DRAFT

GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

(Fourth Revision)

Published by:
INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS
Kama Koti Marg,
Sector-6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110 022
August 2018
Price :`

(Plus Packing & Postage)

3
First Published : September, 1970
Reprinted : December, 1976
First Revision : December, 1984
Reprinted : October, 1990 (Incorporates Amendment No. 1, September 1988
Reprinted : April, 1995
Second Revision : July, 2001
Reprinted : March, 2002
Reprinted : July, 2004
Reprinted : April, 2005
Reprinted : June, 2006
Reprinted : June, 2007
Reprinted : December, 2007
Reprinted : September, 2008
Reprinted : October, 2009
Reprinted : July, 2011
Third Revision : July, 2012
Fourth Revision 2018

(All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced, translated or transmitted in any
form or by any means without the permission of the Indian Roads Congress)

4
 CONTENTS
Page No.
Personnel of Highways Specifications and Standards Committee (i)
1. Introduction
2. Scope
3. Design Principles
4. Traffic
5. Pavement compositions
6. Subgrade
7. Sub-bases
8. Bases
9. Bituminous layers
9.1 General
9.2 Resilient Modulus of bituminous mixes
10 Long life Pavements
11 Pavement Design Procedure
12. Pavement Structural Design Catalogues
12.1 Granular Base and Granular Sub-base
12.2 Cemented Base and Cemented Sub-base with Crack Relief Interlayer of Aggregate
12.3 Cemented Base and Cemented Sub-base with SAMI at the Interface of Cemented Base
and the Bituminous Layer
12.4 Foamed Bitumen/bitumen Emulsion treated RAP
12.5 Cemented Base and Granular Sub-base with Crack Relief layer of Aggregate Interlayer
12.6 Granular Base and Cemented Sub-base
13. Design in Frost Affected Areas
14. Quality Control Tests during Construction
15. Appendix
16 Annexes
17 References

5
 ABBREVIATIONS
All symbols are explained where they occur first. Some of the symbols are,

AAAT - Average Annual Air Temperature

AAPT - Average Annual Pavement Temperature
AMAT - Average Monthly Air Temperature
AMPT - Average Monthly Pavement Temperature
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials
ASTM - American Society of Testing and Materials
AUSTROADS - Association of Australian and New Zealand Road
Transport and Traffic Authorities.
BC - Bituminous Concrete
BIS - Bureau of Indian Standards
BM - Bituminous Macadam
Cs - Spacing of Transverse Cracks
CBR - California Bearing Ratio
CFD - Cumulative Fatigue Damage
CTB/CT - Cement Treated Base-includes all type of Cement
Chemical stabilized bases
DBM - Dense Bituminous Macadam
E - Elastic Modulus of Cementitious Layer
GB - Granular Base
GDP - Gross Domestic Product
GSB - Granular Sub-base
Ic - Crack Infiltration Rate per Unit Length
IRC - Indian Roads Congress
Kp - Infiltration Rate Per Unit Area of Un-Cracked Pavement
Surface
MR - Resilient Modulus
MRUP - Modulus of Rupture
MEPDG - Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide

6
Msa - Million Standard Axles
MORTH - Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
MSS - Mixed Seal Surfacing
Nc - No. of Longitudinal Cracks
Nf - Cumulative No. of Repetitions for Fatigue Failure

NR - Cumulative No .of Repetitions for Rutting Failure

PC - Premix Carpet

Qi - Water Infiltration Rate Per Unit Area

SAMI - Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer
RAP - Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
RF - Reliability Factor
SDBC - Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete
SD - Surface Dressing
SDP - State Domestic Product

UCS - Unconfined Compressive Strength

Va - Volume of Air Voids
Vb - Volume of Bitumen
VDF - Vehicle Damage Factor
VG - Viscosity Grade
Wp - Width of Pavement Subjected to Infiltration
Wc - Length of Transverse Cracks
WBM - Water Bound Macadam

WMM - Wet Mix Macadam

εt - Horizontal Tensile Strain
Εv - Vertical Subgrade Strain
µ - Poisson’s Ratio
µε - Micro Strain

7
 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The first guidelines for design of flexible pavements, published in1970, were based on (i)
subgrade (foundation) strength (California Bearing Ratio) and (ii) traffic in terms of number of
commercial vehicles (having laden weight of 3 tonnes or more) per day. They were revised in 1984
considering design traffic in terms of cumulative number of equivalent standard axle load of 80 kN and
design charts were provided for design traffic up to 30 million standard axle (msa) repetitions. The
1970 and 1984 versions of the guidelines were based on empirical (experience based) approach.
1.2 The second revision was carried out in 2001, using semi-mechanistic (or mechanistic-empirical)
approach based on the results from R-6 [1], R-56 [2] and other research schemes of the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Mechanistic-empirical performance models for subgrade
rutting and bottom-up cracking in the bottom bituminous layer developed using the results of these
research schemes were used for design of flexible pavements. FPAVE software, developed for R-56
research scheme for analysis of linear elastic layered pavement systems, was used for analysis of
pavements and for development of thickness design charts. Design charts were provided for design
traffic levels up to 150 msa.

1.3 The third revision of the guidelines was carried out in 2012 to facilitate (i) design of bituminous
pavements for traffic volumes more than 150 msa (ii) utilization of new types of pavement materials
such as bituminous mixes with modified binders, foam/emulsion treated granular or recycled asphalt
pavement (RAP) material bases and sub-bases and cement treated sub-bases and bases and stabilized
subgrades and (iii) utilization of new construction techniques/practices. Recommendations were made
for use of harder grade binders to resist rutting and top-down cracking in the upper bituminous layer
and for fatigue resistant bituminous mixes for bottom bituminous layer. Mechanistic-empirical
performance models were given for rutting in subgrade and bottom-up cracking in bituminous layers
for two different levels (80% and 90%) of reliability. Fatigue criteria were also included for cement
treated bases.

1.4 The fourth (current) revision has been done based on the feedback received on the performance
of bituminous pavements in general and that of bituminous layers in particular. Different provisions
made in the third revision of the guidelines have been fine-tuned based on the feedback. Some of the
salient features of the fourth revision are: (a) recommendation of better performing bituminous mixes
and binders (b) recommendation of minimum thicknesses of granular and cement treated sub-bases and
bases and bituminous layers from functional requirements (c) generalization of the procedure for
estimation of resilient modulus/CBR of subgrade (d) provision for use of geo-composites (e)
consideration of high modulus mixes and (f) rationalization of design approach for stage construction.

1.5 The draft of the basic document was prepared by Prof. B.B. Pandey of IIT Kharagpur based on
8
the feedback received during the open house discussion on IRC: 37-2012 held at the NHAI
headquarters on 9th April 2016, comments of different practicing professionals, experts and the
members of the H-2 committee on the field performance of bituminous pavements and on other design
and practical issues. The draft was further edited and modified by a sub-committee consisting of Sri
A.V. Sinha, Sri R.K Pandey and Sri Bidur Kant Jha.

Dr. K. Sudhakar Reddy - Convener

Nirmal, S.K. - Co-convener
Shukla, Manoj - Member Secretary

Members (to be edited)

Basu, Chandan Katare, P.K.

Bhanwala, Col. R.S. Krishna, Prabhat
Bongirwar, P.L. Lal, Chaman
Nigam, Dr. S.K.
Pachauri, D.K.
Pandey, R.K.
Jain, Dr. M.C. Sarma, Dr. Sivaram B.
Jain, R.K. Sharma, S.C.
Jain, Rajesh Kumar Tyagi, B.R.

Corresponding Members

Dr. Veeraragavan, A Dr. Justo, C.E.G.

Dr. Rao, S.K. Sharma, S.K.

Ex-Officio Members

President, IRC (Yadav, Dr. V.K., VSM)

Director General (RD) & SS, MORTH
Secretary General, IRC (Indoria, R.P.)

2 SCOPE
2.1 The Guidelines shall apply to the design of new flexible pavements and reconstruction of
9
damaged pavements for roads with a design traffic of two million standard axle (msa) load repetitions
or more. For rehabilitation of damaged pavements, overlay design shall be done as per Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) method (IRC: 115) [3] or Benkelman Beam Deflection (BBD) test method (IRC:
81) [4].

2.2 Users of the guidelines are expected to use their skill, experience and engineering judgment and
take into consideration the local climatic conditions, cost and availability of materials, their durability
and past pavement performance in their respective regions for selecting a suitable pavement
composition.

The guidelines may require revision from time to time in the light of future performance data and
technological developments. Towards this end, it is suggested that all the organizations intending to use
the guidelines should keep a detailed record of the year of construction, subbgrade CBR, soil
characteristics, pavement composition and specifications, traffic, pavement performance, overlay
history, climatic conditions, etc., and provide feedback to the Indian Roads Congress for further
revision.

3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES
3.1 The philosophy of pavement design involves designing pavements for satisfactory functional
and structural performance of the pavement during its intended service life period. Roughness caused
by variation in surface profile, cracking of layers bound by bituminous or cementitious materials,
rutting (permanent or plastic deformation) of unbound/unmodified or partially modified subgrade and
granular layers are the primary indicators of the functional and structural performance of pavements.
Performance of the pavement is explained by performance models which are either purely (a) empirical
(only based on past experience) or (b) mechanistic-empirical, in which the distresses/performance are
explained in terms of mechanistic parameters such as stresses, strains and deflections calculated using
a specific theory and as per a specified procedure. Most of the current pavement design methods follow
the mechanistic-empirical approach for design of bituminous pavements. In these methods, for each of
the selected structural distress, a critical mechanistic parameter is identified and controlled to an
acceptable (limiting) value in the design process. The limiting values of these critical mechanistic
parameters are usually given by the performance models.

3.2 Mechanistic-empirical design approach, which was used in the second and third revisions, is
adopted in the current revision also for design of bituminous pavements. The theory selected for
analysis of pavements is linear elastic layered system theory in which the pavement is modeled as a
multi-layer system. The bottom most layer (foundation or subgrade) is considered to be semi-infinite
and all the upper layers are assumed to be infinite in the horizontal extent and finite in thickness. Elastic
modulus, Poisson’s ratio and thickness of each layer are the pavement inputs for the theory for
calculation of stresses, strains and deflections due to a load applied at the surface of the pavement. The
thickness of the bottom most layer (subgrade) is assumed to be infinite in the theoretical model.
IITPAVE software, which is an updated version of FPAVE, which was developed under MoRTH
10
Research Scheme R-56 “Analytical design of Flexible Pavement” [2] has been used for analysis of
pavements.

3.3 Vertical compressive strain on top of subgrade is considered to be the critical mechanistic
parameter in these guidelines for controlling subgrade rutting. Horizontal tensile strain at the bottom
of the bottom bituminous layer is taken as the causative mechanistic parameter which has to be limited
to control bottom-up cracking bituminous layers. Similarly, to ensure that the cement treated bases do
not fail by cumulative fatigue damage, tensile strain and tensile stress at the bottom of the cemented
base are assumed to be the critical parameters to control.

3.4 Rutting within bituminous layers caused by accumulated plastic (permanent) deformation in
these layers due to repeated application of traffic loads is another major distress occurring in bituminous
pavements. High pavement temperatures and heavy loads can cause early development of unacceptable
levels of rut depth in bituminous mixes as the stiffness of the bituminous mix gets reduced at higher
temperatures and the proportion of plastic (irrecoverable) deformation out of the total deformation will
be larger under higher temperature and heavier loading conditions. Moisture damage of mixes and
brittle cracking resulting from excessive age hardening of bitumen in the upper layers are the other
major concerns to be taken into consideration.

3.5 For satisfactory performance of bituminous pavements and to ensure that the magnitudes of
distresses are within acceptable levels during the service life period, the guidelines recommend that
pavement sections be selected in such a way that they satisfy the limiting stresses and strains prescribed
by the performance models adopted in the guidelines for subgrade rutting, bottom-up cracking and
fatigue cracking of cement treated bases. Additional measures have been suggested in the guidelines
by way of integrating the mix design parameters that have significant bearing on the performance of
pavements into the design process. Suitable recommendations have also been made in the guidelines
for (i) fatigue cracking and moisture damage resistant mixes for the bottom bituminous layer (ii) rut
and moisture damage resistant bituminous mixes for the intermediate bituminous layer (if provided)
and (iii) rut, moisture damage, fatigue cracking and age resistant surfacing (surface) course and (iv)
drainage layer for removal of excess moisture from the interior of the pavement.

3.6 Performance Criteria

The following performance criteria are used in these guidelines for design of bituminous pavements.

3.6.1 Subgrade Rutting Criteria

An average rut depth of 20 mm or more measured along the wheel paths is considered in these
guidelines as critical or failure rutting condition. The equivalent number of standard axle (80 kN) load
repetitions that can be served by the pavement, before the critical average rut depth of 20 mm or more
occurs, is given by equations 3.1 and 3.2 respectively for 80 % and 90 % reliability levels. The
performance models were initially developed based on MoRTH R-6 Research scheme [1] performance
data and was subsequently developed into two separate models for two different reliability levels based

11
 on the additional performance data collected for MoRTH R-56 Research scheme [2].

NR = 4.1656 x 10-08 [1/εv] 4.5337 (for 80 % reliability) (3.1)

NR = 1.4100 x 10-08 [1/εv] 4.5337 (for 90 % reliability) (3.2)

where
NR = subgrade rutting life (cumulative equivalent number of 80 kN standard axle loads that
can be served by the pavement before the critical rut depth of 20 mm or more occurs)
εv = vertical compressive subgrade strain calculated using linear elastic layered theory by
applying standard axle load at the surface of the selected pavement system

IITPAVE software is used for analysis of pavements. Details about the use of IITPAVE software for
analysis of flexible pavements, selection of elastic moduli and Poisson’s ratio values for different layers
of the pavement are given in subsequent sections of the guidelines. For calculation of vertical
compressive strain on top of subgrade, horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the bottom bituminous
layer and horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of cement treated base (CTB) layer, analysis is done for
a standard axle load of 80 kN (single axle with dual wheels). Only one set of dual wheels, each wheel
carrying 20 kN load with centre to centre spacing of 310 mm between the two wheels, applied at the
pavement surface, is considered for analysis. The shape of the contact area of tyre is assumed in the
analysis to be circular. The contact stress is considered as 0.56 MPa. However, when cumulative fatigue
damage analysis of cement treated bases is carried out (as explained in later sections), the load applied
corresponds to the axle load considered and the contact pressure used for analysis is 0.80 MPa.

3.6.2 Fatigue Cracking Criteria for Bituminous Layer

Occurrence of fatigue cracking (appearing as inter connected cracks), with the total cracked area in a
particular section of road being 20 percentage or more of the paved surface area of the section, is
considered to be the critical or failure condition. The equivalent number of standard axle (80 kN) load
repetitions that can be served by the pavement before the critical condition of cracked surface area of 20
% or more occurs is given by equations 3.3 and 3.4 respectively for 80 % and 90 % reliability levels.
The fatigue model was developed under MoRTH R-56 scheme [2] utilizing primarily the R-6 scheme
(Benkelman Beam Studies) performance data [1] supplemented by data available from R-19 (Pavement
Performance Studies) [5] and R-56 schemes [2].

Nf = 1.6064*C*10–04 [1/εt]3.89* [1/MRm]0.854 (for 80 % reliability) (3.3)

Nf = 0.5161*C*10-04 [1/εt]3.89* [1/MRm]0.854 (for 90 % reliability) (3.4)

Where

12
 𝑉𝑏𝑒
C = 10M, and 𝑀 = 4.84 ( − 0.69)
𝑉𝑎+𝑉𝑏𝑒

Va = per cent volume of air void in the mix used in the bottom bituminous layer and
Vbe = per cent volume of effective bitumen in the mix used in the bottom bituminous layer
Nf = fatigue life of bituminous layer (cumulative equivalent number of 80 kN standard axle
loads that can be served by the pavement before the critical cracked area of 20 % or more
of paved surface area occurs),
єt = maximum horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the bottom bituminous layer (DBM)
calculated using linear elastic layered theory by applying standard axle load at the surface
of the selected pavement system
MRm = Resilient modulus (MPa) of bituminous mix used in the bottom bituminous layer,
selected as per the recommendations contained in these guidelines.
The factor ‘C’ was incorporated in the model to integrate the mix design considerations in the fatigue
performance model. Both air void content and effective binder volume have significant effect on the
fatigue life of bituminous mix. Use of higher binder contents in the bottom bituminous layer (rich
bottom bituminous layer) is a popular concept adopted widely [6]. Besides having longer fatigue lives,
larger binder volumes will also be beneficial in making the mix more moisture damage resistant due to
thicker binder films which also reduce the aging of the binder. Considering that the bottom bituminous
layer will be subjected to significantly lower stresses and lower summer temperatures compared to the
upper layers, the chance of rutting of the lower layer will be less.

3.6.3 Fatigue Performance Models for Cement Treated Base

3.6.3.1 The cement treated base (CTB) should be checked for cumulative fatigue damage caused by
repeated application of different categories and different magnitudes of axle loads. Fatigue analysis of
the CTB layer is carried out using equations 3.5 to 3.7. Equation 3.5 is based on the Australian
experience [7] whereas equation 3.6 is as per the recommendations of the Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Guide [8]. It may be noted that ‘cement treated’ refers to stabilization by different
types of cementitious materials such as cement, lime, fly-ash or a combination thereof. The terms,
‘cement treated’ and ‘cementitious’, have been used interchangeably in these guidelines.

113000 12
( 0.804 +191)
N= RF ⌊ E ⌋ (3.5)
εt

Where,
RF = reliability factor for cementitious materials for failure against fatigue.
= 1 for Expressways, National Highways and other heavy traffic volume roads.
= 2 for other roads with a design traffic of 10 msa or less.
N = number of standard axle load repetitions which the cement treated material can
sustain
E = elastic modulus of Cement treated base material.
13
 t = tensile strain at the bottom of cement treated base layer.

3.6.3.2 Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis

The CTB layer will be subjected to cumulative fatigue damage by repetitions of axle loads of different
categories and different magnitudes applied over the design life period. The fatigue life Nfi of the CTB
material when subjected to repeated applications (ni) of axle load of class ‘i’ is given by equation 3.6.
The logarithm in equation 3.6 is the logarithm to the base 10. Details of different types of axles, axle
load spectrum, expected repetitions of each load group during the design life period, will be available
from the analysis of the axle load survey data.

If the axle load spectrum has a tandem axle, it will be considered as two repetitions of a single axle
carrying 50 % of the tandem axle weight as axles separated by a distance of 1.30 m or more do not have
significant overlapping of stresses. Similarly, one application of a tridem axle will be considered as
three single axles, each weighing one third the weight of the tridem axle. For example, if a tridem axle
carries a load of 45 tonnes, it is taken to be equivalent to three passes of a 15 tonne single axle.

For analyzing the pavement for cumulative fatigue damage of the CTB layer, contact stress shall be
taken as 0.80 MPa instead of 0.56 MPa.

0.972−(σt/MRup )
LogNfi= (3.6)
0.0825

Where,
Nfi = Fatigue life of CTB material which is the maximum repetitions of axle load
class ‘i’ the CTB material can sustain
t = tensile stress at the bottom of cementitious base layer for the given axle load class.
MRup = 28-day flexural strength of the cementitious base
t/MRup = Stress Ratio

The cumulative fatigue damage (CFD) caused by different repetitions of axle loads of different
categories and different magnitudes expected to be applied on the pavement during its design period is
estimated using equation 3.7

CFD = Σ(ni/Nfi) (3.7)

Where
ni = expected (during the design life period) repetitions of axle load class ‘i’
Nfi = fatigue life or maximum number of load repetitions the CTB layer would
sustain if only axle load of class ‘i’ were to be applied

If the estimated CFD must be less than 1.0 for the design to be considered to be acceptable. If the value
if CFD is more than 1.0, the pavement section has to be revised.

14
3.7 Reliability
These Guidelines recommend 90 per cent reliability performance equations for subgrade rutting
(equation 3.2) and fatigue cracking of bottom bituminous layer (equation 3.4) for all important roads
such as Expressways, National Highways and State Highways.

3.8 Analysis of Flexible Pavements

For the purpose of computing stresses, strains and deflections in the pavement, pavements have
been modeled in these guidelines as linear elastic layered pavement systems. IITPAVE software,
developed for analysis of linear elastic layered systems, has been used for analysis and design of
pavements in these guidelines. Details of IITPAVE software, which is supplied with this
document, are given in Annex-I. As mentioned previously in these guidelines, vertical strain on
top of subgrade and horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous layer are considered to
be the critical mechanistic parameters that need to be controlled for ensuring satisfactory
performance of flexible pavements in terms of subgrade rutting and bottom-up cracking of
bituminous layers. Similarly, horizontal tensile stress and horizontal tensile strain at the bottom
of the cement treated base layer are considered to be critical for the performance of CTB bases.
Figure 1 shows a typical flexible pavement section in which the locations at which different
critical mechanistic parameters should be calculated are shown.

Theoretical calculations suggest that the tensile strain near the surface close to the edge of the
wheel can be sufficiently large to initiate longitudinal surface cracking followed by transverse
cracking much before the flexural cracking of the bottom layer occurs, if the mix tensile
strength is not adequate at higher temperatures [9, 10].

Dual wheel

Tensile strain at the bottom

of bituminous layer Tensile strain near surface
Bituminous

Rut Resistant Layer

Layer

Fatigue Resistant Layer

Granular base (unbound/treated)

Granular
Layer

Vertical Strain Granular sub-base (unbound/treated)

on subgrade

Subgrade

15
 Figure 3.1 Typical Pavement Section showing locations of Critical strains

4. TRAFFIC
4.1 General
4.1.1 Design traffic is estimated in terms of equivalent number of cumulative standard axles (80 kN
single axle with dual wheels) in these guidelines. For estimating the factors required to convert the
commercial traffic volumes into equivalent repetitions of standard axle, it is necessary to measure axle
load spectrum relevant for the stretch of road under consideration. Axle load spectrum data are essential
for design of pavements having layers treated/stabilised using cementitious materials such as cement,
lime, fly ash, etc., for estimating the cumulative fatigue damage expected to be caused to the cement
treated base by different axe load groups. The following inputs are needed for estimating the design
traffic (in terms of cumulative standard axle load repetitions) for the selected road for a given design
period.
(i) initial traffic (two-way) on the road after construction in terms of number of commercial
vehicles (having laden weight of 3 tonnes or more) per day (cvpd).
(ii) average traffic growth rate(s) during the design life period.
(iii) design life in number of years.
(iv) spectrum of axle loads.
(v) factors for estimation of lateral distribution of commercial traffic over the carriageway.

4.1.2 Only the commercial vehicles having gross vehicle weight of 3 tonnes or more are considered
for the purpose of structural design of pavements.

4.1.3 Estimation of the present day average traffic should be based on seven-day 24-hour traffic
volume count made in accordance with IRC: 9 [11].

4.2 Traffic Growth Rate

4.2.1 For estimating the cumulative traffic expected to use the pavement over the design period, it is
necessary to estimate the rate(s) at which the commercial traffic grows over the design period. The
growth rates may be estimated as per IRC:108 [12]. Typical data required for estimation of the growth
rates (r) are:
(i) past trends of traffic growth and

(ii) demand elasticity of traffic with respect to macro-economic parameters like gross domestic
product and state domestic product) and the demand expected due to specific developments
and land use changes likely to take place during the design life period.

4.2.2 Traffic growth rates shall be established for each category of commercial vehicles. In the absence
of data for estimation of annual growth rate of commercial vehicles or when the estimated growth rate is

16
less than 5 per cent, a minimum annual growth rate of 5 per cent should be used for commercial vehicles
for estimating the design traffic

4.3 Design Period

4.3.1 The design period to be adopted for pavement design is the time span considered appropriate for
the road pavement to function without major rehabilitation. It is recommended that a design period of
20 years may be adopted for structural design of pavements for National Highways, State Highways
and Urban Roads. For other categories of roads, a design life of 15 years is recommended. Pavements
for high density corridors, expressways shall preferably be designed as long-life pavements. Otherwise,
for such corridors, the pavement shall be designed for a minimum period 30 years. The commercial
traffic, converted into equivalent repetitions of standard axle, and adjusted for directional distribution,
lateral distribution over the carriageway width, etc., is the design traffic

4.3.3 Design traffic considerations for Stage construction

Stage construction of pavement may be adopted in projects where growth of traffic is uncertain or
future traffic volumes are expected to increase substantially due to future developments. Stage
construction may also be adopted in projects for which subsequent maintenance is mandated on
‘performance basis’ with roughness and deflection as key condition parameters. Stage construction,
however, is not allowed for pavements with cement treated bases and sub-bases.

The stage-1 pavement should be designed for more traffic than estimated for the initial (first) stage design
traffic so that the pavement will have at least 40 % life remaining after stage-1 period (traffic). Assuming
that the life consumed varies linearly with traffic, the design traffic for stage-1 shall be taken 1.67 times
the design traffic estimated for stage-1 period. If the pavement is designed and constructed for only the
stage-1 design traffic, the pavement, especially the bituminous layer, may not have adequate structural
condition and may develop full depth cracking and thus may not be suitable for periodical maintenance
measures such as patching, crack sealing and micro-surfacing. The requirement second stage pavement
shall be determined after evaluation of the structural condition of the pavement by Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) method as per IRC:115 [3] or by Benkelman beam deflection (BBD) method as
per IRC:81 [4]. An example of design following the concept of stage construction is given in annex-II.

4.4 Vehicle Damage Factor

4.4.1 The guidelines use Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) for the estimation of cumulative repetitions
of standard axle load for thickness design of pavements. In the case of cement treated bases, in addition
to a fatigue performance check carried out based on cumulative standard axle load repetitions,
estimated using vehicle damage factor, cumulative fatigue damage principle generally adopted for
design of rigid pavements, is used for estimating the fatigue damage of the cement treated base expected
to be caused by different types of and magnitudes of axle loads using axle load spectrum data.
4.4.2 The Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) is a multiplier to convert the given number of commercial

17
vehicles having different axle configurations and different axle weights into equivalent number of
standard axle load (80 kN single axle with dual wheels) repetitions.
4.4.3 For converting one repetition of a particular type of axle carrying a specific axle load into
equivalent repetitions of 80 kN single axle with dual wheel, equations 4.1 to 4.4 may be used. Since
the axle load equivalence factors reported from the AASHO Road Test for flexible as well as rigid
pavements are not significantly different for heavy duty pavements, it is assumed that the VDF values
estimated for checking subgrade rutting and bituminous layer fatigue cracking can be used for checking
the fatigue damage of cemented bases also.

𝐴𝑥𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑁 4
Single axle with single wheel on either side ˭ ( 65
) (4.1)

𝐴𝑥𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑁 4
Single axle with dual wheel on either side ˭( 80
) (4.2)

𝐴𝑥𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑁 4
Tandem axle with dual wheel on either side ˭ ( 148
) (4.3)

𝐴𝑥𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑁 4
Tridem axle with dual wheel on either side ˭( 224
) (4.4)

Some tandem axles have only a single wheel on each side of the axle. In such cases, each axle of the
tandem axle set may be considered as a single axle with single wheels and Equation 4.1 may be used
for estimation of equivalent axle load repetitions. Similarly, if the axle spectrum has a tridem axle with
single wheels, it may be considered as three separate single axles having single wheels.

4.4.4 Multi-axle vehicles may consist of different combinations of axle classes considered in equations
4.1 to 4.4. VDF should be arrived at by carrying out axle load surveys on the existing roads for a
minimum period of 24 hours in each direction. Minimum sample size of commercial vehicles to be
considered for axle load survey is given in Table 4.1. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no
bias in the selection of vehicles for survey. Vehicles to be surveyed should be selected randomly
irrespective of whether they are loaded or empty. On some sections of roads, there may be significant
difference between the axle loads of commercial vehicles plying in the two directions of traffic. In such
situations, the VDF should be evaluated separately for each direction. For each direction of traffic,
pavement thickness design can be different depending on the directional commercial traffic volumes
and the corresponding VDFs.

Table 4.1 Minimum Sample Size for Axle Load Survey

Commercial traffic volume/day Minimum percentage of Commercial Traffic to be

(cvpd) surveyed
< 3000 20 per cent

18
 3000 to 6000 15 per cent (subject to a minimum of 600)
> 6000 10 per cent (subject to a minimum of 900)

4.4.5 Axle load spectrum

For analysis of the axle load spectrum and for calculation of VDFs, the axle load data may be classified
into multiple classes with class intervals of 10 kN, 20 kN and 30 kN for single, tandem and tridem axles
respectively.

4.4.6 For small projects, in the absence of weigh pad, axle loads of typical commercial vehicles plying
on the road may be estimated approximately from the type of goods carried. Where information on axle
loads is not available and the proportion of heavy vehicles using the road is not large, the indicative
values of vehicle damage factor given in Table 4.2 can be used. These indicative VDF values have been
worked out based on typical axle load spectrums and taking into consideration the legal axle load limits
notified in the Gazette of India dated 16th July 2018.

Table 4.2 Indicative VDF Values

Initial (two-way) traffic volume in terms of Terrain

commercial vehicles per day Rolling/Plain Hilly
0-150 1.7 0.6
150-1500 3.9 1.7
More than 1500 5.0 2.8

4.5 Distribution of Commercial Traffic over the Carriageway

4.5.1 Lateral Distribution

Lateral distribution of commercial traffic on the carriageway is required for estimating the design traffic
(equivalent standard axle load applications) to be considered for structural design of pavement. The
following lateral distribution may be considered for roads with different types of carriageway.

4.5.1.1 Single-lane roads

Traffic tends to be more channelized on single-lane roads than on two-lane roads and to allow for this
concentration of wheel load repetitions, the design should be based on the total number of commercial
vehicles in both directions.

4.5.1.2 Intermediate lane roads of width 5.50 m

The design traffic should be based on 75 per cent of the two-way commercial traffic

4.5.1.3 Two-lane two-way roads

The design should be based on 50 per cent of the total number of commercial vehicles in both directions.
19
 If the vehicle damage factor obtained for one direction is greater than the VDF for the other direction,
design traffic (cumulative standard axle load repetitions) estimated using the higher VDF is
recommended for design.
4.5.1.4 Four-lane single carriageway roads
40 per cent of the total number of commercial vehicles in both directions should be considered for
design.
4.5.1.5 Dual carriageway roads
The design of dual two-lane carriageway roads should be based on 75 per cent of the number of
commercial vehicles in each direction. For dual three-lane carriageway and dual four-lane carriageway,
the distribution factors will be 60 per cent and 45 per cent respectively.

4.6 Computation of Design Traffic

4.6.1 The design traffic in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles to be carried during the
design life period of the road should be estimated using equation 4.5.

365×[(1+𝑟)𝑛 −1]
Ndes = ×A×D×F (4.5)
𝑟
Where,

Ndes = cumulative number of standard axles to be catered for during the design period of ‘n’
years
A = Initial traffic (commercial vehicles per day) in the year of completion of construction
D = lateral distribution factor (as explained in para 4.5.1)
F = vehicle damage factor (VDF)
n = design life period, in years
r = annual growth rate of commercial vehicles in decimal (e.g., for 6 per cent annual
growth rate, r = 0.06). Variation of the rate of growth over different periods of the design
period, if available, may be considered for estimating the design traffic

The traffic in the year of completion of construction may be estimated using equation 4.6.

A = P(1 +r)x (4.6)

Where,
P = number of commercial vehicles per day as per last count.
x = number of years between the last count and the year of completion of construction.

For two-lane two-way and multi-lane single carriageway roads, the pavement may be designed for a
design traffic estimated based on the larger of the two VDF values obtained for the two directions. For
divided carriageways, different pavement designs can be adopted for the two directions depending on
the directional distribution of traffic and variation of VDF value in the two directions.

20
 5 PAVEMENT COMPOSITIONS
5.1 General
A flexible pavement covered in these guidelines essentially consists of three functional layers above
the subgrade. These are: sub-base, base and bituminous layers. Detailed discussion on subgrade and
each of the pavement layers is presented in the subsequent paragraphs of the guidelines. The sub-base
and base layers may be either (a) either Granular, or (b) cement treated or (c) combination of granular
and cement treated materials. When Cement Treated Base (CTB) is used, a crack relief layer is to be
mandatorily provided, either as an aggregate interlayer or as a stress absorbing membrane inter-layer
(SAMI). The Bituminous layer comprises of two different types of materials, categorized as bituminous
base and surfacing. Each functional layer can be constructed in one or more layers. The same elastic
properties (elastic/resilient modulus and Poisson’s ratio) may be considered for the purpose of analysis
using linear elastic layered theory (IITPAVE software) for all the sub-layers of a functional layer.
Granular sub-base layers (filter and drainage layers) and granular base layer are considered as a single
layer in the analysis of pavement. Similarly, bituminous base and surfacing course are considered as a
single layer. Aggregate (granular) crack relief layer shall be considered as a separate layer in the
analysis.

6 SUBGRADE

6.1 General

The top 500 mm of the prepared foundation layer immediately below the pavement, designated as
subgrade, can be made up of in-situ material, select soil, or stabilized soil forming the foundation for the
pavement. It should be well compacted to derive optimal strength and to limit the rutting caused due to
additional densification of the layer during the service life. It shall be compacted to attain a minimum of
97 per cent or higher of the laboratory maximum dry density obtained corresponding to heavy
compaction as per IS: 2720 Part-8 [13] for Expressways, National Highways, State Highways, Major
District Roads and other heavily trafficked roads. When the subgrade is formed using a material which
is stronger than the upper 500 mm of embankment soil or when the subgrade itself is prepared in two
separate layers with significantly different strengths, the effective contribution of the subgrade and
embankment layers has to be considered for design. The principle to be used for estimation of the
effective strength or mechanical property is discussed in para 6.3. As mentioned in para 3.2 of the
guidelines, elastic/resilient moduli of different pavement layers are the main inputs for analysis and
design of pavements. Since the measurement of resilient modulus of soil requires sophisticated
equipment, the same is generally estimated from the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of the
material. The following sections present the details of compaction effort and moisture content to be
used for preparing specimens in the laboratory for evaluating the CBR value or resilient modulus value
of the soil.

6.2 Selection of dry density and moisture content for laboratory testing of subgrade material
6.2.1 The laboratory test conditions should represent the field conditions as closely as possible.

21
Compaction in the field is done at a minimum of 97 per cent of the laboratory maxim density at optimum
moisture content. In the field, the subgrade undergoes moisture variation depending on different local
conditions such as water table depth, precipitation, soil permeability, drainage conditions and the extent
to which the pavement is impermeable to moisture. In high rainfall areas, lateral infiltration through
unpaved shoulder, median, porous and cracked surface may have significant effect on the subgrade
moisture condition. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the subgrade soil should be determined as
per IS: 2720 Part-16 [14] at the most critical moisture condition likely to occur at the site. The test should
be performed on remoulded samples of soils in the laboratory. The pavement thickness should be based
on 4-day soaked CBR value of the soil, remoulded at placement density and moisture content ascertained
from the compaction curve. In areas with rainfall less than 1000 mm, four-day soaking is too severe a
condition for well protected subgrade with thick bituminous layer and the strength of the subgrade soil
may be underestimated. If data is available about the seasonal variation of moisture, moulding moisture
content for the CBR test can be selected based on field data. The test specimens should be prepared by
static compaction to obtain the target density.

6.1.1.2 Number of tests, design value and tolerance limit.

If the type of soil used in different stretches of the subgrade varies along the length of the pavement,
the CBR value of a given type of soil should be the average of at least three specimens prepared using
that soil. 90th percentile subgrade CBR value should be adopted for design of high volume roads such
as Expressways, National Highways and State Highways. For other categories of roads, design can be
th
done based on the 80 percentile CBR value.

6.2 Resilient Modulus of the subgrade

Resilient modulus which is measured taking into account only the elastic (or resilient) component of the
deformation (or strain) of the specimen in a repeated load test is considered to be the appropriate input
for linear elastic theory selected in these guidelines for analysis of flexible pavements. Resilient modulus
can be determined in the laboratory by conducting repeated tri-axial test as per the procedure detailed
in AASHTO T307-99 [15]. Since these equipment are usually expensive, the following relationships
may be used to estimate the resilient modulus (MR) from the CBR value.

MRS (MPa) = 10.0 * CBR for CBR ≤ 5 % (6.2)

MRS (MPa) = 17.6 * (CBR)0.64 for CBR > 5 % (6.3)

Where,
MRS = Resilient modulus of subgrade soil (in MPa).

Poisson’s ratio for subgrade soil may be taken as 0.35

6.3 Effective Modulus/CBR for Design

22
6.3.1 There can be significant difference between the CBR values of the subgrade and embankment
soils. Alternatively, the 500 mm thick subgrade may be laid in two layers, each layer material having
different CBR value. In such cases, the design should be based on the effective modulus/CBR value of
a single layer subgrade which is equivalent to the combination of subgrade layer(s) and embankment
layer. The effective modulus/CBR value may be determined as per the following procedure.
For the purpose of design, the resilient modulus (MRS), thus estimated shall be limited to a maximum
value of 100 MPa.

(i) Using IITPAVE software, determine the maximum deflection (δ) due to a single wheel load of
40,000 N and a contact pressure of 0.56 MPa for a two or three layer elastic system comprising of
a single (or two sub-layers) of the 500 mm thick subgrade layer over the semi-infinite embankment
layer. The elastic moduli of subgrade and embankment layers shall be estimated from equations 6.2
and 6.3 using their laboratory CBR values. Poisson’s ratio value may be taken as 0.35 for all the
layers

(ii) Using the maximum surface deflection (δ) computed in step (i) above, estimate the resilient
modulus MRS of the equivalent single layer using equation 6.4.
2(1−𝜇2 )𝑝𝑎
MRS = (6.4)
𝛿
Where,
p = contact pressure = 0.56 MPa
a = radius of circular contact area, which can be calculated using the load applied (40,000
N) and the contact pressure p (0.56 MPa)

It is the effective resilient modulus (MRS) value and not the CBR that is used in design. However,
if required, CBR can be reported using equations 6.2 and 6.3.

An example for estimation of effective resilient modulus/CBR is given in Annex-II.

(iii) In case the borrow material is placed over a rocky foundation, the effective CBR may be larger
than the CBR of the borrow material. However, the CBR of the borrow material only shall be
adopted for pavement design. In addition, proper safeguards should be taken against development
of pore water pressure between the foundation and the borrow material on rocky foundations.

(iv) If the embankment consists of layers of materials having different CBR values, multi-layer
analysis can be carried out using IITPAVE software and the effective resilient modulus can be
estimated using the concept discussed above

7 SUB-BASES
23
7.1 General
The sub-base layer serves three functions: (i) to provide a strong support for the compaction of granular
base (WMM/WBM) layer (ii) to protect the subgrade from overstressing and (iii) to serve as drainage
and filter layer. The sub-base layers can be granular (unbound) or chemically stabilized with additives
such as cement, lime, flyash and other cementitious stabilizers. The thickness of the sub-base, whether
bound or unbound, should meet these functional requirements. To meet these requirements minimum
sub-base thicknesses have been specified in the Guidelines.

7.2 Granular (unbound) sub-base layer

7.2.1 Sub-base materials may consist of natural sand, moorum, gravel, laterite, kankar, brick metal,
crushed stone, crushed slag and reclaimed crushed concrete/reclaimed asphalt pavement, river bed
material or combinations thereof meeting the prescribed grading and physical requirements. When the
granular sub-base material consists of a combination of different materials, mixing should be done
mechanically by either using a suitable mixer or adopting mix-in-place method. Granular sub-base
(GSB) should conform to MORTH Specifications for Road and Bridge Works [16].

If the thickness of the sub-base layer provided in the design permits, the sub-base layer shall have two
sub layers; drainage layer and filter layer. The upper layer of sub-base functions as a drainage layer to
drain away the water that may enter through surface cracks particularly in areas having annual rainfall
in excess of 1000 mm. The lower layer of sub-base should function as the filter/separation layer to
prevent intrusion of subgrade soil into the pavement. The aggregate gradations recommended for
drainage layer are gradations III and IV of MoRTH [16] recommended for granular sub-base (GSB).
Gradations I, II, V and VI specified for GSB by MoRTH [16] are recommended for filter/separation
layer.

Filter and drainage layers should be designed as per IRC: SP: 42 [17] and IRC: SP: 50 [18]. It is
necessary to extend both drainage and filter layers up to the slope of embankment to have efficient
drainage. Commercially available synthetic geo-composite, grid lock geo-cell with perforated vertical
faces filled with aggregates meeting the requirement as specified in IRC:SP: 59 [19] can also be used
to function as both filter/separation and drainage layers. It’s strengthening effect can be considered in
the pavement design in accordance with the provisions of IRC:SP:59 [19].

When GSB layer is provided below the median in continuation with that of the pavement, a non-woven
geosynthetic may be provided over the GSB in the median part so that the fines percolating through
the median do not enter into the GSB and choke it.

7.2.2 Minimum thicknesses of sub-base layers

Irrespective of the design traffic volume, the following minimum thicknesses sub-base layers may be
provided.
(i) Minimum thickness of drainage as well as filter layer shall be 100 mm (i.e., minimum
thickness of each of these two layers is 100 mm)
24
 (ii) If the total thickness requirement of the unbound sub-base layer arrived at from different
considerations is less than 200 mm and is insufficient to accommodate both drainage and
filter layers (each of minimum 100 mm thickness), only one layer of sub-base may be
provided to function as a filter-cum-drainage layer with GSB aggregate gradations V and VI
of MoRTH [16]. Minimum thickness of the single filter-cum-drainage layer shall be 150
mm from functional requirement
(iii) Minimum thickness of any compacted granular layer should be at least 2.5 times the nominal
maximum size of aggregates
(iv) The total thickness of the granular sub-base layer should be adequate to carry construction
traffic that may ply on the granular sub-base. This thickness requirement may be worked out
to satisfy the subgrade rutting limiting strain criterion given by equation 3.2. The design
traffic for estimating the limiting subgrade strain can be worked out based on the expected
operations of dumpers and other construction vehicles on the granular sub-base layer to carry
material for construction of granular base layer. The following indicative values can be used
for estimation of the construction traffic operating over granular sub-base if more accurate
and practical estimation cannot be done.
 Repetitions of a three axle dumper to carry material for a construction of a 250 mm
thick granular base of one lane of 2.0 km length = 200
 Assume the gross weight of dumper to be 320 kN (with 240 kN on the tandem axle
and 80 kN on the front steering axle)
 VDF of a typical dumper (with the above assumptions) = 2x(120/80)4 + (80/65)4 =
12.41. Hence, the total standard axle repetitions = 200 * 12.41 = 2,483
 The standard axle repetitions may be estimated from the actual nature of loading
expected to be carried by the dumpers and the expected number of operations of
dumpers
 The sub-base thickness should be checked for the design traffic worked out as per
the above procedure subject to a minimum of 10,000 standard axles.
 The two-layer system (subgrade and GSB) should be analyzed by placing standard
load on it (dual wheel set of 20,000 N each acting at 0.56 MPa contact pressure and
computing (using IITPAVE) the subgrade vertical compressive strain along the axis
of symmetry of the dual wheel load set at a location which is on the interface between
the granular sub-base and subgrade. Granular sub-base thickness should be varied
until the computed strain is less than or equal to the limiting subgrade vertical
compressive strain, given by equation 3.2

The worked out example given in Annex II illustrates the estimation of granular sub-base thickness for
10,000 standard axle load (80 kN) repetitions.

7.2.3 Resilient Modulus

The elastic/resilient modulus (MRSUB) of the granular sub-base is dependent on the resilient modulus

25
(MRS) value of the subgrade and the thickness of the granular sub-base layer. A weaker subgrade does
not permit higher modulus of the upper granular layer because of the larger deflections under loads
causing de-compaction in the lower part of the granular layer. MRSUB of the granular layer may be estimated
using equation 7.1.
MRSUB= 0.2(h)0.45* MRS (7.1)
Where,
h = thickness of sub-base layer in mm
MRSUB = resilient modulus of the sub-base layer (MPa)
MRS = (effective) resilient modulus of subgrade (MPa)

If geo-synthetic is used in granular sub-base, resilient modulus of the layer estimated using equation
7.1 may be multiplied by the applicable LCR or MIF as per IRC:SP:59 [19].

Poisson’s ratio of granular sub-base may be taken as 0.35.

7.3. Cementitious (cement treated) sub-base (CTSB) layer

7.3.1 The material for cementitious (cement treated) sub-base may consist of soil, river bed materials,
natural gravel aggregates, recycled concrete aggregates, crushed aggregates or soil aggregate mixture
modified with different cementitious materials such as cement, lime, lime-flyash, commercially
available stabilizers, etc. The terms, ‘Cementitious’ and ‘cement treated’, are interchangeably used in
these guidelines. The drainage layer of the cement treated sub-base consisting of coarse/open graded
aggregate gradations may be treated/bound with cement /bitumen emulsion if there is any instability
during construction. If soil stabilized with cementitious material is used as a sub-base, commercially
available geo-composites possessing the necessary horizontal permeability can be used to serve both
as a drainage and filter/separation layer. Drainage and separation layers are essential when water is
likely to enter into pavements from the shoulder, median, bottom or through the cracks in surface layer
to prevent building of high pore-water pressure.

Recommended minimum thicknesses for cementitious sub-bases are: 250 mm for design traffic more
than 30 msa, 200 mm for design traffic from 10 msa to 20 msa, 150 mm for traffic less than 10 msa.
7.3.2 Mechanical Properties of CTSB material

The elastic modulus, E of the CTSB material may be estimated from the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) of the material. The cementitious sub-base (CTSB) should have 7-day UCS of 1.5 to 3
MPa as per IRC:SP:89 [20]. Third point loading test flexural modulus ECGSB of 28-day cured CTSB
material can be estimated using equation 7.2 [7]
ECGSB = 1000 * UCS (7.2)
Where
UCS = 28-day unconfined compressive strength (MPa) of the cementitious granular
material. It should be ensured that the average laboratory strength value should
26
 be more than 1.5 times the required (design) field strength.
ECGSB = Elastic modulus (MPa) of 28-day cured CTSB material

For typical cement treated granular sub-base materials, the ECGSB can vary from 2000 to 6000 MPa.
Since the sub-base acts as a platform for the construction traffic carrying 30 to 35 tonnes of construction
material, low strength cemented sub-base would crack under the heavy construction traffic and a design
value of 600 MPa is recommended for analysis and design of pavements with CTSB layers. Cement
bound granular sub-base with grading IV of IRC: SP- 89 [20] having strength in the range 0.75-1.5
MPa is not recommended for major highways but it can be used for roads with design traffic less
than 10 msa.

Poisson’s ratio value of CTSB layer may be taken as 0.25.

The cemented sub-base shall be cured for a minimum of three days before the construction of the next
layer. In case sufficient strength of sub-base is not achieved for cementitious sub-base as per the
requirement of IRC SP:89 [20] in 3 days of curing, 7 days curing shall be done for sub-base before the
construction of the upper layer can be started.

8 BASES
8.1 Unbound base layer

The base layer consists of wet mix macadam, water bound macadam, crusher run macadam, reclaimed
concrete, etc, conforming to MORTH specifications [16]. Wet mix macadam may also consist of blast
furnace slag mixed with crushed stone meeting the MORTH specifications. The minimum thickness
of unbound granular layer shall not be less than 150 mm except for crack relief layer placed over cement
treated base for which the minimum thickness shall be 100 mm.

When both sub-base and the base layers are made up of unbound granular layers, the composite resilient
modulus of the granular base is given below;
MRGRANULAR = 0.2* (h)0.45MRS (8.1)
Where
h = total thickness of granular layer (granular sub-base and granular base), mm
MRGRANULAR = resilient modulus of the granular layer (MPa)
MRS = resilient modulus of subgrade (MPa)

Poisson’s ratio of granular bases and sub-bases may be taken as 0.35.

If geo-synthetic is used in the base layer, the resilient modulus is estimated using equation 8.1 and is
27
multiplied by the applicable LCR or MIF as per IRC:SP:59 [19]. This improved modulus shall be taken
for full thickness of granular layer for pavement design purpose.

8.2 Cementitious bases (CTB)

8.2.1. Cemented base layers consist of aggregates, reclaimed asphalt material, crushed slag, crushed
concrete aggregates or soil-aggregate mixture stabilized with chemical stabilizers such as cement, lime,
lime-fly ash or other commercially available stabilizers which can produce mix of requisite strength.
Flexural strength of a cemented base is critical to the satisfactory performance of a bituminous
pavement. Cementitious bases shall be prepared by plant mixing or by a mechanized in-situ mixing
process. CTB material shall have a minimum unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 4.5 to 7 MPa
as per IRC:SP:89 [20] in 7/28 days. While the conventional cement stabilized material should attain the
this strength in seven days, granular materials and soil-aggregate mixture stabilized with lime,
pozzolanic stabilizers, lime-fly ash etc., should meet the above strength requirement in 28 days since the
strength gain in such materials is a slow process. As in the case of sub-bases, average laboratory strength
values should be 1.5 times the required minimum (design) field strength. Cementitious base must also
meet durability criteria as given in Para 8.2.4.

From functional requirement, the minimum thickness of cement treated bases shall not be less than 100
mm. The following procedure may be followed for estimation of the thickness of the CTB layer
required to cater to the construction traffic. This procedure has been illustrated in Annexure II.

 Estimate the trips to be made by a dumper for carrying the material required for construction of
granular crack relief layer (minimum thickness of 100 mm)
 Estimate the gross weight of dumper and the distribution of the gross weight between the rear
tandem axle and the front steering axle
 Consider that one repetition of each tandem axle is equivalent to two repetitions of a single axle
weighing half the weight of the tandem axle
 Assume that the 7-day flexural strength of the CTB material to be about 70 % of the 28-day
strength
 Analyse the subgrade, granular subbase (or CTSB) and the CTB layer as a three layer pavement
and calculate tensile stress at the bottom of the CTB layer for a load of one half of the tandem
axle load assumed
 Calculate the stress ratio (calculated stress/flexural strength) and estimate the allowable
repetitions of the load considered using equation 3.6. Neglect front axles
 Vary the thickness of CTB layer until the criterion given by equation 3.6 is satisfied

Elastic modulus of cementitious bases depends upon the quality of materials. Low grade aggregates such
as moorum and kankar may give lower modulus at lower cement contents. Fine grained soil may need
larger quantity of cementitious material for higher strength and may develop wider crack upon curing.
Equation 7.2 may be used for estimating the elastic modulus ECTB from the 28-day unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) of CTB material also.
28
 Poisson’s ratio value of CTB material may be taken as 0.25.

Strength of cementitious layers keeps rising with time and an elastic modulus of 5000 MPa may be
considered for analysis of pavements with CTB layers having 7/28 day unconfined compression
strength values ranging between 4.5 to 7 MPa.

Curing of cemented bases shall be done for a minimum period of seven days before the commencement
of the construction of the next upper layer for achieving the required strength as described in IRC:SP-
89 [20] and curing should start immediately by spraying bitumen emulsion/ wet jute mat or periodical
mist spray of water without flooding or other methods.

8.2.2 Flexural Strength (Modulus of Rupture) of CTB material

The modulus of rupture (MRUP) or flexural strength of the CTB material is required for carrying out
fatigue damage analysis of the cement treated base. The values of modulus of rupture for cementitious
bases corresponding to the 28-day UCS of 7 MPa, 5.25 MPa and 3.5 MPa are recommended as:
Cementitious stabilized aggregates - 1.40 MPa
Lime-flyash-soil - 1.05 MPa
Soil cement - 0.70 MPa

Poisson’s ratio of the cemented layers may be taken as 0.25.

Relationship between UCS, indirect tensile strength (ITS) and Flexural Strength, if developed for the
materials being used in a project, can serve as useful tools for quality control since ITS is easy to
determine on the cores taken from the field. Flexural Strength is approximately 1.5 times the ITS values
for cement bound aggregates.

8.2.3 While the minimum size of the sample of the beam for cement stabilized aggregate for flexure
test should be 100 mm x 100 mm x 500 mm, the beam size for flexural tests for stabilized soil with
hydraulic binders (cement, lime, lime-flyash and other commercially available cementitious binders)
can be 50 mm x 50 mm x 250 mm to 75 mm x75 mm x 375 mm. Third point loading shall be applied
at a rate of 1.25 mm per minute, same as that of used in the CBR test.

8.2.4 Durability criteria

The minimum cementitious material in the bound base layer should be such that in a wetting and drying
test (BIS: 4332 Part-IV [21], the loss of weight of the stabilized material does not exceed 14 per cent
after 12 cycles of wetting and drying. In cold and snow bound regions like Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu
& Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh etc., durability should also be determined by freezing and
thawing test and the loss of weight should be less than 14 per cent after 12cycles as BIS:4332 Part-IV
[21].
29
8.2.5 Crack relief layer

In case of pavements with cemented base, a crack relief layer provided between the bituminous layer
and the cementitious base, delays the reflection of crack from the CTB layer in to the bituminous layer.
The crack relief layer may consist of dense graded crushed aggregates of 100 mm thickness conforming
to MORTH [16] specifications for we mix macadam (WMM) or the Stress Absorbing Membrane
Interlayer (SAMI) of elastomeric modified binder at the rate of 10 – 12 kg / 10 m2 covered with 0.1 m3
of 11.2 mm aggregates. SAMI will not be effective if the crack width is 3 mm or wider.
The resilient modulus of a well-graded granular layer depends upon the gradation and the confinement
pressure to which it is subjected to under the application of wheel load. A typical value of 450 MPa [7,
22, 23] is used for the sandwiched aggregate layer for the analysis of pavements. It shall be compacted
to 100% of the modified compaction density. Strong support from the cementitious base results in
higher modulus than what is given by Eq. 8.1 when a granular layer rests on a weak layer.

Poisson’s ratio of the aggregate relief layer may be taken as 0.35.

8.3 Bitumen emulsion/foamed bitumen treated reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) base.

RAP treated with foamed bitumen or bitumen emulsion can be used as base layer. Bitumen emulsion
mix can be laid in-situ by a train of equipment in which milling, addition of bitumen emulsion, water,
lime or cement, mixing operations and compaction are carried out sequentially. Also, wet mix plant can
be used for mix preparation with bitumen emulsion which can be laid by a paver. RAP mixes with
foamed asphalt can also be laid by in-place or in-plant methods reducing the use and transportation of
costly virgin aggregates.

The minimum thickness of emulsion / foamed bitumen stabilised RAP layer shall 100 mm.

The resilient modulus of the material with bitumen emulsion (SS2)/ foamed bitumen shall be taken as
800 MPa though values as high as 3000 MPa have also been achieved on tests conducted on 150 mm
diameter specimens. VG30 bitumen is recommended for the foamed asphalt mix for better strength.

Indirect Tensile Strength of 102 mm diameter Marshall specimen of the Emulsion/Foamed Bitumen
treated material determined as per ASTM:D 6931 [24] should have a minimum value of 100 kPa after
soaking and 225 kPa in dry condition at a deformation rate of 50 mm/minute [25] at 25°C.

The recommended Poisson’s ratio is 0.35.

9 BITUMINOUS LAYERS

9.1 A bituminous pavement generally consists of bituminous surfacing course and a bituminous
base/binder course. For high traffic volume roads with design traffic of 50 msa or more, (a) Stone
Matrix Asphalt (SMA), (b) Gap Graded mix with rubberized bitumen (GGRB) and (c) Bituminous
30
 Concrete (BC) with modified binders, are recommended for surfacing course for durable, age resistant
and crack resistant surface courses. For the Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) mix recommended for high
traffic volume roads also, use of modified binders is preferred as it is believed that mixes with modified
binders will result in longer service life and will be more resistant to aging. Dense Bituminous
Macadam (DBM) mix with VG40 binder and confirming to IRC and MoRTH specifications, shall be
the material used for base/binder courses for roads with 50 msa or more design traffic. For highly
stressed areas or in roads in high rainfall areas, Mastic Asphalt can also be used as an alternative
surfacing course. For roads with less than 50 msa design traffic, besides the above mentioned mixes
recommended for surface and binder/base courses, Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC), Pre-
Mix Carpet, Mix Seal Surfacing and Surface Dressing can be used as wearing courses, and Bituminous
Macadam (BM) can be used as base/binder courses.

VG40 bitumen used in surface and binder/base courses must have a minimum viscosity of 3600 Poise
at 600 C temperature to safeguard against rutting.

9.2 Resilient Modulus of bituminous mixes

Resilient modulus of bituminous mixes depends upon the grade of binder, frequency/time of load
application time, air voids, surface texture of aggregate, aggregate gradation, maximum size of the
aggregate, bitumen content etc.

Indicative values of resilient moduli of bituminous mixes with different binders are given in Table 9.1.
The design of pavement shall be based on the actual values obtained with field design mixes subject to
a maximum value indicated in Table 9.1 for the specific mix and for a temperature of 350C. If the
resilient modulus value of the specimens prepared using field mix is more than the value indicated in
Table 9.1 for the particular mix and for 350C, the value given in the table shall be used for design.

The modulus values given in Table 9.1 are based on a number of l a b o r a t o r y tests conducted on
bituminous mix specimens tested as per ASTM 4123 [26] upgraded now to ASTM: D7369-09 [27].
ASTM: D7369-09 essentially retains most of the features of ASTM 4123 but recommends that
Poisson’s Ratio also be measured. ASTM 4123 permits use of assumed Poisson’s Ratio values. These
guidelines recommend use of ASTM 4123 or the European standard EN 12697-26 [28], which is similar
to ASTM 4123, for measurement of modulus value of bituminous mixes. A loading pulse of 0.1 second
duration followed by a rest period of 0.9 second is adopted. Bituminous mixes undergo reduction in air
void content, harden with time and modulus will increase due to ageing effect and the actual modulus
values could be more than those given in Table 9.1. For measurement of resilient modulus of DBM, 150
mm diameter specimens should be used because of the larger size of aggregates used in DBM mixes.

A bituminous layer with higher bitumen content and lower air voids gives better resistance against
fatigue and moisture damage. The modulus value of bituminous mixes prepared with modified bitumen
varies widely depending upon the modifier, duration of blending, quantity of admixtures and the
31
extent of air blowing of the base bitumen. These mixes generally have lower resilient modulus value
than the mixes prepared with unmodified bitumen. The lower resilient modulus values are due to the
larger proportion of elastic/resilient deformation/strain possible with modified mixes. The smaller
resilient modulus values do not necessarily indicate that modified binder mixes will have inferior
performance compared to unmodified mixes.

These guidelines recommend that for the purpose of design, the resilient modulus values for surfacing
course with or without modified bitumen shall be taken as the measured resilient modulus value of the
DBM mix (bottom DBM mix in case of two layers of DBM) subject to the upper limit set by Table 9.1
(for a pavement temperature of 350C). It can be noted that the same indicative values are given in the
table for BC (surface course) and DBM (binder/base course). Modified binders are not recommended
for DBM due to concerns about the recyclability of DBM layers with modified binders.

Table 9.1 Indicative values of Resilient Modulus (MPa) of Bituminous Mixes*

Mix type Average Annual Pavement Temperature °C

20 25 30 35 40
BC and DBM for VG10 bitumen 2300 2000 1450 1000 800
BC and DBM for VG30 bitumen 3500 3000 2500 2000 1250
BC and DBM for VG40 bitumen 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000
BC with Modified Bitumen 5700 3800 2400 1600 1300
(IRC: SP: 53)
BM with VG10 bitumen 500 MPa at 35°C
BM with VG30 bitumen 700 MPa at 35°C
RAP treated with 4 per cent bitumen emulsion/ 800MPa at35°C
foamed bitumen (2-2.5) per cent residual bitumen
and 1.0 per cent cementitious material.
*Note: For the purpose of design
a. resilient modulus measured at 35 degree Celsius temperature as per ASTM 4123 or European
standard EN 12697-26 shall be adopted
b. the same indicative modulus values are recommended for BC (surface course) as well as DBM
(binder/base course) with unmodified binders
c. the resilient modulus values for surfacing courses with modified bitumen shall be taken to be
same as the resilient modulus values indicated for DBM

The following empirical relationships (equations 9.1 to 9.2) between resilient modulus and indirect
tensile strength test of different bituminous mixes, developed based on limited test results, may be useful
for arriving at a reasonable estimation of the resilient modulus value for the purpose of initial designs.
32
Resilient Modulus of 150 mm diameter DBM specimens at 350C
Mr (MPa) = 11.088 x ITS -3015.80 (9. 1)
(R² = 0.68)
Resilient Modulus of 102 mm diameter specimens with elastomeric polymer modified binder mixes
Mr (MPa) = 1.1991 x ITS + 1170 (9.2)
2
(R = 0.89)
Where,
ITS = Indirect Tensile Strength in kPa,
Mr = Resilient Modulus in MPa

If the Resilient Modulus of DBM mix is to be determined at temperatures other than 350C but lower
than 400C, equation 9.3 can be used

𝑀𝑅𝑡
= 4.8466 exp(−0.044 𝑡) R2=0.88 (9.3)
𝑀𝑅35
Where
Mrt = Resilient Modulus at temperature t0C and
Mr35 = Resilient modulus at a temperature of 350C.

The Poisson’s ratio of bituminous layer depends upon the pavement temperature and varies from 0.35
to 0.40 for temperatures up to 35°C and attains a value of 0.50 for higher temperatures. A value of 0.35
is considered in the guidelines. Examples of typical designs are given for a temperature of 35°C.

The DBM layer may be constructed in a single layer or in two layers depending upon the design
thickness requirement. When only one layer of DBM is used, DBM-1 layer may be constructed with a
suitable surface course. When the DBM is laid in two layers, the sequence of bituminous layers from
the bottom to top is: DBM-1, DBM-2 and a suitable surface course

For long-life of the bituminous pavements, to avoid moisture induced distresses and for better bottom
up fatigue resistance, bitumen rich DBM bottom layer has been recommended in these guidelines. The
upper limit of voids filled with the bitumen (VFB) for such bottom rich mixes shall be 80%.
For the single layer DBM, the recommended target air void content for mix design is 3.5%. The 3.5%
air void content and the corresponding volume of effective binder content shall be used for calculating
the fatigue life using equations 3.3 and 3.4. It shall be compacted to 4.5% or lower air void content in
the field.
For two-layer DBM construction, for the bottom DBM Layer, the recommended target air void content
for mix design is 3.0%. The 3.0% air void content and the corresponding volume of effective binder

33
content shall be used for calculating the fatigue life using equations 3.3 and 3.4. The mix shall be
compacted to an air void of 4% or lower in the field. In case the parameters indicated above for rich
bottom mixes are not achievable for any reason, the factor ‘C’, shall be taken as 1.38 for pavement
design purpose.
The recommendations for mix design and field compaction of the other bituminous layers (upper DBM
layer of a two-layer DBM system and surface layer) shall be as per the prevailing applicable guidelines.

The minimum thicknesses of different bituminous layers shall be as per relevant MoRTH and IRC
specifications. In the case of pavement with cement treated bases and sub-bases, RAP, for traffic
exceeding 20 msa, the minimum thickness of bituminous layer consisting of DBM and BC layers shall
be 100 mm irrespective of the actual thickness requirement obtained from structural consideration.

10 LONG LIFE PAVEMENTS

A pavement having a life of fifty years or longer is termed as Long Life Pavement (LLP), also known
as perpetual pavement. In the Indian context, pavements with design traffic of 300 msa or more may
th
be designed as long life pavements. As per Asphalt Institute, MS-4, 7 edition [29], if the tensile strain
caused by the traffic in the bituminous layer is less than 70 micro strain which is considered to be the ,
the endurance limit of the material, the bituminous layer will ever crack. Similarly, if the vertical
subgrade strain is less than 200 micro strain, there will be practically very little rutting in the subgrade.
For the climatic conditions prevailing in the plains of India, where the Average Annual Pavement
Temperature may be close to 350C, the corresponding limiting strains may be taken as 81 and 200
micro strains respectively. Thus, long life pavement design involves selecting a suitable pavement layer
combination which can keep the horizontal tensile and vertical compressive strain limited to the above
mentioned limiting strain values corresponding to endurance condition. Different layers of the log life
pavement have to be designed and constructed in such a way that that only the surface course would
need replacement from time to time with a new layer. Such a pavement with appropriate pavement
composition can be constructed at a marginally higher initial cost using innovative design with a lower
life cycle cost. A design example is given in Annexure II.

11 PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURE

11.1 Pavement design shall involve the following steps:

34
(a) Selecting a trial composition: In selecting the pavement composition the designer should be guided
by the expected functional requirements of the layers in a high performing pavement, such as a
strong subgrade, a well-drained sub-base strong enough to withstand the construction traffic loads,
a strong crack, rutting and moisture damage resistant base and a bituminous surfacing that is
resistant to rutting, top-down cracking and to damages caused by exposure to environment.
(b) Bituminous Mix design and the mix resilient modulus: Sourcing of the material ingredients for the
mix has to be decided and the physical requirements and properties of the sourced materials should
be checked for their conformity with the provisions of applicable Specifications and these
Guidelines. The right proportioning of the mix ingredients or the design mix should be arrived at
by trials and testing. Where the resilient modulus is required to be tested in accordance with the
procedures recommended in these Guidelines, the samples of the design mix should be
appropriately tested as specified. Where the resilient modulus is required to be derived indirectly
by using empirical equations given in these Guidelines or are to be adopted as per a certain
recommended value, the modulus should be selected/determined accordingly and used for design
subject to the compliance with the conditions specified in these Guidelines. In case the resilient
modulus determined in this manner exceeds the limiting values specified in these Guidelines, the
latter value has to be adopted. In case, it is less than the limiting value, the actual value should be
adopted in the design.
(c) Selecting layer thickness: The selection of trial thicknesses of various layers comprising the
pavement should be based on the designers’ experience and subject to the minimum thicknesses
recommended in these Guidelines and in other relevant specifications (when there is no specific
recommendation in these guidelines) from functional and constructability considerations.
(d) Structural Analysis of the selected pavement structure: This is to be done by running the IITPAVE
software or any other linear elastic layer programme using as inputs the layer thicknesses, the layer
moduli, the layer Poisson’s ratio values, the standard axle load of 80 kN distributed on four wheels
(20 kN on each wheel), and a tyre pressure as 0.56 MPa. For carrying out cumulative fatigue
damage analysis of cement treated bases, the axle load under consideration and a contact pressure
of 0.80 MPa will be considered. The program will output the stresses, strains and deflections at
selected critical locations in the pavement from which values of critical mechanistic parameters
can be identified for design. A soft copy of the IITPAVE software is attached as part of this
document. Details about IITPAVE and instructions for its installation and use are given in Annex-

35
 I.
(e) Computing the allowable strains/stresses: The allowable strains in bituminous layer and subgrade
for the selected design traffic are to be computed using the fatigue and rutting performance
(limiting strain) models given in these guidelines. The inputs to the models are the design life of
pavement in terms of cumulative standard axles, the resilient modulus value of bituminous mix,
and volumetric proportions (air voids and effective binder) of the mix.
(f) Doing the iterations: A few iterations may be required by changing the layer thicknesses until the
strains computed by IITPAVE are less than the allowable strains derived from performance
models.
(g) Check for cumulative fatigue damage: Where cementitious bases are used in the pavement, the
cumulative fatigue damage analysis is required to be done as done in the case of rigid pavement
design to make sure that the cumulative proportion of damage caused by the expected axle load
spectrum does not exceed unity.
11.2 The design procedures are explained through illustrative worked out design examples given in
Annex II of this document.
11.3 In the case of relatively low traffic volume roads, design traffic not exceeding 50 MSA, and in
situations where investigations prior to design are not feasible on account of exigencies, a design
catalogue is provided in these Guidelines to help the highway authorities in expeditious project
approval and procurement. It needs to be borne in mind that the design assumptions made in the
preparation of these catalogues need to be fulfilled in actual execution. In case there are deviations
from these assumptions, the design should be revisited following the procedure explained in paragraph
11.1 above.
11.4 For design traffic lower than 2 msa, recommendations of IRC: SP: 72 [30] may be used.

11.5 A designer is expected to apply his/her judgment and experience in the choice of pavement
materials and layer thickness as a number of options of pavements are suggested in the guidelines.
IITPAVE helps the designers to analyse a pavement composition to examine if the strains and stresses
are within limits specified by performance criteria but practical considerations, durability and economic
viability determine the thickness of different layers. If granular sub-base is too thin over a weak
subgrade, granular base (WMM) cannot be compacted to the required density. Similarly, the DBM also
needs a strong support for its compaction to a specified density. The standard wheel load, tyre pressure,
number of layers, the layer thickness of individual layers and the layer properties are the user specified
36
inputs in the Program, which gives strains at critical locations as outputs. The adequacy of design is
checked by comparing these strains with the allowable strains as predicted by the fatigue and rutting
models. A satisfactory pavement design is achieved through iterative process by varying layer
thicknesses and if necessary, by changing the pavement layer materials. Stress analysis may sometimes
give very low thickness from fatigue/rutting models. In such cases the minimum thickness as specified
in the guidelines shall be provided to ensure intended functional requirement of the layer.

12 PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN CATALOUGES

12.1 The pavement structural catalogues presented in these guidelines for design traffic levels u to 50
msa are intended for initial cost estimation and for guidance only. For all important pavements, the
design shall be carried out using site specific inputs to satisfy the mechanistic-empirical performance
models given in these guidelines which may require analysis of different trial pavement sections using
IIT PAVE software.

12.2 Thickness design plates showing approximate thicknesses of layers of different materials of are
provided in the text of the guidelines and are only for illustration and initial estimation. The individual
layer thickness shown in catalogues are only for illustration and actual optimal requirement of layer
thicknesses shall be evolved based on detailed analysis. Practical considerations and durability of the
selected layers should always be kept in mind.

12.3 The volumetric parameters of bitumen rich DBM bottom layer considered for the preparation
catalogue are: air void content (Va) of 3.5% and effective bitumen volume (Vbe) of 9.0%. Specific
gravity of aggregates can vary from 2.60 to 2.95 and the bitumen content, accordingly, can vary
between 4% and 6%.While the Va of 3.0 % or 3.5% can be fixed while carrying out the mix design of
the DBM bottom layer (for two-layer DBM) or the DBM layer (for single layer DBM) Vbe may vary
for the same bitumen content depending on variations in aggregate gradation and depending upon the
absorption of bitumen by aggregates. If water absorption of aggregates is 2.0 %, percentage of bitumen
absorption into the surface pores of aggregates can vary from 0.8% to 1.6% (by weight of aggregates).
Absorbed bitumen is the lost bitumen. Hence Va and Vbe are to be correctly estimated as per Asphalt
Institute Mix Design, MS-2 [6]. The air voids and volume of effective bitumen content shall be as per
actual mix design carried out during execution.

During the preparation of DPR, preliminary mix design may be carried out using the aggregates which
are likely to be used in the project to estimate water absorption, absorption of bitumen and the quantity
of bitumen needed if data from other nearby projects for the same aggregates are not available. Volume
of effective bitumen (Vbe) in mix design can be different from that considered in catalogue which gives
only an approximate thickness composition.
37
12.4 DBM mix with VG40 bitumen has been considered for all design traffic (msa) levels for preparing
the design catalogues

38
12.1 Granular Base and Granular Sub-base

39
40
41
42
12. 2 Cemented Base and Cemented Sub-base with Crack Relief Interlayer of Aggregate

43
44
45
46
12.3 Cemented Base and Cemented Sub-base with SAMI at the Interface of Cemented Base
and the Bituminous Layer

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
12.4 Foamed Bitumen/bitumen Emulsion treated RAP

55
56
57
58
12.5 Cemented Base and Granular Sub-base with Crack Relief layer of Aggregate Interlayer

59
60
61
62
63
12.6 Granular Base and Cemented Sub-base

64
65
66
67
13 DESIGN IN FROST AFFECTED AREAS
13.1 In areas susceptible to frost action, the design will have to be related to the actual depth of
penetration and severity of the frost. At the subgrade level, fine grained clayey and silty soils are more
susceptible to ice formation, but freezing conditions could also develop within the pavement structure
if water has a chance of ingress from above.

13.2 One remedy against frost attack is to increase the depth of construction to correspond to the depth
of frost penetration, but this may not always be economically practicable. As a general rule, it would
not be advisable to provide total pavement thickness less than 450 mm even when the CBR value of
the subgrade warrants a smaller thickness. In addition, the materials used for building up the crust
should be frost resistant.

13.3 Another precaution against frost attack is that water should not be allowed to collect at the
subgrade level which may happen on account of infiltration through the pavement surface or verges or
due to capillary rise from a high water table. Whereas capillary rise can be prevented by subsoil
drainage measures and cut-offs, infiltrating surface water can be checked only by providing a suitable
surfacing course and a subsurface drainage system.

14 QUALITY CONTROL TESTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

The recommendations contained in Clause 903 of Specifications of the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways for Road and Bridge Works [16], IRC 120 [31], IRC SP 89 [20], IRC SP 59 [19] about
different tests along with their frequencies for different types of specifications to ensure quality in the
construction are to be followed. In addition, the following tests are also required for addressing the
specifications /aspects not covered in the documents referred to above.
SN Item of Construction Test Frequency
1 Bituminous construction Resilient modulus Three sets for each 400
test/indirect tensile strength tonnes of mix subject to
test on specimens prepared minimum 2 tests per day.
using field mix
2 Cement treated /stabilised Unconfined compressive Three sets for each 400
base and sub-base strength tonnes of mix subject to
minimum 2 tests per day.
3 Cement treated /stabilised Binder/cement content Three sets for each 400
base and sub-base tonnes of mix subject to
minimum 2 tests per day.
4 Cement treated /stabilised Flexural strength / Indirect Three sets for each 400
base and sub-base tensile strength test tonnes of mix subject to
minimum 2 tests per day.
5 Cement treated /stabilised Soundness test One test for each source and
base and sub-base (BIS 4332 Part IV) whenever there is change in
the quality of aggregate
6 Cement treated /stabilised Density of compacted layer One test per 1000 sq m.
68
 base and sub-base
7 Emulsion/ Foam bitumen Indirect tensile strength test Three sets for each 400
tonnes of mix subject to
minimum 2 tests per day.
8 Emulsion/ Foam bitumen Density of compacted layer One test per 1000 sq m.

69
APPENDIX

70
 The Principles and Approach followed in these Guidelines

An overview

1.1 Safety and serviceability of highway pavement

Highway Pavement should be safe and serviceable. It should be capable of carrying the loads
coming on it during its life without any failure. Unlike structures where failure is usually followed by
complete collapse, failure in pavement is not sudden but usually by gradual deterioration over time. At
some stage in its life, when the deterioration renders it unserviceable to the users, it has to be assumed
as failed. Thus, safety criteria in pavement design are indeed defined by a serviceability threshold (such
as acceptable cracking and rutting), which, if breached, the design should be considered as unsafe and
pavement unserviceable.

1.2 Fatigue-based approach to design

1.2.1 Pavement as a layered structure responds to an applied load by deforming (i.e. undergoing strain)
and developing internal forces (i.e. stress) to resist the load. The ideal behavior of the pavement should
be resilient (or elastic) and it should bounce back to the original position on removal of the load. The
elastic behavior of the pavement as a whole depends upon the elastic moduli (i.e. the ratio of stress and
strain) of the individual layers. Higher the deformation in the layer, higher is the requirement of
mobilization of internal forces. Depending upon the elastic modulus (referred to as Resilient Modulus
MR in these Guidelines), there is a limiting strain, which, if exceeded, the layer would fail.

1.2.2 Load application on pavement is not one time and single application but involves millions of
repetitions during its life. With every load repetition the pavement undergoes alternate stressing and
de-stressing. All elastic materials without exception when stressed and de-stressed do not fully recover
their deformation because some strain is not recovered on removal of load and remains in the material
as plastic strain, which goes on accumulating with every subsequent repetition. The accumulated plastic
strain reduces the material’s capacity to undergo elastic strain and the material may fail at the same
load for which it was safe initially. The phenomenon is ‘fatigue’ and occurs in all elastic materials
without exception. In pavement, however, the fatigue happens faster than other elastic materials (e.g.
concrete and steel). Therefore, fatigue is the primary consideration in pavement design and not the
safety of the design against the single maximum load application.

1.2.3 Fatigue is thus associated with permanent deformation (due to accumulated plastic strain) as well
as cracking (due to elastic strain limit getting reduced by the accumulated plastic strain) in any layer.
Therefore, both rutting and cracking in pavement are manifestation of fatigue only. In these Guidelines,
however, cracking and fatigue cracking have been interchangeably used while rutting is dealt with
independently.

1.2.4 A loaded pavement causes vertical compression in the pavement layers, which undergo
compressive strain and mobilize compressive stresses. Pavement layer may rut under compressive
forces but will not crack. Cracking can happen only due to tensile forces. These tensile forces in the
layer are mobilized because the compressive strain at the layer bottom is invariably accompanied by a
strain in the horizontal direction (i.e. tensile strain), the magnitude of which is µ (Poisson’s ratio) times
the vertical compressive strain.

1.2.5 While it is possible to compute the tensile strains for single application of the standard load, the
71
terminal tensile strain after fatigue cannot be directly computed. It is indirectly computed by a fatigue
model, not in terms of the actual terminal strain but in terms of the number of load repetitions that leads
to the failure by cracking. For bituminous pavements, the model uses the initial tensile strain and the
layer elastic modulus as the independent variables to predict the fatigue life in terms of number of load
repetitions. The calibration of the model requires huge data from real life pavements on pavement
deflection (which is the surrogate for compressive strain from which tensile strains can be computed)
and the number of load repetitions it has undergone in reaching that stage, besides laboratory
investigation for determination of E and µ of the actual pavement materials.

1.2.6 In cementitious bases, fatigue in terms of number of standard load repetitions can be estimated
by an empirical equation. That may not give confidence of safety against cracking due to certain extra
heavy axle loads. The check against this is provided by cumulative fatigue damage analysis, which
involves estimation of fatigue life of each class of load using a parameter called stress ratio or the ratio
of tensile stresses caused by the load class and the layer modulus of rupture. The proportion that the
actual number of load repletion in each class bears with its respective fatigue life is summed up to see
if the sum is less than unity.

1.2.7 In granular layers, unlike bituminous and cementitious layers the MR is not a fixed number but
is stress dependent, a function of the sum of three principal stresses. Since the layer stresses themselves
depend upon layer thickness and MR, a process of iteration is required with assumed MR and layer
thickness till the assumed and estimated values converge.

2. Cracking in pavement
Cracking in pavement can occur in three different ways: (a) bottom up cracking, (b) top down
cracking, and (c) cracking due to age hardening of bituminous binder.

2.1 Bottom up cracking:

2.1.1 The bottom of any layer may crack due to fatigue (discussed in detail above) reducing the
effective layer thickness causing further cracks moving upwards. When the whole layer cracks, the
cracks reflect into the overlying layers and eventually appear on the surface of the pavement as alligator
cracks. Fatigue cracking in bituminous layers has been modeled whereby for any design life of
pavement in terms cumulative standard axles, the allowable strain in the bituminous layer can be
predicted if Mr and the mix properties are known. As far as other layers are concerned, safeguards
against fatigue cracking can be built into the design by judiciously selecting the material properties,
mainly, the Mr.

2.1.2 Cracking at the bottom of any pavement layer is caused when the layer bottom is overstressed
and the accompanying tensile strain is more than what the material can sustain. Stresses will reduce if
the layer bottom is at a deeper depth from surface where the intensity of load is less. The strain can be
reduced in two ways (i) by providing an unyielding support from the underlying layers that does not
cause large deflection of the layer under the load and hence tension at the bottom, and (ii) by using
layer material that has better elastic property or Mr. In simple terms, a thick layer comprising a high
Mrmaterial constructed over strong support will be crack resistant.

2.1.3 A strong subgrade is essential for giving firm support to the upper pavement layers. These
Guidelines recommend the use of Equation 6.2 for determining the Mr of the subgrade soil based on
the effective CBR of the subgrade soil. The CBR should not be too low, which can possibly yield under
72
load. It should not be too high also as it can crack due to yielding of the embankment it is formed on.
.The upper limit of effective CBR should be that value that returns the Resilient Modulus value not
exceeding 100 MPa.

2.1.4 The Mr of granular sub-base and granular base are to be determined by equations 7.1 and 8.2,
which indeed are the same equation. The Mr depends upon the Mr of Subgrade soil (Mrsubgrade) and the
granular layer thickness (h) over the Subgrade. Accordingly, the cap on the design Mr will be dictated
by the Subgrade Mr. `

2.1.5 In situations where granular materials are placed over cementitious materials, e.g. granular base
over cementitious sub-base and granular crack relief layer over cemented bases, the layer Mr cannot
be determined in the manner discussed in para 1.4.3. Theoretically, these layers sandwiched between
relatively stiff cementitious and bituminous layers can be modeled as subjected to tri-axial
loading.AUSTROADS have used equations to determine Mrusing the sum of Principal Stresses and
Octahedral shear stresses. In these Guidelines any rigorous stress analysis is not proposed and an Mr
value of 450 MPa for crack relief layer of WMM specification is recommended. In case of granular
base over cementitious sub-base, the recommended value is 300 MPaand 350 MPa for natural gravel
and crushed rock respectively.

2.1.6 Selecting the design Mr of Cementious layers is a tricky matter. Mrof cementitious materials is
thousand times the 7/28 days Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) of the layer material as given
by Equation 7.2. The equation will return a very high value of Mr even for very low UCS material.
This value cannot be adopted for design for two reasons, (i) these are laboratory values of the UCS
tested on ‘un-cracked’ material samples while in the field the material,if used in sub-base, will start
cracking immediately on application of the construction traffic and progressively lose its Mr during
construction as well as ‘in-service’ stages till it reaches the fully cracked terminal condition when it
will behave more like a granular material rather than a rigid layer, (ii) higher the UCS wider will be the
cracks, which have the chance of reflection into the overlying layer leading to a highly undesirable
situation for pavement performance.Therefore, low UCS materials are targeted for use in pavement
layers.

2.1.7 The design Mr of cemented sub-base materials is capped at a relatively low value of 600 MPa
because of the possibility of the layer getting cracked right from the start. As far as cementitous bases
are concerned, the cracks are relieved by a crack relief layer and, therefore, the material substantially
retains its rigid behavior. Accordingly, the design Mr is recommended as 5000 MPa. These
recommended values of Mr are subject to the condition that the laboratory values of the UCS are within
the range specified in sections 7 and 8 of the main guidelines.

2.1.8 Testing the durability of the cementitious base materials is compulsory. This is because low UCS
materials have low quantity of cement binder and there may be a likelihood of inadequate binding of
the materials, especially if the proportion of fines in the materials is high. The loss of weight in the
‘wetting- drying’ or ‘freeze thaw’ test as relevant will reveal whether the binding of the material is
acceptable or not.

2.1.9 All cemenetitious bases have to be tested for cumulative fatigue damage as recommended in
these Guidelines. The test uses stress ratio’ as a parameter, which is the ratio of the actual stresses in
the layer as computed from IITPAVE and the modulus of rupture of the layer material. The modulus
73
of rupture can be found by flexure tests. A simplified approach based on the practice used elsewhere is
used in these Guidelines, which recommends that the value of the modulus of rupture can be taken as
20 per cent of the UCS value.

2.1.10 Where Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) with foamed bitumen or emulsion is used as base
(refer clause 8.3 of the main guidelines), a conservative value of 800 MPa is recommended for design
provided the RAP mixes are designed and tested as per procedure recommended in these Guidelines.

2.1.11 The design Mr of bituminous layer (DBM plus the surfacing) is the most important factor
impacting fatigue cracking of pavements. There is a wide range of variation in its value depending
upon the grades of bitumen used. Irrespective of the bitumen grade, variability in pavement temperature
during the course of a day, over different seasons and different climatic conditions also influence the
value of Mr almost in real time. Besides, there is variability caused due to the size of test specimens
and the testing methods. These Guidelines recommend VG 40 grade bitumen for most part of the
country for high traffic volume of more than 20 MSA. The temperature for which the Mrvalue should
be considered for design is 350 C and the recommended test procedure is ASTM D4123.

2.2Top down cracking

2.2.1 At the instance when the tyres come in contact with road surface, they expand laterally and push
the pavement surface at their edges. At the next instance when the tyre moves over, the laterally pushed
surface should be elastic enough to pull itself back.If it is not the surface will crack at the wheel edges
along longitudinal direction and the crack will propagate downwards from the surface. Top down
cracking has not been modeled and these Guidelines recommend control of material properties and mix
design to minimise top down cracking.

2.2.2 Other reason for top down cracking is age hardening of bitumen. With age and exposure to sun
light and UV rays, the volatiles in bitumen are lost and the binder becomes hard and brittle, which can
itself crack even without any application of load.

2.2.3 The objective of design in controlling top down cracking should be to use mixes that can
accommodate more bitumen to retain the bonding of aggregates even after the exposed surface oxidises,
to minimize the effect of ageing of bitumen by using ageing resistant modified binder in the surfacing
course, to improve the visco-elastic properties of the bitumen for better elastic recovery by using
elastomeric modifiers or rubber. These Guidelines recommend Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) and Gap
Graded Rubberised Bitumen (GGRB) for high traffic, more than 50 MSA, roads. In other cases, stiff
grade binders or modified binders are considered suitable for surfacing course mixes.

3. Rutting in Pavement
Rutting in pavement occurs in two ways: (a) Due to deformation in subgrade and (b) due to
rutting in bituminous layer. While rutting due to vertical subgrade strain has already been modeled and
the allowable strain can be predicted for the design life of the pavement, that caused in the bituminous
layers has to be controlled by judiciously selecting the bitumen binder and rut resistant bituminous mix.

3.1 When vertical strain in subgrade reaches a threshold, the Subgrade loses its resilience and the
top of the Subgrade below the wheels ruts. As a result, the Subgrade loses its shape in cross section.
The overlying layers also take the deformed shape of the Subgrade and eventually reflect as rut on the
74
pavement surface

3.2 Even while the subgrade does not undergo rutting, the bituminous layers may do. This happens
in various situations such as when the bituminous layers are not initially properly compacted and
undergo large secondary compaction during their service life, the binder used is of a softer grade which
is less viscous and more plastic, the pavement temperature rises to an extent that the bitumen becomes
soft and load repetitions during that period leave the layer permanently deformed, the elastic behavior
of the pavement is poor due to low MR of the bituminous mix as a result of which there is more plastic
strain accumulation, there is excess bitumen in the mix that fills all the air voids, excess fines,etc.

4. Structural Analysis of Pavement

4.1 These Guidelines continue to follow the Mechanistic-Empirical approach for pavement analysis
as in its previous version. The current version, however, offers many more options in Sub-base and
Base layers of pavement as opposed to only granular layer options available in the earlier version. The
stresses and strains in the pavement layers are analysed by the software IITPAVE, which requires inputs
from users in terms of number of layers, their thickness and elastic moduli. Standard loading of 80 KN
at 0.56 MPa tyre pressure is built into the Program and the user option is required in terms of single or
dual wheel distribution of the load. Dual wheel option is adopted for analysis, which means a load of
20 KN on each wheel. The output from the Program is stresses and strains at the layer bottom.

4.2 The trial pavement composition and layer thicknesses are selected and the stresses and strains at
the critical locations are found out by running IITPAVE. The permissible strains in any layer are
obtained from the fatigue and rutting model discussed above, assuming the number of CSA during the
design period as the fatigue or rut life. If the computed strains are higher than those derived from the
model, the trial composition and layer thickness are changed till the values come within the permissible
limits.

5. Effect of Climate and Environment on Pavement Performance

5.1 The discussion so far has been on the response of the Pavement to load repetitions and its design
to limit the cracking and rutting. Climate and environment are other factors, which can affect the
performance of pavements, either by themselves (e.g. by age hardening of surfacing layer) or by
altering the pavement material properties from the one assumed in design (e.g. change in visco-elastic
properties of bitumen with temperature). These have not been modeled and, therefore, require
engineering judgment and past experience to be used in design.

5.2 Water entering the cracks from bottom (bottom up cracking), top (top down cracking) or sides
(shoulders or medians) may strip the bitumen leading to loss of bond between aggregates and bitumen,
may widen the crack when wheels pass over water filled cracks, may soften the subgrade resulting in
loss of subgrade support. Remedies required in the design, therefore, should be to minimize cracking,
provide drainage and separation.

5.3 All bitumen ages when exposed volatiles, hardens, become brittle and then cracks. Remedy lies
in using an appropriate grade of bitumen, with modifications, if required, in the surfacing layer that are
resistant to oxidation of bitumen.

5.4 As the pavement temperature increases all bitumen become soft, the mix MR decreases and it
becomes rut prone. The reverse happens when the temperature decreases as the bitumen becomes hard,
75
 increases the mix MR and the layer become crack prone. The remedy lies in selection of bitumen that
can satisfactorily perform within the temperature range dictated by climatic conditions.

7. Requirements for design of a high performing pavement

7.1 A high performing pavement when designed, constructed and put into service is expected to
behave in a resilient manner and resist any deformation (secondary compaction, rut formation), distress
(bleeding, cracking) and deterioration (accumulation of plastic strain and loss of resilience). The resilient
behavior of all pavement layers except bituminous layers can be controlled by design as the layer
material properties are not subject to much change during its service life. In the case of bituminous
layers, on the other hand, the elastic properties of the layer (Resilient Modulus and Poisson’s ratio) are
subject to wide range of variations mainly due to variability in the properties of bitumen. These
variations have to be managed in the pavement design by controlling the properties of bitumen and those
of the mix.

7.2 Properties of Bitumen

7.2.1 Physical and chemical Properties

(i) Bitumen is produced from the ‘vacuum residue’ of the refining process of crude petroleum by
following any one or combination of three processes, viz. ‘blending’ with water, kerosene,
polymers (emulsion, cutback, modified bitumen), ‘blowing’ in which air is blown at controlled
temperature, pressure and duration to oxidise the volatiles in the residue and make it stiffer by
increasing its viscosity, or ‘solvent de-asphalting’ in which the residue is mixed with some
solvent which precipitates the ‘bitumen’.
(ii) Chemically, bitumen contains four different types of compounds (acronym SARA), which
influence its physical properties. These are ‘saturates’, which determine the softening point of
bitumen;‘aromatic oils’, which give fluidity to the bitumen, their ‘polarity’ helps adhesion of
bitumen to aggregates, but are prone to fast ‘oxidation’ that increases the stiffness of
bitumen;‘resins’, which give viscosity to the bitumen; and ‘asphaltene’, which are solid
hydrocarbon particles usually in colloidal form in the crude and when bonded with resin give
elasticity to bitumen.
(iii) Physical properties of bitumen have three features: (i) thermo-plasticity,i.e. it becomes plastic
when its temperature increasesto softening point and does not regain its shape when the
temperature reduces, (ii) visco-elasticity, i.e. it behaves like elastic solid when load is applied for
a very short duration (e.g. wheels of high speed vehicles passing over a point) as well as viscous
fluid when the load lasts longer (e.g. during slow speed or acceleration/decelerating vehicles
passing over a point), and (iii) temperature susceptibility, i.e. its viscosity decreases at higher
temperature and increases at lower temperature.
(iv) The first and foremost objective of bitumen is to have a strong bond with aggregates when it is
mixed with the latter. The ‘polarity’ of the bitumen coming from the aromatic oils is responsible
for it. Any bitumen, when heated over 1350 C is a Newtonian fluid having low viscosity and can
freely flow into the voids in the mineral aggregates, mix and bond with aggregates. However,
excess of aromatic oils gives softness to the mix. Therefore, if there is excess of aromatic oils,
76
 the in-situ mixis tender and rut prone, especially if used in the lower layers not exposed to
atmosphere.The target bitumen property should, therefore, be its less oxidation potential.
(v) Thermo-plasticity is an undesirable property of bitumen. A ‘low softening point’ bitumen in the
mix makes it plastic at relatively lower temperature and will cause permanent ruts in the
pavement.Therefore, a ‘high softening point’ bitumen should be targeted.
(vi) Visco-elasticity is a highly desirable bitumen property, which helps resist deformation of the mix
due to bitumen viscosity and, after deformation, regain the original shape due to its elastic
property.
7.2.2 BIS standard for Paving Bitumen
IS 73:2013, classifies paving bitumen into four grades, viz, VG 10, VG 20, VG 30 and VG 40 on
the basis of minimum viscosity in poise at 600 C with values as 800, 1600, 2400 and 3200 Poise
respectively. Softening points of these grades are specified as 400, 450, 470 and 500C respectively.
The standards do not deal with the theoretical concepts of chemical composition in terms of SARA
nor the physical features in terms of visco-plasticity, visco-elasticity and temperature susceptibility
(ref para 7.2.1 above). An attempt can be made to interpret these from the specified properties as
under:
(a) VG40 grade bitumen retains the highest viscosity at 600 C. Therefore, it can be said to be
comparatively deficient in oxidisable aromatic oils and hence the mix will be more rut
resistant.
(b) VG 40 is the best option for higher temperature
(c) High viscosity of VG 40 would suggest that the proportion of aromatic oils would be less
and that of the other compounds like saturates, resins and asphaltene would be more,making
it more visco-elastic and less visco-plastic, the desirable properties of bitumen.
(d) Visco-plasticity will set in at a relatively high temperature of 500 C
(e) Even though VG 40 is the best option amongst other grades, its behavior at temperatures
higher than 600 C cannot be predicted. It is quite realistic to expect the maximum pavement
temperature to rise to even 700C (see para 7.2.3 B below)
7.2.3 Temperature Considerations
A. Average Temperature
(i) Resilient Modulus of Bituminous layers is quite sensitive to temperature. At high temperatures,
MR is low and at low temperatures it is high. When the pavement temperatures rises to a very
high level (say 700 C), the MR may become very low but starts increasing as soon as the pavement
starts cooling. Thus, Mr may undergo wide variation even during the course of a day during
summer time. Similarly,on a very cold winter night, if the pavement temperature reaches freezing
point or below, Mr may become very high and the pavement may become brittle and crack.
Designing the pavement for Mr corresponding to very high or low temperatures, which may
prevail for certain hours during a year will make the design unnecessarily expensive or
unsafe.Therefore, the appropriate temperature for Mr should be the average temperature that
applies for most part of the year. This would mean that there will be some risk of low temperature
cracking or high temperature rutting, butit would be limited to load repetitions during some hours

77
 of extreme temperatures. .

(ii) There are no authentic data on average pavement temperature in various regions of the country
nor any model available to predict it based on air temperature, which may be easily available
with Indian Meteorological Department (IMD). Based on hourly temperature data in six cities
(Mumbai, Guwahati, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Chennai and Kharagpur) collected from IMD
projections were made for average annual air temperature, which came in the range of 240 to
280C. Two correlations between average air and pavement temperatures developed by two
researches made elsewhere are given in the equations below. These were used to estimate the
average pavement temperatures based on average air temperatures.
AMPT (oC)= (1.05 xAMAT(oC))+ 5.0 (Witczak)… (A-5)

AMPT (oC)= (1.15 xAMAT(oC))+ 3.17 (Brunton et al.)… (A-6)

where, AMPT is Average Monthly Pavement Temperature and AMAT is Average
Monthly Air Temperature (AMAT)

The average pavement temperature values for these six cities representing a spectrum of climatic
conditions come within the range of 30o to 350 C. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to adopt
MR of bituminous mixes at 350 C

B. Maximum temperature

(i) The maximum pavement temperature is important for understanding which grade of binder would
be the most suitable for designing bituminous mixes. However, no data are available on pavement
temperature (measured at 20 mm below the surface). One model, based on research elsewhere, has
the potential to predict the maximum temperature at any place on the globe using its geographical
position and using easily available data on the seven day’s average of the maximum temperature.

T20mm = [(Tair - .00618Lat2 + 0.2289Lat + 42.2) * (0.9545)] – 17.78… (A-7)

Where T20mm= Pavement temperature at a depth of 20mm
Lat = Latitude of the place
Tair = Average of maximum temperatures of seven days

(ii) The equation was used for computing the maximum pavement temperature for Kharagpur.
Corresponding to a maximum temperature of 380 C and 470 C (a typical range of summer-time
maximum temperatures) and feeding the latitude and longitude data of Kharagpur, the
corresponding pavement temperatures are predicted as 610C and 690C respectively. A better and
more reliable input of temperature would be 7 days average (mean) plus twice the standard
deviation. Uing this model the maximum pavement temperature at any place can be predicted.
A reasonable assumption, however, could be that in most part of the country, the maximum
pavement temperaturemay reach around 700 C.
C. Minimum temperature
No studies were made on the minimum temperature.
78
D. The choice of appropriate grade of Bitumen
The appropriate grade of binder should ideally be one that is suitable for the range of variations
in pavement temperature. Even though there appears to be some gap in the existing standards with
regard to suitability of binders in extreme temperature conditions that are likely to prevail in the
country, it is recommended that the grade suitable for temperatures nearest to the specified maximum
could be adopted. Very broadly, the stiffest grade of available bitumen should be used where the
pavement temperature is expected to rise above 600C and the softer grades under low temperature
conditions.

7.3 Mix Design

7.3.1 General requirements
(i) Bituminous base and the surfacing layers have different requirements. The base is subjected to
tension and, therefore, needs to have high resilient modulus requiring dense aggregate grading as in
DBM. Fatigue cracking starts at the bottom of the base. The fatigue life can be increased by increasing
the per cent of bitumen filling the voids in the aggregate, but the dense grading of DBM does not allow
enough void space to accommodate more bitumen without reducing the air voids. More bitumen and
less air voids in the DBM would though increase the fatigue life, but may also make it rut prone. These
are some of the conflicting requirements of mix design, which need to be factored in the design.
(ii) Surfacing layer is always in compression and, therefore, its resilient modulus is of no
consequence. However, the top down cracking starts at the surfacing at the edges of the wheel because
the inflation pressure of the tyres at the contact surface deforms it across the wheel path and the mix
should be elastic enough to recover this deformation after passage of the wheels. The binder in the
surfacing layer should, therefore, have high elastic recovery. Surfacing is also exposed to atmosphere
and thereby to ageing. Therefore, the surfacing should be age resistant. The surfacing is also exposed
to water damage by stripping or displacement of the bitumen film by water, and therefore, it should be
resistant to water damage.
7.3.2 Specific Measures for Bituminous base
(i) Theoretically, the bituminous base can be designed for any combination of DBM grading and
binder grade, the thickness being determined by the Resilient modulus of the mix. Nevertheless, a high
Resilient Modulus of DBM should be targeted in the design, which in comparison to low or moderate
Mr mix, will give a lower thickness of DBM, low tensile strain and less plastic strain under the same
set of loading. Thus, a high Mrmix will be more resistant to both cracking and rutting.
(ii) A high Mrmix can be achieved by a strong granular skeleton of aggregates represented by their
grading. DBM grading I using higher maximum nominal size of aggregates will give a strong aggregate
structure compared to Grading II. The choice between the two gradings, however, is also dependent
upon the layer thickness, which should not be less than 2.5 times the maximum nominal size of the
aggregate.
(iii) As for grade of Bitumen to be adopted in design, VG 40 grade bitumen gives the maximum Mr at
350 C (ref Table 9), which is the average pavement temperature likely to prevail in most part of the
country (refer para 7.2.3 A(ii)). The appropriate grade of bitumen for other climatic and traffic
79
conditions can be selected on the basis of Table in para 7.2 D above.
(iv)The lower layer DBM has to be rich in bitumen and low in air voids as provided in Section 11 of
the main document. The lower layer DBM, subject to the thickness and nominal size limitation, should
be in Grading I. The larger size fractions of aggregates and lower surface area would enablemore void
space to accommodate additional quantity of bitumen and thicker coating of aggregate particles by
bitumen. The likelihood of rutting of the layer is minimal for two reasons, first because the lower layer
is subject to lower load as the intensity of the load decreases with depth, and secondly the layer being
confined from all sides air in the voids has nowhere to escape. .
(v) Part of the quantity of bitumen in the mix is lost in the aggregate pores where the aggregates
have porosity even though within permissible limits. This will reduce the effective quantity of bitumen
in the mix, which will become deficient in bitumen. The design quantity, therefore, should be increased
as suggested in Section 11.
(vi) Ingress of water into the DBM layer from shoulder and median needs to be prevented by taking
adequate measure so that the higher polarity of water compared to bitumen does not cause stripping
and loss of bond between aggregates and Bitumen..
(vii) The actual thickness of DBM should be 10 mm more than the deign thickness to account for the
reduction in the effective thickness of the layer due to DBM material consumed in filling the
irregularities in the crack relief layer.

7.3.3 Specific Measures for Bituminous Surfacing

(i) Surfacing layer should have good elastic recovery property, which requires that the bitumen
binder should retain its visco-elastic property even at high temperatures. A stiff bitumen is more visco-
elastic due to lower fraction of aromatic oils and correspondingly higher fractions of resins and
asphaltene that are responsible for visco-elasticity in bitumen. In spite of high visco-elastic property of
stiff bitumen, it may not be enough to resist the deformation of the surface caused by high tyre pressures
in heavy vehicles. This property needs to be further improved to ensure high performance of the
surfacing layer. This may be achieved by using bitumen modified with elastomeric modifiers or rubber
as in the case of rubberized bitumen.
(ii) Surfacing layer should be rich in binder so that the film coating the aggregate particles is thick.
A thick coating filmessentially has three advantages; first, it will provide better bonding of aggregate
and binder;second, on exposure to atmosphere it will resist the effects of oxidation and ageing, which
will take more time to penetrate through the film and thereby delay the age related cracking of the
binder contributing totop down cracking; and third, it will not allow highly polar water to penetrate
through the coating film and reach the aggregate bitumen interface to cause stripping of the binder. .
(iii) In order for the surfacing mix to be rich in bitumen, the aggregates should have more void space
to accommodate the additional binder. This is not possible if the grading is a dense grading as in BC.
The grading has to be opened while retaining the granular bearing skeleton that gives strength, e.g. in
Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) or in Gap-graded Rubberised Bitumen (GGRB). These Guidelines
strongly recommend SMA and GGRB as surfacing layer on all important roads having design traffic
more than 50MSA. Even Semi-dense BituminousCarpet (SDBC) with higher bitumen content is
considered a better option than BC on less important roads.

80
 8. Tests and design documentation
8.1 Design has to be based on a number of tests conducted in accordance with the procedures
indicated in the main document at the appropriate places. The tests on works and their frequencies are
enumerated in Section 14. The designer has to plan all the required tests at different points of time such
as when selecting material sources, at the time of delivery of materials, before using the material for
preparation of specimens, at the time of testing of specimens; and at different places such as at the
supplier’s premises, in the laboratory, in the stock yards/storage tanks, in the mixing plants, in the field,
etc.

8.2 After material sources are selected, the designer needs to make sure that the supply from the
source will be available for the entire project, otherwise the design has to be changed with change in
material source. Conformity of all the material ingredients to the relevant specifications and the
procedures to these Guidelines need to be ensured.

8.3 A design documentation comprising the complete design including the drawings, sketches, plans,
assumptions made, if any, time and location referenced test results that the design is based on has to be
prepared and made available to the Project Authority for monitoring the performance of the designed
pavement over time.

9. Performance monitoring

These Guidelines strongly recommend that the Project Authorities monitor over time the
performance of the designed pavement as laid in the field to validate the adopted design and to further
refine the models and the procedures used in the design. This should be done by

i) Measuring a set of pavement performance parameters: surface irregularity, rutting,alligator

cracking, top down cracking
ii) Observing other kinds of distresses: age hardening, raveling, potholes, bleeding, etc.
iii) Investigating the distresses observed, if any: core samples of distressed portions
iv) Gathering the air and pavement temperature data at a location close to an IMD station

81
ANNEXES

82
 Annex I

Installation and Use of IITPAVE Software

I.1 Salient features of IITPAVE
IITPAVE software has been developed for analysis of linear elastic layered pavement system. The
stresses, strains and defections caused at different locations in a pavement by a uniformly distributed
single load applied over a circular contact area at the surface of pavement area can be computed using
this software. The effect of additional loads (which should also be uniformly distributed loads over
circular contact areas) was considered using superposition principle. The single vertical load applied at
the surface is described in terms of (a) contact pressure and radius of contact area OR (b) Wheel load
and contact pressure OR (c) Wheel load and radius of contact area. For IITPAVE, wheel load and
contact pressure are the load inputs. The pavement inputs required are elastic properties
(elastic/resilient moduli and Poisson’s ratio values of all the pavement layers) and the thicknesses of
all the layers (excluding subgrade). IITPAVE software, in its current version, can be used to analyze
pavements with a maximum of five including subgrade. If the number of layers in the pavement is more
than five, different layers of similar nature (eg. granular, bituminous) can be combined and considered
as one layer. Cylindrical co-ordinate system is followed in the program. Thus, the location of any
element in the pavement is defined by (a) depth of the location of the element from the surface of
pavement and the radial distance of the element from the vertical axis (of symmetry) along the centre
of the circular contact area of one wheel load.
I.2 Installation of IITPAVE
Copy the IRC_37_IITPAVE folder supplied along with these guidelines into your system and install
Java (if not already installed in your computer) by clicking on jre-7u2-windows-i586.exe file. Your system
needs to be connected to the internet for doing this.
I.3 Using IITPAVE for Analysis of Pavements
The following steps may be followed for analyzing flexible pavements using IITPAVE
(a) Open IRC_37_IITPAVE folder
(b) Double-click on IITPAVE_EX.exe file in the IRC_37_IITPAVE folder. IITPAVE start screen
will appear as shown in Figure I.1

83
 Figure I.1 Screenshot of IITPAVE start screen

(c) Click on Design New Pavement Section to give inputs for analysis of the selected pavement
section
(d) The inputs that need to be entered are:
(i) Number of pavement layers including subgrade (if, all the bituminous layers are taken
as one bituminous layer and all the granular layers are taken as one layer, then the number
of layers is 3 (bituminous layer, granular layer and subgrade).
(ii) Resilient modulus/Elastic modulus values of all the layers in MPa
(iii) Poisson’s ratio values of all the layers
(iv) Thicknesses (in mm) of all the layers except subgrade.
(e) Single wheel load: For the purpose of calculation of critical strains such as vertical
compressive strain on top of subgrade, horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous
layer and horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of cement treated layers, since the analysis is
done for a standard axle of 80 kN, a single wheel of 20000 (N) is given as input. For carrying
out cumulative fatigue damage analysis of CTB layers, tensile stress at the bottom of the CTB
layer has to be calculated for different axle loads. For this, the IITPAVE will be run with
different single wheel loads corresponding to the axle load considered, For example, if tensile
stress due to an axle load of 100 kN is to be calculated, a single wheel load of 25,000 (N) is
given as input. For estimating effective subgrade strength as per para 6.3 of the guidelines,
select 40,000 (N)
84
 (f) Tyre (contact) pressure: For calculation of vertical compressive strain on top of subgrade,
horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous layer and horizontal tensile strain at the
bottom of cement treated layers a contact pressure of 0.56 MPa is considered. For cumulative
fatigue damage analysis of CTB bases, the contact pressure suggested for calculation of tensile
stress in CTB layer is 0.80 MPa. The bituminous layer bottom-up fatigue cracking and
subgrade rutting performance models have been developed/calibrated with the strains
calculated with standard axle (80 kN) loading and a contact pressure of 0.56 MPa and hence,
these inputs should not be changed
(g) The number of locations in the pavement at which stress/strain/deflection has to be computed.
This input can be entered through a drop down menu
(h) For the locations selected for analysis, values of depth (mm) from pavement surface and the
radial distance (mm) from the centre of the wheel are to be given.
(i) IITPAVE Software provides the option to carryout analysis for a single wheel load or for a
dual wheel load set (two wheels at a centre to centre spacing of 310 mm) by selecting 1 or 2
respectively from the drop down menu next to “Wheel Set”. For design of pavements, select
“Dual Wheel set” option. For estimating the effective subgrade strength as per the procedure
given in para 6.3, select single wheel.

Figure I.2 shows an abridged screen shot of the input page of IITPAVE

Figure I.2 Abridged Screen shot of Input Page of IITPAVE

85
 (j) Inputs can also be given through an input file. The name of the input file can be selected by
clicking on ‘Edit Existing File’ option which appears on the IITPAVE Start Screen.
(k) After all the inputs are entered submit them by Clicking on “Submit”. To change the data
submitted use “Reset” option
(l) After successfully submitting the inputs use the “RUN” options which will appear next to
“Submit” after the inputs are submitted
(m) Figure I.3 shows the screen shot of output page showing the out for the input data appearing in
the screen shot of the input page given under Figure I.2

Figure I.3 Abridged screen shot of the output page

The output page reports all the input data and gives the computed values of identified stresses, strains
and deflections for the locations (represented by the depth (Z) of the location measured from pavement
surface, and the radial distance (R) of the location measured from the centre of the circular contact area
of the load) selected. The mechanistic parameters reported in the output page are: vertical stress
(SigmaZ), tangential stress (SigmaT), radial stress (SigmaR), shear stress (TaoRZ), vertical deflection
(DispZ), vertical strain (epz), horizontal tangential strain (epT), and horizontal radial strain (epR)

For locations on the interface of two layers, the analysis will be done twice: (a) assuming the elastic
86
properties (elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio) of the layer above the interface and then (b) with the
elastic properties of the layer below. The second set of results, for the layer below the interface, are
identified in the output by the suffix “L” appearing after the depth (Z) value.

For the results of pavement analysis presented in the screen shot of the output page, the critical
mechanistic parameter horizontal tensile strain (t) will be the larger of the tangential and radial strains
at the bottom of the bituminous layer (layer above the interface between bituminous layer and granular
layer). Thus, horizontal tensile strain (t) will be taken as 0.001283 (0.1283*10-3). Note that the values
have been taken from the upper of the two sets of results reported for the interface between the
bituminous layer and granular layer (at a depth of 140 mm). Similarly, for this pavement, vertical
compressive strain (v) will be taken from the results corresponding to the lower (with “L”) of the two
sets of results available for the interface between granular layer and subgrade. Thus, the vertical
compressive strain (v) value of 0.002053 (0.2053*10-3) shall be used to verify whether the pavement
section considered is adequate or not.
Positive stresses and strains are “tensile” whereas Negative stresses and strains are “Compressive”. Only
the absolute values without the (+) or (-) sign will be used in the performance models given by equations
3.1 to 3.6.

87
 Annex-II Worked out Examples for Pavement Design

II. 1 Estimation of Effective Subgrade Modulus/CBR

Problem: If the CBR of the soil used in the upper 500 mm of embankment is 8% and the CBR of the
borrow soil used for preparing the 500 mm thick compacted subgrade above embankment is 20%, what
is the effective subgrade Modulus/CBR for design of flexible pavement ?
Solution:
Elastic modulus of the prepared (upper 500 mm) embankment soil = 17.6*(8)0.64 = 66.6 MPa
Elastic modulus of the select borrow material = 17.6*(20)0.64 = 119.7 MPa
Consider a two-layer elastic system consisting of 500 mm of select borrow soil of modulus 119.7 MPa
and the semi-infinite embankment soil of modulus 66.6 MPa as shown in Fig.II.1.

Figure II.1 Two-layer pavement system with subgrade and embankment

Consider the Poisson’s ratio value of both the layers to be 0.35. Apply a single load of 40,000 N at a
contact pressure of 0.56 MPa. Radius of circular contact area for this load and contact pressure = 150.8
mm. Calculate surface deflection at the centre of the load (Point A in Figure) using IIPAVE (no of layers
= 2; elastic moduli of 119.7 MPa and 66.6 MPa; Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 for both the layers; thickness of
500 mm for upper layer; single wheel load of 40000 N, analysis points = 1; Depth = 0 mm; Radial
distance = 0 mm. For this input data, surface deflection = 1.41 mm from IITPAVE.
For an equivalent single layer system, the modulus value of the single layer which will produce the same
surface deflection of 1.41 mm for the same load and for a Poisson’s ratio 0f 0.35
= [2(1−𝜇2)p𝑎]/𝛿
= [2(1-0.352)*0.56*150.8]/1.41=105.10 MPa
As per these design guidelines, the effective modulus value will be limited to 100 MPa for design

88
 purpose. The corresponding CBR (using equation 6.3) is 15.82 % for 105.1 MPa. For a restricted
modulus value 100 MPa, the corresponding effective CBR can be reported as 15.1 %. The equivalent
single layer subgrade which gave the same surface deflection as that given by the two-layer system is
shown in Figure II.2.

Figure II.2 Equivalent (effective) Subgrade System

II.2 Design of Bituminous Pavement with Granular Base and Sub-base

Use the following data:

(i) Four lane divided carriageway
(ii) Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction = 5000 CV/day
(Sum of both directions)
(iii)Percentage of Single, Tandem and Tridem axles are 45 percent, 45 percent and10 percent
Respectively
(iv) Traffic growth rate per annum = 6.0 per cent
(v) Design life = 20 years
(vi) Vehicle damage factor (Based on axle load survey)= 5.2
(vii)CBR of soil below the 500 mm of the subgrade = 3 per cent
(viii)CBR of the top 500 mm of the subgrade from borrow pits = 10 per cent

DESIGN CALCULATIONS
(i) Lane Distribution factor = 0.75 in each direction
(ii) Initial traffic = 2500 CVPD assuming 50 per cent in each direction.
(iii) Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) computed for the traffic = 5.2.
(iv) Cumulative number of standard axles to be catered for in the design

2500×365×((1+0.06)20 −1)
N= 0.06
× 0.75 × 5.2 = 131 msa

89
5 CBR of the embankment material=3 %,CBR of top500mmofsubgrade=10 %,
Effective CBR of the subgrade =7%
Design resilient modulus of the compacted subgrade = 17.6(7)0.64= 62 MPa

Design Options: Three options considered

Option I: Bituminous pavements with untreated granular layer
Option II: Bituminous pavements with modified bitumen
Option III: Bituminous pavements with different Poisson’s ratio
Option I: Bituminous layer comprising wearing course in SMA/GGRB and DBM with VG40
bitumen
(a) Trial composition:
BT=190mm,WMM =250 mm, GSB = 230 mm,
total thickness of granular layer = 480mm
Resilient modulus of the granular layer = 0.2 x (480)0.45x 62 = 200 Mpa., reliability=90%
(b) Design traffic=131 msa
(c) BT composition: Wearing course = 40 mm, DBM II = 70 mm, Bottom rich DBM I = 80 mm, total
190 mm.
Calculation of Allowable strains
Using Fatigue Equation for calculating the Allowable tensile strain in bottom DBM I layer for an air
void of 3 per cent ( mix design for 2.5% ) with Volume of bitumen as 11.5 %, the allowable strain
comes to 150µ€,
Using Rutting Equation for calculating Allowable Vertical subgrade strain, the allowable strain comes
to 301 µ€
Computation of actual Strains
Using IITPAVE, the computed tensile strain comes to 146 µ€<allowable strain of 150 µ€, hence safe,

If DBM II is provided in the bottom with an air void of 3% (mix design for 2.5%) in place of DBM I,
the Vb = 12.5% and the Allowable tensile strain in the bituminous layer = 156 µ€
Consider a thickness of 180 mm of SMA/GGRB+DBM, tensile strain by IITPAVE = 154 µ€. A 10 mm
reduction in thickness of DBM I is possible if DBM II is used as the lower layer.

Option II:Bituminous layer comprising wearing course in SMA/GGRB and DBM with elastomeric
PMB
(Caution: Bituminous mixes with elastomeric PMB in DBM should be used only when
technology for its recyclability is available. It may, however, be used for parking area for heavy
trucks, truck lay byes, traffic intersection and other locations with extremely heavy loads
PMB mixes may have a fatigue life which may be about three higher than those of the bituminous
mixes despite a lower resilient modulus for elastomeric polymers. It is affected less by moisture
and ageing.)
Consider the following: Resilient Modulus of the PMB mix = 2000 MPa at 350C, Poisson’s ratio=0.35
90
 The fatigue life is assumed to be three times of the conventional bituminous mixes i.e. the coefficient of
Eq.9.2 is multiplied by 3.
Considering WMM and GSB as 250mm and 230mm and the design traffic=131 msa
Allowable tensile strain in the bottom PMB layer=226µ€ (Va=3 ,Vb= 12.5 )
Consider a thickness of DBM and SMA/GGRB both with PMB= 160mm
Computed tensile strain in the bituminous layer= 214 µ€<226 µ€ Computed vertical subgrade
strain=309 µ€>301µ€ due to lower modulus of PMB mix. Redesign is needed
New thickness of PMB = 170 mm and GSB=250 mm
Rule: If subgrade strain is too high, increase GSB thickness, if tensile strain in the bituminous layer is
too high, increase the thickness of the bituminous layer. In the present case , thicknesses of both PMB
and GSB are to be increased to limit the strains with in the allowable value.
GSB=250mm, WMM=250mm, Total thickness of granular layer = 500mm
Modulus of the granular layer= 62x0.2x(500)^0.45=203 MPa
Computed tensile strain in the bituminous layer= 200 µ€ < 226 µ€
Computed vertical subgrade strain=282 µ€<301 µ€ hence safe
Another trial with DBM+SMA/GGRB=160mm, WMM=250mm, GSB=250mm
Computed tensile strain in the bituminous layer=212<226 µ€
Computed Vertical subgrade strain=294<301 µ€ hence safe
Final Composition: DBM+SMA/GGRB with PMB=160 mm,WMM=250mm,GSB=250mm
Conventional pavement with VG40 with Vb for lower DBM=11.5%, DBM+SMA/GGRB=190mm,
WMM=250mm, GSB=230mm. Thickness of PMB mix is lower by 30mm and that of GSB is higher by
20mm. If the PMB mix has higher modulus, the thickness of BT will be lower.

(Caution: Tack coat between two bituminous layers must be proper. Too little will not bond the two
layers and the pavement life may get reduced by 75% and the pavement will undergo fatigue cracking
well before the design period. Too high a tack coat also will not bond them and the pavement will
remain weak with additional problem of slippage at the interface and the pavement will crack
prematurely. There are no standard guidelines for judging the quality of tack coat but a good tack
coat between two bituminous layers will not separate if cores are taken due to a good bond. Tack
coat should be expressed in terms of residual bitumen/m2rather than in terms of bitumen
emulsion/m2 since bitumen content may vary in the emulsion.)

Option III: Effect of varying Poisson’s ratio

Effect on tensile strain and vertical subgrade srain
Poisson’s Ratioof a bituminous mix can vary with temperature and at temperatures exceeding 350C
Poisson’s ratio may approach 0.50
Consider the above design with VG40 for traffic=131 msa
For thickness of DBM+SMA/GGRB=190mm, WMM+GSB=480 mm, µ=0.35, Maximum tensile strain in
the bituminous layer= 146µ€, Maximum subgrade strain=244.3µ€
If µ of the bituminous layer=0.5, the two strains are found as 137 µ€ <150µ€ and 234µ€<301µ€
Hence µ=0.35 gives a more conservative design for the bituminous layer even if µ is higher Effect on
subgrade strain is marginal.
91
Effect on Mr values and pavement thickness
Viscosity of VG40 bitumen varies from 3200 Poise to 4800 Poise and accordingly, the resilient modulus
of the bituminous mixes also may vary over a range.
Consider three values of modulus of bituminous layer as2500MPa, 3000MPa and 3500MPa
Design traffic as above =131 msa,
Thickness of granular layers as above: WMM=250 mm, GSB = 230 mm
Mrvakue2500 MPa
Allowable tensile strainin Bituminous layer with VG 40 bitumen with bottom DBM I layer having air
void of 3 per cent with Volume of bitumen as 12.5 % =156µ€, Allowable Vertical subgrade
strain=301µ€
Consider Thickness of SMA/GGRB and DBM over WMM and GSB = 200 mm at reliability of 90 per
cent.
Computed strains are 153 µ€< 156µ€ and 244 µ€< 301µ€ respectively, hence safe.
.
Mr value 3000 MPa
Allowable tensile strainin Bituminous layer with VG 40 bitumen with bottom DBM I layer having air
void of 3 per cent with Volume of bitumen as 11.5 % =150µ€, Vertical subgrade strain=301µ€
Thickness of SMA/GGRB and DBM over WMM and GSB = 190 mm at reliability of 90 per cent.
Computed strains are 146µ€<150µ€ and 244<301µ€ µ€ respectively, hence safe.

Mr value 3500 MPa

Allowable tensile strainin Bituminous layer with VG 40 bitumen with bottom DBM I layer having air
void of 3 per cent with Volume of bitumen as 11.5 % =145µ€, Vertical subgrade strain=301µ€
Thickness of BC and DBM over WMM and GSB = 180 mm at reliability of 90 per cent.
Computed strains are 141µ€<145µ€ and 246 µ€<301µ€ respectively, hence hence safe. It can be seen
that there is variation of ±10 mm of thickness of the bituminous layer for a change of 500 MPa in the
Mr value as shown in Table II.1
Table II.1 Variation of bituminous thickness with modulus of BT

Thickness of
Resilient modulus of BT (mm) for
BT (Mpa) 131 msa
2500 200
3000 190
3500 180

II. 3 Bituminous Pavement over Cemented Base and Cemented Sub-base

Design traffic as above 131 msa.
Approximate Pavement composition:BT = 100 mm. Aggregate interlayer= 100 mm.

Cement treated base = 120 mm

92
Cemented sub-base layer = 250 mm.

Checking of the safety of cemented base due to spectrum of axle loads resulting in msa of 131.

Since there are plenty of single, tandem and tridem axle loads which are higher than standard axle load,
thickness of cement layer must be checked for sudden fracture due to higher axle loads using cumulative
damage principle. One tandem axle is taken as two single axles and one tridem axle is taken as three
axles carrying equal load on each axle since the interference of stresses at the cemented base is negligible
due to axles being about 1.30 m to1.40 m apart from each other. All multiple axle vehicles are
combination of single, tandem and tridem axles. The axle load data can be classified or grouped in such
a manner that all tandem and tridem axles can be converted into single axle repetition for stress analysis.
The axle load spectrum of the traffic data is as follows. Other convenient format on axle sheet can be
used. If single axle load is 200 kN, the input for the wheel load is 50000 N at tyre pressure of 0.80 MPa.
Tandem and tridem axle loads of 400 kN and 600kN respectively may be considered as two single axles
and three single axles each carrying a load of 200 kN with a tyre pressure of 0.80 MPa.
SingleAxle Loads TandemAxle Loads TridemAxle Loads
Axle Load Percentage Axle Load Percentage of Axle Load Percentage
Class (kN) ofAxles Class (kN) Axles Class (kN) ofAxles
185-195 0.64 390-410 1.85 585-615 1.4
175-185 0.8 370-390 2.03 555-585 1.6
165-175 0.8 350-370 2.03 525-555 1.60
155-165 2.58 330-350 2.08 495-525 1.80
145-155 2.58 310-330 2.08 465-495 1.80
135-145 5.8 290-310 4.17 435-465 4.4
125-135 5.8 270-290 4.17 405-435 4.4

SingleAxle Loads TandemAxle Loads TridemAxle Loads

Axle Load Percentage Axle Load Percentage of Axle Load Percentage
Class (kN) ofAxles Class (kN) Axles Class (kN) ofAxles
115-125 11.82 250-270 12.67 375-405 13.10
105-115 11.82 230-250 12.67 345-375 13.10
95-105 12.9 210-230 10.45 315-345 10.90
85-95 12.16 190-210 10.45 285-315 10.4
<85 32.3 170-190 7.05 255-285 7.15
<170 28.28 <255 28.33
Total 100 Total 100 Total 100
93
CumulativefatiguedamageanalysisiscomputedasfollowsforSingle,Tandem and Tridem
Axle respectively considering flexural strength of cemented base as 1.4 MPa.

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for Single Axle

Modulus of Rupture of the cementitious base = 1.4 MPa

Axle Load in Expected Stress in Fatigue Fatigue life

Stress Ratio
kN Repitations MPa Life Consumed
190 72504 0.70 0.50 5.37E + 05 0.14
180 90631 0.66 0.47 1.12E + 06 0.08
170 90631 0.63 0.45 2.33E + 06 0.04
160 292283 0.59 0.42 4.85E + 06 0.06
150 292283 0.55 0.39 1.01E + 07 0.03
140 657071 0.52 0.37 2.10E + 07 0.03
130 657071 0.48 0.34 4.38E + 07 0.02
120 1339066 0.44 0.32 9.11E + 07 0.01
110 1339066 0.40 0.29 1.90E + 08 0.01
100 1461417 0.37 0.26 3.95E + 08 0.00
90 1377584 0.33 0.24 8.22E + 08 0.00
85 3659206 0.31 0.22 1.19E + 09 0.00
cum. Damage 0.42

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for Tandem Axle

Modulus of Rupture of the cementitious base = 1.4 MPa

Axle Load in Expected Stress in Fatigue Fatigue life

Stress Ratio
kN Repetitions MPa Life consumed
400 419166 0.74 0.53 2.58E + 05 1.626
380 459950 0.70 0.50 5.37E + 05 0.857
360 459950 0.66 0.47 1.12E + 06 0.411
340 471279 0.63 0.45 2.33E + 06 0.202

94
 320 471279 0.59 0.42 4.85E + 06 0.097
300 944823 0.55 0.39 1.01E + 07 0.094
280 944823 0.52 0.37 2.10E + 07 0.045
260 2870721 0.48 0.34 4.38E + 07 0.066
240 2870721 0.44 0.32 9.11E + 07 0.032
220 2367722 0.40 0.29 1.90E + 08 0.012
200 2367722 0.37 0.26 3.95E + 08 0.006
180 1597363 0.33 0.24 8.22E + 08 0.002

170 6407576 0.31 0.22 1.19E + 09 0.005

cum. Damage 3.46

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for Tridem Axle

Modulus of Rupture of the cementitious base = 1.4 MPa

Axle Load in Expected Stress in Fatigue Fatigue life

Stress Ratio
kN Repetitions MPa Life consumed
600 105736 0.74 0.53 2.58E+05 0.410

570 120841 0.70 0.50 5.37E+05 0.225

540 120841 0.66 0.47 1.12E+06 0.108

510 135946 0.63 0.45 2.33E+06 0.058

480 135946 0.59 0.42 4.85E+06 0.028

450 332312 0.55 0.39 1.01E+07 0.033

420 332312 0.52 0.37 2.10E+07 0.016

390 989383 0.48 0.34 4.38E+07 0.023

360 989383 0.44 0.32 9.11E+07 0.011

330 823227 0.40 0.29 1.90E+08 0.004

300 785464 0.37 0.26 3.95E+08 0.002

95
 270 540007 0.33 0.24 8.22E+08 0.001

255 2139635 0.31 0.22 1.19E+09 0.002

cumm. Damage 0.92

It can be seen that total fatigue damage due to single, tandem and tridem is 3.46+0.42+0.92 =
4.8≥1.Hence, the pavement is unsafe and cemented layer will crack prematurely. It can also be noticed
that the Tandem axle weighing 400 kN causes maximum fatigue damage followed by Tandem axleof
380 kN. It can also be seen that stress variation is linear due to linear elastic stress analysis. If the load
is halved, stress also is halved.

If the heavy axle loads are not allowed, the pavement would be safe. If the cemented layer thickness is
increased from 120 mm to 160 mm total Cumulative Fatigue Damage (CFD) is computed as 0.92 and
for 165 mm CFD is 0.89 and hence the pavement is safe. Hence minimum thickness of CTB = 160
mm If the modulus of rupture is 1.20 MPa, a thickness of 220 mm is needed. Such checks are to be
made on cemented layer because of heavy loading over the highways in India. Tensile strain in the
bituminous layer and the vertical subgrade strain are very low because of stiff CTB and cement treated
sub-base

Safety of CTB for the construction traffic: A dumper carries WMM to the paver for laying 100mm thick
crack relief layer. The gross weight of the three axle dumper may about 320 kN or higher. Thetandem
axle is assumed tocarry a load of about 240kN with steering axle about 80kN for examination of safety
of the CTB layer.If the minimum28-day flexural strength of CTB is 1.4 MPa, the 7-day strength is likely
to be about 1.0 MPa (at least 70%). There will be about 70 trips of dumpers for laying two km of 100mm
thick one lane wide WMM. Each axle of tandem axle may weigh about 120kN and there may be 70
repetitions of each axle of the three axle dumpers neglecting the steering axle. Allowable flexural stress
for about 140 repetitions (two single axles) of dumpers (Eq.9.7)= 0.795 MPa. The computed stress for
120mm CTB=0.917 MPa (over 250mmCTSB and 7% subgrade CBR) and hence unsafe
Increase thickness to 160 mm,CTB, the maximum flexural stress due to 12 ton single axle load
=0.767MPa and hence the CTB of 160mm is safe for construction traffic after seven days of curing.

II.4 Cemented Base and Cemented Sub-base with SAMI Layer

Such a pavement may display transverse cracks after a few years when the SAMI layer becomes stiff
due to ageing. Fog spray / crack sealing may be needed as and when cracks develop. Hence care
should be taken to use only elastomeric binder @ 1.5 to 2.0 lit/m2
Design traffic = 131 msa.

Bituminous layer = 100 mm (surfacing course-40mm and DBM+60mm).

Consider Cementedbase= 170 mmfor carrying out cumulativefatiguedamage analysis

Cemented sub-base layer = 250 mm.

96
 Checks must be done for cumulative fatigue damage and the construction traffic as explained in the
previous example.

II.5 Design Example: Granular Sub-base

Minimum thickness of the sub-base is necessary (i) to limit permanent deformation in the subgrade due
to construction vehicles (ii) to provide a strong platform for the compaction of granular (Wet Mix
Macadam/Water Bound Macadam) base and (iii) to act as separation and drainage layers with a
minimum compacted thickness of 100 mm for each. Minimum thickness of any compacted granular
layer should be at least 2.5 times the maximum nominal size of aggregates.
Problem: The embankment soil of a major highway has a CBR of (i) 2% and (ii) 6%, and the borrow
soil that will form the top 500 mm of the subgrade has a CBR of 8% . Compute the minimum thickness
of the GSB for embankment soils for the construction traffic used for laying of WMM so that the
subgrade does not suffer excessive permanent deformation. If the effective subgrade CBR is 10, what
is the minimum thickness of GSB?
An approximate method is presented below
Solution:
Embankment soil CBR =2%
Subgrade soil CBR =8%
Effective Subgrade CBR =5%
Select a trial thickness of 150 mm for the granular sub-base
A three axle dumper carries 10 to 12 cum of granular material for delivery at site. There may be about
200 repetitions of dumpers for laying 250 mm thick. WMM over the compacted GSB of thickness 150
mm over a single lane of length 2.0 km stretch. Dumpers can have a gross weight of 320 kN or higher.
Considering that the tandem and steering axles carrying loads of 240 kN and 80 kN respectively and
considering no overlap of stresses in GSB layers due to tandem axle having about 1.3 to 1.4m spacing
of axles:
VDF of dumper= 2x(120/80) 4 + (80/65)4 =12.41 Total standard axle load repetitions during the
construction=200x12.41=2483 standard axles(SA). Gross weight of many dumpers is found to be about
400 kN and VDF may be much higher than the above. Hence construction traffic of 10,000 standard axle
load repetitions is considered for the examination of bearing capacity of the subgrade indicated by its
allowable vertical subgrade strain.
Allowable vertical subgrade strain for 10000 repetitions of SA (Eq.6.5) = 2433 x 10^-6
Modulus of subgrade= 10x5= 50 MPa, Modulus of sub-base=0.2*((150)^0.45)*50=95 MPa
Computed vertical subgrade strain for 150 mm GSB as per IITPAVE=4324 x 10^-6>2433 x 10^-6
Hence the thickness of 150 mm GSB is deficient. Increase the thickness to 250mm
Mr of the GSB= 119 MPa
The computed vertical subgrade strain= 2172x 10^-6<2433 x 10^-6 hence safe

97
 Hence the minimum thickness of GSB = 250mm for the effective CBR of 5. These factors should be
considered in selecting pavement composition.
Embankment CBR=6, subgrade CBR =8
The effective subgrade CBR=7, Consider 150mm of sub-base
The Modulus of subgrade= 61 MPa, modulus of GSB= 115 MPa
The computed vertical subgrade strain= 3551x 10^-6>2433 x 10^-6 hence unsafe
Increase SB thickness to 200mm EGSB=132 MPa
The computed vertical subgrade strain= 2452x 10^-6>2433 x 10^-6 hence just unsafe
Increase the thickness to 225mm
If effective subgrade CBR=10, thickness of GSB?
Consider GSB=200mm Mr of Subgrade=77 MPa, Mr of sub-base=167
The computed vertical subgrade strain= 1941x 10^-6<2834 x 10^-6 hence safe . If both separation and
drainage layers are needed, the minimum thickness shall be 200mm.
The above gives a rough guide for the computation of thickness of GSB. Experience of the engineers and
the local condition should finally govern the selection of thickness

II.6 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)with Foamed Bitumen/Bitumen Emulsion

and Cemented Sub-base

Following composition is satisfies all the strain requirement

Design traffic = 131 msa.

BT with VG 40 = 100 mm.

Consider thickness of treated aggregates RAP=180mm, Stabilised RAP is treated as a granular layer with
higher modulus. The design is found to be safe from strain consideration.

Cemented sub-base layer = 250 mm.

In situ recycling for major highways with foamed bitumen may be economically viable for a minimum
thickness of 150mm over a length of about 20 km.

II.7 Worked out Design Example: Cemented Base and Granular Sub-base with
100 mm
WMM Layer over Cemented Base

Design traffic = 131msa

BT = 100mm
WMM = 100 mm,
Cemented base = 195 mm, GSB = 250 mm.
98
 Tensile Strain in CTB=64.45< 65.5 due to standard axle load. A second level check on CTB using
cumulative damage principle has to be done. In such cases thickness of CTB may approach 250 mm or
higher after cumulative fatigue damage analysis.Further check for the construction traffic shall be done
as explained earlier.

II.8 Worked out Design Example: Design of Pavement to last the Concession
Period

Many highways have heavy volume of traffic, and the design traffic at the end of concession
periodcanbeashighas250msa. The pavement design and mix design can be integrated to optimize the
thickness. The top bituminous surfacing course may need replacement with a fresh surfacing course after,
say, ten years if a strong surfacing course is provided.

Assumed Design Parameters

Resilient modulus of subgrade = 77 MPa (corresponding to Effective subgrade CBR of 10 %).

Bituminous layer should be bottom rich, that is, the bottom layer should have an air-void of 2.5 per
cent compacted to 4% air void (air void for pavement design =3% and Vb=11.5).This can be established
from the laboratory tests and a field trial.

(i) Pavement with VG40

Resilient Modulus of Bituminous layer = 3000 MPa
Consider a thickness of BT VG40 = 210mm, granular layer=450mm thick (WMM=250mm,
GSB=200mm).

Allowable tensile strain in the bitumen rich bottom DBM I layer with air void of 3% and volume of
bitumen of 11.5% for DBM I= 127 µЄ, Allowable Vertical subgrade strain= 261µЄ
Computed (i) maximum tensile strain = 121 µЄ<127µЄ and (ii) Vertical subgrade
strain=203µЄ<261µЄ, hence safe.
(ii) Pavement with High modulus bituminous mix
A minimum modulus of 5500 MPa at 350C with hard bitumen (not air blown)
from Haldia and similar refineries is easily achievable. Even VG40 modified with
EVA, a plastomer, and commercially available additives has higher modulus.
Resilient modulus of High Modulus mix = 5500 MPa
Consider thickness of granular=450mm, Thickness of High modulus mix= 170mm
Allowable tensile strain HMA layer=111µ Allowable vertical subgrade strain= 261 µЄ.

99
 Computed maximum vertical subgrade strain = 209µЄ<261µЄ
Computed tensile strain in HMA layer=107µЄ<111 µЄ hence Safe
It can be seen that there is a 40 mm (19%) reduction in thickness if high modulus bituminous mix in
place of mix with VG40. For long lasting pavement, the surfacing courses such as SMA or Gap graded
Rubberised bitumen mix(GGRB) can give a trouble free service for a period of about ten years.

II.9 Worked out Design Example: Long life Pavement

For design traffic of 300 msa and higher, a long life pavements also termed as perpetual pavement is
recommended. As per the terminology adopted in USA, the pavements having a life of 50 years or longer are
termed as long life pavements. If the tensile strain caused by the traffic in the bituminous layer is less than 70
micro strains (81 µЄ at 350C) as per tests in laboratories at 200C in US, the endurance limit of the material, the
bituminous layer never cracks (Asphalt Institute, MS-4, 7th edition 2007). Similarly, if vertical subgrade strain
is less than 200 microstrain, rutting in subgrade will be negligible. For a pavement temperature of 35℃, the
endurance limit is about 81µ€,(Fig.II-1).Design of such a pavement is illustrated in the guidelines.

0
Endurance limit=81µЄ at 35 C Endurance limit=200 µЄ
µmore or less more or
less
Limiting tensile strain at 350C Limiting vertical subgrade strain
Fig. II-1 Limiting Design Strain for a Long Life Pavement

Design Example of Long Life Pavement

Solution 1
Pavement composition: BT, GSB,subgrade
Allowable subgrade strain = 200 µЄ.
Allowable tensile strain in the bituminous layer = 81 µЄ (for 350C).
Modulus of the Bituminous layer = 3000 MPa (VG 40 Bitumen).
Elastic Modulus of subgrade = 62 MPa (corresponding to CBR of 7 %).
Granular sub-base = 200 mm, WMM=250mm
Modulus of 450mm of GSB +WMM = 194 MPa
Modulus of BT =3000 MPa
Trial thickness of the BTwith VG40 = 310 mm(say).

The computed strain in the bituminous layer is 80 µЄ< 81 µЄ and the vertical subgrade strain is
obtained as 153 µЄ<200 µЄ. (The analysis is done by IITPAVE software). The pavement is safe.
A strong support of WMM is necessary for the compaction of BT layer
100
. Further fine tuning can be done
Final thickness BT=320mm(add 10mm).WMM=250mm,GSB=200 mm over a subgrade CBR of
7.
Solution 2
Consider cement treated granular sub-base of thickness 300mm, WMM layer=150mm and a
trial thickness of the bituminous layer=250mm of modulus=3000MPa,Mr of WMM layer=350 MPa,
the value can be computed from Eq. VIII.1 given in Annex.VIII. A conservative value of 350 MPa is
considered, E of CTGSB of thickness 300mm= 600 MPA.
Computed strains: Tensile strain in bituminous layer79.2 µЄ<81 µЄ,
Vertical subgrade strain = 157 µЄ< 200 µЄ
Solution 3
Use of high Modulus binder
Consider a thickness of 190 mm for the high modulus mix
Modulus of BT= 5500 MPa, WMM= 150mm of modulus 350 MPa, CTGSB=300mm of modulus
600 MPa
Allowable tensile strain in BT=81 µЄ
Maximum computed tensile strain in BT=78 µЄ<81 µЄ safe
Vertical subgrade strain is 172 µЄ<< 200 µЄ .Safe
Conventional design for 150 msa
Consider the same CBR =7
WMM=250mm. GSB=250mm
Consider a BT of 200mm with VG40 and modulus 3000 MPa.
Computed tensile strain in BT=136µЄ<145µЄ
Vertical subgrade strain is 224 µЄ<< 292 µЄ .Safe
Table below summarizes the different long life pavements with conventional pavements
Comparison of design of long life and conventional pavements
subgrade CBR = 7
Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Conventional
Long life pavement Long life pavement Long life pavement For a design life of
150 msa
BT-310mm with BT-250mm with BT-190mm with BT=200mm with
VG40 VG40 hard bitumen VG40
WMM=250mm WMM=150mm WMM=150mm WMM=250mm
GSB=200mm CTGSB=300mm CTGSB=300mm GSB=250mm

A long life pavement with WMM and GSB needs 310mm of BT with VG40 binder while that with
Cement Treated sub-base needs 250mm of BT. A thickness of 190mm is needed for the high modulus
mix while 200mm of BT is needed for 150 msa which may be attained in 15 to 20 years of life or
even earlier. It can be seen that solution 3 can be most economical.
Practitioners of pavement design should examine various options for pavement design discussed
above for the efficient use of materials for a long life pavement. Low strength cementitious GSB
permits use of marginal aggregates such as natural river gravels.

101
 II.10 Worked out Design Example: Other Pavement Options

Pavement for temporary diversion

During construction of culverts, widening of roads and construction of other structures, temporary
diversion of highways is needed to allow smooth and safe movement of traffic. Poor quality of pavement
of diversion have led to serious accidents. IRC:SP:84 recommends a design traffic of 10 msa for
diversion road for four lane highways. For other categories of single lane or two lane roads, design traffic
may be computed from the traffic count for the likely duration of the diversion and minimum design
traffic of 2 msa may be adopted for pavement design. Cement treated soil or aggregates with thin
bituminous surfacing such as BC/SDBC using the subgrade strain criterion can be used for pavement
design. Surface cracks should be sealed with hot bitumen as and when they arise. Heavily loaded
commercial vehicles, Construction vehicles carrying aggregates and dumpers carrying hot bituminous
mixes and DLC cause maximum distresses to any diversion. Another pavement composition can be
cement treated aggregates ( minimum 7-day UCS of 1.5 to 3 MPa), a 30mm sand layer, precast concrete
blocks 100mm thick(IRC SP 63 ). Joints between precast concrete blocks should be densely filled with
sand and SS-2 bitumen emulsion with 50:50 dilution with water should be poured in the joints to prevent
erosion by water. It will also prevent sucking away of jointing sand due to pneumatic wheels. Concrete
blocks with bedding sand of 30mm may be considered to have a modulus of 1000 MPa and the cement
treated sub-base may be assigned a modulus of 600 MPa for pavement design. Concrete blocks can be
reused for other works after the diversion is no more in use.

II.11 Worked out Design Example: Stage Construction

In this type of construction, thickness of the WMM and GSB is provided for the full design period and
the thickness of the bituminous layer is then determined for a shorter design period. Consider a design
period of ten years for the example -1
Design traffic = 46.9 msa for ten years (131 msa for 20 years). The pavement shall not be allowed to
be damaged to an extent of 60% only so that overlay will be effective in extending te life till the design
period. Cumulative Fatigue Damage=0.60, hence the pavement shall be designed for 46.9/0.60=78 msa
If only 46.9 msa is selected for the pavement design, the pavement may suffer structural damage in the
form of full depth cracking and periodical maintenance such as patching, crack sealing and
microsurfacing will not prevent bottom up crack because of short design period. Rehabilitation may
be needed after ten years followed by application of wearing course. This is avoided if the design is
done for the traffic mentioned above and FWD tests done after ten years is to be used for determination
of overlay thickness.

102
 Annex III
Mixes with modified bitumen:
The mixes with modified bitumen are known to have certain advantages, such as they (i) age
slowly (ii) give improved fatigue lives and higher rut resistance. However, there is no advantage in
terms of resilient modulus as these are found to have lower resilient modulus.
Despite the modulus of the surfacing course such as BC,SMA/Gap Graded Rubberized Bitumen
mix with modified bitumen (IRC:SP:79, IRC:SP:107) being lower, these mixes can still be used in
the surfacing course because the modulus assigned to the DBM layer is considered valid for the total
bituminous thickness including the surfacing course thickness for stress computation. This is because
(i) the surfacing course is under direct compression below the wheel loads and the dynamic modulus
values at a speed of 50 to 60 kmph under compression will be higher, and (ii) being exposed to the
atmosphere the surfacing course will age faster and its modulus will increase.
The other important feature associated with modified bitumen mixes is their recyclability. While
the surfacing courses with PMB/CRMB can be milled and recycled easily as they become brittle due
to ageing under exposure to sun, the same is not true for DBM layer. DBM mixes with elastomeric
binders may cause problems in milling and recycling because of rubber-like stickiness of the mix.
Therefore, ;major pavement rehabilitation can pose a serious problem first in removing the damaged
layer, and secondly, even if removed, in dumping the unusable waste.
Therefore, the base course mixes with modified bitumen is not recommended for highways.

Annex IV
Some observations on the field performance of bitumen binder
1. Investigation by IIT Kharagpur on Bituminous Concrete surfacing course indicated that the
Softening Point (SP) of bitumen in top 10 to 15mm increased from 550 C to 700 C in the course of
eighteen months even in a relatively moderate climate of West Bengal. This indicates that the top 10mm
is likely to become very stiff and brittle under exposure to Sun within a couple of years and surface
cracks may take place under heavy traffic triggering top-down cracking.
2. Refineries in India produce the standard viscosity grade of bitumen using air blowing as one of
the standard processes for production of higher grade bitumen. If refineries produce stiff grade bitumen

103
without air blowing there are evidences of marked improvement in the Resilient Modulus of the mix.
Following are the two supporting evidences.
(i)Refinery produced stiff bitumen without air blowing having penetration in the range of 15 to
25 and softening point of about 600C and higher are in use as standard practice even in the colder
regions of Europe where the range of temperature variation is much different and maximum
pavement temperature is much lower than in India.
(ii) A pavement with such a stiff bitumen sourced from from Haldia refinery was successfully
constructed on NH5 in Odissa by joint effort of IIT Kharagpur, NHAI and the construction
company. Modulus of the mix produced by using this bitumen was in the range of 5000 MPa to
7000 MPa at 350C.

104
 REFERENCES
1. R-6:Development of Methods such as Benkelman Beam Method for Evaluation of
Structural Capacity of Existing Flexible Pavements and also for Estimation and Design of
Overlays for Strengthening of Weak Pavements, Research Scheme R-6 of Ministry of
Surface Transport (Roads Wing), Final Report submitted by Central Road Research
Institute, New Delhi 1995.
2. Research Scheme R-56 ‘Analytical Design of Flexible Pavements ’Final Report submitted
to the Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), March 1999, Civil Engineering
Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal.
3. IRC:115-2014,' Structural Evaluation and Strengthening of Flexible Pavements by Falling
weight Deflectometer Technique’
4. IRC: 81-1997 “Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible Pavements Using Benkelman
Beam Deflection Technique”.
5. R-19:Pavement Performance Study of Existing Pavement Sections, Final Report, Volume-
2,submitted to the Ministry of Surface Transport (RoadsWing),Central Road Research
Institute, New Delhi 1994.
6. MS-2,7thed. (2014) Mix Design Methods, Published by Asphalt Institute, USA
7. AUSTROADS (2012),‘Pavement Design-A guide to structural design of Road
Pavements’, Sydney.
8. MEPDG, ‘Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement design Guide’, AASHTO, 2008
9. Kumar, S.S., Sridhar, R., Reddy, K.S. and Bose, S. (2008),‘Analytical Investigation on the
Influence of Loading and Temperature on Top-Down Cracking in Bituminous Layers’, J.
Indian Roads Congress, Vol. 69-1, pp.71-77.
10. Sridhar, R. (2009), ‘Top-Down Cracking in Bituminous Pavements’ Ph.D. Thesis
(unpublished), IIT Kharagpur
11. IRC: 9-1972 “Traffic Census on Non-Urban Roads”.
12. IRC:108-1996 “Guidelines for traffic prediction of Rural Highways”
13. IS:2720-8: Methods of test for soils, Part 8: Determination of water content-dry density
relation using heavy compaction
14.IS:2720,Part16 (1987, Reaffirmed 2007)“Methods of Test for Soils: Laboratory
Determination of CBR”.
15. AASHTO T307-99(2003), Standard Method of Test for Determining the Resilient
Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials.
16. MORTH (2013) Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, Ministry of Surface Transport
(Roads Wing), Published by Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
17. IRC: SP-42 2014, Guidelines for road drainage, Indian Roads Congress.
18. IRC:SP: 50-2013, Guidelines for urban drainage, Indian Roads Congress.
19. IRC:SP:59 ‘Guidelines for use of Geotextiles in Road Pavements and associated works
20. IRC:SP:89-2010 Guidelines for soil and granular material stabilization using cement, lime
& fly ash
21. BIS:4332 (Part IV) – (1968, Reaffirmed in 2010),‘Methods of Test for stabilized soils:
Wetting and drying, Freezing and Thawing Tests for compacted soil-cement mixtures.
22. These, H. L., M de Beer and Rust, F. C. (1996) ‘Over view of the South African
Mechanistic pavement Design Analysis Method’ TRB, January, 1996, Washington, D.C.
23. These, H. L., ‘TRH4 Revision 1995, Mechanistic design of the Pavement structures in the
TRH 4 pavement Design catalogue’ Division for Road Transport Technology, CSIR,
Pretoria, South Africa.
24. ASTM D 6931 “Standard Test Method for Indirect Tensile (IDT) of Strength of Asphalt
Mixtures
25. SABITA (2008),“Updating Bituminous Stabilized Materials Guidelines: Mix design
Report, Phase II”, Dept. of Transport and Public works: Gauteng, South Africa.
26. ASTM D4123 – 82 (Reapproved 1995)“Standard Test Method for Indirect Tension Test
for Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures”.
27. ASTM D 7369-09 “Standard Test Method for Determining the Resilient Modulus of
Bituminous Mixtures by Indirect Tension Test”.
28. EN 12697-26(2012)Test applying indirect tension to cylindrical specimens (IT-CY)
29. Asphalt Institute, MS-4, The Asphalt Hand Book
30. IRC:SP:72-2015,‘Guide lines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural
Roads’
31. IRC:120-2015, Recommended Practice for Recycling of Bituminous Pavements