Contents Page

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

1.1.Background
A gravel road is to be upgraded to the standard of a bituminous road. The road is situated in the
South-Eastern corner of the campus of the Tshwane University of Technology. This part of
Tshwane has warm with a low rainfall percentage of rain per annum, therefore the moisture of
the road can be taken as dry. Only busses will use the road, and therefore the road can be
classified as a type “C” road.

1.2. Design Process Followed

I was approached by Dr. W.A. van Wyngaard to do an assessment of a given pavement design.
(See Appendix Table 1). A dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test was done on 17-02-2010 on
the current gravel pavement. Six tests were done in 15m intervals. The results were used to
determine a California bearing ratio (CBR) value for the top 200mm deep layer. (See Attached
DCP results). Traffic data was obtained from the transportation office in Building 2 on TUT-
Pretoria campus, to determine the traffic growth for the proposed road. The type, balancing and
lifespan of the pavement was then determined through calculations.

2. Traffic Study
From the information obtained from the transportation office at TUT, there are fifteen busses
daily on continuous routes from campus to various destinations in Pretoria, seven to Soshanguve
and two to Garankuwa. Busses arrive in 30min intervals on campus. (See Appendix Table 2 for
schedule)

Daily number of busses: 21:30 – 07:00 = 14:30 hours

30min intervals = 29 busses daily

1
3. Traffic Growth
Information was obtained from the transportation office at TUT that an extra bus will be
purchased in January 2011. Refer to Appendix Table 3 for traffic information. Therefore the
traffic growth will be one bus per year or:
25
( ) (100) − 100 = 4.17%
24
Round up to 5% traffic growth per annum

4. Type of Pavement
Refer to Appendix Table 4 for pavement assessment values.
The values in table 4 for “DN”, “UCS” and “DSN%” were calculated with the following
formulas:

CBR UCS
DN  1, 27 and DN  1,09
410 2900
DSN%=CUM(mm/DN)/DSN800 x 100

The value for “B” was calculated with the following formula:

 4 AD  200 A  200 D   4 AD  200 A  200D 2  4 A  D 10000D  A

B
2 A  D 
The value for “D” was calculated with the following formula:
D=(Pavement depth / 800) x 100
Road will be a Class “C” road, because of the low volume of vehicles per day travelling on the
road.
Climate: CM = 64 (DRY)
DSN800 = 167.68
𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐴 = (𝐶𝑀 ∗ 10−9 ) ∗ (𝐷𝑆𝑁800)3.5
𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐴 = (64 ∗ 10−9 ) ∗ (167.68)3.5
𝑀𝐼𝑆𝐴 = 3.907
 400 B  100  B 2 
DSN100 %  D   2 
 4 DB  100  B  
DSN100=29.05% Thus the pavement is a deep pavement.

2
5. Pavement Balance

Standard deviation (s) = 10.07

RK = s x 88+2,9 x s2

RK = 10.07 x 88+2,9 x 10.072

RK=1180.23 Thus the pavement is bad balanced.

6. Lifespan of Pavement

Counting date : 2010

Opening date : 2011

E8 0

T F
Counting date

E8 0

T  F  g
Opening date

E8 0 E8 0


Life span
  f
Opening date

E8 0  9750  4, 2 
     2  29
Counting date  8000 
 

E8 0

  133.13E80
Counting date

Design traffic at counting date = 133.13E80

3
 x
 i 
g  1   x=2 ; i=5
 100 
g=1.1

n
P
F    ; 𝑛 = 0.044 ∗ (𝐷𝑆𝑁100)1.24
 80 
n=2.87

9750 2.87
𝐹=( )
8000
F=1.76
E8 0

  146.78E80
Opening date

f 

365  1  0,01i   1  0,01i   1
y

0,01i  ; y=15 (design life is 15 years)

f =9814

1
MESA  Lifespan
E 80

1000000
𝑀𝐸𝑆𝐴 = 1.496

MISA>MESA Thus OK.

 %  
 MISA 106   
Lifespan  log %   100   1
1   %   
100
  E80opening  365  1   
  100   

Lifespan=30 years

4
7. Conclusion
The proposed pavement is of a bad design, because the pavement is out of balance and it is over
designed for 30 years. Overdesigning can result in an expensive pavement. The design should be
altered to get the layers in balance en the lifespan shortened to be between 15 an 20 years.

5
 APPENDIX A
Table 1

PAVEMENT COMPOSITION
Thickness Layer Construction method Specification
Import material from
Compact to 98% Mod AASHTO
150 mm Base borrow pit. Cemented
density. Minimum UCS 1200 kPa
with cement
Import material from Compact to 95% Mod AASHTO
150 mm Subbase
borrow pit. density. Minimum CBR 45
Import material from Compact to 93% Mod AASHTO
150 mm Upper Selected
borrow pit. density. Minimum CBR 30
Import material from Compact to 93% Mod AASHTO
150 mm Lower Selected
borrow pit. density. Minimum CBR 15
Remainder of the pavement In situ material Left undisturbed

Table 2
Days of the week Time
Monday – Thursday 07:00-21:30
Friday 07:00-18:00

Table 3
Traffic information
Mass of truck Number of Daily
Product and load in kg axles per load number of
loads
Busses 19500 2 29

Table 4

Layer Cumulative
Layer
UCS Depth thickness/ (Layer D
thickness CBR DN DSN% B
(kPa) (mm) DN thickness/
(mm)
DN)
150 147 1200 150 2.247 66.76 66.76 39.81 25.73 18.75
150 45 435 300 5.696 31.94 98.70 58.86 21.39 37.5
150 30 307 450 7.838 19.14 117.84 70.28 15.12 56.25
150 15 170 600 13.529 11.09 128.93 76.89 2.59 75
200 51 485 800 5.161 38.75 167.68 100