
Rigid Pavement is designed using IRC 58:2015 guidelines we have already discussed
in previous chapter.
Cost estimation for both cases of Flexible and Rigid Pavements has been done based
upon rate analysis as per standard data book of MoRTH. The rate analyses for various items of
design such as sub-grade preparation, granular sub base, wet mix macadam, dense mix
macadam, bituminous concrete, dry lean concrete (DLC) and PQC (pavement quality concrete,
grade M-40) have been done as per data book following the rates of labour, materials and
machinery as applicable for Kurukshetra, Haryana. The rates of labour have been taken from
approved rate of the D.C. Office, the rates of material have been taken from PWD B&R
Kurukshetra as per approved rates of Haryana Government and rates of machinery have taken
from standard data book assuming suitable inflation. The rates of these items as worked out in
rate analyses which are then used to estimate cost of 7.0 meters wide and 1 km long pavement.
The cost estimation is used to determine economy of flexible and rigid pavement for given
conditions of subgrade strength and traffic.
50
Items Source
51
CHAPTER-4
PAVEMENT DESIGN
4.1 GENERAL
Indian Roads Congress has specified the design procedures for flexible pavements
based on CBR values. The pavement designs given in IRC-37-2012 are based upon empirical-
mechanistic approach. The design has been done adopting conventional granular layers in sub
base and base course of the pavement for varying values of effective CBR of subgrade as 3%,
4%, 6% and 8%, and Initial Traffic values of 500, 2000, 4000 and 6000 CVPD. The design of
rigid pavement is given in IRC:58-2015 guidelines. The design of rigid pavement has been
done for the same values of CBR of subgrade and same initial traffic as for flexible pavement.
The rigid pavement has been designed with earthen shoulders.
GIVEN DATA
vi. Vehicle damage factor (based on type of Terrain and Traffic) = 4.5
DESIGN CALCULATIONS:-
Design Traffic:-
52
From this formula we get N = 35.245 msa
MR_Bituminous Layer of BC and DBM for VG 30 bitumen [taking 25ºC as the most
appropriate AAPT (annual average pavement temperature) for plains of India] =3000 MPa
An example of the design has been shown below for one of the cases i.e. CBR 3% and Initial
Traffic 2000 CVPD.
BC = 40 mm
DBM = 138.69 mm
G. BASE = 250 mm
GSB = 380 mm
53
Va = 3% , Vb= 13 %
M = 0.5929
C = 10M = 3.9165
Ɛt = 2.22* 10-4
Ɛv = 4.014*10-4
Input parameters for IIT PAVE software for the conventional case of bituminous pavements
with untreated granular layer are as follows:-
i. No. of layers - 3
v. Analysis point = 3
54
Point 1 178.69 0
Point 3 808.69 0
vii. Computation of actual horizontal tensile strain in Bituminous Layer and actual vertical
compressive strain on the top of subgrade using IIT PAVE software can be read from the result
screen as shown in Fig 4.1 :-
Here,
Comparison of Strains
The actual value of strains as calculated from IIT PAVE software should be less than
the permissible values of the strains as calculated from empirical formulas suggested by
IRC:37-2012. The comparison of these values is as shown in Table 4.1.
55
Horizontal Tensile 2.22 * 10-4 1.503 * 10-4 SAFE
Strain in Bituminous
Layer
The strains are in permissible limit, hence the pavement design is Safe.
Further, for all the cases of varying traffic and CBR values, the results of horizontal
tensile strain and vertical compressive strains have been compared in Table 4.2.
56
500 6.922 4.15 3.31 2.71 SAFE
Similarly, flexible pavement has been designed for all other values of effective CBR
of subgrade as 3%, 4%, 6% and 8% and initial traffic as 500, 2000, 4000, 6000 CVPD.
The design thickness of all the layers for the above cases is shown in Table 4.3.
57
6000 50 129.378 250 200 629.378
The thickness of different layers of the pavement changes with change in the effective CBR of
subgrade.
CBR-Thickness (BC)
60
50
Thickness (mm)
40
30
20
10
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
From fig. 4.2 it can be observed that any change in the effective CBR of the subgrade has no
effect on the thickness of the Bituminous Concrete (BC) layer.
CBR-Thickness (DBM)
180
160
140
Thickness (mm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade(%)
58
From fig. 4.3 it can be observed that the thickness of the dense bituminous macadam (DBM)
decreases with increase in the effective CBR of the subgrade.
250
Thickness (mm)
200
150
100
50
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
From fig. 4.4 it can be observed that any change in the effective CBR of the subgrade has no
effect on the thickness of granular base (G. Base) layer.
CBR-Thickness (GSB)
400
350
300
Thickness (mm)
250
200
150
100
50
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
59
From fig. 4.5 it can be observed that the thickness of granular sub-base (GSB) layer decreases
with increase in the effective CBR of the subgrade.
CBR-Total Thickness
1000
800
Thickness (mm)
600
400
200
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
From fig. 4.6 it can be observed that the total thickness of the flexible pavement decreases with
increase in the effective CBR of the subgrade.
The thickness of different layers of the flexible pavement change with change in the initial
traffic.
60
Traffic-Thickness(BC)
60
50
Thickness (mm)
40
30
20
10
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
From fig. 4.7 it can be observed that the thickness of bituminous concrete (BC) layer increases
with increase in initial traffic.
Traffic-Thickness(DBM)
200
Thickness (mm)
150
100
50
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
From fig. 4.8 it can be observed that the thickness of dense bituminous mecadam (DBM)
increases with increase in initial traffic.
61
Traffic-Thickness(G.Base)
300
250
Thickness (mm)
200
150
100
50
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
From fig. 4.9 it can be observed that any change in initial traffic has no effect on the thickness
of granular base (G. Base) layer.
Traffic-Thickness(GSB)
400
350
300
Thickness (mm)
250
200
150
100
50
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
From fig. 4.10 it can be observed that there is a slight increase in the thickness of granular sub-
base (GSB) when traffic varies from 500 CVPD to 2000 CVPD but this increase gets nullified
when the value of initial traffic exceeds 2000 CVPD.
62
Traffic-Total Thickness
900
800
700
Thickness (mm)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
From fig. 4.11 it can be observed that the total thickness of the flexible pavement increases
with increase in the initial traffic.
4.3.1 Introduction
In this study, rigid pavement for dual carriageway road consists of dowel and tie bars,
without tied concrete shoulders has been designed for varying initial traffic and subgrade
strength using IRC 58: 2015.
Details of axle load spectrum of rear single, tandem and tridem axles are given in table 4.4.
63
Table 4.4 Axle load spectrum
Number of lanes = 2
64
Lane width (m) = 3.5
Percentage contribution of different types of Axle categories are given in table 4.5.
Tandem 0.25
Tridem 0.15
% of traffic in terms of msa with spacing between font axle and first rear axle < 4.5m = 55%
4.3.3 Solution:-
65
90 day flexural strength of cement concrete 4.9 MPa
= 532,145,025 axles
Design traffic after adjusting for lateral placement of axles (25% of predominant
direction traffic for multi-lane highways) = 266,072,513*0.25 = 66,518,128 axles
Hence, design number of axle load repetitions for Bottom-up cracking analysis =
13,309,626
6-hour night time design axle load repetitions for Top-down cracking analysis
=19,955,439*0.55 = 10,975,491 (wheel base < 4.5 m)
The axle load category-wise design axle load repetitions for bottom-up and top-down
fatigue cracking analysis are given table 4.6.
Axle Category Proportion of Axle Category wise Axle Category wise axle
Category repetitions for BUC repetitions for TDC
analysis analysis
66
Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis (CFD) for BUC and TDC and Selection of Slab
Thickness
Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for bottom-up cracking due to rear single axles
is given in table 4.7.
Table 4.7 CFD analysis for BUC due to rear single axles
BUC fatigue analysis for day-time (6-hour) traffic & positive temperature differential
67
52882 1.897 0.383 Infinite 0.000
Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for bottom-up cracking due to rear tandem axles is given
in table 4.8.
Table 4.8 CFD analysis for BUC due to rear tandem axles
BUC fatigue analysis for day-time (6-hour) traffic & positive temperature differential
68
17738 1.499 0.303 Infinite 0.000
Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for top-down cracking due to rear single axles is given in
table 4.
Table 4.9 CFD analysis for TDC due to rear single axles
TDC fatigue analysis for night-time (6-hour) traffic & negative temperature
differential
69
3636 1.833 0.370 Infinite 0.000
Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for top-down cracking due to rear single axles is given in
table 4.10.
Table 4.10 CFD analysis for TDC due to rear tandem axles
TDC fatigue analysis for night-time (6-hour) traffic & negative temperature
differential
70
2743873 Fatigue Damage from rear tandem axles = 0.000
Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for top-down cracking due to rear single axles is given in
table 4.11.
Table 4.11 CFD analysis for TDC due to rear tandem axles
TDC fatigue analysis for night-time (6-hour) traffic & negative temperature
differential
Similarly, Cumulative Fatigue Damage values for different trial thickness has been carried out
and given in Table 4.12.
71
Table 4.12 Cumulative Fatigue Damage values for different trial thickness
Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Total Remarks
thickness CFD=
in metre Rear Tandem Total Rear Tandem Rear Total (BUC+
single axles CFD single axles tridem CFD TDC)
axles (BUC) axles axles (TDC)
0.300 11.056 0.331 11.387 0.016 0.046 0.001 0.063 11.450 Unsafe
0.310 5.252 0.054 5.306 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.008 5.314 Unsafe
0.320 2.359 0.000 2.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.359 Unsafe
0.330 0.936 0.000 0.936 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.936 Safe
Hence, for trial thickness 330 mm, total CFD is coming less than one as given in
Table 4.12. So, slab thickness of 330 mm is safe for the design.
Similarly, thickness of slab of a rigid pavement for different CBR of subgrade as 3%,
4%, 6% and 8% with different initial traffic as 500, 2000, 400and 6000 CVPD has been carried
out and given in table 4.13.
However, the thickness of GSB and DLC layers remain unchanged for different
subgrade strength and initial traffic. Thickness of both GSB and DLC layers are taken as 150
mm for all given CBR of subgrade and initial traffic.
Table 4.13 Slab thickness for different CBR and initial traffic
Initial Traffic
(CVPD) Thickness (mm)
72
4.3.4 Effect of CBR of subgrade on slab thickness of pavement
340
335
330
325
320 6000 CVPD
73
340
335
330
325
320 CBR 3%
315 CBR 4%
310 CBR 6%
CBR 8%
305
300
295
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
From fig. 4.7 and fig. 4.8 , it can be observed that there is no significant change in the thickness
of the slab due to change in the subgrade strength but as the initial traffic increases from 500
CVPD to 6000 CVPD, there is gradual increase in the thickness of slab required.
However, as observed from fig 4.8, when the initial traffic is low, due to change in
initial traffic, rate of increase of slab thickness is higher than that compared to the case when
initial traffic is high.
Note:- Dowel bars upto a distance of 1.0*radius of relative stiffness (l), from the point of load
application are effective in load transfer.
Hence, number of dowel bars participating in load transfer when the load is just over
74
Modulus of dowel support 4*105 MPa
the dowel bar close to the edge of the slab = 1+l/spacing = 4.451 = 4 dowel bars.
The variation of diameter, spacing and length of dowel bar with different CBR and initial traffic
are given in table 4.15.
CBR Initial Traffic (CVPD) Diameter (mm) Spacing (mm) Length (mm)
75
2000 36 300 500
50
45
40
35
30
Diameter (mm)
CBR 3%
25
CBR 4%
20
CBR 6%
15
CBR 8%
10
5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
76
43
42
41
40
Diameter (mm)
6000 CVPD
39
4000 CVPD
38
2000 CVPD
37 500 CVPD
36
35
0 2 4 6 8 10
CBR %
From fig. 4.9 and fig. 4.10, it can be observed that there is slight decrease in diameter of dowel
bar with increase in initial traffic whereas there is slight increase in diameter of dowel bar with
increase in subgrade strength.
Input Data
Allowable tensile stress in plain bars (as per IRC:15 2011) 125 MPa
Allowable tensile stress in deformed bars (as per IRC:15 2011) 200 MPa
77
Design for Plain Bars
Area of plain steel bar required per meter width of joint to resist the 332.64mm2/m
frictional force at slab bottom, As=bfW/Sst
Area of plain steel bar required per meter width of joint to resist the 207.9 mm2/m
The diameter, spacing and length of plain tie bars required for different CBR of subgrade and
initial traffic are given in Table 4.15.
78
Table 4.15 Variation of diameter, spacing and length of plain tie bars
CBR Initial Traffic (CVPD) Diameter (mm) Spacing (mm) Length (mm)
The diameter, spacing and length of plain tie bars required for different CBR of subgrade and
initial traffic are given in Table 4.15.
Table 4.16 Variation of diameter, spacing and length of deformed tie bars
79
CBR Initial Traffic (CVPD) Diameter (mm) Spacing (mm) Length (mm)
The design of flexible pavement has been done on the basis of the guidelines provided in IRC
37:2012 and the design of rigid pavement has been done on the basis of guidelines provided
in IRC 58:2015
The depth of different layers for the two type of pavements have been designed for varying
CBR of subgrade and initial traffic.
80
In case of rigid pavement it is observed that there is no significant change in thickness
of pavement with an increase in effective CBR of subgrade. However, with an increase in initial
traffic, the thickness of the rigid pavement increases.
CHAPTER-5
COST ESTIMATION
5.1 GENERAL
This chapter deals with the rate analysis of pavement. The cost estimation is carried
out as per the MoRTH Standard Data Book. The rates of labor, material and machinery are
ascertained from the PWD office and the DC office of the area where the project is located.
When these rates are given as an input in the MoRTH Standard Data Book, the cost per cubic
meter or per square meter as per various item of work of construction is obtained as input.
81
Rates of various items that are to be considered in the cost estimation of the pavement
were taken from the PWD Office Kurukshetra. The rate analysis for Subgrade, GSB (Granular
Sub-base), WMM (Wet Mix Macadam), Prime Coat, DBM (Dense Graded Bitumen
Macadam), Tack Coat, BC (Bituminous Concrete), Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) and PQC have
been carried out as per MoRTH Standard Data Book.
5.2.1 Subgrade
(a) Labour
502.73
(b)Machinery
82
Water tanker with 6 km lead hour 4.000 400.000 1600.00
9089.64
(c)Material
6480.00
(a+b+c+d+e)/100
There are six grading of GSB as per MORTH specification and it can be constructed
either by Mix in Place Method or by Plant Mix Method. Rate analysis of GSB layer for grading-
1 and construction by Plant Mix Method is done in Table 5.2 with avg. lead of 20 km from
Batching plant to the construction site.
83
Unit/Cum Taking output =
300 Cum
a) Labour
5027.26
b) Machinery
21006.00
c) Material (Grading-I)
433986.32
506021.53
84
e) Contractor's Profit @10% 7239.52
on Rs.72395.21
a+b+c+d+e
Say 1711
Rs.
Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) is used as a base course in a pavement structure in one
or more layers. Rate analysis of WMM layer is done in Table 5.3 with avg. lead of 20 km from
the batching plant to the construction site.
Unit/Cum Taking
output =
225
cu
m (495
tonne)
a) Labour
85
Mazdoor 10.00 Day 483.39 4833.90
6032.71
b) Machinery
capacity
Cum capacity
(495x2x2.26)
30301.08
@30%
@40%
86
2.36mm to 75 89.10 Cum 1129.00 100593.90
micron@30%
335673.00
d) Overhead 37200.68
charges
10% on (a+b+c)
Total 409207.47
@10% on Rs.
Total 416596.91
a+b+c+d+e
a+b+c+d+e/225
87
Providing and
a) Labour
1005.45
b) Machinery
Cum 2.80
distributor 2.00
3329.60
c) Material
58258.50
10% on (a+b+c)
88
Total 68852.91
@10%
Total 75738.20
= a+b+c+d+e
a+b+c+d+e/3500
a) Labour
1005.45
b) Machinery
89
ii) Air Compressor 250 Cum 2.80 hour 268.00 750.40
2929.60
c) Material
0.700
22691.90
Total 29289.65
Total 32218.61
It is used as base or binder course. Rate analysis of DBM is done in Table 5.6 with
the avg. lead of 20 km from Hot Mix Plant to construction site.
90
a) Labour
10557.24
b) Machinery
unloading Rs.6102/-
91
vii) Smooth wheeled roller hour 386.00 1505.40
8-10 tonne for initial
break down rolling 3.90
(6x0.65)
106902.30
c) Material (Grading-
II)
ii) Aggregate
429.75 tonne
aggregate
92
4.75mm and below 42 112.81 Cum 1128.00 127249.68
percent
10% on (a+b+c)
@10% on Rs.
a+b+c+d+e/195
a) Labour
93
mechanical broom
paver, roller, asphalt
cutter etc.
10557.24
b) Machinery
unloading Rs.6102/-
intermediate rolling
(6x0.65)
94
ix) Finish rolling with 6- 3.90 hour 959.00 3740.10
8 tonne smooth
wheeled tendon roller
105912.30
c) Material (Grading-
II)
wt.
ii) Aggregate
MT
Cum
Grading-II (40mm
nominal size)
1162403.64
d) Overhead 127887.32
charges
10% on (a+b+c)
Total 1406760.50
95
e) Contractor's Profit 1406760.50 140676.05
@10% on Rs.
Total 1547436.54
a+b+c+d+e/191
Construction of DLC over a prepared subgrade with course and fine aggregate
conforming to IS: 383, with concrete strength not to be less than 10 Mpa at 7 days. Rate analysis
of DLC is done in Table 5.8. Output taken as 450 cum.
a) Labour
b) Machinery
96
Paver with electronic sensor Hour 6.000 2243.00 13458.00
c) Material
Coarse sand as per IS: 383 @ 0.45 Cum 203.000 385.00 78155.00
cum/cum of concrete
97
Table 5.9 Rate analysis of PQC
a) Labour
b) Machinery
Road sweeper @1250 sqm per hour Hour 2.800 299.00 837.20
c) Material
Sand as per IS: 383 and conforming Cum 473.000 385.00 182105.00
to clause 602.2.4 @ 0.45 cum/cum
of concrete
98
Cement 43 grade @400 kg/cum of Tonne 414.000 6000.00 2484000.00
concrete
99
Rate per cum=( a+b+c+d+e)/1050 Say Rs. 6529.00
7. BC cum 8102
The cost has been calculated for the designed pavement with variation in the effective
CBR value of 3%, 4%, 6%, and 8% with variation in traffic. Also in each case the cost has
been calculated for flexible pavement as well as for rigid pavement.
Table 5.11 With Effective CBR value as 3% and Traffic as 500 CVPD
100
Length Width Depth
Similarly, Cost Estimation has been done for different values of CBR and Traffic. Summary
of the Cost Estimation for Flexible Pavement is shown in Table 5.12.
3 500 16290587
2000 19039008
4000 20320253
6000 21034358
4 500 15402372
2000 17912758
4000 18955968
6000 19670073
6 500 13778015
101
2000 16050366
4000 17331611
6000 18045716
8 500 12759764
2000 14794080
4000 16075325
6000 16789430
Similarly cost estimation has been done for different values of CBR and Traffic. Summary of
the Cost Estimation for Rigid Pavement is shown in Table 5.14.
3 500 19961000
102
2000 20647000
4000 20922000
6000 21105000
4 500 20007000
2000 20829000
4000 21196000
6000 21402000
6 500 19915000
2000 20739000
4000 21105000
6000 21287000
8 500 19870000
2000 20693000
4000 21059000
6000 21242000
103
4 500 8.811 15402372 20007000
CBR 3%
25000000
20000000
Cost (Rs.)
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
104
CBR 4%
25000000
20000000
Cost (Rs.)
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)
CBR 6%
25000000
20000000
Cost (Rs.)
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD
105
CBR 8%
25000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD
20000000
Cost (Rs.)
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
Fig. 5.5 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 500 CVPD
106
Initial Traffic 2000 CVPD
25000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
Fig. 5.6 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 2000 CVPD
20000000
Cost (Rs.)
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
Fig. 5.7 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 4000 CVPD
107
Initial Traffic 6000 CVPD
25000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade
Fig. 5.8 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 6000 CVPD
108
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 GENERAL
The Project entitled “ Design and Cost Estimation of Flexible and Rigid Pavement”
has covered the design and cost estimation of flexible and rigid pavement and their comparison
on the basis of design and cost. The main conclusions drawn from the project are:
There is a slight increase in the thickness of granular sub-base (GSB) when traffic varies
from 500 CVPD to 2000 CVPD but this increase gets nullified when the value of initial
traffic exceeds 2000 CVPD.
The total thickness of the flexible pavement increases with increase in the initial traffic.
109
6.3 RIGID PAVEMENT
There is no significant change in the thickness of the slab due to change in the subgrade
strength but as the initial traffic increases from 500 CVPD to 6000 CVPD, there is
gradual increase in the thickness of slab required.
When the initial traffic is low, due to change in initial traffic, rate of increase of slab
thickness is higher than that compared to the case when initial traffic is high.
There is slight decrease in diameter of dowel bar with increase in initial traffic whereas
there is slight increase in diameter of dowel bar with increase in subgrade strength.
Thickness of GSB and DLC layers remain unchanged with the change in subgrade
strength and initial traffic.
Cost of pavement increases with traffic keeping the CBR constant and the cost gap
between rigid and flexible tapers off for higher values of traffic.When CBR is 3%, the
cost of flexible and rigid pavement is 1.62cr and 1.99cr respectively for 500 CPVD
traffic while the cost is nearly same (2.1cr) for both the pavement when traffic reaches
6000 CPVD.
Cost for flexible pavement is less than that of rigid pavement for low traffic but for
high traffic it is the other way round. The value of that particular traffic depends on
CBR value, for instance it is 6000 CPVD for 3%CBR .
Cost of flexible pavement is less than rigid pavement for any value of CBR keeping the
traffic constant and the cost gap continues to increase as the CBR increases. Keeping
traffic 500CPVD, the cost changes from 1.62cr and 1.99cr (CBR 3%) to 1.27cr and
1.92cr (CBR 8%) for flexible and rigid pavement respectively.
This belief that a flexible pavement is cheaper than a rigid pavement is thus not true for
all values of CBR and traffic specially for higher traffic values.
110
REFRENCES
1. Arora, K.R. (2003) Soil mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Standard Publishers
Distributors, Delhi.
2. Chou, Y. (1983). ”Subgrade Contact Pressures under Rigid Pavements.” J. Transp. Eng.,
109(3), 363–379. Chou, Y. (1983). ”Comparative Analyses of Rigid Pavements.” J.
Transp. Eng., 109(5), 669–688.
3. Cojocaru, R., Pais, J.C., Andrei, R. and Budescu, M. (2013) Modeling of Airport Rigid
Pavement Structure Made of RCC and Recycled Cement Concrete for Complex
Configuration of Landing Gears, Advanced Materials Research, Vol.649, pp.254-257.
4. Darestani, M.Y., Nataatmadja and Thambiratnam, D.P. (2006) A Review of 2004
Austroads Rigid Pavement Design, ARRB Conference-Research into Practice, Canberra,
Australia.
5. Das, A. (2008) Reliability Considerations of Bituminous Pavement Design by
Mechanistic Empirical Approach, the International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
Vol.9, No.1, pp. 19-31.
6. Dilip, D., Ravi, P. and Babu, G. (2013) System Reliability Analysis of Flexible
Pavements, Journal Transportation Engineering, Vol.139, No.10, pp. 1001-1009.
7. Hadi, M.N.S. and Arfiadi (2001) Optimum Rigid Pavement Design by Genetic
Algorithms, Computers and Structures, Vol.1, No.5.
8. IRC :58-2015, Tentative Guidelines for the design of Rigid Pavements, IRC, New Delhi.
9. IRC:37-2012, Tentative Guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements, IRC, New
Delhi.
10. Jain, S., Joshi,Y.P., Golia, S.S. (2013) Design of Rigid and Flexible Pavements by
Various Methods and Their Cost Analysis of Each Method, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Applications, Vol.3, No.5 pp.119-123.
11.Khan, I.H. (1998) A Textbook of Geotechnical Engineering, Pentice Hall of India Private
Limited, New Delhi
12. Krauthammer, T. and Western, K.L. (1988) Joint Shear Transfer Effects on Pavement
behaviour, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.114, No.5, pp.505-529.
13. Long,B.and Shatnawi, S. (2011) Structural Evaluation of Rigid Pavement Sections, Road
Materials and Pavement Design, Vol.1, No.1, pp.97-117.
14. Maharaj, D.K. and Gill, S. (2014) Development of Design Chart for Flexible Pavement
111
by Finite Element Method, International Journal of Latest Research in Engineering and
Computing, Vol.2, Issue 2, March- April,pp. 8-23.
15. MORTH Specification for Roads and Bridge Works,2013, New Delhi.
16. MORTH Standard Data Book for Analysis of Rates, IRC, New Delhi.
17. Punmia, B.C., Jain, A.K. and Jain Arun, K. (2005) Soil Mechanics and Foundations,
Lakshmi Publications, New Delhi.
18. Rahman, M.T., Mahmud, K. and Ahsan, K. (2011), Stress-Strain Characteristics of
Flexible Pavement Using Finite Element Analysis, International Journal of Civil and
Structural Engineering, Vol.2, No.1, pp.233-240
19. Subagio, B. Cahyanto, H., Rahman, A. and Mardiyah, S. (2005) Multilayer Pavement
Structural Analysis Using Method of Equivalent Thickness, Case Study: Jakarta-
Cikampeck Toll Road, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies,
Vol.6,pp.55-65.
20. Tarefder, R., Saha, N. and Stormont, J. (2010) Evaluation of Subgrade Strength and
Pavement Designs for Reliability, Journal Transportation Engineering, Vol.136, No.4, pp.
379-391.
112