Revised Pavement Design - Beawar Pali Section.pdf

8/21/2019 Revised Pavement Design - Beawar Pali Section.pdf

1/119

INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT :

CONCESSIONAIRE : DESIGN CONSULTANT :

L&T Construction

DSGN 22.08.2012

CHKD 22.08.2012

APPD 22.08.2012

DOC. No. O 11 2 3 8 - C - R P - R D - P D - 0 0 0 1

RELEASED FOR PRELIMINARY TENDER INFORMATION

APPROVAL CONSTRUCTION

AAN

INDIA

MJT

DESCRIPTION

AAN

VGS

Approved

Pavement Design Report (Beawr - Pali Section)


CheckedDesigned

RHN

RHN MJT

RHN

SIGN

T h i s d o c u m e n t i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f L &

T C o n s t u c t i o n ,

I n f r a s t r c u t u r e ,

E D R C & T

m u s t n o t b e p a s s e d o n t o a n y t h i r d p e r s o n o r f i r m

n o t a u t h o r i s e d b y u s ,

n o r b e c o p i e d / m a d e u s e o f i n f u l l o r p a r t b y s u c h

p e r s o n o r f i r m w

i t h o u t o u r p r i o r p e r m i s s i o n w r i t i n g

REVISIONS


L&T Construc t ion

Infrastucture

B AAN

JOB No.

L & T BPP TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED

CIRC

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

(BEAWAR - PALI SECTION)

TOTAL NO. OF PAGES

O11238-C-RP

CODE REV.

VGS

NAME

RHN

AAN

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF

Infrastucture-EDRC&T

TITLE :

22.08.2012 C

DATE

DATE

PROJECT :

12.07.2101

25.01.2012 A

REV. NO.

CLIENT :

BEAWAR-PALI-PINDWARA ROAD PROJECT (BPPRP )

EPC CONTRACTOR :


2/119

L&T Construction Document No.

Infrastructure O11238-C-RP-RD-PD-0001

EDRC&T SHEET 1 of 36

Beawar-Pali-Pindwara Road Project (BPPRP)

(Beawar to Pali Section)

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction, Background and Description .......................................................................... 4

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Project Description and Scope ......................................................................................... 4

2.0 Field Investigations and Geotechnical Sampling ................................................................. 6

2.1 Pavement Condition Survey ............................................................................................. 6

2.2 Benkelman Beam Deflection Testing .............................................................................. 6

2.2.1 Leg Correction Factor ................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Correction for Temperature .......................................................................................... 7

2.2.3

Correction for Seasonal Variation ................................................................................ 8

2.2.4 Characteristic Deflection .............................................................................................. 8

2.3 Field Investigation and Sampling ..................................................................................... 8

2.4 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 9

3.0 Field Investigation Survey and Laboratory Test Results ................................................... 10

3.1 Pavement Condition Survey Results .............................................................................. 10

3.2 Benkelman Beam Deflection Testing Data and Results ................................................ 10

3.3 Field Investigation and Sampling Results ...................................................................... 13

3.3.1

Assessment of Existing Pavement Composition .................................................... 13

3.3.2 Assessment of In-situ Density of Subgrade ............................................................ 15

3.3.3 Assessment of Subgrade CBR Using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer ...................... 17

3.3.4 Laboratory Testing Results ..................................................................................... 19

4.0 Traffic Study & Analysis ................................................................................................... 21

5.0 Impact of Concession Agreement on Pavement Design .................................................... 23

6.0 Overlay Pavement Design (Flexible Pavement) ................................................................ 24

6.1

Calculation of Characteristic Deflection ........................................................................ 24

6.2 Pavement Overlay Thicknesses ...................................................................................... 24

7.0 Flexible Pavement Design for Main Carriageway Widening, Reconstruction Sections, and

Approaches of Grade Separators .................................................................................................. 26

7.1 Discussion of Design CBR ............................................................................................. 26


3/119






7.2 Pavement Layer Thickness Design ................................................................................ 27

7.2.1 Methodology for Pavement Sections with Design CBR 10% .................................... 27

7.2.2 Methodology for Pavement Sections with Design CBR 12% .................................... 27

7.2.2.1 Allowable Strains in the Pavement Structure ......................................................... 28

7.2.2.2 Actual Strains in the Pavement Structure ............................................................... 28

7.3 Validation of Analytical Approach of Pavement Design Using Standard IRC Sections 29

7.4 Pavement Layer Thicknesses Recommendation ............................................................ 29

8.0 Pavement Design (Flexible Pavement) for Service Road, and Slip Road of Flyover and

Underpass ...................................................................................................................................... 31

9.0 Pavement Design (Rigid Pavement) for Toll Plaza ........................................................... 32

9.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 32

10.0 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 36

List of Figures

Figure 1 Key Map ........................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Summary of Pavement Condition Survey .................................................................... 10

Table 3.2 Pavement Distress Analysis .......................................................................................... 10

Table 3.3 Kilometer-wise Characteristic Deflections ................................................................... 11

Table 3.4 Existing Pavement Crust Composition ......................................................................... 13

Table 3.5 In-situ Density of Subgrade .......................................................................................... 16

Table 3.6 In-Situ DCP-CBR ......................................................................................................... 18

Table 4.1 Homogeneous Section-wise Cumulative Traffic .......................................................... 22

Table 6.1 Overlay Design ............................................................................................................. 25

Table 7.1 Design CBR Values for Pavement Design ................................................................... 26

Table 7.2 Recommendations for New Pavement Sections ........................................................... 30

Table 8.1 Pavement Crust for Service Road ................................................................................. 31

Table 9.1 Design Traffic ............................................................................................................... 33

Table 9.2 Design Calculations of Rigid Pavement ....................................................................... 33

Table 9.3 Rigid Pavement Design - Summary.............................................................................. 35


4/119






List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Pavement Condition Survey Data

Appendix 2 Benkelman Beam Deflection Survey DataAppendix 3 Laboratory Testing Results

Appendix 4 Overlay Design

Appendix 5 Pavement Structural Sections Recommendations for New Pavement Design


5/119






1.0 Introduction, Background and Description

1.1 Introduction

This pavement design report is prepared in order to recommend suitable pavement structural

sections for the overlay as well as the new pavement portions for four laning of the Beawar to

Pali section of NH-14. Pavement design is the most important component of any highway

project, since a pavement has to ultimately carry the entire traffic loads and protect the subgrade.

The following pages contain a comprehensive report consisting of a review of the project site

parameters; review and analysis of various field surveys and pavement materials; review of

traffic components; analysis and design of the pavement overlay sections; and analysis and

design of the new pavement structural sections.

1.2

Project Description and Scope

The aerial extent of the proposed project comprises of three districts: Ajmer, Pali, and Sirohi, all

in the state of Rajasthan. The project road lies in the district of Ajmer, Rajasthan from Km 0.00

to Km 6.900, in the district of Pali, Rajasthan from Km 6.900 to Km 185.00, and in the district of

Sirohi, Rajasthan from Km 185.00 to Km 246.00.

It is expected that about 4853028 persons (about 8.59% of total population of Rajasthan) are

likely to be benefited. Among the three districts, Ajmer has the highest population density of

about 257 persons/sq.km while Pali has the lowest population density of 147 persons/sq.km. The

decadal population growth from 1991-2001 is maximum in Sirohi at 30.13 %, and the lowest inPali at 22.46%.

The project alignment connects the western part of the state of Rajasthan to NH-8 in the north (to

Jaipur) and to NH-76 in the south (to Udaipur and Abu Road). The project road from Beawar to

Pali is a part of this National Highway (NH-14) in the state of Rajasthan. The limits of the

project extend from the station at existing km 000+000 up to the station at km 115+400

(proposed chainage of Km 113+000) just beyond the junction of NH-65 at Pali. The road is a

part of a high density traffic corridor. Some of the major towns and villages through which the

alignment of the road traverses through are: Sadatana, Lalpura, Sapalpura, Dhaba, Jhala ki

Chowk, Barr, Raipur, Juta, Juta Mata Nagri, Pipalia Kalan, Sandiya, Dhaba, Sojat, Bhagavas,Ravia Bara, Jardan, Math, Pali Balaji Area, and the major town of Pali. A key map showing the

project with the proposed bypasses is attached as Figure 1.


6/119






Figure 1 Key Map

The existing road consists of flexible type pavement, with two lanes. From a road inventory

survey performed, it was observed that the most of the carriageway as about 7 m wide.

The road has been identified by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for

strengthening of the existing carriageway and augmentation in its traffic carrying capacity.

Keeping in view the importance of the project road for the socio economic development of the

region and to meet the growing demands of traffic, it is proposed to: (i) strengthen the existing 2

lane pavement, and (ii) augment its capacity by widening it to 4 lanes.

Since the existing pavement is of flexible type, it is proposed to design flexible pavements for

the additional two lane carriageway sections, and flexible overlays for strengthening the existing

pavement.

The scope of this work was to collect the data needed for the design of new pavements for the

additional two lane carriageway portions, and to prepare pavement rehabilitation andstrengthening strategy. In order to perform the above broad scope of work, L&T also included in

its scope field investigations field sampling, field testing, and laboratory testing. Some of these

tasks were completed by L&T, while others were completed by outside agencies and reviewed

by L&T.


7/119






2.0 Field Investigations and Geotechnical Sampling

In order to perform the scope of work, the following investigations/surveys were conducted by

L&T:

1. Pavement Condition Survey;

2. Benkelman Beam Deflection Testing;

3. Field Investigation and Sampling;

4. Laboratory Testing.

Following is a brief description of the investigations and surveys that we conducted for the

project.

2.1

Pavement Condition Survey

The visual condition survey was conducted in order to record the pavement condition for every

100 m intervals. This included recording information on any deficiencies that were visible and

also any improvements and treatments. The type of rehabilitation strategy to be adopted is

contingent upon the existing pavement crust composition and the visual condition survey. The

condition survey was conducted by considering the following details and their brief descriptions:

1. Length : Minimum of 100 m section

2. Surfacing Description : BT/CC/GR/ER

3. Rut Depth : in mm4. Cracks : % of Area

5. % Area Covered by : Potholes, Raveling, Patching

6. Shoulder Condition : Good/Fair/Poor/Very Poor

7. Remarks : If any

The data and finding from this pavement condition survey are given in Appendix 1.

2.2 Benkelman Beam Deflection Testing

Benkelman Deflection Survey was carried out to assess the residual strength of the existingflexible pavement and thereby assess the requirement of structural overlay. The survey was

conducted in accordance with IRC: 81-1997 provisions, and the Canadian Good Road

Association (CGRA) method. Deflection readings were taken on previously identified stretches

that were based on the pavement condition survey. The collected deflection data were analyzed


8/119






along with the corrections required in accordance with requirement of IRC: 81-1997. The

corrections were calculated for:

Leg correction.

Pavement Temperature.

Seasonal Correction.

Subgrade moisture content.

PI of Subgrade.

The data and finding from Benkelman beam deflection survey are given in Appendix 2.

2.2.1 Leg Correction Factor

While measuring the deflection there is every chance of deflection bowl extending up tosupporting legs of the Benkelman beam. The deflection of legs is revealed by the difference in

differential reading between initial, intermediate and final reading. If the differential reading

between initial and final and intermediate and final differ by more than 0.025mm then leg

correction needs to be applied. The true deflection is computed as:

XT = XA + 2.91 Y

Where,

XT = True pavement deflection

XA = Apparent pavement deflection i.e. 2X (Final – Initial reading)

Y = Vertical movement of the front legs i.e., twice the difference between the final and intermediatereading.

2.2.2 Correction for Temperature

The stiffness of bituminous layers changes with temperature of the bonder and consequently the

surface deflection of bituminous pavement will vary depending upon the temperature of the

constituent bituminous layers. Therefore it is necessary that the measured deflection be corrected

to a common standard temperature for tropical climate of India. The standard temperature is

taken as 35°C. Correction for temperature variation on deflection for values other than those

measured at 35°C shall be 0.01 mm for each degree of change from the standard temperature of

35°C. The correction will be positive for pavement temperatures lower than 35°C and negative

for pavement temperature higher than 35°C.


9/119






2.2.3 Correction for Seasonal Variation

Since the pavement deflection is dependent upon change in climate/season of the year, it is

always desirable to take deflection measurements during the season when the pavement in its

weakest condition. This condition occurs immediately after the monsoons in India. When

deflection measurements are taken during dry months, they require correction factor, which is

defined as the ratio of maximum deflection immediately after the monsoon to that of deflection

in the dry months.

Correction for seasonal variation depends upon the type of the sub-grade soil, its field moisture

content (at the time of deflection testing), and average rain fall in the area. For this purpose sub-

grade soil has been divided into three broad categories namely sandy/gravely clayey with low

plasticity (PI 15). Similarly rainfall has been divided

into two categories namely annual low rainfall (< 1300mm) and annual high rainfall (>1300mm).

2.2.4 Characteristic Deflection

The statistical analysis involves calculation of mean deflection value, standard deviation and

characteristic deflection. The design calculations are us under.

∑

∑ ⃛

Where,

X = individual deflection, mm

x = mean deflection, mm

ƞ = number of deflection measurements

2.3 Field Investigation and Sampling

An extensive field investigation and sampling exercise was conducted. The following were the

objectives of this exercise:

1. To assess the existing pavement composition;

2. To assess the in-situ density of the subgrade;


10/119






3. To assess the subgrade California bearing ratio (CBR), using the dynamic cone

penetrometer (DCP) test; and

4. To collect subgrade samples for performing laboratory tests.

Assessment of the existing pavement composition was done by excavating test pits (size 1.0 m x

1.0 m) at every 1 kilometer interval. These test pits were excavated on the shoulders, extending

for about 10 cm into the outside lane of the project road. Test pit investigations were not

conducted along those locations on the project road which formed a part of bypasses, re-

alignments, and reconstruction sections. The number of test pits excavated along the project

length was seventy one (71).

Field density tests were conducted by Sand Replacement method for the test pits and also the

natural moisture content were determined at each test pits. Dynamic Cone Penetration tests were

conducted at pit locations to assess in-situ CBR at subgrade level. The equivalent CBR value was

calculated based on different soil layers encountered. The slope change in the graph (Penetration

Vs Number of Blows) indicates the interface of two layers of different penetration resistance.

From the graph, thickness of layer and slope (penetration mm/blow) were calculated. The

following TRRL equation has been used to calculate the layer DCPCBR value for each layer.

2.4 Laboratory Testing

The following laboratory tests were conducted for all the samples collected from the test pits.

Grain Size Analysis (As per IS:2720-Part 4);

Atterberg Limit test (As per IS:2720-Part 5);

Standard Proctor tests (As per IS:2720-Part 8);

4-day Soaked CBR at 3 energy levels (As per AASHTO method).

Bulk sample of about 50 Kg was collected from all the test pits at sub grade level to analyze the

characteristics of the existing subgrade material. The laboratory CBR tests were conducted on

the test pit samples. Further three remoulded soil specimen were prepared from the samples

collected from the test pits at an interval of 1 Km along the road and tested for CBR in

accordance with AASHTO at three different energy levels by giving 10 blows, 30 blows and 65

blows per layer in each CBR mould. These specimens were tested after soaking in water for four

days. The CBR values were plotted in the Density Vs CBR graph and the CBR values

corresponding to 97 % of MDD is interpolated.


11/119






3.0 Field Investigation Survey and Laboratory Test Results

3.1 Pavement Condition Survey Results

Table 3.1 below summarizes the overall pavement condition of the project road.

Table 3.1 Summary of Pavement Condition Survey

Pavement Condition Length (km)

Good 33.300

Fair 15.900

Poor 20.400

Table 3.2 below outlines the overall break-up and percentage distribution of the various

pavement distresses such as cracking, potholes, raveling, and patching that were encountered

along the length of the project.

Table 3.2 Pavement Distress Analysis

Sr.

No

Cracking

(%)

Length

(km)

Patching

(%)

Length

(km)

Pot holes

(%)

Length

(km)

Raveling

(%)

Length

(km)

1 1-5 2.4 1-5 6.6 1-5 1.4 1-5 1.3

2 5-10 7.6 5-10 9.7 5-10 2.7 5-10 2.4

3 10-20 12.7 10-20 10.9 10-20 2.3 10-20 6.1

4 20-30 7.9 20-30 3.4 20-30 1.3 20-30 2.9

5 30-40 5.7 30-40 2.5 30-40 0.5 30-40 2.0

6 >40 6.7 >40 4.1 >40 - >40 1.5

From the table above, it can be seen that the major distresses affecting the pavement were

cracking, patching, pot holes and raveling. The portion of project length that was affected by

more than 20% cracking was about 20 kilometers.

3.2

Benkelman Beam Deflection Testing Data and Results

The results of the Benkelman beam deflection testing are depicted in the following tables. Table

3.3 below summarizes the kilometer-wise calculated characteristic deflections.


12/119






Table 3.3 Kilometer-wise Characteristic Deflections

Chainage Characteristic

Deflection (mm)From To

9+600 10+550 0.430

18+000 19+000 0.396

19+000 20+000 0.545

20+000 21+000 0.505

21+000 22+000 0.719

22+000 23+000 0.677

26+100 27+000 0.516

27+000 28+000 0.376

28+000 29+000 0.397

29+000 30+000 0.397

30+000 31+000 0.422

31+000 32+000 0.505

32+000 33+000 0.780

33+000 34+000 0.905

36+000 37+000 1.160

37+000 38+000 0.949

38+000 39+000 0.836

39+000 40+000 1.170

40+000 41+250 1.323

44+500 45+000 0.669

45+000 46+000 0.773

46+000 47+000 1.011

47+000 48+000 1.017

48+000 49+000 1.041

49+000 50+000 1.171

50+000 50+650 1.087

53+000 54+000 0.746

54+000 55+000 0.593

55+000 56+000 0.751

56+000 57+000 0.616

57+000 58+000 0.782

58+000 59+000 0.658

59+000 60+000 0.786


13/119








60+000 61+000 1.090

61+000 62+000 0.720

62+000 63+000 0.610

63+000 64+000 0.566

64+000 64+550 0.552

65+150 66+000 0.665

66+000 67+000 0.571

67+000 67+850 0.682

69+000 70+000 0.750

70+000 71+000 0.795

71+200 72+200 1.205

73+000 74+000 1.650

74+000 75+000 1.365

75+000 76+000 0.957

76+000 77+000 0.974

77+000 78+000 0.889

78+000 79+000 0.998

78+600 79+600 1.073

80+900 82+000 1.113

82+000 83+000 0.861

83+000 84+000 1.112

84+000 85+000 1.252

85+000 86+000 1.081

86+000 87+000 1.166

87+000 88+000 1.373

88+000 89+000 1.083

89+000 90+000 1.397

90+000 91+000 1.033

91+600 92+000 1.000

92+000 93+000 1.273

93+000 94+000 0.642

94+000 95+000 1.181

95+000 96+000 1.310

96+000 97+000 1.695


14/119








97+000 98+000 1.295

103+000 104+000 0.866

104+000 105+000 1.224

106+600 107+000 1.618

107+000 108+000 1.397

108+000 109+000 1.264

109+000 110+000 1.660

110+000 111+000 1.942

111+000 112+000 1.641

Upon completion of the field survey, characteristic deflection was computed for each kilometer

length of the project. These characteristic deflections formed the basis of delineations of the

project length into various homogenous sections in terms of pavement distress.

3.3 Field Investigation and Sampling Results

The findings from the field investigations conducted are summarized in the following sections.

3.3.1 Assessment of Existing Pavement Composition

The profile of the excavated test pits was visually examined in order to record the existing

pavement crust composition and identify the layer thicknesses. The outcome of this exercise is a

table containing the break-up of the pavement crust, which is listed below in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Existing Pavement Crust Composition

Sr.

No.Chainage

(Km)Side

Existing Crust Composition (mm)

Bituminous WBM GSB Total

1 19+000 LHS 110 180 290

2 20+000 RHS 100 160 260

3 21+000 LHS 110 200 310

4 22+000 RHS 170 300 470

5 27+000 RHS 200 140 340

6 28+000 RHS 190 120 310

7 29+000 RHS 200 130 330

8 30+000 RHS 180 140 320


15/119






Sr.

No.Chainage

(Km)Side



9 31+000 RHS 200 100 30010 32+000 RHS 200 230 430

11 33+000 RHS 200 230 430

12 34+000 LHS 110 200 310

13 36+000 RHS 110 210 320

14 37+000 RHS 160 210 370

15 38+000 LHS 110 220 330

16 39+000 RHS 170 220 390

17 40+000 RHS 140 200 340

18 41+000 RHS 170 180 350

19 42+000 RHS 170 230 400

20 45+000 RHS 170 250 420

21 46+000 RHS 210 240 450

22 47+000 RHS 180 220 400

23 48+000 RHS 160 180 340

24 49+000 RHS 180 240 420

25 50+000 RHS 130 260 390

26 54+000 RHS 270 160 430

27 55+000 RHS 220 260 480

28 56+000 RHS 110 150 260

29 57+000 RHS 190 230 420

30 58+000 RHS 250 210 460

31 59+000 RHS 230 260 490

32 60+000 RHS 200 320 520

33 61+000 RHS 170 230 400

34 63+000 RHS 170 190 360

35 64+000 RHS 170 200 370

36 66+000 RHS 200 160 360

37 67+000 RHS 250 220 470

38 69+000 RHS 120 240 360

39 70+000 RHS 200 180 380

40 71+000 LHS 120 300 420

41 72+000 LHS 70 270 290 630

42 73+000 RHS 70 260 270 600

43 74+000 RHS 160 200 360

44 75+000 RHS 150 270 420

45 76+000 RHS 90 290 380

46 77+000 RHS 130 270 400

47 78+000 RHS 120 220 340


16/119






Sr.

No.Chainage

(Km)Side



48 82+000 RHS 110 270 38049 83+000 RHS 150 220 370

50 84+000 RHS 130 190 320

51 85+000 RHS 100 200 300

52 86+000 RHS 120 310 430

53 87+000 RHS 180 180 360

54 88+000 RHS 120 290 410

55 89+000 RHS 90 320 410

56 90+000 LHS 120 210 330

57 92+000 LHS 160 250 410

58 93+000 RHS 150 230 380

59 94+000 RHS 270 180 450

60 95+000 RHS 250 200 450

61 96+000 LHS 320 290 610

62 97+000 RHS 290 250 540

63 98+000 RHS 260 190 450

64 104+000 LHS 200 350 550

65 107+000 RHS 130 310 140 580

66 108+000 RHS 130 220 350

67 109+000 RHS 150 220 370

68 110+000 RHS 190 320 510

69 115+050 LHS 290 220 510

70 116+000 LHS 260 220 480

71 117+000 LHS 190 220 410

From the above table, it can be inferred that the combined thickness of the bituminous layers

varies from 70 to 320 mm and that of WBM layer varies from 100 to 350 mm. The thickness of

the GSB layer varies from 140 to 390 mm. The total pavement crust thickness over the subgrade

varies from 260 to 630 mm.

3.3.2 Assessment of In-situ Density of Subgrade

The field density at the existing subgrade level was conducted in the test pits by means of SandReplacement method. Relative compaction ranged from 85.67 to 102.12 percent. The results of

this testing are summarized in Table 3.5 below.


17/119






Table 3.5 In-situ Density of Subgrade

Chainage SideFMC

(%)

FDD

(gm/cc)

O M C

(%)

MDD

(gm/cc)% Compaction

19+000 LHS 7.86 1.987 9.80 2.084 95.3520+000 RHS 8.98 1.883 10.00 1.985 94.85

21+000 LHS 7.40 1.860 9.90 2.107 88.25

22+000 RHS 8.72 1.947 9.60 2.110 92.26

27+000 RHS 7.80 1.831 8.25 2.060 88.90

28+000 RHS 6.96 1.915 9.70 2.022 94.71

29+000 RHS 8.15 1.875 7.90 2.036 92.09

30+000 RHS 7.35 1.935 8.25 2.060 93.93

31+000 RHS 7.93 1.858 8.20 2.105 88.26

32+000 RHS 6.19 1.817 7.50 2.014 90.22

33+000 RHS 4.47 1.690 9.20 1.889 89.45

34+000 LHS 2.56 1.703 9.60 1.900 89.64

36+000 RHS 1.22 1.862 8.50 1.952 95.39

37+000 RHS 2.24 1.813 8.80 2.025 89.52

38+000 LHS 1.35 1.854 8.00 2.100 88.28

39+000 RHS 4.12 1.810 8.40 2.055 88.08

40+000 RHS 4.15 1.635 9.50 1.909 85.67

41+000 RHS 4.65 1.870 7.80 2.035 91.88

42+000 RHS 4.12 1.634 11.30 1.870 87.37

45+000 RHS 7.46 2.042 7.80 2.068 98.75

46+000 RHS 4.19 1.831 8.20 2.074 88.27

47+000 RHS 3.01 1.862 8.00 2.060 90.37

48+000 RHS 2.66 1.905 9.60 2.050 92.92

49+000 RHS 2.36 1.840 8.00 2.070 88.90

50+000 RHS 2.52 1.768 8.90 1.956 90.40

54+000 RHS 5.57 2.041 7.00 2.090 97.66

55+000 RHS 6.10 1.920 8.10 2.062 93.12

56+000 RHS 3.21 1.912 9.80 2.100 91.05

57+000 RHS 8.32 2.013 7.50 2.104 95.66

58+000 RHS 6.89 1.797 7.90 2.075 86.62

59+000 RHS 11.68 1.953 7.70 2.112 92.46

60+000 RHS 9.64 1.860 7.30 2.110 88.16

61+000 RHS 7.77 1.758 9.60 2.035 86.37

63+000 RHS 9.72 1.876 5.85 2.067 90.77

64+000 RHS 2.59 1.767 7.40 1.985 89.0366+000 RHS 1.68 1.731 7.50 1.990 86.97

67+000 RHS 2.33 1.930 7.20 2.066 93.43

69+000 RHS 2.19 1.857 7.30 2.109 88.06

70+000 RHS 4.17 1.866 7.10 2.118 88.12

71+000 LHS 3.33 2.001 6.00 2.123 94.23


18/119






Chainage SideFMC

(%)

FDD

(gm/cc)

O M C

(%)

MDD

(gm/cc)% Compaction

72+000 LHS 2.24 1.812 7.55 2.105 86.08

73+000 RHS 5.56 1.834 7.70 2.015 91.03

74+000 RHS 5.36 1.820 7.60 2.080 87.52

75+000 RHS 3.84 1.903 7.95 2.082 91.42

76+000 RHS 6.23 1.863 7.70 2.068 90.09

77+000 RHS 7.35 1.915 7.60 2.047 93.55

78+000 RHS 6.92 1.832 7.50 2.100 87.25

82+000 RHS 5.07 1.816 7.50 2.056 88.35

83+000 RHS 5.29 1.925 8.00 2.086 92.28

84+000 RHS 6.09 1.798 8.00 2.066 87.03

85+000 RHS 5.37 2.061 8.80 2.018 102.12

86+000 RHS 4.70 1.859 7.20 2.040 91.11

87+000 RHS 7.11 1.975 7.70 2.025 97.55

88+000 RHS 5.77 1.966 7.60 2.032 96.7589+000 RHS 4.72 1.971 7.20 2.042 96.54

90+000 LHS 5.83 1.778 9.80 1.963 90.58

92+000 LHS 5.62 1.910 7.60 2.058 92.80

93+000 RHS 3.81 1.884 8.20 2.032 92.73

94+000 RHS 9.20 1.928 8.00 2.080 92.70

95+000 RHS 4.36 1.852 8.20 1.990 93.06

96+000 LHS 3.79 1.999 7.90 2.057 97.16

97+000 RHS 4.35 1.899 7.60 2.070 91.74

98+000 RHS 8.21 1.812 7.80 2.027 89.38

104+000 LHS 7.93 1.918 7.60 2.092 91.69

107+000 RHS 4.13 1.819 8.00 2.080 87.44

108+000 RHS 3.46 1.838 7.80 2.105 87.29

109+000 RHS 6.16 1.958 7.60 2.089 93.74

110+000 RHS 3.49 1.862 7.30 2.043 91.16

115+050 LHS 6.45 1.866 7.40 2.090 89.29

116+000 LHS 6.26 1.923 7.50 2.102 91.47

117+000 LHS 7.63 1.846 7.00 2.030 90.95

3.3.3 Assessment of Subgrade CBR Using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

The maximum and minimum values of in-situ DCP-CBR for the existing subgrade were foundto be 33.04 and 3.33 percent respectively. The test results are summarized in Table 3.6 below.

The CBR was found to be 10% or greater at sixty one out of a total seventy one locations.


19/119






Table 3.6 In-Situ DCP-CBR

Chainage Side

Field CBR (%)

Layer-1 Layer-2 Layer-3 Layer-4 WeightedAverage

19+000 LHS 11.87 13.82 17.25 13.84

20+000 RHS 6.74 12.76 13.31 11.06

21+000 LHS 13.57 16.54 17.25 15.36

22+000 RHS 14.88 15.82 25.89 16.60

27+000 RHS 17.47 16.18 23.38 17.82

28+000 RHS 5.63 16.76 38.61 13.78

29+000 RHS 13.25 18.09 15.41

30+000 RHS 4.83 6.55 5.49

31+000 RHS 17.25 6.79 5.10 7.58

32+000 RHS 12.99 14.66 14.66 13.7933+000 RHS 10.92 11.94 11.94 11.62

34+000 LHS 42.63 25.31 20.59 26.32

36+000 RHS 40.93 25.67 8.81 21.50

37+000 RHS 14.36 13.07 19.55 14.24

38+000 LHS 18.74 21.19 18.54 19.45

39+000 RHS 4.71 3.52 4.36

40+000 RHS 4.83 5.15 5.05

41+000 RHS 5.40 6.67 6.01

42+000 RHS 20.92 18.74 16.88 18.25

45+000 RHS 23.47 27.09 16.53 23.10

46+000 RHS 9.23 28.07 22.58 18.3447+000 RHS 21.24 24.42 24.02 23.38

48+000 RHS 38.47 22.46 19.64 23.62

49+000 RHS 25.54 26.24 22.50 25.11

50+000 RHS 38.61 23.74 15.85 23.58

54+000 RHS 25.49 25.80 14.66 23.00

55+000 RHS 18.39 18.21 18.77 18.55

56+000 RHS 13.63 14.02 16.43 15.04

57+000 RHS 17.77 16.12 19.26 17.36

58+000 RHS 9.28 11.24 9.58

59+000 RHS 14.13 26.49 15.19

60+000 RHS 7.56 7.54 7.55

61+000 RHS 4.37 7.32 5.90

63+000 RHS 24.54 18.56 17.88 19.51

64+000 RHS 10.62 21.10 26.75 17.89

66+000 RHS 28.88 30.83 13.63 24.79

67+000 RHS 8.29 27.61 22.91 17.80

69+000 RHS 14.44 23.95 24.63 20.92


20/119






Chainage Side

Field CBR (%)

Layer-1 Layer-2 Layer-3 Layer-4Weighted

Average

70+000 RHS 15.94 16.41 17.25 16.45

71+000 LHS 7.94 63.52 97.58 33.04

72+000 LHS 19.56 29.71 32.25 27.28

73+000 RHS 7.56 30.25 27.53 19.52

74+000 RHS 12.90 24.63 37.07 21.84

75+000 RHS 21.56 19.36 20.52 20.59

76+000 RHS 28.88 27.44 16.59 24.72

77+000 RHS 17.72 14.95 17.45 16.34

78+000 RHS 12.09 25.36 25.15 19.37

82+000 RHS 28.76 23.50 10.62 19.82

83+000 RHS 17.25 21.61 20.39 20.02

84+000 RHS 13.17 13.89 15.31 13.99

85+000 RHS 29.61 17.06 6.01 14.63

86+000 RHS 25.31 29.39 33.16 28.36

87+000 RHS 14.66 26.26 24.63 21.75

88+000 RHS 18.63 19.84 17.25 18.78

89+000 RHS 35.90 12.62 9.77 12.80

90+000 LHS 10.62 23.76 32.91 19.25

92+000 LHS 17.25 10.50 8.29 10.95

93+000 RHS 30.50 27.16 20.92 26.49 25.17

94+000 RHS 30.50 16.44 14.61 18.18

95+000 RHS 17.25 18.67 12.61 15.77

96+000 LHS 12.73 17.25 19.19 16.9797+000 RHS 3.55 3.20 3.33

98+000 RHS 9.37 13.44 9.88

104+000 LHS 6.08 28.74 45.65 21.21

107+000 RHS 35.28 22.10 24.13 27.96 24.73

108+000 RHS 18.12 16.67 17.99 17.62

109+000 RHS 11.24 14.13 23.79 14.30

110+000 RHS 41.76 16.31 19.17

115+050 LHS 26.49 8.75 9.94 10.63

116+000 LHS 35.90 13.77 10.19 13.59

117+000 LHS 14.02 30.81 40.13 23.68

3.3.4 Laboratory Testing Results

The laboratory testing results include CBR, sieve analysis, Atterberg’s limits, and moisture-

density relationships for the existing subgrade. From the CBR testing program, it was seen that


21/119






the CBR values ranged from 6.5 to 27 percent. The CBR was 10% or greater at sixty one out of a

total seventy one locations. Based on Atterberg’s limit test, it was seen that most of the soil

samples were non-plastic (NP) soils. The plasticity index of the soil samples ranged from 7 to 22.

The results are indicated in Appendix 3.


22/119






4.0 Traffic Study & Analysis

The traffic study for this project is presented in the traffic report “Traffic Surveys & Analysis

Report” dated 20-01-2012. The pavement design parameters such as growth rates, vehicle

damage factor (VDF) values, and the annual average daily traffic (AADT) values are presented

and analyzed in that report. The traffic volume calculations (MSA) which have been calculated

in that report are highlighted hereunder.

In accordance with IRC guidelines, the pavement of the main highway was designed for the

cumulative number of standard axles of 8.16 tones over the design life. Base year traffic, axle

load distribution, and vehicle damage factor for design shall be determined on the basis of survey

and investigation to be carried out by the concessionaire.

The design traffic is considered in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles (in the lane

carrying maximum traffic) to be carried during the design life of the road. It is referred to as the

"cumulative traffic" and measured in million standard axle, and was computed using the

following equation:

365 [(1 ) 1]nr N A D F

r

Where,

N = Cumulative number of standard axles to be catered for in the design in terms of Million Standard

Axles (msa).A = Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction in terms of the number of Commercial

vehicles per day (CVPD). It is computed by dividing the vehicle category-wise AADT by the

directional distribution factor, which is equal to 0.5 for this project corridor.

D = Lane distribution factor. According to IRC: 37- 2001 and its draft revision of 2011, the lane

distribution factor for four-laning project is 0.75.

F = Vehicle damage factor (VDF).

n = Design life in years.

r = Annual growth rate of commercial vehicles

For the purpose of this Traffic study, the base year is 2011 and the concession period is twenty

years excluding the construction period and it will end on 2033. Detailed computation is

presented in the traffic report.

A detailed analysis of the vehicular movement on the project road indicated that the traffic

pattern was significantly different along the length of the project, and this resulted in designating


23/119






three (3) homogenous sections. The design chainage-wise limits of the homogenous sections are

as follows:

1. Homogenous Section 1: 0+000 km to 21+300 km.



It was also concluded that the traffic pattern in the Beawar to Pali direction (LHS carriageway) is

significantly different from that in the Pali to Beawar direction (RHS carriageway). As result of

this findings, the cumulative traffic on the LHS as well as RHS carriageway consisted of three

different values.

Summary of the results of cumulative traffic computations is presented in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Homogeneous Section-wise Cumulative Traffic

Homogeneous

Section

Existing

Chainage, km

Design

Chainage,

km

10 Year MSA

(2023)

15 Year MSA

(2028)

20 Year MSA

(2033)

Pali to

Beawar

Beawar

to Pali

Pali to

Beawar

Beawar

to Pali

Pali to

Beawar

Beawar

to Pali

10+000 to

22+700

0+000 to

21+30081 62 138 108 214 168

222+700 to

72+550

21+300 to

71+15067 49 113 86 174 133

3

72+550 to

115+000

71+150 to

113+143 84 63 145 110 224 170

Actual cumulative traffic values (in msa) have been rounded up or down, as applicable, to the nearest whole number. For example: A

value of 61.90 msa has been rounded up to 62 msa, since 62 is the whole number that is nearest to 61.90. A value of 63.19 msa has been

rounded down to 63 msa, since 63 is the whole number that is nearest to 63.19.


24/119






5.0 Impact of Concession Agreement on Pavement Design

This project will be implemented as a DBFOT project to the Concessionaire for a concession

period of 23 years. The operation period is 20 years. Hence, the service life of the project road is

taken as twenty years after the project road is opened to traffic. The road is expected to be

opened to traffic in 2014.

In order to achieve economy in construction and to avail the benefits of any future technological

and material improvements, it was decided to adopt the stage construction technique.

Accordingly, the pavement designs in this report are completed assuming a design period of 10

years for the bituminous layers and 20 years (operation period) for the granular layers. This

complies with the provisions of IRC:SP:84 – 2009 (Schedule D).

Flexible pavement has been proposed for the entire project road. The existing project road is of

two lane configurations. The strengthening of the existing carriageway with flexible overlays

will be in general accordance with IRC 81-1997, and the widening of the flexible pavement will

be in general accordance with IRC 37-2001. The pavement designs were completed using the

mechanistic method of pavement design.

The crust thickness and composition of pavement under paved shoulder and the bus bays are

kept identical to that of main carriageway.


25/119






6.0 Overlay Pavement Design (Flexible Pavement)

The pavement designs for the overlay sections of this project have been conducted in general

accordance with the IRC: 81-1997 “Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible Road Pavements

Using Benkelman Beam Deflection Technique”.

The elastic deformation (deflection) of the pavement was measured at various locations along the

project road. The sampling frequency was 50 m. The elastic deflection generated due to the

application of load on the pavement is a function of various pavement crust and subgrade soil

material properties. The elastic deflection was expressed in terms of “characteristic deflection”.

From the characteristic deflection values so generated, the pavement was subdivided into various

stretches of statistically similar characteristic deflections. These stretches were designated as the

pavement homogenous sections. This analysis is outlined in the paragraphs below.

6.1

Calculation of Characteristic Deflection

The deflection data collected in the field survey was processed for calculating the characteristic

deflections. This was the first stage of calculation of characteristic deflections. In this stage, the

processed deflection values from the raw data for each kilometer length were averaged, and the

standard deviation of the data set was calculated. Twice the value of the standard deviation was

then added to the average in order to get the kilometer-wise characteristic deflection using the

statistical approach as identified in IRC: 81, Section 6. The raw deflection values that were a part

of approaches of VUP, PUP, flyovers, and reconstruction sections were not used in the

calculation of overlay thickness.

6.2 Pavement Overlay Thicknesses

Based on the analysis, an overlay strategy that is outlined in Appendix 4 recommended. In

general, for the wearing course, bituminous concrete (BC) overlay of 40 mm, composed of

polymer modified binder (PMB) of VG30 grade is proposed throughout the length of the project.

The binder course recommended for the overlay is dense bituminous macadam (DBM).

A brief summary of overlay design is given in Table 6.1.


26/119






Table 6.1 Overlay Design

From to From to Ch. Def.Beawar -

Pali

Pali -

BeawarBC

DBM

(Provided)BC

DBM

(Provided)

0.000 7.790 0.000 6.110

7.790 11.068 6.110 9.420

11.068 16.454 9.420 15.200

16.454 18.243 15.200 16.800

18.243 18.780 16.800 17.370 570.000 0.394 62 81 50 --- -- ---

18.780 19.600 17.370 18.170

19.600 20.970 18.170 19.520 1350.000 0.516 62 81 -- --- 50 ---

20.970 21.700 19.520 20.170

21.700 22.749 20.170 21.300 1130.000 0.708 62 81 -- --- 50 ---

22.749 26.182 21.300 24.750

26.182 26.460 24.750 25.030 280.000 0.605 49 67 -- --- 50 ---

26.460 27.210 25.030 25.780

27.210 32.229 25.780 29.700 3920.000 0.475 49 67 -- --- 50 ---

32.229 33.834 29.700 32.400

33.834 34.034 32.400 32.600 200.000 0.914 49 67 40 50 -- ---

34.034 35.979 32.600 34.400

35.979 37.679 34.400 36.100 1700.000 1.237 49 67 -- --- 40 65

37.679 38.620 36.100 37.000

38.620 41.327 37.000 39.750 2750.000 1.494 49 67 -- --- 40 95

41.327 44.302 39.750 42.900

44.302 50.494 42.900 49.150 6250.000 1.103 49 67 -- --- 40 50

50.494 53.145 49.150 51.700

51.700 54.050 -- --- 50 ---

54.050 54.950 50 --- -- ---

54.950 58.200 -- --- 50 ---

59.620 62.020 58.200 60.600

62.020 62.709 60.600 61.300

62.709 64.327 61.300 62.925 1625.000 0.580 49 67 -- --- 50 ---

64.327 65.337 62.925 63.930

65.337 67.791 63.930 66.440 2510.000 0.642 49 67 -- --- 50 ---

67.791 68.616 66.440 67.140

68.616 70.090 67.140 68.680 1540.000 0.900 49 67 -- --- 40 50

70.090 71.000 68.680 69.590

71.000 72.000 69.590 70.800 1210.000 1.191 49 67 40 50 -- ---

72.000 72.980 70.800 71.580

72.980 79.270 71.580 77.900 6320.000 1.368 63 84 -- --- 40 90

79.270 80.510 77.900 79.150

79.150 88.500 -- --- 40 70

88.500 89.650 40 60 -- ---

89.650 91.400 40 60 -- ---

89.650 91.400 -- - 40 70

92.680 94.590 91.400 93.330

93.330 94.200 -- --- 40 100

94.200 94.700 40 90 -- ---

94.700 96.740 -- --- 40 100

98.050 102.793 96.740 101.660

102.793 104.800 101.660 103.540 1880.000 1.205 63 84 40 60 -- ---

104.800 115.000 103.540 113.140

Overlay Pavement Crust Thickness

Existing Chainage,

km

Design Chainage,

km

Length ofOverlay (m)

Characteristic

Deflections in

Pavement

Traffic (MSA)

Overlay Pavement Crust Thickness , mm

RECONSTRUCTION

Beawar - Pali Pali - Beawar

BEAWAR BYPASS

REALIGNMENT

SENDRA BYPASS

REALIGNMENT

RECONSTRUCTION

RECONSTRUCTION

BARR BYPASS

53.145 59.620 6500.000

VUP

RECONSTRUCTION

REALIGNMENT

RECONSTRUCTION

PIPLIKALAN BYPASS

CHANDAWAL BYPASS

0.711 49 67

RECONSTRUCTION

PUP

RECONSTRUCTION

RECONSTRUCTION

VUP

RECONSTRUCTION

80.510 92.680 12250.000 1.216 63 84

RECONSTRUCTION

94.590 98.050 3410.000 1.453 63 84

RECONSTRUCTION

RECONSTRUCTION


27/119






7.0 Flexible Pavement Design for Main Carriageway Widening, Reconstruction Sections,

and Approaches of Grade Separators

This section describes the philosophy and methods used to design the pavement crust for all

those sections of the pavement that will carry full strength cumulative traffic through their design

life. The sections that fall under this category are the widening portion of the main carriageway,

full depth reconstruction portions, and approaches of all grade separators such as flyover, VUP,

and PUP.

7.1 Discussion of Design CBR

The following discussion is based on a review of the CBR values of the subgrade as well as the

results of the tests conducted on borrow area soils. The design CBR was chosen on the basis of a

review of the test results and past experience on similar projects and conditions.

From the laboratory CBR testing program and results, it was seen that the CBR values of the

existing subgrade ranged from 6.5 to 27 percent. Atterberg’s limit test results on soil samples

indicated that most of the subgrade soils were non-plastic (NP). The plasticity index of the soil

samples ranged from 7 to 22.

From the results of the CBR testing program conducted for borrow areas, it was seen that from

the start of the project (existing chainage: 0+000 km) up to chainage 40+000 km, the CBR values

ranged from 10 to 21 percent. Based on this evaluation, a design CBR value of 10 percent was

adopted for this section of the project.

Testing in borrow areas from existing chainage 40+000 km up to the end of the project (existing

chainage: 115+000 km) indicated that the CBR values ranged from 14 to 36 percent. Based on

this evaluation, a design CBR value of 12 percent was adopted for this section of the project.

The design CBR values chosen for various sections of the road for this Project are tabulated

below in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Design CBR Values for Pavement Design

Homogeneous

SectionExisting Chainage, km Design Chainage, km Design CBR, %

1 0+000 to 40+000 0+000 to 38+420 10

2 40+000 to 115+000 38+420 to 113+143 12


28/119






7.2 Pavement Layer Thickness Design

The pavement was designed based on traffic parameters as outlined in Section 1.4.7.1. Pavement

sections recommended were based on a design period of 10 years for the bituminous layers.

However, in accordance with IRC: SP-84, “Manual of Specifications and Standards for Four

Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership”, and the Concession Agreement, the

granular layers (base and subbase) were analyzed based on design life corresponding to the full

concession period (20 years)

The flexible pavement design was conducted in accordance with the guidelines stipulated in the

IRC: 37-2001. In general, the traffic loading in terms of million standard axles (MSA) was

determined using the data collected from the traffic surveys. The soil CBR was determined using

the data collected from soil investigations. Based on the CBR value, typical values for moduli of

various pavement layers were determined.

7.2.1 Methodology for Pavement Sections with Design CBR 10%

For the section of the project from design chainage 0+000 km to 38+420 km (existing chainage

0+000 to 40+000), the design CBR value adopted was 10 percent. Pavement design for this

section was accomplished using the recommended values for various pavement layers in IRC:

37-2001, Plate 2.

7.2.2 Methodology for Pavement Sections with Design CBR 12%

For the section of the project from design chainage 38+420 km to 113+143 km (existing

chainage 40+000 to 115+000), the design CBR value adopted was 12 percent. Pavement design

procedures for this section were accomplished using the analytical approach of flexible pavement

design, as outlined in IRC: 37-2001. Guidance for implementing the analytical approach is given

in Section 4.3 "Pavement Design Catalogue", Page 42, sub-section 4.3.2, and the required

parameters and equations are given in pages from 51 through 56 in the same IRC: 37-2001.

FPAVE software was used for this evaluation.

The allowable strains in pavement layers were calculated in terms of two primary pavement

distress criteria: fatigue cracking and rutting. The actual strains arising in the pavement layers

due to traffic loading were then calculated, assuming suitable thickness values for different

pavement layers. The assumed pavement crust was deemed to be safe for the design loads if the

actual strains were less that the allowable strains.


29/119






7.2.2.1 Allowable Strains in the Pavement Structure

The allowable strains in the pavement layers were calculated primarily based on two pavement

distress criteria: fatigue cracking and rutting.

The distress of fatigue cracking is more critical in the bituminous layer in the pavement crust.

This type of cracking is usually initiated at the bottom of the bituminous layer after repeated

application of the axle loads. This initiation means that the actual horizontal tensile strain at the

bottom of the bituminous layer has exceeded a certain limit, which is the allowable strain. The

allowable tensile strains were calculated using the fatigue criteria equation as outlined in the

Appendix I of IRC: 37-2001. The equation is as follows.

Where;

The distress of rutting is more critical in the subgrade under the pavement crust. This type of

cracking is usually initiated at the top of the subgrade layer after repeated application of the axle

loads. This initiation means that the actual vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade

layer has exceeded a certain limit, which is the allowable strain. The allowable compressive

strains were calculated using the rutting criteria equation as outlined in the Appendix I of IRC:

37-2001. The equation is as follows.

Where;

7.2.2.2 Actual Strains in the Pavement Structure

The actual tensile strains were calculated using the various pavement design parameters as inputs

in the FPAVE program. The actual strains are computed using various trial pavement structural

layer combinations.


30/119






The design and material parameters used for this project were in general accordance with the

postulates of the IRC: 37-2001, "Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements", (Second

Revision).

The type of binder (bitumen) used was polymer modified binder (PMB), and the base binder is

of VG 30 grade. PMB is proven to enhance the performance of the pavement in terms of its load

carrying capacity under heavy traffic loads. The pavement temperature was taken as 35°C. In

accordance with IRC: 37-2001, the resilient modulus of the BC and DBM layer was chosen as

1700 MPa, which corresponds to 60/70 grade bitumen. The statistical level of reliability used in

the pavement design was 80 percent.

The various layer moduli and Poisson's ratios were calculated in accordance with the guidance

and equations given in IRC: 37-2001.

The tyre pressure used in the analysis was 0.56 MPa. Standard axle used was dual type, having a

mass of 8160 kg. This resulted in a single tyre load of 20,500 N.

7.3 Validation of Analytical Approach of Pavement Design Using Standard IRC Sections

Before generating pavement sections for 12% CBR using the FPAVE software, an exercise was

conducted in order to validate the usage of FPAVE with respect to the standard pavement design

sections given in IRC: 37-2001. In this exercise, three pavement sections given in the code for

CBR 10% and cumulative traffic of 50, 100, and 150 msa were chosen. FPAVE software was

run in order to calculate the actual tensile strains at the bottom of bituminous layer and actual

compressive strains at the top of the subgrade layer. It was found that the actual strains were well

within the allowable limits. It was also found that the pavement section thicknesses given in the

IRC in each case satisfied the requirement of optimum pavement crust.

7.4 Pavement Layer Thicknesses Recommendation

Table 7.2 below indicates the pavement thickness strategy for new pavement and reconstruction

sections of the project. The pavement design analysis parameters are indicated in Appendix 5.


31/119






Table 7.2 Recommendations for New Pavement Sections

Description

of Pavement

Section

Direction

Existing

Chainage

Limits,km

Design

Chainage

Limits,km

CBR,

%

Cumulative

Traffic, msa

Layer Thickness, mm

BC DBM WMM GSB

Homogenous

Section 1

Beawar to

Pali0+000 to

22+700

0+000 to

21+30010 62 40 120 250 200

Homogenous

Section 1

Pali to

Beawar0+000 to

22+700

0+000 to

21+30010 81 40 130 250 200

Homogenous

Section 2

Beawar to

Pali22+700 to

40+000

21+300 to

38+42010 49 40 110 250 200

Homogenous

Section 2

Pali to

Beawar22+700 to

40+000

21+300 to

38+42010 67 40 125 250 200

Homogenous

Section 2

Beawar to

Pali40+000 to

72+550

38+420 to

71+150 12 49 40 95 250 200

Homogenous

Section 2

Pali to

Beawar40+000 to

72+550

38+420 to

71+15012 67 40 110 250 200

Homogeneous

Section 3

Beawar to

Pali72+550 to

115+000

71+150 to

113+14312 63 40 110 250 200

Homogeneous

Section 3

Pali to

Beawar72+550 to

115+000

71+150 to

113+14312 84 40 120 250 200


32/119






8.0 Pavement Design (Flexible Pavement) for Service Road, and Slip Road of Flyover and

Underpass


those sections of the pavement that will carry nominal traffic through their design life. The

sections that fall under this category are the service roads, and slip roads of flyovers and

underpasses.

In accordance with the IRC: SP 84-2009, the roads that fall under this category were designed

for a cumulative traffic of 5 msa.

For the section of the project from design chainage 0+000 km to 38+420 km (existing chainage

0+000 to 40+000), the intended field CBR value is 10 percent. Pavement design for this section

was accomplished using the recommended values for various pavement layers in IRC: 37-2001,

Plate 1.

For the section of the project from design chainage 38+420 km to 113+143 km (existing

chainage 40+000 to 115+000), the intended CBR value is 12 percent. The design Plates in IRC:

37-2001 do not contain recommendations for CBR 12 percent. Since the layer thicknesses of

SDBC, DBM, WMM and GSB that are recommended for the combination of cumulative traffic

of 5 msa and CBR 10 percent are minimum that can be constructed practically, the same

pavement design was adopted for the section with CBR 12 percent.

Table 8.1 below summarizes the pavement design for service roads.

Table 8.1 Pavement Crust for Service Road

Description

of Pavement

Section

Direction

Existing

Chainage

Limits,

km

Design

Chainage

Limits,

km

CBR,

%

Cumulative

Traffic, msa

Layer Thickness, mm

SDBC DBM WMM GSB

Sections with

CBR 10%

Both

directions0+000 to

40+000

0+000 to

38+42010 5 25 50 250 150

Sections with

CBR 12%

Both

directions40+000 to

115+000

38+520 to

113+14312 5 25 50 250 150


33/119






9.0 Pavement Design (Rigid Pavement) for Toll Plaza


those sections of the pavement that will form a part of the toll plaza.

Rigid pavement design is worked out as per the method outlined in IRC 58-2002 for toll plaza

location. The design of rigid pavement is worked out for 30 years of design period.

The parameters used for the design of rigid pavement method are as follows:

9.1 Methodology

Rigid Pavement Design is worked out as per recommended in IRC 58-2002, the parameters used

for the design of rigid pavement method are as follows:

Concrete

Compressive Strength, f ck = 450 kg/cm2

Flexural modulus, f cr = 46.96 kg/cm2

Elastic modulus, Ec = 3 x 105kg/cm

2

Coefficient of thermal expansion, α =10 x 10-6

per0C

Poisson’s ratio, µ = 0.15

Other

Modulus of subgrade Reaction = 5.500 kg/cm2/cm

(Corresponding to Sub-grade CBR of 10% )

Load safety factor = 1.2

Tyre pressure = 8 kg/cm2

Since the soaked CBR value of the sub-grade borrow material is taken as 10%, it has a

‘ksg’ value of 5.500 kg/cm2/cm which is less than the suggested minimum, of 6.0 kg/cm

3,

required for placing the slab directly over sub-grade. As per the Table-4 of IRC 58-2002

the modified k-value of DLC sub- bases ‘ksb’ corresponding to 150 mm thickness is

41.700 kg/cm3.

The IRC Guidelines suggest 25% of traffic in one direction as sufficient for design

against fatigue failure.

Design Traffic

The Design traffic for 30 years is worked out based on the Continuous vehicle count

survey data and Axle Load Survey data as illustrated in the

Table 9.1 below


34/119






Table 9.1 Design Traffic

At Ch. 34+000 At Ch. 93+000

Design life 30 years 30 years

Cumulative repetition in 30 years 125670523 155954465

Design Traffic (25% of total repetitions of

commercial vehicle)31417631 38988616

Average Number of Axles per Vehicle 2.05 2.25

No. of Axles for Design Traffic 64406144 87724386

The rigid pavement design is illustrated in Table 9.2 along with their joints detail.

Rigid Pavement comprising of 290 mm PQC as per IRC 58-2002, resting over 150mm DLC

over 150mm thick granular sub base. The design is found to be safe in fatigue stress, temperature

stress and corner stress.

Summary of Rigid pavement design is illustrated in Table 9.3.

Table 9.2 Design Calculations of Rigid Pavement

Location of Toll Plaza At Ch. 34+000 At Ch. 93+000

28 days Compressive Strength of Concrete fck 450 kg/cm2 450 kg/cm2

Flexural Strength of Concrete Fcr 46.96 kg/cm2 46.96 kg/cm2

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete E 300000 kg/cm2 300000 kg/cm2

Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete µ 0.15 0.15

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of

Concrete

a 10.0E-6 / oC 10.0E-6 / oC

Sub-grade CBR (%) 10.000 12.000

K Value of Sub grade Ksg 5.500 Kg/cm3 5.780 Kg/cm3

Dry lean concrete as Sub-base Type

Thickness of Dry Lean Concrete >= 10

cm

15 cm 15 cm

K Value of Sub-base Ksb 41.700 Kg/cm3 41.700 Kg/cm3

Assume Trail Slab Thickness h 29 cm 29 cm

Spacing of Contraction Joints L 4.5 m 4.5 m

Length of Slab (Lane Width) W 3.5 m 3.5 m

Radius of Relative Stiffness l 62.19 cm 62.19 cm


35/119






Design of Dowel Bars

Percentage of load transfer 40 % 40 %

Joint width 2 cm 2 cm

Diameter of Dowel bar d 3.2 cm 3.2 cm

Design Wheel Load P 8000 kg 8000 kg

Assumed spacing between the dowel bars 22 cm 22 cm

Assumed length of dowel bars 50 cm 50 cm

Modulus of elasticity of Steel 2000000 Kg/cm2 2000000 Kg/cm2

Modulus of concrete / dowel interaction K 41500.000 kg /cm3 41500.000 kg /cm3

Permissible bearing stress in concrete Fb 328.82 Kg/cm2 328.82 Kg/cm2

No. of dowel bars required for load

transfer

4 No.s 4 No.s

Load transferred by dowel system Pt * 1.877 1.877

Load carried by outer dowel bar Pt 1704.42 kg 1704.42 kg

Moment of Inertia of Dowel bar MI 5.147 cm4 5.147 cm4

Relative stiffness of Dowel bar β 0.238 0.238

Bearing stress in dowel bar 314.35 Kg/cm2 314.35 Kg/cm2

SAFE SAFE

Design of Tie Bars (With Plain Bars)

Coefficient of friction f 1.5 1.5

Diameter of Tie bar (Range : 12 to 16 mm) 12 mm 12 mm

Density of Concrete 2400 kg/cm3 2400 kg/cm3

Select type of tie bar Plain Plain

Allowable tensile stress in tie bars 1250 Kg/cm2 1250 Kg/cm2

Allowable bond stress for tie bars 17.5 Kg/cm2 17.5 Kg/cm2

Area of steel bar per unit length 2.923 cm2 2.923 cm2

Cross sectional area of Tie bar 1.131 cm2 1.131 cm2

Perimeter of Tie bar 3.770 cm 3.770 cm

Spacing of Tie bars 38.69 cm 38.69 cm

Take Spacing of Tie bars 38 cm 38 cm

Length of Tie bar 42.857 cm 42.857 cm

Adopt Length of Tie bar (increase 10 cm

for loss of bond due to bending + 5 cm for

improper placement)

58 cm 58 cm

Design of Tie Bars (With Deformed Bars)

Coefficient of friction f 1.5 1.5

Diameter of Tie bar (Range : 12 to 16 mm) 12 mm 12 mm

Density of Concrete 2400 kg/cm 2400 kg/cm


36/119






Select type of tie bar Deformed Deformed

Allowable tensile stress in tie bars 2000 Kg/cm 2000 Kg/cm

Allowable bond stress for tie bars 24.6 Kg/cm2 24.6 Kg/cm2

Area of steel bar per unit length 1.827 cm2 1.827 cm2

Cross sectional area of Tie bar 1.131 cm 1.131 cm

Perimeter of Tie bar 3.770 cm 3.770 cm

Spacing of Tie bars 61.9 cm 61.9 cm

Take Spacing of Tie bars 61 cm 61 cm

Length of Tie bar 48.78 cm 48.78 cm

Adopt Length of Tie bar (increase 10 cm

for loss of bond due to bending + 5 cm for

improper placement)

64 cm 64 cm

Table 9.3 Rigid Pavement Design - Summary

S.No Design ParametersAt Ch.

34+000

At Ch.

93+000

1 Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) (mm) 290 290

2 Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) (mm) 150 150

3 Granular Sub-base (GSB) (mm) 150 150

4 Subgrade (mm) 500 500

5 Characteristic Strength of Concrete (kg/cm2) 450 450

6 Slab length (m) 4.5 4.5

7 Slab width (m) 3.5 3.5

8 Joint width (mm) 20 20

9 Dowel bar diameter (mm) 32 32

10 Spacing of Dowel bar (mm) 22 22

11 Length of Dowel bar(mm) 500 500

12 Tie bar Diameter (mm) 12 12

13 Spacing of Tie bar (mm) (Plain/Deformed) 380/610 380/610

14 Length of Tie bar (mm) (Plain/Deformed) 580/640 580/640


37/119






10.0 Conclusion

The findings and recommendations of this pavement design report are summarized as follows:

1. Four-laning of Beawar to Pali section of NH-14 in the State of Rajasthan starts from

design chainage 0+000 km in Beawar town up to chainage 113+143 km in Pali town.

2. Project corridor is divided into the following three (3) homogeneous sections, the limits

of which are expressed hereunder in terms of design chainages:

a. Homogeneous Section 1: km 0+000 to km 21+300

b. Homogeneous Section 2: km 21+300 to km 71+150

c. Homogeneous Section 3: km 71+150 to km 113+143

3. Overlay Design: The recommended overlay design is given in Table 6.1 Appendix 4.

4. New Pavement Design:

a. A CBR values of 10 percent is used from design chainage 0+000 km up to

38+420 km. From chainage 38+420 km up to chainage 113+143 km, a design

CBR value of 12 percent is used.

b. The recommended pavement design is indicated in Error! Reference source not

found., and Appendix 5.

5. Service Road Design: The recommended service road design is given in Table 8.1.

6. Rigid Pavement Design: The recommended rigid pavement design is given in Table 9.3.


38/119



EDRC&T



APPENDIX 1

Pavement Condition Survey Data


39/119

Project: NH 14 (Beawar ‐ Pali) Chainage:

Name of Investigator: Anudeep, Ranjith Kumar & Satish Kumar Date:

From To Cracks Pot holes Ravelling Bleeding Patching

9+600 9+700 G F

9+700 9+800 G F 6838 (SC)

9+800 9+900 2 G F 6839

9+900 10+000 G F 6840-41

10+000 10+100 2 G F 6842

10+100 10+200 G F 6843

10+200 10+300 3 G F

10+300 10+400 G F 6844 (SC)

10+400 10+500 G F

10+500 10+600 8 2 G F 6845-46 ,7295

18+000 18+100 2 G F 730518+100 18+200 G F 7306

18+200 18+300 G F 7307

18+300 18+400 5 G F 6866

18+400 18+500 G F 7308

18+500 18+600 G F 6867

Remarks ShoulderCondition

Chainage Rutting(mm)

Distressess in (%) PavementCondition

PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

18+600 18+700 G F 6868-69

18+700 18+800 G F 6870

18+800 18+900 G F 6871

18+900 19+000 G F 6872

19+000 19+100 G F 6873-74

19+100 19+200 15 F F 7309

19+200 19+300 10 20 F F 6875 ,7310

19+300 19+400 20 40 F F 6876 ,7311 , 731219+400 19+500 10 20 F F 6878 , 7313

19+500 19+600 20 F F 6879 , 7314

19+600 19+700 10 F F 6880 , 7315

19+700 19+800 5 G F 6881

19+800 19+900 5 25 F F 6882 ,7316-17

19+900 20+000 G F 6883-84

Page 1 of 20


40/119

From To Cracks Pot holes Ravelling Bleeding PatchingRemarks

Shoulder

Condition

Chainage Rutting

(mm)

Distressess in (%) Pavement

Condition

20+000 20+100 5 3 5 3 F F 690-691 , 7318

20+100 20+200 3 15 F F 692-93 ,7319

20+200 20+300 5 5 10 10 F F 694-95 , 7320-21

20+300 20+400 15 5 F F 696 , 7322

20+400 20+500 2 G F 697

20+500 20+600 2 G F 698

20+600 20+700 3 G F 699 , 7323

20+700 20+800 G F 700

20+800 20+900 G F 701

20+900 21+000 10 F F 702-03 , 7324

21+000 21+100 15 10 F F 704-05 ,7325

21+100 21+200 15 10 3 F F 706

21+200 21+300 5 5 F F 707

21+300 21+400 10 3 3 F F 708-10

21+400 21+500 G F 7326

21+500 21+600 G F 711 , 7327

21+600 21+700 50 10 5 20 VP F 712-13 , 7328-29

21+700 21+800 2 G F 716 , 7330

21+800 21+900 15 G F 717-18 , 7331

21+900 22+000 2 10 G F 719

22+000 22+100 15 3 G F 7332

22+100 22+200 G F 6721

22+300 22+400 2 G F 6723

22+400 22+500 3 3 10 F F 6724

22+500 22+600 5 10 10 F F 7333

22+600 22+700 5 G F 6725

22+700 22+800 G F 7334

22+800 22+900 5 15 F F 6726 , 7335

26+100 26+200 G F 7337

26+200 26+300 2 G F 7338

26+300 26+400 10 2 F F 7339-40

26+400 26+500 10 3 F F 7341

26+500 26+600 2 2 G F 7342

26+600 26+700 3 G F

Page 2 of 20


41/119


Shoulder

Condition

Chainage Rutting

(mm)


Condition

26+700 26+800 5 2 G F 7343

26+800 26+900 3 G F 7344

26+900 27+000 G F

27+000 27+100 G F 7345

27+100 27+200 G F 6763

27+200 27+300 15 G F 7346

27+300 27+400 3 G F 7347

27+400 27+500 5 3 G F 6764 ,7348

27+500 27+600 G F 6765

27+600 27+700 2 G F 7349

27+700 27+800 2 G F 7350

27+800 27+900 G F 7351

27+900 28+000 G F 6767-766

28+000 28+100 G F 7352

28+100 28+200 G F 7353

28+200 28+300 10 10 F F 7354-55

28+300 28+400 12 G F 7356

28+400 28+500 G F 7357

28+500 28+600 25 5 F F 7358-59

28+600 28+700 10 10 F F 7360-61

28+700 28+800 G F 7362

28+800 28+900 G F 7363

- , -

29+000 29+100 15 F F 7366

29+100 29+200 5 G F 6771 , 7367

29+200 29+300 G F 7368

29+300 29+400 4 G F 7369

29+400 29+500 G F 7370

29+500 29+600 G F 6772

29+600 29+700 G F 6773

29+700 29+800 G F 7371

29+800 29+900 G F 7372

29+900 30+000 G F 6774-75

30+000 30+100 G F 7373

30+100 30+200 G F 7374

30+200 30+300 G F 7375

Page 3 of 20


42/119


Shoulder

Condition

Chainage Rutting

(mm)


Condition

30+300 30+400 G F 7376

30+400 30+500 G F 7377

30+500 30+600 G F 7378

30+600 30+700 G F 7379

30+700 30+800 G F 7380

30+800 30+900 G F 7381

30+900 31+000 G F 6776-78

31+000 31+100 5 G F 7382

31+100 31+200 5 G F 6779 , 7383

31+200 31+300 G F 6780 , 7384

31+300 31+400 G F 6781 , 7385

31+400 31+500 G F 7386

31+500 31+600 G F 7387

31+600 31+700 G F 7388

31+700 31+800 5 5 G F 7389-90

31+800 31+900 G F 7391

31+900 32+000 G F 782-83 ,7392

32+000 32+100 10 F F 7393

32+100 32+200 5 3 G F 7394

32+200 32+300 5 5 10 G F 7395-96

32+300 32+400 10 10 G F 7397-98

32+400 32+500 5 15 5 G F 7399

32+600 32+700 5 10 5 G F 7401-02

32+700 32+800 8 10 G F 7403-04

32+800 32+900 25 P F 7405-06

32+900 33+000 3 15 F F 7407-08

33+000 33+100 15 3 F F 7409

33+100 33+200 25 P F 7410

33+200 33+300 20 P F 7411

33+300 33+400 2 G F

33+400 33+500 3 G F

33+500 33+600 30 10 P F 7412

33+600 33+700 25 5 P F 7413

33+700 33+800 5 3 G F 7414

33+800 33+900 G F

Page 4 of 20


43/119


Shoulder

Condition

Chainage Rutting

(mm)


Condition

33+900 34+000 10 G F

36+000 36+100 10 30 5 5 P F

36+100 36+200 40 5 VP F 7416-17

36+200 36+300 20 P F 7418-19

36+300 36+400 25 5 P F 7420

36+400 36+500 30 10 P F 7421

36+500 36+600 25 3 P F 7422

36+600 36+700 25 P F 7423-24

36+700 36+800 30 3 P F 7425

36+800 36+900 5 3 G F 7426

36+900 37+000 20 3 P F 6611-613

37+000 37+100 25 P F 6615-616

37+100 37+200 35 VP F 6617

37+200 37+300 20 10 P F 6618-19 , 7427

37+300 37+400 20 P F 6620

37+400 37+500 10 F F 6621

37+500 37+600 40 VP F 6622

37+600 37+700 20 P F 6623

37+700 37+800 20 P F 6624

37+800 37+900 20 P F 6625

37+900 38+000 30 P F 6626-27

38+100 38+200 10 F F 7429

38+200 38+300 5 G F 7430

38+300 38+400 12 F F 7431

38+400 38+500 5 3 G F 7432

38+500 38+600 15 F F 7433

38+600 38+700 10 F F 7434

38+700 38+800 5 G F 7435

38+800 38+900 10 F F 7436

38+900 39+000 G F 6629-30

39+000 39+100 5 3 G F 6631

39+100 39+200 10 5 F F 7437

39+200 39+300 25 10 P F 7438-39

39+300 39+400 10 10 F F 7440

Page 5 of 20


44/119


Shoulder

Condition

Chainage Rutting

(mm)


Condition

39+400 39+500 25 10 P F 7441-42

39+500 39+600 10 3 F F 7443

39+600 39+700 15 5 F F 7444

39+700 39+800 30 3 10 P F 7445-46

39+800 39+900 30 10 P F 7447-48

39+900 40+000 35 10 VP 0 7449-50

40+000 40+100 5 G F 7451

40+100 40+200 3 G F 7452

40+200 40+300 5 10 F F 7453

40+300 40+400 10 10 P F 7454

40+400 40+500 25 10 P F 7455-56

40+500 40+600 15 2 F F 7457

40+600 40+700 15 5 F F 7458

40+700 40+800 15 5 F F 7459

40+800 40+900 15 F F 7460

40+900 41+000 5 3 G F 7461

41+000 41+100 5 5 G F 7462-63

41+100 41+200 10 F F 7464

41+200 41+300 5 3 G F 7465

44+700 44+

Revised Pavement Design - Beawar Pali Section.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Revised Pavement Design - Beawar Pali Section.pdf