PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

1 Introduction
Consultancy Services for Preparation of Detailed Project Report of selected Stretches/Corridors of
Road Networks in the state of Maharashtra for Up gradation to Two Lanes with Paved Shoulder /
Four Lane Configurations.
Package: Vengurla Math Amboli Chandgad Belgaon (Package II- Approx Length 110.00 km).

2 Scope of Work

Rigid pavement shall be constructed for new pavements and reconstruction of the existing road.
Rigid pavement shall be designed for a minimum design period of 30 (Thirty) years and minimum
effective CBR of subgrade should be 8%. Stage construction shall not be permitted.

3 Field Investigation

As per the project requirements, the following surveys were undertaken to obtain the traffic data in the
desired form.

• Classified Traffic Volume Count for 7 days at one Location.

• Axle-load Survey for 24 hours at one Location.

• Assessment of the Strength of Existing Sub-grade soil

3.1 Classified Volume Count Surveys

Estimates of current classified traffic levels for the road sections under study are normally obtained
from the mid block counts. These count stations are located away from the local traffic influence areas.
These surveys in both directionswereorganisedfor acontinuous
period of 7 days round the clock at theone location.The data were collected as
per the
standard data format.

The classified traffic volume count survey was conducted from 16 h November 2016 to 22 nd November
2016.

1
Vehicle Type PCU Vehicle Type PCU

Car/Jeep/Taxi 1.0 Auto Rickshaw 1.0

Mini Bus/ LCV 1.5 Agricultural Tractor 1.5

Standard Bus 3.0 Agricultural Tractor & Trailer 4.5

2/3 Axle Truck 3.0 Animal Drawn Vehicle 6.0

MAV 4.5 Cycle 0.5

Two Wheeler 0.5 Cycle Rickshaw 2.0

Source: IRC: 64-1990: Guidelines for capacity of Roads in Rural Areas

All the results are presented in tabulated and graphical formats. The analysis of data brings out
the hourly, daily, and weekly variations in traffic.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

The classified traffic volume count data of each survey location is analysed and daily traffic in terms of
number of vehicles and PCUs identified. The average daily traffic (ADT) at each survey location is
calculated and the summary of ADT at all the survey locations is given in the Table 2.

a
Sl.no Type of Vehicle Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
In vehicles In PCU's
1 Standard Buses 125 376
2 Mini Buses 43 65
3 Cars/ Jeeps 1823 1823

4 Two Wheelers 1651 826

5 Auto Rickshaws 167 167

6 Trucks 2-Axles 1090 3269
7 Trucks 3-Axles 310 930
8 MAV 42 189
9 LCV 424 635
10 Tractors/ 14 21
Motorised
Carts
11 Tractor -Trailers 20 88
12 Bi-Cycles/Cycle 40 20
Rickshaw
13 Hand 13 80
drawn/Animal
drawn carts
14 Exempted Vehicles 10 10

15 Others 3 9

Total 5774 8506

Standard Buses 125 376
Mini Buses 43 65
Trucks 2-Axles 1090 3269
Trucks 3-Axles 310 930
MAV 42 189
CPVD LCV 424 635
Tractors/ Motorised 14 21
Carts
Tractor -Trailers 20 88
Total 2068 5573

Hence, CVPD 2068 Nos is less than the agreement value of 2145 Nos. Therefore, 2145 CVPD is
consider for the Pavement design.

3.2 Axle Load Surveys

The intensity of traffic loading and the corresponding damaging power of different categories of
vehicles is an important parameter for the design of pavements. The main objective of the

3
 Pavement Design Report

axle load survey is to determine a Vehicle Damaging Factor (VDF) of each category of commercial
vehicle and their axle load spectrum/ distribution and expected damage on pavement.

Location

Axle load survey was conducted for duration of 1 day (24-hours) at km 27/200 in project road, to assess
the axle load spectrum and in turn to determine the vehicle damage factor for commercial vehicles. The
survey was done using portable weigh pad. Axle load survey was conducted to cover both directional
traffic for both empty and loaded commercial vehicles i.e. LCV, 2-axle trucks, 3-axle tracks, multi-axle
trucks and buses.

Vehicle Damaging Factor

The vehicle damaging factor is an important indexing factor for characterizing the traffic loading on the
road. The VDF can be computed from the axle load data by the following formula.

VDF = Total EAL/Number of vehicles weighed

The vehicle damage factor is a multiplier to convert the number of commercial vehicles of different
axle loads and axle configuration to the number of standard axle load repetitions. It is defined as
equivalent number of standard axle per commercial vehicle. The VDF varies with the vehicle axle
configuration, axle loading, terrain, type of road and from region to region.

4
 Rear Single Axle Rear Tandem Axle Rear Tridem Axle
Load Mid-Point of Frequenc Load Mid-Point Frequency Load Mid-Point Frequenc
Group Load Group y (%) Grou of Load (%) Grou of Load y (%)
(kN) (kN) p Group p Group
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
0-20 10 48.6% 20-40 30 2.0% 40-60 50 2.8%
20-40 30 23.5 40-60 50 12.2% 60-80 70 8.3%
40-60 50 %
14.0 60-80 70 20.4% 80-100 90 13.9%
%

5
M/s M.B Patil MoRT&H
 Rear Single Axle Rear Tandem Axle Rear Tridem Axle
Load Mid-Point of Frequenc Load Mid-Point Frequency Load Mid-Point Frequenc
Group Load Group y (%) Group of Load (%) Group of Load y (%)
(kN) (kN) (kN) Group (kN) Group
(kN) (kN)
60-80 70 3.7% 80-100 90 8.2% 100- 110 16.7%
80-100 90 3.3% 100- 110 0.0% 120
120- 130 5.6%
100- 110 3.3% 120
120- 130 2.0% 140
140- 150 11.1%
120
120- 130 2.9% 140
140- 150 2.0% 160
160- 170 8.3%
140
140- 150 0.8% 160
160- 170 10.2% 180
180- 190 5.6%
160
160- 170 0.0% 180
180- 190 14.3% 200
200- 210 0.0%
180
180- 190 0.0% 200
200- 210 10.2% 220
220- 230 2.8%
200
200- 210 0.0% 220
220- 230 2.0% 240
240- 250 0.0%
220 240
240- 250 0.0% 260
260- 270 5.6%
260
260- 270 10.2% 280
280- 290 2.8%
280
280- 290 0.0% 300
300- 310 5.6%
300
300- 310 2.0% 320
320- 330 0.0%
320
320- 330 0.0% 340
340- 350 5.6%
340
340- 350 4.1% 360
360- 370 5.6%
360 380
380- 390 0.00
100.00 100.00 400 100.00

3.3 Assessment of the Strength of Existing Sub-grade soil

Existing two lane highway has been built over the span of several years. No clear history and
composition of the existing pavement is available. In order to assess the composition of the existing
pavement and to determine the strength of existing sub grade soil, trial pit investigation was conducted
on the existing road.

Test pits were taken on the existing pavement, cutting about 600 mm inside theroadedge.
Test pits were conducted at a staggered interval of 0.5 Km. Exact location of thetest pit
(Chainage) with respect to the existing Kilometer stones was recorded.

Pits were dug up to the required depth so as to expose the top of the sub grade soil. On top of the sub
grade soil the following tests were conducted.

• Field density test using sand replacement method as per IS 2720 part 28
• Moisture content test as per IS 2720 (Part 2) -1973

Once the tests on the top of the sub grade were completed, then the pit was further dug and sub grade
soil material not less than 50 Kg was collected for laboratory testing. From the test pit, thickness of
various pavement layers of existing crust was measured and recorded. On the collected sample
following tests were conducted.

6
 Pavement Design Report

• Grain size- as per IS 2720 (Part 4)-1985

• Soil classification- IS

• Atterberg limits- as per IS 2720 (Part 5)-1985 and IS 2720(Part-6)-1972

• CBR (soaked) - -as per IS 2720 (Part -16)

Abstract of the results of the tests on the existing pavement is given in Annexure - II.

4.0 Rigid Pavement Design

4.1 Design Methodology

As per Schedule - D of the Concession Agreement, the Design standards comprise of MOSRT&H
policy circulars and IRC codes guidelines and special publications applicable to National Highways.
For the items not covered in the above codes, other international codes and standards shall be followed
in the order of priority specified in the Schedule D.

Rigid Pavement design shall be carried out as per IRC: 58-2015 - “Guidelines for the Design of Plain
Jointed Rigid Pavements for Highways”.

4.2 Traffic Growth Rate

The past traffic growth in project road is very minimal (less than 5%). Hence, the traffic growth is
considered as 5% as per IRC:SP:73-2015.

4.3 Design Input Parameters

The design parameters used in the rigid pavement design are given in Table 4.

i
 Design Life 30 years
Grade of Concrete M40
Flexural strength of cement concrete (28 days) 4.5 MPA
Poisson ratio value for cement concrete 0.15
E for concrete 3.0 x 105 kg/ cm2
Tyre Pressure 8Kg / cm2.
Transverse joint spacing 4.5 m
Lane Width 3.5 m
Commercial Vehicles Per Day (CVPD) 2145 CVPD
50.3
Modulus of Sub grade reaction (K) = Estimated from design soaked CBR (9
%)
284.667 MPA/m
Effective modulus of sub-grade reaction of combined foundation of sub-
grade+ Granular sub-base and DLC sub-base
Growth Rate 5%
52016635
Cumulative No of Commercial vehicles during design period (two-way)

Axle distribution
a Front single axle 50%
b Rear Single Axle 37%
C Rear tandem axle 7.5%
d Rear tridem axle 5.5%
73.8%
Percentage of commercial vehicles with spacing between the front axle & the
first rear axle less than 4.5m
Traveling time distribution
6 AM to 6PM 53.8%
6PM to 6AM 46.2%
Average number of axles per commercial vehicle 2.369
21 °C
Maximum Day time temperature differential in slab ( for bottom up cracking)

15.5 °C
Maximum Night time temperature differential in slab ( for Top down cracking)
( Day time diff/2+5)

8
i Design period = 30 years
ii Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic = 0.05
iii Two way commercial volume per day = 2145
iv % traffic in predominant direction = 100%
v Total two way commercial vehicles during design period, A = 52016635 CV
vi Average number of axles per commercial vehicles, B = 2.369
vi Total two way commercial vehicles during design period, C = AxB = 123227408 CV
ivi = 1.0
Proportion of traffic in predominant direction (For 2-lane 2-way highways
ii
use a value of 1.0), D
ix Lateral Placement factor (0.25 for 2-lane 2-way. For multilane highways the = 0.25
value is 0.25 X C), E
x Factor for selection of traffic for BUC analysis (for six-hour period during = 0.29
day), F
xi Factor for selection of traffic for TDC analysis (for six-hour period during = 0.17
day), G
xi Design axle repetitions for BUC analysis (for 6 hour day time traffic), = 8933987
i
H=B*E*F
Xi Proportion of vehicles with spacing between front and the first rear axle less = 0.738
i
than the spacing of transverse joints, I
iXi = 3865028
Design axle repetitions for TDC analysis (for 6-hour night time traffic), J =
v B*E*G*I
Axle Category Propotion of Categorywise Axle Categorywise Axle
axle category repetions for bottom repetions for Top
up cracking analysis down cracking
analysis
Front Single 50% 4466994 1932514
Rear Single 37% 3305575 1430060
Tandem 7.5% 670049 289877
Tridem Axle3.5%
load category wise design axle load repetions for top down212577
491369 and bottom up
i Trial Thickness h = 0.25 m

ii Radius of relative thickness I = 0.612 m

iii
P ( Beta) Factor in the stress equations will be 0.66 for

doweled transverse joints for carrying out TDC analysis

Pavement Option:

Concrete pavement with Tied Concrete Shoulder with Doweled joints

9
M/s M.B Patil MoRT&H
 Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles
Expected Flex Stres Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stres Allowable Fatigue
Repetition Stres s Repetition Damag Repetition Stres s Repetition Damage
s s Ratio s e s (ni) s Ratio s (Ni) (ni/Ni)
(ni)
1605176 1.285
MPa (SR)
0.260 (Ni)
infinite 0.000
(ni/Ni) 13674 1.044
MPa (SR)
0.211 infinite 0.000
775382 1.488 0.301 infinite 0.000 82047 1.136 0.229 infinite 0.000
462508 1.691 0.342 infinite 0.000 136745 1.227 0.248 infinite 0.000
122429 1.893 0.383 infinite 0.000 54698 1.318 0.266 infinite 0.000
108826 2.096 0.423 infinite 0.000 0 1.41 0.285 infinite 0.000
108826 2.299 0.464 8809966 0.012 13674 1.501 0.303 infinite 0.000
95222 2.502 0.505 593490 0.160 13674 1.592 0.322 infinite 0.000
27206 2.704 0.546 138195 0.197 68372 1.684 0.340 infinite 0.000
0 2.907 0.587 44073 0.000 95721 1.775 0.359 infinite 0.000
0 3.110 0.628 14113 0.000 68372 1.866 0.377 infinite 0.000
0 3.312 0.669 4519 0.000 13674 1.958 0.395 infinite 0.000
0 1.184 0.239 infinite 0.000 0 2.049 0.414 infinite 0.000
0 1.184 0.239 infinite 0.000 68372 2.14 0.432 infinite 0.000
0 1.184 0.239 infinite 0.000 0 2.232 0.451 5405653 0.000
9.83
0 1.184 0.239 infinite 0.000 13674 2.323 0.469 5546315. 0.002
166
0 1.184 0.239 infinite 0.000 0 2.414 0.488 1468418. 0.000
276
0 1.184 0.239 infinite 0.000 27349 2.506 0.506 572409.0 0.048
327
0 1.184 0.239 infinite 0.000 0 0.907 0.183 infinite 0.000
3305575 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.370 670049 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.050
Total Bottom-up Fatigue Damage due to single and 0.370 + 0.050 = 0.420
tandem axle loads =

10
 Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles (Stess computed for 50% of axle load) Re ar Tridem Axles (Stress computed for 33% of axle load)

Expected Flex Stres Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stres Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Stres Allowable Fatigue
Repetitions Stres s
Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stres s
Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions MPa s
Ratio Repetitions Damage
(ni) s
MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) s
MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni)
694433 1.63 0.33 infinite 0.000 5916 1.67 0.33 infinite 0.000 5905 1.684 0.34 infinite 0.000
335446 71.77 10.35 infinite 0.000 35495 21.74 80.35 infinite 0.000 17715 1.730 00.35 infinite 0.000
200091 71.91 90.38 infinite 0.000 59159 21.81 20.36 infinite 0.000 29525 1.777 00.35 infinite 0.000
52965 62.05 70.41 infinite 0.000 23663 11.88 60.38 infinite 0.000 35429 1.823 90.36 infinite 0.000
47080 52.19 50.44 infinite 0.000 0 11.95 00.39 infinite 0.000 11810 1.869 80.37 infinite 0.000
47080 42.33 30.47 4614835 0.010 5916 12.02 40.40 infinite 0.000 23620 1.916 80.38 infinite 0.000
41195 32.47 10.50 779725 0.053 5916 2.09 80.42 infinite 0.000 17715 1.962 70.39 infinite 0.000
11770 32.61 00.52 248103 0.047 29579 2.15 20.43 infinite 0.000 11810 2.009 60.40 infinite 0.000
0 22.75 80.55 105773 0.000 41411 92.22 60.45 59336246 0.001 0 2.055 60.41 infinite 0.000
0 12.89 60.58 48381 0.000 29579 92.29 00.46 8853792 0.003 5905 2.101 50.42 infinite 0.000
0 03.03 40.61 22130 0.000 5916 92.36 40.47 2681213 0.002 0 2.148 50.43 infinite 0.000
0 01.56 20.31 infinite 0.000 0 82.43 80.49 1120050 0.000 11810 2.194 40.44 infinite 0.000
0 81.56 70.31 infinite 0.000 29579 82.50 20.50 562797 0.053 5905 2.241 30.45 39609830 0.000
0 81.56 70.31 infinite 0.000 0 72.57 70.52 318853 0.000 11810 2.287 30.46 11364547 0.001
0 81.56 70.31 infinite 0.000 5916 72.64 10.53 196537 0.030 0 2.333 20.47 4614835 0.000
0 81.56 70.31 infinite 0.000 0 72.71 50.54 128955 0.000 11810 2.380 10.48 2278736 0.005
0 81.56 70.31 infinite 0.000 11832 62.78 90.56 86986 0.136 11810 2.426 10.49 1275844 0.009
0 81.56 70.31 infinite 0.000 0 61.56 30.31 infinite 0.000 0 2.473 00.50 779725 0.000
8 7 8 7 0
1430060 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.110 289877 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.225 212577 Fat Dam from Tridem Axles = 0.016
Total Top-Down Fatigue Damage = 0.110 + 0.225 + 0.01 = 0.351
6

Sum of CFD for BUC & TDC= 0.420+0.351 = 0.771

The Design Thickness of Slab is Safe.

11
Subgrade CBR (%)= 8
Granular Subabse Thickness (mm) = 15
Effective k-value from Tables 2 and 3 (MPa/m) = 0
58
For k of 58.1 MPa/m and for .1
Slab
Doweled Joint and Tied Concrete Shoulders, Thickness 0.2
(m) = 5
Trial Slab thickness (m) over DLC, h1 0. Poisson's Ratio of DLC, 0.
25 ^2 2
Provide DLC thickness (m), h2 0. Depth to Neutral axis, m 0.
15 17
(See Fig.6)
Elastic Modulus of Pavement Concrete 30 Flex Stiffness of design 39
00 Slab .9
(MPa), E1 0 6
Elastic Modulus of DLC (MPa), E2 13 Flex Stiffness of Partial 54
60 .0
0 Slab Provided 0
Poisson's Ratio of Paving Concrete, ^1 0. Flex Stiffness of DLC 25
15 .6
Total Flexural Stiffness Provided = 54 + 25.62 = 79.
.0 62
0
which is more than the Flexural Stiffness of the Design Slab = 39.
96

Hence, Provide a Slab of thickness 0 over DLC of thickness 0.15

(m) . (m)
2
5

4.3 Joints

Changes in temperature affect the stresses in the slab; changes in the temperature gradient through the
slab will cause differential expansion or contraction between the top and bottom of the slab; expansion
or contraction of the slab restrained due to the friction between the subgrade and the slab. Joints are
needed for allowing for expansion, contraction and warping of the slab. The following types of joints
are required:

• Expansion joints

• Contraction joints

• Construction joints

Dowel bars with one side free ends for expansion are provided in the expansion joints. The contraction
joints are saw cut joints when the concrete is still green. These are also provided with dowel bar
arrangement for load transfer. The gap of about 20 mm is sealed with joint

12
Design Load Transfer (%) 40%

Wheel load considered for Design 80

Joint Width (cm), Expansion Joint 2

Joint Width (cm), Contraction Joint 0.8

Length of the slab, L 450

Width of the slab, B 350

Thickness of slab, cm 25

Coefficient of thermal coefficient, (in DC) 0.00001

Elastic Modulus of Concrete, E (in kg/sq.cm) 300000

Tyre Pressure, q (in kg/sq.cm) 8

Poisson's Ratio, |i 0.15

Radius of relative stiffness, I 84.07

Temperature Differential For Nagpur 21.00

fck, (in kg/sq.cm) 400

Diameter of dowel bar (assumed, in cm) 3.2

Elastic Modulus of dowel bar 2000000

Permissible Bearing Stress, Fb 292.283

Assumed spacing between dowel bars (in cm) 25

Assumed length of dowel bar (in cm) 45

4.363 ~ 4
Number of dowel bars participating in load transfer

2.216
Total Load transferred by the dowel bar system (*Pt)

13
Load carried by the outer dowel bar, Pt 1473

Modulus of dowel/concrete interaction, K 41500

Check for Bearing Stress

Moment of inertia of dowel 5.147

Relative stiffness of dowel bar embedded in 0.238

concrete, □

Bearing stress in dowel bar

271.687
<292.283
Safe
Wheel load considered for Design 80

Design Load Transfer (%) 40%

Joint Width (cm) 1.2

Length of the slab, L 450

Width of the slab, B 350

4.4 Tie Bars for longitudinal joints
Thickness of slab 28
IRC 58-2002
Thermal coefficient, a (in°C)is followed for the design of Tie bar. The Tie bar proposed is 12 mm O deformed bars,
0.00001
640mm
Elastic Modulus long @ Espacing
of Concrete, 720 mm c/c for Main carriageway.
(in kg/sq.cm) 300000The design calculation is given in Annexure-

Tyre Pressure,6.q (in kg/sq.cm) 8

Poisson's Ratio, |i 0.15

Radius of relative stiffness, l 84.07

Coefficient of friction, f 1.5

Density of Concrete 2400

Allowable Tensile Stress for Plain bars 1250

Allowable Tensile Stress for Deformed bars 2000

Allowable bond stress for plain tie bars, kg/sq.cm 17.5

14
Allowable bond stress for deformed tie bars, kg/sq.cm 24.6

Diameter of tie bar, d in mm 12

Spacing and length of the plain bar

Area of steel bar per metre width of joint 2.52

Cross sectional area of the bar, sq.cm 1.131

Perimeter of the bar, P 3.770

Spacing of tie bars, cm 44.880 ~ 45

Length of tie bar, L cm 42.857 ~ 43

Increase of length for painting & placement, cm 43+10+5=58

Spacing and length of the deformed bar

Area of steel bar per metre width of joint 1.575

Cross sectional area of the bar, sq.cm 1.131

Perimeter of the bar, P 3.770

Spacing of tie bars, cm 71.808~ 72

Length of tie bar, L cm 48.780 ~ 49

Increase of length for painting & placement, cm 49+10+5=64

4.0 Design of Flexible Pavement in Abandoned Stretch:

As per Schedule ‘B’, the flexible pavement (overlaying the BT surface) constructed in road
stretches from km 0/0 to km 1/23, km 2/3 to km 5/0 &km 13/7 to km 16/4.Scarifying the
Existing Pavement upto WMM/WBM and applying Prime Coat over WMM/WBM, Tack coat over
Primed Surface, laying DBM of 85mm, Tack on DBM and BC of 40mm.

4.1 Rehabilitation of Existing Pavement

4.1.1 BBD Testing and Analysis

Benkelman beam deflection testing has been carried out along the existing project road, BBD analysis
has been done by CGRA (Canadian Good Roads Association) approach by applying the temperature
and seasonal correction factors to arrive the rebound deflection as depicted in IRC: 81-1997.
Characteristic deflection has been calculated as per IRC: 81-1997 guidelines and presented in the
following table 5.

15
S.No. Chainage Mean Standard Characteristic
Deflection Deviation Deflection
Fro To
m (mm) (mm)

1 0/0 1/2 1.187 0.282 1.751

2 2/6 4/0 1.314 0.237 1.788
3 4/0 5/0 1.393 0.294 1.980
4 13/7 15/ 1.297 0.283 1.862
5 15/0 016/ 1.246 0.304 1.855
4
Location Direction Bu LC 2A 3A MA
s V T T V
Km 25+200 Up 62 220 519 156 21

Down 64 204 570 154 20

Total 126 424 108 310 41

9

4.1.2 Inputs for Overlay Design

Base year Traffic

The traffic data was collected from the traffic survey carried out in the month of November 2017.
Base year commercial traffic is presented in Table 6. The complete traffic data is provided in
Annexure I. For the purpose of the pavement design, commercial vehicles of laden weight more than
3 tonnes has been considered. Such vehicles consisted of Buses, LCV's, 2 Axle trucks, 3 Axle trucks
and Multi Axle Trucks. The summary of ADT of commercial vehicles considered for pavement design
is given below.

Table 6: Base Year Commercial Traffic

Growth Rate

As per Clause 5.5.4 of 2/4 laning Manual of Specifications and Standards (Published by Planning
Commission of India), the concessionaire shall adopt a realistic value of growth rate for pavement
design which is obtained from the analysis as out lined in IRC: 108, provided that the annual growth
rate of commercial vehicles shall not be assumed as less than 5%.

16
Sl. No. Class of Vehicle VDF Reocmmended
Both VDF
Vengurala to Shinoli
Shinoli to Directions
Vengur
1 LCV - Goods 0.10 la
0.09 0.09 0.10
2 2-Axle Truck - Goods 1.46 0.50 1.10 1.46
3 3-Axle Truck - 4.45 4.21 4.32 4.45
Tandem
4 Multi-Axle Truck 4.46 1.88 3.03 4.46

Lane Distribution Factor

The lane distribution factor (D) is necessary as it directly affects the total equivalent standard axle load
applications used in the pavement design. According to IRC: 37-2012 para 4.5.1, (ii) for two lane
single carriageway roads, the design should be based on 50 % of the total number of commercial
vehicles in both directions.

Computation of Design Traffic

Traffic projections available from traffic study have been used for design of pavements. Out of the
various types of vehicles encountered during traffic counts and axle load surveys, LCV, 2-Axle, 3-
Axle, articulated trucks and tractors have been considered as commercial vehicles. The design traffic is
considered in terms of cumulative number of standard axles to be carried during the design life of the
road. Its computations involves estimates of the initial volume of commercial vehicles per day, lateral
distribution of traffic, the growth rate, the design life in years and the vehicle damage factor to convert
commercial vehicles to standard axles. The following equation is used to compute the design traffic in
terms of the cumulative number of standard axles.

N = 365 x {(1 + r ) n- 1}x A x LD x VDF r

17
 Where,

N = Cumulative number of standard axles to be catered for design life

in msa
r = Annual growth rate of commercial vehicles
n = Design life in years
A = Initial traffic in terms of number of commercial vehicles per day
LD = Lane distribution factor
VDF = Vehicle Damage Factor

The design traffic computed in terms of cumulative number of standard axles (msa) for 20 years is
given in the Table 8.

Design traffic on project corridor is estimated to be 23.20 MSA (~ 25 MSA) for finding the
strengthening layers in abandoned NH Stretch.

18
V 1 1.4 4. 4 0.1 Total MS Cum. Desig
D 6 45 . A n
F
Ye Bu 24 3 4
M LC No. MSA
MSA
ar s Tr A A V of (Both
uc Tr V com direction
k uc merc s)
k
20 12 108 31 4 424 ial
1990 1.21 -
17 6 9 0 1
20 13 114 32 4 445 2090 1.27 Construction Period
18 2 3 6 3
20 13 120 34 4 467 2194 1.34 base
19 9 1 2 5 year
20 14 126 35 4 491 2304 1.40 1.40 0.70 1
20 6 1 9 7
20 15 132 37 5 515 2419 1.47 2.88 1.44 2
21 3 4 7 0
20 16 139 39 5 541 2540 1.55 4.42 2 21 3
22 1 0 6 2
20 16 145 41 5 568 2667 1.62 6.05 3.02 4
23 9 9 5 5
20 17 153 43 5 597 2800 1 71 7.75 3.88 5
24 7 2 6 8
20 18 160 45 6 626 2940 1 79 9.54 4.77 6
25 6 9 8 1
20 19 168 48 6 658 3087 1.88 11.42 5.71 7
26 5 9 1 4
20 20 177 50 6 691 3242 1.97 13.40 6.70 8
27 5 4 5 7
20 21 186 53 7 725 3404 2.07 15.47 7.74 9
28 6 3 0 0
20 22 195 55 7 761 3574 2.18 17.65 8.82 10
29 6 6 7 4
20 23 205 58 7 800 3752 2.29 19.93 9.97 11
30 8 3 5 7
20 24 215 61 8 839 3940 2.40 22.33 11.17 12
31 9 6 4 1
20 26 226 64 8 881 4137 2.52 24.85 12.43 13
32 2 4 4 5
20 27 237 67 8 926 4344 2.65 27.50 13.75 14
33 5 7 7 9
20 28 249 71 9 972 4561 2.78 30.28 15.14 15
34 9 6 1 4
20 30 262 74 9 102 4789 2.92 33.19 16.60 16
35 3 1 6 9 0
20 31 275 78 1 107 5029 3.06 36.26 18.13 17
36 8 2 3 0 1
20 33 288 82 4
1 112 5280 3.22 39.47 19.74 18
37 4 9 3 0 5
20 35 303 86 9
1 118 5544 3.38 42.85 21.42 19
38 1 4 4 1 1
20 36 318 90 4
1 124 5821 3.55 46.40 23.20 20
39 9 6 7 2 0
0

19
S.No. Chainage Characteristic Equivalent (DBM+BC) Proposed Overlay
Deflection BM Required Thickness* (mm)
Fro To (mm) Thickness Thickness DBM BC
m (mm) (mm)
1 0/0 1/2 1.751 175 123 85 40
2 2/6 4/0 1.788 175 123 85 40
3 4/0 5/0 1.980 178 125 85 40
4 13/7 15/0 1.862 178 125 85 40
5 15/0 16/4 1.855 178 125 85 40
Layers Thickness (mm)
Pavement Quality Concrete 250
Dry Lean concrete 150
Granular Sub-base 150
Subgrade (8%) 500
Layers Thickness (mm)
Bituminous Concrete 40
Dense Bituminous Macadam 85

*- Strengthening layers shall be provided after Scarifying the existing pavement up to WMM/WBM and
Applying Prime coat over WMM, Tack over Primed Surface, Laying DBM of 85mm, Tack on DBM ,
B.C of 40MM. Before taking up the Strengthening layers, cracks and pot holes shall be properly sealed.

6.0 Proposed Pavement Composition

The composition of pavements layers in different section of project road is given

below,
(i) Main Carriageway + Paved Shoulder
(km 1+230 to km 2+300, km 5+000 to km 13+700, km 16+400 to km 55+800)

(i) Strengthening the Existing Carriageway

(km 0+000 to km 1+230, km 2+300 to km 5+000, km 13+700 to km 16+400)

The cross section of project road is given below in Drawing.

20