IRC:58-2015 Guidelines for Design of

Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements for Highways

Design of Slab Thickness for Pavement for Concrete BSF - CPWD Pune

(with and without doweled transverse joints. Beta value will be 0.66 for doweled joint and 0.90 for without dowels case)
Type of pavement considered Pavement Structural Details

Carriageway 2-lane Modulus of subgrade reaction of subgrade, MPa/m 48.67

Thickness of Granular Subbase, mm 100

Shoulders :- Tied concrete shoulders ? (yes/no) no Thickness of Dry Lean Concrete subbase, mm 100

Transverse joint spacing (m) 4.5 Effective

MPa/m
modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation, 58.404

Lane width (m) 3.6 Unit weight of Concrete, kN/m3 24

Transverse Joints have dowel bars? (yes/no) yes 28-day Flexural strength of cement concrete, MPa 3.834
Max. day-time Temperature Differential in slab, 0C (for
Design Traffic Estimation bottom-up cracking)
17.3

Design Period (years) 20 Night-time Temperature Differential in slab, 0C (for top- 13.65
down cracking) = day-time diff/2 + 5
Total Two-way Commercial Traffic (cvpd) in the year of 200 Trial Thickness of Concrete Slab, m 0.15
completion of construction

Av. Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic 0.05 Load Transfer Efficiency Factor for TDC analysis, Beta = 0.66
(expressed as decimal) 0.66 for dowel Joints, 0.90 for joints without dowels

Cumulative No of Commercial vehicles during design 2413815 Elastic Modulus of Concrete, Ec (MPa) 30000
period (two-way), A
Average No of axles per commercial vehicle, B 2 Poisson's Ratio of Concrete, Mu 0.15
Cumulative No of Commercial Axles during design 4827629 Radius of relative stiffness, m 0.62003
period (two-way), C = A*B

Proportion of traffic in predominant direction (For 2-

lane 2-way highways use a value of 1.0), D
0.50 Design Axle Load Repetitions for Fatigue Analysis

Lateral Placement factor (0.25 for 2-lane 2-way. For

multilane highways the value is 0.25 X D), E
0.250 For Bottom-up Cracking Analysis

Factor for selection of traffic for BUC analysis (for six- 0.2 Front single (steering) Axles = H * K1 108622
hour period during day), F

Factor for selection of traffic for TDC analysis (for six- 0.3 Rear single Axles = H * K2 12069
hour period during night), G
Design axle repetitions for BUC analysis (for 6 hour day 120691 Tandem Axles = H * K3 0
time traffic), H = B*E*F

Proportion of vehicles with spacing between front and

the first rear axle less than the spacing of transverse 0.55 Tridem Axles = H * K4 0
joints, I
Design axle repetitions for TDC analysis (for 6-hour
night time traffic), J = B*E*G*I
99570 For Top-Down Cracking Analysis

Proportion of Front single (steering) Axles, K1 0.900 Front single (steering) Axles = J * K1 89613
Proportion of Rear single Axles,K2 0.100 Rear single Axles = J * K2 9957
Proportion of tandem Axles, K3 0.000 Tandem Axles = J * K3 0
Proportion of Tridem Axles, K4 = (1-K1-K2-K3) 0.000 Tridem Axles = J * K4 0
 Fatigue Damage Analysis

Axle Load Spectrum Data

Bottom-up Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Day-time (6 hour) traffic and
Positive Temperature Differential Top-Down Cracking Fatigue Analysis for

Rear Single Axle Rear Tandem Axle Rear Tridem Axle Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles Rear Single Axles

Load Mid-Point of Frequency Load Group Mid-Point of Frequency Load Mid-Point of Frequency Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Damage Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable
Group Load Group (%) (kN) Load Group (%) Group Load Group (%) Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions (ni/Ni) Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni)

185-195 190 0 380 - 400 390 0 530-560 545 0 0 10.637 2.522 0 0.000 0 9.2866 2.202 1.3897E-15 0.000 0 5.110 1.212 0

175-185 180 0 360 - 380 370 0 500-530 515 0 0 10.093 2.393 0 0.000 0 8.8226 2.092 2.9624E-14 0.000 0 4.917 1.166 0
165-175 170 0 340 - 360 350 0 470-500 485 0 0 9.549 2.264 0 0.000 0 8.3586 1.982 6.3147E-13 0.000 0 4.724 1.120 0

155-165 160 0 320 - 340 330 0 440-470 455 0 0 9.005 2.135 0 0.000 0 7.8946 1.872 1.3461E-11 0.000 0 4.530 1.074 0

145-155 150 0 300 - 320 310 0 410-440 425 0 0 8.461 2.006 0 0.000 0 7.4306 1.762 2.8693E-10 0.000 0 4.337 1.028 0

135-145 140 0 280 - 300 290 0 380-410 395 0 0 7.917 1.877 0 0.000 0 6.9666 1.652 6.1163E-09 0.000 0 4.144 0.982 1

125-135 130 0 260 - 280 270 0 350-380 365 0 0 7.373 1.748 0 0.000 0 6.5026 1.542 1.3038E-07 0.000 0 3.950 0.937 3

115-125 120 0 240 - 260 250 0 320-350 335 0 0 6.829 1.619 0 0.000 0 6.0387 1.432 2.7791E-06 0.000 0 3.757 0.891 10

105-115 110 0 220 - 240 230 0 290-320 305 0 0 6.285 1.490 0 0.000 0 5.5747 1.322 5.924E-05 0.000 0 3.563 0.845 34

95-105 100 15 200 - 220 210 0 260-290 275 0 1810 5.742 1.361 9 196.971 0 5.1107 1.212 0.00126278 0.000 1494 3.370 0.799 122

85-95 90 0 180 - 200 190 0 230-260 245 0 0 5.198 1.232 0 0.000 0 4.6467 1.102 0.0269177 0.000 0 3.177 0.753 436

< 85 80 85 < 180 170 0 < 230 215 0 10259 4.654 1.103 34 298.325 0 4.1827 0.992 0.57378412 0.000 8463 2.983 0.707 1561

100 0 0 12069 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 495.296 0 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.000 9957 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles =

Total Bottom-up Fatigue Damage due to single and

tandem axle loads =
495.296 + 0.000 = ### Total Top-Dow
Front Single Axles and Rear Tridem axles not considered for bottom-up analysis
Sum of CFD for BUC & TDC= 512.971

Design for Bonded Pavement Option

Subgrade CBR (%)= 8 Trial Slab thickness (m) over DLC, h1 0.235 Poisson's Ratio of DLC, m2 0.2

Granular Subabse Thickness (mm) = 250 Provide DLC thickness (m), h2 0.15 Depth to Neutral axis, m (See Fig.6) 0.16
Effective k-value from Tables 2 and 3 (MPa/m) = 72.0 Elastic Modulus of Pavement Concrete (MPa), E1 30000 Flex Stiffness of design Slab 69.05
For k of 72.0 MPa/m and for Elastic Modulus of DLC (MPa), E2 13600 Flex Stiffness of Partial Slab Provided 46.65
Doweled Joint and Tied Concrete Shoulders, Slab Thickness (m) = 0.3 Poisson's Ratio of Paving Concrete, m1 0.15 Flex Stiffness of DLC 23.28
ge Analysis

ng Fatigue Analysis for Night-time (6 hour) traffic and Negative Temperature Differential

Rear Tandem Axles Rear Tridem Axles

Axles (Stess computed for 50% of axle load) (Stress computed for 33% of axle
load)
Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue
Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio (SR) Repetitions Damage
(ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (Ni) (ni/Ni)

0.000 0 5.2071 1.235 0 0.000 0 4.949262 1.174 0 0.000

0.000 0 5.0137 1.189 0 0.000 0 4.755889 1.128 0 0.000

0.000 0 4.8203 1.143 0 0.000 0 4.562516 1.082 0 0.000

0.000 0 4.627 1.097 0 0.000 0 4.369143 1.036 0 0.000

0.000 0 4.4336 1.051 0 0.000 0 4.17577 0.990 1 0.000

0.000 0 4.2402 1.005 0 0.000 0 3.982397 0.944 2 0.000

0.000 0 4.0469 0.960 1 0.000 0 3.789024 0.898 8 0.000

0.000 0 3.8535 0.914 5 0.000 0 3.595651 0.853 28 0.000

0.000 0 3.6601 0.868 18 0.000 0 3.402278 0.807 99 0.000

12.253 0 3.4667 0.822 64 0.000 0 3.208905 0.761 353 0.000

0.000 0 3.2734 0.776 231 0.000 0 3.015532 0.715 1262 0.000

5.421 0 3.08 0.730 825 0.000 0 2.822159 0.669 4518 0.000

17.674 0 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.000 0 Fat Dam from Tridem Axles = 0.000

Total Top-Down Fatigue Damage = 17.674 + 0.000 + 0.000 = 17.674

DESIGN IS UNSAFE SINCE SUM OF CFD FOR BUC AND TDC>1

Total Flexural Stiffness Provided = 46.65 + 23.28 = 69.93

which is more than the Flexural Stiffness of the Design Slab = 69.05
Hence, Provide a Slab of thickness (m) 0.235 over DLC of thickness (m) 0.15
Slab thickness (h1) over DLC layer may be obtained by iteratively changing h1 and matching the
design stiffness with the combined stiffness provided