JUNE 2018 ADDRESS COWI A/S

Parallelvej 2
2800 Kongens Lyngby
MUMBAI TRANS HARBOUR LINK Denmark

PACKAGE 1 TEL
FAX
+45 56 40 00 00
+45 56 40 99 99
WWW cowi.com

SEWRI INTERCHANGE
PAVEMENT DESIGN
TECHNICAL NOTE

CONTENTS
1 Introduction 2

2 Principles of Pavement Design 3

2.1 Fatigue Model 3
2.2 Rutting Model 4
2.3 Strains Safety Check 4

3 Pavement Design 4
3.1 Assumptions 4
3.2 Methodology of Pavement Design 7
3.3 Strain Analysis 8
3.4 Pavement Design Output 9

4 Conclusion/Recommendation 9

PROJECT NO. DOCUMENT NO.

A109933 MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880

VERSION DATE OF ISSUE DESCRIPTION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED

0.10 27.07.2018 AHNA ERED LTS

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

2 TECNICAL NOTE

1 Introduction
The proposed MTHL corridor will be a raised structure on Land Viaduct, near
Sewri Interchange. The corridor will cater to/from the existing eastern freeway
via Ramps A, B, C1 and E as shown in the figure below.

Fig 1: Ramp Locations

Fig 2: Sewri Interchange (3D view)

The Ramps C2 and F will have an embankment portion, as shown in 'brown'

colour in Fig. 2 above. The pavement design is carried out specifically for these
two sections.

This Technical Note is a part of the Initial Design stage, and hence the design is
based on assumed geotechnical parameters. The actual pavement design shall
be based on actual site data will be a part of the detail design stage.

IRC: 37-2012 has been followed for the design of the pavement.

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

 TECNICAL NOTE 3

2 Principles of Pavement Design

A Flexible Pavement is modelled as an elastic multilayer structure. Stresses and
Strains at Critical locations (as shown in Fig 3 below) are computed using a
linear elastic model.

The Stress analysis software IIT Pave has been used for computation of stresses
and strains in Flexible Pavement.

Horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous layer and the Vertical strain
on top of subgrade are considered as critical parameters for Pavement Design to
limit cracking and rutting in bituminous layer and non-bituminous layers
respectively.

Fig 3: Different layers of a Flexible Pavement

2.1 Fatigue Model

With every load repetition, the tensile strain developed at the bottom of
bituminous layer develops micro cracks, which go on widening and expanding
until load repetitions are large enough for cracks to propagate. As in IRC: 37-
2012, cracking in 20 percent area is considered for traffic up to 30 msa and 10
percent for traffic beyond that.

The maximum permissible tensile strain is calculated using the equations below.
For Traffic up to 30 msa the equation with 80% reliability is used, whereas for
traffic greater than 30 msa the equation with 90% reliability is used:

. 1
0.854
› = 2.21 × 10 × × (For 80% reliability)

. 1 0.854
› = 0.711 × 10 × × (For 90% reliability)

where, NF = Fatigue Life in number of standard axles

et = Maximum Tensile Strain at the bottom of Bituminous Layer
MR = Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Layer

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

4 TECNICAL NOTE

2.2 Rutting Model

Like for the fatigue model, rutting model has also been calibrated in the R56
studies using the pavement performance data collected during the R-6(57) and
R-19(58) studies at 80 percent and 90 percent reliability levels. The two
equations for calculating the Maximum Permissible Vertical Strain are given
below:

.
› = 4.1656 × 10 × (For 80% reliability)

.
› = 1.41 × 10 × (For 90% reliability)

where, NF = Fatigue Life in number of standard axles

eV = Vertical Strain in Subgrade

2.3 Strains Safety Check

The permissible strains calculated from the above Fatigue and Rutting Models
are checked for safety against the actual strains calculated from IITPAVE
Software.

3 Pavement Design

3.1 Assumptions

3.1.1 Traffic data

The traffic demand forecast data for a period of 20 years, considering 2022 as
the initial operating year of MTHL, are taken from Section 2.6.2 of the Employer
Requirements [ER].

The cumulative number of standard axles for the entire design period of 20
years is calculated based on the traffic forecast data in ER, and not on any
assumed growth rate.

The ER does not mention the vehicular distribution on each ramp, hence we
have analysed 3 cases, namely 30%, 50% and 100% distributions on Ramps C2
and F. We consider these Ramps to have similar traffic volumes as they have the
same destination and origin point/area, respectively. This consideration is also
following ER document, where the traffic volume Unit in the table is given per
direction.

The different percentages follow the below considerations:

› Case 1- 30% of the full traffic volume will use these ramps to/from Sewri
Port area and remaining traffic will be distributed to Eastern Freeway in
both North and South Directions (Ramp B and C1, respectively);

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

 TECNICAL NOTE 5

› Case 2- 50% of the traffic, that we believe is already a conservative

situation;

› Case 3- 100% of the traffic is a highly hypothetic situation where we will

have full traffic through Ramp C2 or F and no traffic accessing Eastern for
the next 20 years.

This exercise is presented so the client may compare the extreme situations,
and be able to check the differences between the resulting pavement structures,
being able to decide with reliable confidence for a balanced and safe solution.

Source: Section VI-1 Employer's Requirements, ERG-58

3.1.2 Vehicle Damage Factor

The value is determined from the following table.

Source: Table 4.2 from IRC: 37-2012

Table-1 below shows the actual traffic and hence the VDF.

Table-1: Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) as per traffic

Cases Initial traffic volume in VDF
terms of commercial
vehicles per day
1 657 3.5
2 1095 3.5
3 2190 4.5

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

6 TECNICAL NOTE

3.1.3 Distribution Factor

For one-directional traffic on a 2 lane single carriageway, the distribution factor
assumed is 80%.

3.1.4 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Existing Material

The CBR of material that shall be used for the construction of the embankment
is assumed as 8%1. However, in the detailed design phase, the actual test pits
shall be dug at the site and values revised, if needed.

The need for remedial measures in case existing soil has extensive swelling
and/or shrinkage characteristic shall be ascertained at the detail design stage.

3.1.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Borrow Material

The CBR considered for 500 mm improved subgrade (selected fill) is 14%.

Hence, the effective CBR to be used for the pavement design, as per IRC 37-
2012 Fig. 5.1 is 12%.

However, in the detailed design stage the actual geotechnical parameters will
have to be used for arriving at the effective CBR.

3.1.6 Volume of Air Voids/Bitumen

The volume of Air Voids is assumed as 3.0% while the Bitumen volume is
assumed as 13.0%.

3.1.7 IITPAVE Inputs

› Poisson ration of Bitumen = 0.35

› Poisson ratio of granular layer = 0.30

› Poisson ratio of subgrade = 0.40

› Temperature = 35°C

› Wheel Load = 20000 N

› Tyre Pressure = 0.7 MPa

› Wheels c/c distance = 310 mm

1 From the contractor's mail dated 16.06.2018

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

 TECNICAL NOTE 7

3.2 Methodology of Pavement Design

The cumulative number of standard axles is calculated in terms of Million
Standard Axles (MSA) using the above stated assumptions. The formulae used
are taken directly from IRC: 37-2012.

365 × (1 + )" − 1
= ×$×%×&

where, N = cumulative number of standard axles in terms of msa

A = Initial traffic at start of operations in terms of commercial vehicle

per day

D = Lane distribution factor

F = Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)

n = Design life in years

r = Annual growth rate of commercial vehicles

The cumulative number of standard axles (MSA) and the effective CBR are used
to read off the values of different pavement layers from Plate 7 & 8 of IRC: 37-
2012.

Source: Plate 7 from IRC: 37-2012

The values of maximum permissible strains are calculated for Fatigue and
Rutting models, using the calculated pavement layers.

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

8 TECNICAL NOTE

Source: Plate 8 from IRC: 37-2012

These pavement layers are then tested for Rutting and Fatigue by using IITPAVE
software. The pavement layer thicknesses along with the engineering
parameters of these layers are input into IITPAVE to arrive at the actual strains
at specified analysis points.

The actual strains are compared with the maximum permissible strains. If the
actual strains are within limits then the pavement layers are adopted. Else, the
layer thicknesses are iterated until the actual strain is within the permissible
limit.

3.3 Strain Analysis

The methodology, as described in Section 3.2, is used to arrive at the
preliminary pavement layer thicknesses. Then the maximum permissible strains
and the actual strains from IITPAVE are calculated and compared. The Table-2
below shows the permissible and actual strains for the 3 cases, based on final
iteration.

Table-2: Strain Values

Cases Test for fatigue Test for rutting

Actual strain Permissible Actual strain Permissible

(from IITPAVE) strain (from (from IITPAVE) strain (from
calculation) calculation)

1 2.66 × 10 2.79 × 10 2.96 × 10 5.45 × 10

2 2.35 × 10 2.41 × 10 2.73 × 10 3.84 × 10

3 1.87 × 10 1.90 × 10 1.36 × 10 3.13 × 10

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx

 TECNICAL NOTE 9

Since, the actual strains in the above table are within permissible values, after
the final iteration, the corresponding pavement layer thicknesses are adopted.

3.4 Pavement Design Output

As specified in section 3.1: Assumptions, the pavement is analysed for the
following 3 cases.

Case 1: Traffic spilling onto Ramp C2 (or Ramp F) is 30% of the total traffic on
MTHL in that direction.

Case 2: Traffic spilling onto Ramp C2 (or Ramp F) is 50% of the total traffic on
MTHL in that direction.

Case 3: Traffic spilling onto Ramp C2 (or Ramp F) is 100% of the total traffic
on MTHL in that direction.

A comprehensive analysis is carried out for the 3 cases and the results posted in
the Table-3 below.

Table-3: Pavement Layers

1 2 3
CASES
[mm] [mm] [mm]
MSA 26 43 109
Bituminous Concrete 40 50 60
Dense Bituminous Macadam 80 90 115
Wet Mix Macadam 250 250 250
Granular Sub-base 200 200 200

Total Pavement 570 590 625

For case 1, the type of bitumen used is VG30 whereas for cases 2 and 3
modified bitumen is used so as to increase its rut life. This is also in accordance
to pavements on structures as specified under Section VI-1 of Employer's
Requirements ERG-59.

4 Conclusion/Recommendation
Regarding the risk due to non-surety of traffic distribution from MTHL to ramps
& vice versa, we recommend using Case 2: 50% distribution. The total
pavement thickness is comparable to Case 1, but with lesser risk of traffic
distribution and added fatigue and rutting life due to the use of modified
bitumen.

MTHL-CO-C-P1-LW-TN-1880-Sewri Interchange Pavement Design-Technical Note Ver0.10.docx