TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

ASSIGNMENT 1
TASK 1
for

The Department of civil engineering
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment
TSHWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

2 March 2010

Traffic Growth Page 4 4. Lifespan of Pavement Page 5 7. Background Page 2 1. DCP results Page 9-10 2. Pavement Balance Page 5 6. Type of Pavement Page 4 5.3. Traffic Study Page 3 3. Conclusion Page 7 8. 1 . Appendix A Page 8 9. Introduction Page 2 1.Contents Page 1.2. Design Process Followed Page 2 2.

and therefore the road can be classified as a type “C” road. Only busses will use the road. (See Attached DCP results). Six tests were done in 15m intervals. Traffic Study From the information obtained from the transportation office at TUT. there are fifteen busses daily on continuous routes from campus to various destinations in Pretoria. Introduction 1. balancing and lifespan of the pavement was then determined through calculations. Traffic Growth 2 . A dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test was done on 17-02-2010 on the current gravel pavement. The type. Design Process Followed I was approached by Dr.1. The road is situated in the South-Eastern corner of the campus of the Tshwane University of Technology. Background A gravel road is to be upgraded to the standard of a bituminous road. therefore the moisture of the road can be taken as dry. The results were used to determine a California bearing ratio (CBR) value for the top 200mm deep layer. Busses arrive in 30min intervals on campus. Traffic data was obtained from the transportation office in Building 2 on TUTPretoria campus. 2.1. to determine the traffic growth for the proposed road. van Wyngaard to do an assessment of a given pavement design.2. (See Appendix Table 1). This part of Tshwane has warm with a low rainfall percentage of rain per annum. 1. seven to Soshanguve and two to Garankuwa. (See Appendix Table 2 for schedule) Daily number of busses: 21:30 – 07:00 = 14:30 hours 30min intervals = 29 busses daily 3.A. W.

because of the low volume of vehicles per day travelling on the road. Type of Pavement Refer to Appendix Table 4 for pavement assessment values.09 UCS 2900 and DSN%=CUM(mm/DN)/DSN800 x 100 B   4 AD  200 A  200 D    4 AD  200 A  200 D  2  4 A  D  10000 D  A  2 A  D  The value for “B” was calculated with the following formula: The value for “D” was calculated with the following formula: D=(Pavement depth / 800) x 100 Road will be a Class “C” road.68 MISA=( CM∗10−9 )∗( DSN 800 ) 3. Refer to Appendix Table 3 for traffic information. 27 CBR 410 DN  1. The values in table 4 for “DN”. Therefore the traffic growth will be one bus per year or: ( 2524 ) ( 100 )−100=4.5 3.5 MISA=( 64∗10−9 )∗(167.68 ) 3 . Climate: CM = 64 (DRY) DSN800 = 167.Information was obtained from the transportation office at TUT that an extra bus will be purchased in January 2011. “UCS” and “DSN%” were calculated with the following formulas: DN  1.17 Round up to 5% traffic growth per annum 4.

6.23 Thus the pavement is bad balanced. Pavement Balance Standard deviation (s) = 10.MISA=3.9 x 10.07 RK = s x 88+2.072 RK=1180.05% Thus the pavement is a deep pavement.07 x 88+2. 5. Lifespan of Pavement Counting date : 2010 Opening date : 2011 E8 0 T F Counting date E8 0 T  F  g Opening date E8 0  Life span E80  f  Opening date 4 .9 x s2 RK = 10.907  400 B  100  B  2  DSN 100 %  D   2   4 DB  100  B   DSN100=29.

24 . n=2.01i  y f =9814 5 . 2  2  29  E8 0   133.01i   1  0.87 ) F=1.  9750      Counting date   8000  E8 0  4.87 ( F= 9750 8000 2. i=5 g=1.78E80 Opening date   365  1  0.01i   1 f   0. y=15 (design life is 15 years) .13E80  i  g   1  100   x x=2 .76 E8 0   146.044∗( DSN 100 )1.13E80 Counting date Design traffic at counting date = 133.1 n  P F    80  n=0.

MESA   Lifespan E 80 1 1000000 MESA=1.     Lifespan  log 1 % 100         % 100 %   E 80opening  365   1   100   MISA 106       1        Lifespan=30 years 7. Overdesigning can result in an expensive pavement.496 MISA>MESA Thus OK. Conclusion The proposed pavement is of a bad design. because the pavement is out of balance and it is over designed for 30 years. The design should be altered to get the layers in balance en the lifespan shortened to be between 15 an 20 years. 6 .

density.696 7.76 98.86 70. Minimum UCS 1200 kPa with cement Import material from Compact to 95% Mod AASHTO 150 mm Subbase borrow pit.25 75 .59 D 18.75 7 66.14 11. density.68 39.94 19.09 38.89 100 B 25.161 Layer Cumulative thickness/ (Layer DSN% DN thickness/ DN) 66.247 5.76 31.39 15. Cemented density.28 76.81 58.70 117.73 21. density. Minimum CBR 30 Import material from Compact to 93% Mod AASHTO 150 mm Lower Selected borrow pit.APPENDIX A Table 1 PAVEMENT COMPOSITION Thickness Layer Construction method Specification Import material from Compact to 98% Mod AASHTO 150 mm Base borrow pit.75 37. Minimum CBR 45 Import material from Compact to 93% Mod AASHTO 150 mm Upper Selected borrow pit.5 56.84 128. Minimum CBR 15 Remainder of the pavement In situ material Left undisturbed Table 2 Days of the week Monday – Thursday Friday Time 07:00-21:30 07:00-18:00 Table 3 Traffic information Mass of truck Number of and load in kg axles per load 19500 2 Product Busses Daily number of loads 29 Table 4 Layer thickness (mm) CBR UCS (kPa) Depth (mm) DN 150 150 150 150 200 147 45 30 15 51 1200 435 307 170 485 150 300 450 600 800 2.529 5.12 2.838 13.93 167.