DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATION OF

FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT

A
PROJECT
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REUIREMENTS

FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

BACHELORS OF TECHNOLOGY

IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING

Submitted by

DIVYANSH MITTAL

(11610093)

Under the supervision of

Dr. S.N. SACHDEVA

Professor & Head of
Civil Engineering Department

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

KURUKSHETRA-136119
NOVEMBER 2019

1
 DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATION OF
FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. S.N. Sachdeva Shalu Meena 11610013
Project Supervisor & Professor Vikas Kumar Yadav 11610036
Dept. of Civil Engineering
NIT Kurukshetra
Deepak Phagna 11610039
Naveen Gupt 11610057
Divyansh Mittal 11610093
Rabindra Kumar 11610097
Ravidarshan 11610102
Surya Prakash Pandia 11610124
Abhishek Juyal 11610630

2
 CERTIFICATE

We hereby certify that the work presented in this Project report entitled “Design and Cost
Estimation of Flexible and Rigid Pavement” submitted to National Institute of
Technology Kurukshetra in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering, is an authentic record of our own work
carried out during the period from July 2019 to November 2019 under the able guidance of
Dr. S.N. Sachdeva, Professor & Head of Civil Engineering Department, National Institute
of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

Date:

Name Roll No.

Shalu Meena 11610013
Vikas Kumar Yadav 11610036
Deepak Phagna 11610039
Naveen Gupt 11610057
Divyansh Mittal 11610093
Rabindra Kumar 11610097
Ravidarshan 11610102
Surya Prakash Pandia 11610124
Abhishek Juyal 11610630

This is to certify that the above statement made by the students is correct to the best of my
knowledge.

Dr. S.N. Sachdeva

Project Supervisor & Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering
NIT Kurukshetra

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to express our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. S.N. Sachdeva for his constant support and
encouragement throughout the project. This project work would not have been possible without
his able guidance. We would also like to thank the Civil Engineering Department for providing
us with the necessary facilities for completion of the project.

Name Roll No.

Shalu Meena 11610013
Vikas Kumar Yadav 11610036
Deepak Phagna 11610039
Naveen Gupt 11610057
Divyansh Mittal 11610093
Rabindra Kumar 11610097
Ravidarshan 11610102
Surya Prakash Pandia 11610124
Abhishek Juyal 11610630

4
 CONTENTS

Page No.
CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Difference between Flexible and Rigid Pavement
1.3 Project Topic and Its Importance
1.4 Objectives of The Project
1.5 Scope of The project
1.6 Presentation of The Project
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
2.2 Literature Review
2.3 IRC:37-2012 Guidelines for Flexible Pavement
2.4 IRC:58-2012 Guidelines for Rigid Pavement
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
3.2 Input Parameters
3.3 Design of Flexible Pavement
3.4 Design of Rigid Pavement
3.5 Cost Estimation
CHAPTER 4
PAVEMENT DESIGN
4.1 General
4.2 Design of Flexible Pavement
4.3 Design of Rigid Pavement
4.4 Summary of Design
CHAPTER 5
COST ESTIMATION
5.1 General
5.2 Analysis of Rates for Various Layers
5.3 Cost Estimation
5.4 Cost Comparison
5.5 Effect of Traffic on Cost of Flexible and Rigid Pavement
5.6 Effect of CBR on Cost of Flexible and Rigid Pavement
CHAPTER 6
5
 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 General
6.2 Flexible Pavement
6.3 Rigid Pavement
6.4 Cost
REFERENCES

6
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Transportation contributes to the economic, industrial, social and cultural development

of any country. Main modes of transportation in our country are Roadways, Railways,
Waterways, and Airways. Transportation by road system is the only mode which could give
maximum flexibility of service from origin to destination to one and all. Road transport mode
has the maximum flexibility for travel with reference to choice of route, direction, time and
speed. This is the only mode which caters for the movement of passengers and good
independently right from the place of origin up to the destination of any trip along the land. It
is most suited for carrying goods and people to and from rural areas which are not served by
other modes of transport.

India has a network of over 5,603,293 kilometres (3,481,725 mi) of roads as of

31 March 2016. This is the second largest road network in the world, after the United
States with 6,702,178 kilometres (4,164,540 mi). At 1.70 kilometres (1.06 mi) of roads per
square kilometre of land, the quantitative density of India's road network is higher than that of
Japan (0.91 km, 0.57 mi) and the United States (0.99 km, 0.62 mi), and substantially higher
than that of China (0.46 km, 0.29 mi), Brazil (0.18 km, 0.11 mi) and Russia (0.08 km,
0.050 mi).

The pavement is crucial part of any road project and needs to withstand traffic load
without deteriorating or deforming to the extent that it becomes unusable during the design life
period. A highway pavement is a structure consisting of superimposed layers of processed
materials above the natural soil sub-grade, whose primary function is to distribute the applied
vehicle loads to the sub-grade. The pavement structure should be able to provide a surface of
acceptable riding quality, adequate skid resistance, favourable light reflecting characteristics,
and low noise pollution. The ultimate aim is to ensure that the transmitted stresses due to wheel
load are sufficiently reduced, so that they will not exceed bearing capacity of the sub-grade.
Pavements are generally classified into two categories based on the structural
behaviour:

7
  Flexible Pavement
 Rigid Pavement
A flexible pavement consists of various layers of granular materials and is provided with
a layer of bituminous materials on top. A rigid pavement, on the other hand, consists of
a cement concrete pavement laid on a well prepared granular sub-base.

Roads in India are primarily bitumen -based macadamised roads. However, the number
of concrete roads is increasing. Concrete roads were less popular prior to the 1990s because of
low availability of cement; however, with large supplies of cement in the country, and the
advantages of concrete roads, they are gaining popularity. Concrete roads are durable, weather-
proof and require lower maintenance compared to bituminous roads. Moreover, new concrete
pavement technology has developed such as "cool pavement", "quiet pavement" and
"permeable pavement", which has made concrete more attractive and eco-friendly.

Rigid pavement is generally preferred for locations experiencing heavy rainfall,

waterlogged areas and areas having sub-grade soil with low CBR (California Bearing Ratio)
values. The typical designed life of a rigid pavement is around 30 years, about twice as long as
flexible pavement. Apart from the high initial cost, the total cost over design is less in
comparison to the flexible pavement. The economy and its long life serve as the main reason
for the popularity of rigid pavements.

1.2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT

The structure of flexible pavement consists of a series of layers with the highest
quality materials at or near the surface of the pavement. The load is transferred from top to
the bottom by grain to grain contact whereas the structure of rigid pavement consists of a
layer of Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) slab of relatively high flexural strength over a layer
of lean concrete or granular sub base. The load is borne by the slab action or beam action of
this slab. This is the basic difference between a flexible and a rigid pavement.
Following are various differences between flexible and rigid pavement:

8
 Table 1.1 Difference between Flexible and Rigid pavement
Characteristics Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement
 Material Bituminous road or Cement concrete road
black top pavement
 Load Transfer Grain to grain load Slab action takes place
transfer
 Deformation under Pointed deformation Whole of the slab under
load under load takes place goes deformation
 Nature of stress Usually compressive Wheel load and
stress is caused due to temperature variation
traffic load. causes tensile stresses
of high magnitude.
 Stage Construction Possible Not possible
 No. of layers More number of layers. Slab can rest directly
over the subgrade
 Cost Initial cost is low Initial cost is high
 Joint Joints are not required Joints are required
 Durability Durability is less Durability is high
 Life Life span is short about Life span is long about
15 years. 30 years.
 Repair Repair work is easy Repair work is tough.
 Maintenance cost Maintenance cost is Maintenance cost is
high. low.
 Curing Requires less curing Requires more curing
time. time.
 Effect of Temperature variation Temperature variation
temperature has no effect on stress effects the stress
variation. variation.
 Night visibility Poor night visibility due Good night visibility.
to use of bitumen.
 Progress of Fast Slow
construction
 Skilled supervision Available Not easily available

1.3 PROJECT TOPIC AND ITS IMPORTANCE

The project entitled “Design and Cost estimation of Flexible and Rigid pavement”
includes the design of flexible and rigid pavement as per latest IRC guidelines. It also covers

9
 the cost estimation of designed pavement sections and aims to study the effect of varying CBR
and traffic on their thickness and construction cost.
Improper design leads to the early failure of pavements. It also affects the riding quality
of the road. In this project various design aspects of both flexible and rigid pavements are
covered. A properly designed pavement is not only safe from structural failure point of view
but also economical.
Cost estimation is important factor for any road project. In this project cost estimation
and comparison is done for both flexible and rigid pavement. It will help to decide about the
economy of these two types of pavements for given conditions of subgrade strength and traffic
on the road. In this project the effect of variation of subgrade strength and traffic on the
thickness and cost of pavement is aimed to be covered which will help work out the economy
of these two types of pavements.
The economic growth of a country is dependent upon highway development. Improperly
planned, designed, constructed and maintained highways can disrupt the social and economic
characteristics of any country. Common adverse impacts to highway development include
noise and vibration generation, damage of natural landscape, and the destruction of social and
cultural structure. Highway infrastructure must be constructed and maintained to high qualities
and standards. In this project, both flexible and rigid pavements are designed as per IRC
guidelines. Rigid pavement has been designed with earthen shoulders.

The key for increasing the structural safety of highway systems is to design, build, and
maintain them according to the traffic and environmental conditions. This project includes
design of flexible and rigid pavements with variation of CBR of subgrade and traffic values.
Thickness of pavement is designed with varying traffic values taking into consideration the
safety measures.

Cost estimation is an essential component of highway projects. Accurate estimation will

assist project manager to choose adequate alternatives and to avoid misjudging of technical and
economical solution. In this project, the construction cost of flexible and rigid pavement will
be estimated and compared. This will provide the project manager to choose an economical
pavement.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The project entitled “Design and Cost Estimation of Flexible and Rigid pavement”

10
consists of designing of Flexible and Rigid pavement using the latest guidelines of IRC given
in IRC: 37-2012 and IRC: 58-2015. The main objectives of the project are:

i. To do the design of a flexible and a rigid pavement for the varying values of CBR of
subgrade and traffic.

ii. To determine the effect of variation of subgrade strength on the thickness of pavement.

iii. To determine the effect of traffic variation on the thickness of pavement.

iv. To do the cost estimation of both the pavements for varying design thicknesses and
compare the costs.

v. To discuss the effect of variation of subgrade strength and traffic on the cost of the
pavement.

vi. To discuss the economy of Flexible and Rigid pavements under varying conditions of
subgrade strength and traffic.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The project covers the design and cost estimation of a four lane carriageway road (7x2
m). The effective CBR of the subgrade is varied from 3% to 8% and initial traffic of
commercial vehicles on the road is considered as 500, 2000, 4000 & 6000CVPD. The design
has been done as per IRC:37-2012 guidelines for flexible pavements and IRC: 58-2015
guidelines for rigid pavements. Rigid pavement has been designed with earthen shoulders.
For cost estimation, rates of material and labour are as per Haryana Government, whereas rate
of machinery is based upon MoRTH Standard Data Book.

1.6 PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT

The project report has been presented in the following chapters:

 The First Chapter of Introduction includes the general introduction, objectives and
scope of the project.

 The Second Chapter of Literature Review outlines the relevant IRC guidelines
required in the project.

 The Third Chapter highlights the Methodology of the Project.

11
 The Fourth Chapter describes the Pavement Design.

 The Fifth Chapter describes the Cost Estimation.

 The Sixth Chapter consists of Conclusions and Scope of future research.

12
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 iGENERAL
The iguidelines ion idesign iof iflexible ipavement iwere ifirst ibrought iout iin i1970, iwhich
i were ibased ion iCalifornia iBearing iRatio i(CBR) iof iSubgrade iand itraffic iin iterms iof inumber iof
i commercial ivehicles i(more ithan i3 itones iladen iweight).
These iguidelines iwere irevised i1984 iin iwhich idesign itraffic iwas iconsidered iin iterms iof
i cumulative inumber iof iequivalent istandard iaxle iload iof i80 iKN iin imillions iof istandard iaxles i(msa)
and idesign ichart iwere iprovided ifor itraffic iup ito i30 imsa iusing ian iempirical iapproach. i
i

These iguidelines iwere irevised iagain iin i2001 iwhen ipavements iwere irequired ito ibe
designed ifor itraffic ias ihigh ias i150 imsa. iThe irevised iguidelines iused ia isemi imechanistic
i

i approach iand ithe isoftware, iIITPAVE iwas ideveloped ifor ithe ianalysis iand idesign iof iflexible
pavements. iMultilayer ielastic ilayer itheory iwas iadopted ifor istress ianalysis iof ithe ilayered ielastic
i

system.
i

The ivolume iof ithe itandem iand imulti-axle ivehicles ihas iincreased imany ifold iand iheavier
i loads iare icommon. iExperience ihas ibeen igained ion ithe iuse iof inew iform iof iconstruction iand
i materials isuch ias istone imatrix iasphalt, imodified ibitumen, ifoamed ibitumen, ibitumen iemulsion,
i warm iasphalt, icementitious ibasis iand isub-bases isince ithe ilast irevision iof iguidelines. iAttention
i is ifocused ion ifatigue iresistant ibituminous imixes iwith iviscosity ibinders ifor iheavy itraffic iwith ia
i view ito iconstruct ihigh iperformance ilong ilife ibituminous ipavements.
The ifocus ifrom ithe iuse iof ilarge-scale iconventional iaggregates iis ishifted ias iconventional
i material ilike iaggregates iis ibecoming iprogressively iscarce ias iwell ias ilegal irestrictions ion
i quarrying iwhile ithe iconstruction iactivity ihas iexpanded iphenomenally.
The iIRC: i37-2001 iwas ibased ion ia imechanistic iempirical iapproach, iwhich iconsidered ithe
i design ilife iof ipavement ito ilast itill ithe ifatigue icracking iin ibituminous isurface iextended ito i20 i i i i i i
iiiii percent iof ithe ipavement isurface iarea ior irutting iin ithe ipavement ireached ithe iterminal irutting
i of i20mm, iwhichever ihappens iearlier. iThe isame iapproach iand ithe icriteria iare ifollowed iin ithese
i guidelines ias iwell, iexcept ithat ithe icracking iand irutting ihave ibeen irestricted ito i10 ipercent iof ithe
i area ifor idesign itraffic iexceeding i30 imsa. iThese iguidelines iaim iat ipavement idesign iby
i including ialternate imaterials.

13
 The iguidelines irecommend ithat ithe ifollowing iaspects ishould ibe igiven iconsiderations
while idesigning ito iachieve ibetter iperforming ipavements:
i

1. Incorporation iof idesign iperiod iof imore ithan i15 iyears.

2. Computation iof ieffective iCBR iof iSubgrade ifor ipavement idesign.
3. Use iof irut iresistant isurface ilayer.
4. Use iof ifatigue iresistant ibottom ibituminous ilayer.
5. Selection iof isurface ilayer ito iprevent itop idown icracking.
6. Use iof ibitumen iemulsion/ ifoamed ibitumen itreated, ireclaimed iasphalt ipavements iin ibase icourse.
7. Design iof idrainage ilayer.
8. Computation iof iequivalent isingle iaxle iload iconsidering
(a) isingle iaxle iwith isingle iwheel i
(b) isingle iaxle iwith idual iwheel i
(c) itandem iaxle iand
(d) itridem iaxle.
9. Design iof iperpetual ipavement iwith ideep istrength ibituminous ilayer.

Guidelines ifor ithe irigid ipavement ifor ihighways iwere ifirst ipublished iin i1974. iThe ifirst
i revision iof ithe iguidelines iwas imade iin i1998 iafter ithe iupward irevision iof ithe ilegal ilimit iof ithe
maximum iladen iload iof icommercial ivehicles ifrom i8160 ikg ito i10200 ikg. iThe isecond irevision
i

was ibrought iin i2002 ito iinclude ifatigue idamage iconcept iof idesign. iA icomputer iprogram
i

i IITRIGID iwas ifirst iused ifor ithe icomputation iof ithe iflexural istress idue ito isingle iand itandem
i axle iloads.
Taking iinto iaccount iof ithe iadvancements ithat ihave itaken iplace iin ithe iarea iof irigid
i pavements iduring ithe irecent iyears, ia irevised idraft iof ithe iguidelines iwas iprepared iand iwas
i presented iin ithe irigid ipavements icommittee imeeting iheld iin iOctober i2010, ia inumber iof
i additional isuggestions iwere imade iin ithe imeeting iof ithe imembers, ilast irevision iof ithe icode iwas
i done iin i2015.
The iguidelines icover ithe idesign iof iplain ijointed icement iconcrete ipavements iwith iand
i without itied iconcrete ishoulders. iThe iguidelines iare iapplicable ito iroads ihaving ian iaverage idaily
i commercial itraffic ivolume iof imore ithan i450 i(vehicles iwith iladen iweight iexceeding i3 itonnes).
i IRC iSP:62 imay ibe ireferred ifor ithe idesign iof ilow ivolume iRural iroads.
iiii The ipresent iversion iof iIRC:58 iaims iat irationalizing ithe idesign iprocedure iby ibringing iit,
i as ifar ias ipossible iat ipar iwith icurrent itrends iin ide isign, ias iwell ias iby iincluding ithe ispectrum iof
i axle iloads ias iper ipresent iday ivehicle ifleet, iconsidering icumulative ifatigue idamage idue ito ithe
14
i combined ieffect iof iloads iand ipavement itemperature ivariations. iThe iguidelines ialso iinclude
procedure ifor idesign iof ipavements iwith iwidened iouter ilane, itied iconcrete ishoulder, ipavements
i

i bonded ito icemented isubbase, idesign iof ilongitudinal ijoints, iexpansion iand icontraction ijoints.
The isalient ifeatures iof ithe icurrent iguidelines iare:
1. iDesign iof ipavements iconsidering ithe icombined iflexural istress iunder ithe isimultaneous iaction
i of iload iand itemperature igradient ifor idifferent icategories iof iaxle.
2. iDesign ifor iBottom-Up ifatigue icracking icaused iby isingle iand itandem iaxle iload irepetitions.
3. iDesign ifor iTop-Down ifatigue icracking icaused iby isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxle iload
i applications.
4. iConsideration iof iin-built ipermanent icurl iin ithe ianalysis iof iflexural istresses.
5. iDesign iguidelines ifor ipavement iwithout iconcrete ishoulders iand iwith itied iconcreteishoulders.
6. iConsideration iof iConcrete islabs iwith iunbounded ias iwell ias ibounded icement iboundisubbase.
7. iDesign iof ipavements iwith iwidened iouter ilanes.

2.2 iLITERATURE iREVIEW

2.2.1 iLiterature iReview iof iFlexible iPavements
Khan i(1998) idescribes ithe iGroup iIndex iMethod iand iCalifornia iBearing iRatio iMethod
i for idesign iof iflexible ipavements. iIn iGroup iIndex iMethod ithe ithickness iis iobtained iby ifirst
i determining ithe iGroup iIndex iof isoil. iThe icurves iare iplotted ibetween iGroup iIndex iof isubgrade
i and ithickness ifor ivarious itraffic iconditions. iIn iCalifornia iBearing iRatio iMethod, ithe icurves iare
i plotted ibetween iCalifornia iBearing iRatio iPercent iand idepth iof iconstruction.
Arora i(2003) ihave ireported ivarious imethods ifor idesign iof iflexible ipavements. iThese
i various imethods iare iGroup iIndex iMethod, iCBR iMethod, iCalifornia iResistance iValue iMethod
i and iMcLeod iMethod. iIn ithe iGroup iIndex iMethod, ithe ithickness iof ibase iand isurfacing iis irelated
i to ithe ivolume iof itraffic. iIn i iCBR iMethod ithe icurves iare iplotted ibetween iCBR iand ipavement
i thickness ifor ilight, imedium iand iheavy itraffic. iCalifornia iResistance iValue iMethod iuses
i California iResistance ivalue, icalled iR-value. iIn iMcleod iMethod icurves iare iplotted ibetween
i depth iof iconstruction iand iCBR ifor itraffic iconditions.
Punmia iet. ial i(2005) ihave ireported istresses iin ihomogeneous imass; ielastic ideformation
i under icircular iload iand iBurmister ianalysis ifor iflexible ipavement. iCharts ifor ivertical
i deflections ihave ibeen ideveloped. iThe idesign icurves iby iGroup iIndex iMethod iand iCalifornia
i Bearing iRatio iMethod ihave ibeen ideveloped. iIn iGroup iIndex iMethod, ithe icurves iare iplotted
i between iGroup iIndex iand ithickness. iIn iCalifornia iBearing iRatio iMethod icurves iare iplotted
i between ithickness iof iconstruction iand iCalifornia iBearing iRatio.
15
 Subagio iet.al i(2005) idiscusses ia icase istudy ifor imulti ilayer ipavement istructural ianalysis
i using imethods iof iequivalent ithickness. iAn iapproximate imethod ihas ibeen ideveloped ito
i calculate istresses iand istrains iin imultilayer ipavement isystems iby itransforming ithis istructure
i into ian iequivalent ione-layer isystem iwith iequivalent ithicknesses iof ione ielastic imodulus. iThis
i concept iis iknown ias ithe imethod iof iequivalent ithickness iwhich iassumes ithat ithe istresses iand
i strains ibelow ia ilayer idepend ion ithe istiffness iof ithat ilayer.
Das i(2008) idiscusses ithe ireliability iissues iin ibituminous ipavement idesign, ibased ion
i mechanistic- iempirical-approach. iVariabilities iof ipavement idesign iinput iparameters iare
i considered iand ireliability, ifor ivarious iproposed ifailure idefinitions, iof ia igiven ipavement iis
i estimated iby isimulation ias iwell ias iby ianalytical imethod. iA imethodology ihas ibeen isuggested
i for idesigning ibituminous ipavements ifor ia igiven ilevel iof ioverall ireliability iby imechanistic
i empirical ipavement idesign iapproach.
Tarefder iet. ial i(2010) ipresent ithat ireliability iis ian iimportant ifactor iin iflexible
i pavement idesign ito iconsider ithe ivariability iassociated iwith ithe idesign iinputs. iIn ithis ipaper,
i subgrade istrength ivariability iand iflexible ipavement idesigns iare ievaluated ifor ireliability.
i Parameters isuch ias imean, imaximum ilikelihood, imedian, icoefficient iof ivariation, iand idensity
i distribution, ifunction iof isubgrade istrength iare idetermined. iDesign ioutputs iare icompared iin
i terms iof ireliability iand ithickness iusing ithese idesign iprocedures. iIt iis ishown ithat ithe iAASHTO
i provides ihigher ireliability ivalues icompared ito ithe iprobabilistic iprocedure. iFinally, ithe
i reliability iof ithe iflexible ipavement idesign iis ievaluated iby ivarying ihot imix iasphalt iproperties.
i Alternative idesigns iare irecommended ifor ithe iexisting ipavement ithickness iby imodifying
i material iand isubgrade iproperties ito imitigate idifferent idistresses.
Rahman iet. ial i(2011), idesign iof iflexible ipavement iis ilargely ibased ion iempirical
i methods iusing ilayered ielastic iand itwo-dimensional ifinite ielement ianalysis. iCurrently ia ishift
i underway itowards imore imechanistic idesign itechniques ito iminimize ithe ilimitations iin
i determining istress, istrain iand idisplacement iin ipavement ianalysis. iIn ithis istudy, iflexible
i pavement imodeling iis idone iusing iABAQUS isoftware iin iwhich imodel idimensions, ielement
i types iand imeshing istrategies iare itaken iby isuccessive itrial iand ierror ito iachieve idesired iaccuracy
i and iconvergence iof ithe istudy.

Ameri iet. ial i(2012) ihave iused ifinite ielement imethod ito ianalyse iand idesign ipavements.
i Finite ielement imethod iis iable ito ianalyse istability, itime idependent iproblems iand iproblems iwith
i material inonlinearity. iIn ithis ipaper, ia igreat inumber iof ithe iprevalent ipavements ihave ibeen
i analyzed iby imeans iof itwo itechniques: iFinite ielement imethod iand itheory iof imultilayer isystem.
16
i Eventually, ifrom istatistical iviewpoint, ithe iresults iof ianalysis ion ithese itwo itechniques ihave
i been icompared iby isignificance iparameter iand icorrelation icoefficient. iThe iresults iof ithis istudy
i indicate ithat iresults iof ianalysis ion ifinite ielements iare imost iappropriately icompiled iwith iresults
i came ifrom itheory iof imultilayer isystem iand ithere iis ino isignificant idifference iamong ithe imean
i values iin iboth itechniques.
Jain iet. ial i(2013) idiscuss iabout ithe idesign imethods ithat itraditionally ibeing ifollowed
i and iexamine ithe i“Design iof irigid iand iflexible ipavements iby ivarious imethods iand itheir icost
i analysis iby ieach imethod”. iFlexible ipavements iare ipreferred iover icement iconcrete iroads ias ithey
i have ia igreat iadvantage ithat ithese ican ibe istrengthened iand iimproved iin istages iwith ithe igrowth
i of itraffic iand ialso itheir isurfaces ican ibe imilled iand irecycled ifor irehabilitation. iThe iflexible
i pavement iis iless iexpansive ialso iwith iregard ito iinitial iinvestment iand imaintenance. iAlthough
i rigid ipavement iis iexpansive ibut iless imaintenance iand ihave igood idesign iperiod. iIt iis iobserved
i that iflexible ipavements iare imore ieconomical ifor ilesser ivolume iof itraffic. iThe ilife iof iflexible
i pavement iis inear iabout i15 iyears iwhose iinitial icost iis iless ineeds ia iperiodic imaintenance iafter ia
i certain iperiod iand imaintenance icosts ivery ihigh. iThe ilife iof irigid ipavement iis imuch imore ithan
i the iflexible ipavement iof iabout i40 iyears, iapproximately i2.5 itimes ilife iof iflexible ipavement
i whose iinitial icost iis imuch imore ithan iflexible ipavement ibut imaintenance icost iis ivery iless.
Dilip iet.al i(2013) idiscuss ithe iuncertainty iin imaterial iproperties iand itraffic
i characterization iin ithe idesign iof iflexible ipavements. iThis ihas iled ito isignificant iefforts iin irecent
i years ito iincorporate ireliability imethods iand iprobabilistic idesign iprocedures ifor ithe idesign,
i rehabilitation, iand imaintenance iof ipavements. iThis istudy icarries iout ithe ireliability ianalysis ifor
i a iflexible ipavement isection ibased ion ithe ifirst-order ireliability imethod iand isecond-order
i reliability imethod itechniques iand ithe icrude iMonte iCarlo iSimulation. iThe istudy ialso iadvocates
i the iuse iof inarrow ibounds ito ithe iprobability iof ifailure, iwhich iprovides ia ibetter iestimate iof ithe
i probability iof ifailure, ias ivalidated ifrom ithe iresults iobtained ifrom iMonte iCarlo iSimulation.
Maharaj iand iGill i(2014) iperformed iaxisymmetric ifinite ielement ianalysis iby ivarying
i different iparameters ito idevelop idesign icharts. iThe iparameters ivaried iare ithickness iof ipavement,
i pressure iand ielastic imodulus iof isubgrade. iThe ipavement iand ibase icourse ihas ibeen iidealized ias ilinear
i elastic imaterial iwhile ithe isubgrade ihas ibeen iidealized ias inonlinear imaterial iby iDrucker-Prager iyield
i criterion. iThe ipavement, ibase icourse iand isoil ihave ibeen idiscretized iby ifour inoded iisoparametric ifinite
i elements. iFour itypes iof idesign icharts ihave ibeen ideveloped. iEach iof ithe idesign icharts ihas ithree
i parameters. iFor itwo iknown iparameters, ithe ithird iparameters ican ibe iobtained.

17
2.2.2 iLiterature iReview iof iRigid iPavements
Chou i(1983) ianalyzed istress iconditions iin iconcrete ipavements iusing ithe ifinite ielement
i method ifor islabs ion ielastic isubgrades. iThe istudy iconsisted iof ithe ifollowing iparts: i(1) iThe ieffect
i of ithe iefficiency iof iload itransfer iacross ithe ijoints; i(2) ithe iloading ipositions ithat iproduce ithe
i most icritical istress iand ideflection iconditions iin ithe ipavement; i(3) ithe ieffect iof itemperature
i warping iand igaps iunder ithe ipavement; i(4) ithe inonlinear ieffect idue ito ithe ipartial icontact
i between ithe islabs iand ithe isupporting isubgrade; i(5) ithe istress iconditions iin ithe icontinuously
i reinforced iconcrete ipavements.
Krauthammer iand iWestern i(1988) ifocus ion ithe irelationship ibetween ishear itransfer
i capabilities iacross ipavement ijoints iand ithe ieffects ion ithe ibehavior iof ithe ipavement. iThe
i approach iof ithe ipresent istudy iis ito idevelop ia inumerical imodel ithat icould iaccurately irepresent
i the imechanism ifor ishear itransfer iacross ireinforced iconcrete ipavement ijoints iand iimplement iit
i in ian iexisting ifinite ielement icode. iThe itool iis ithen iused ifor ithe ianalysis iof ivarious ipavements
i for iwhich iexperimental idata iare iavailable; ithe imodel iis ifurther irefined iuntil ithe inumerical
i results iare iin igood iagreement iwith ithe iexperimental iinformation.
Hadi iand iArfiadi i(2001) istates ithat ithe idesign iof irigid ipavements iinvolves iassuming ia
i pavement istructure ithen iusing ia inumber iof itables iand ifigures ito icalculate ithe itwo igoverning
i design icriteria, ithe iflexural ifatigue iof ithe iconcrete ibase iand ithe ierosion iof ithe isub-grade/sub-
base. iEach iof ithese itwo icriteria ineeds ito ibe iless ithan i100%. iThe idesigner ineeds ito iensure ithat
i both icriteria iare inear i100% iso ithat isafe iand ieconomical idesigns iare iachieved. iThis ipaper
i presents ia iformulation ifor ithe iproblem iof ioptimum irigid iroad ipavement idesign iby idefining ithe
i objective ifunction, iwhich iis ithe itotal icost iof ipavement imaterials, iand iall ithe iconstraints ithat
i influence ithe idesign. iA igenetic ialgorithm iis iused ito ifind ithe ioptimum idesign. iThe iresults
i obtained ifrom ithe igenetic ialgorithm iare icompared iwith iresults iobtained ifrom ia iNewton-
Raphson ibased ioptimization isolver.
Darestani iet. ial i(2006) istates ithat ia inumber iof iinput iparameters iare ineeded ito icalculate
i the irequired iconcrete ibase ithickness ibased ion ithe icumulative idamage iprocess idue ito ifatigue iof
i concrete iand ierosion iof isubbase ior isubgrade imaterials. iThis ipaper iviews ithe idesign iguide,
i introduces ia idesign isoftware ispecially ideveloped ito istudy ithe iguide iand ihighlights isome
i important ipoints. iResults iof ithe icurrent istudy ishow ithe icomplex iinterdependence iof ithe imany
i parameters.
Long and Shatnawi (2011) address the structural performance of experimental rigid
pavements constructed in California. The experimental project consists of seven Portland
Cement concrete pavement sections with various layer structures. Falling weight deflectometer
18
 was utilized to conduct deflection testing for back calculation of layer moduli and subgrade
reaction moduli, evaluation of joint load transfer capacity, and detection of voids under the
slabs. In addition, pavement distress condition was also evaluated as it relates to the integrity
of pavement structure. The major findings in this study indicate that thick slab and lean concrete
base lower the pavement deflection response and prevent the formation of voids under the slab
corners, but lean concrete base has no significant effect on subgrade reaction moduli values.
Cojocaru et.al (2013) present the results of the research undertaken by them in the
frame of the postdoctoral program DPOSTDOC. After a short introduction on the actual status
of structural design of airport pavements, the modeling and the structural design of airport rigid
pavements, constructed with conventional and various recycled materials, using the finite
element method, is described. The main objective of this research program was to elaborate a
design method which, beside the complex landing gear including six footprint tires, all specific
parameters related with the recycled materials and with conventional and reinforce roll
compacted concrete technologies are included. Finally, practical design diagrams for structural
design of the concrete slabs, including their specific correlation function, used for the
construction of the Airbus-A380 runway are presented.

2.3 iIRC:37-2012 iGUIDELINES iFOR iFLEXIBLE iPAVEMENT

The irecommended imethod iconsiders idesign itraffic iin iterms iof icumulative inumber iof
i standard iaxles i(80 iKN) ito ibe icarried iby ithe ipavement iduring ithe idesign ilife. iAxle iload
i spectrum idata iare irequired iwhere icementitious ibases iare iused ifor ievaluating ifatigue idamage iof
i such ibases ifor iheavy itraffic.
Following iinformation iis ineeded ifor iestimating idesign itraffic:
1. Traffic igrowth irate iduring ithe idesign ilife iin ipercentage.
2. Design ilife iin inumber iof iyears.
3. Vehicle iDamage iFactor i(VDF).
4. Distribution iof icommercial itraffic iover ithe icarriageway.
Only ithe inumber iof icommercial ivehicles ihaving igross ivehicle iweight iof i30 iKN ior imore
i and itheir iaxle-loading iis iconsidered ifor ithe ipurpose iof idesign iof ipavement. iAssessment iof
i present iday iaverage itraffic ishould ibe iused ion iseven-day-24-hour icount imade iin iaccordance
i with iIRC:9-1972, i“Traffic iCensus ion iNon-Urban iRoads”.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

2.3.1 iTraffic iGrowth iRate

The ipresent iday itraffic ihas ito ibe iprojected ifor ithe iend iof idesign ilife iat igrowth irates i(r)

19
i estimated iby istudying iand ianalyzing ithe ifollowing idata:
1. iThe ipast itrends iof itraffic igrowth
2. iDemand ielasticity iof itraffic iwith irespect ito imacro-economic iparameters i(likeiGDP ior iSDP) i i i
i i i i i i i i and iexpected idemand idue ito ispecific idevelopments iand iland iuse ichanges ilikely ito itake
i place iduring idesign ilife.
If ithe idata ifor ithe iannual igrowth irate iof icumulative ivehicles iis inot iavailable ior iif iit iis
i less ithan i5 ipercent, ia igrowth irate iof i5 ipercent ishould ibe iused.
2.3.2 iDesign iLife
The idesign iis idefined iin iterms iof ithe icumulative inumber iof istandard iaxles iin imsa ithat
i can ibe icarried ibefore ia imajor istrengthening, irehabilitation ior icapacity iaugmentation iof ithe
i pavement iis inecessary.
It iis irecommended ithat ipavement ifor iNational iHighways iand iState iHighways ishould ibe
i designed ifor ia iminimum ilife iof i15 iyears. iExpressways iand iUrban iRoads imay ibe idesigned ifor ia
i longer ilife iof i20 iyears ior ihigher iusing iinnovative idesign iadopting ihigh ifatigue ibituminous
i mixes. iIn ithe ilight iexperience iin iIndia iand iabroad ihigh ivolume iroads iwith idesign itraffic ithan
i 200 imsa iand iperpetual ipavement ican ialso ibe idesigned iusing ithe iprinciples istated iin iguidelines.
i For iother icategories, ia idesign ilife iof i10-15 iyears imay ibe iadopted. i i i i
If istage iconstruction iis iadopted, ithickness iof igranular ilayer ishould ibe iprovided ifor ithe
full idesign iperiod. iIn ithe icase iof icemented ibases iand isub-bases, istage iconstruction imay ilead
i

i failure ibecause iof ihigh iflexural istresses iin icemented ilayer iand itherefore, inot irecommended.
2.3.3 iVehicle iDamage iFactor
The iguidelines iuse iVehicle iDamage iFactor i(VDF) iin iestimation iof icumulative imsa ifor
i thicker idesign iof ipavement.
The ivehicle idamage ifactor iis ia imultiplier ito iconvert ithe inumber iof icommercial ivehicles
i of idifferent iaxle iloads iand iaxle iconfiguration iinto ithe inumber iof irepetitions iof ia istandard iaxle
i load iof imagnitude i80 iKN. iIt iis idefined ias iequivalent inumber iof istandard iaxles iper icommercial
i vehicle. iThe iVDF ivaries iwith ithe ivehicle iaxle iconfiguration iand iaxle iloading.
It ishould ibe iused ifor iconverting idifferent iaxle iload irepetitions iinto iequivalent istandard
i load irepetitions. iSince ithe iVDF ivalues iin iAASTHO iRoad itest ifor iflexible iand irigid ipavements
i are inot imuch idifferent, ifor iheavy iduty ipavements, ithe icomputed iVDF ivalues iare iassumed ito ibe
i same ifor ibituminous iwith icemented iand igranular ibases. iThe ifollowing iequation i2.1, i2.2, i2.3
i and i2.4 iare igiven ibelow. i i.

20
Single iaxle iwith isingle iwheel ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……..2.1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI iiiiii 604
……… 2.2
Single iaxle iwith idual iwheel ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 804

Tandem iaxle iwith idual iwheels ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
. . . . ….…2.3
i i i i

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1484 i

Tridem iaxle iwith idual iwheels ion ieither iside= i(axle iload iin iKN)4 ii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiii
……….. 2.4 …ii i

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i i i i 2244

Above iformulae ivaries iaccording ito idifferent iaxle iconditions.

21
2.3.4 iDistribution iof iCommercialiTraffic iover ithe iCarriageway
Distribution iof icommercial itraffic iin ieach idirection iand iin ieach ilane iis irequired ifor
i determining ithe itotal iequivalent istandard iaxle iload iapplication ito ibe iconsidered iin ithe idesign.
i In ithe iabsence iof iadequate iand iconclusive idata, ithe ifollowing idistribution imay ibe iassumed
until imore ireliable idata ion iplacement iof icommercial ivehicles ion ithe icarriageway ilanes iare
i

available:
i

A. Single iLane iRoads

Traffic itends ito ibe imore ichannelized ion isingle ilane iroads ithan itwo ilane iroads iand ito iallow ifor
i this iconcentration iof iwheel iload irepetitions, idesign ishould ibe ibased ion itotal inumber iof
i commercial ivehicles iin iboth idirections ii.e. i100%.
B. Two iLane iSingle iCarriageway iRoads
The idesign ishould ibe ibased ion i50% iof itotal inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iin iboth idirection.
i If ithe iVDF iin ione idirection iis ihigher, ithe itraffic iin ithe idirection iof ihigher iVDF iif irecommended
i for ithe idesign.
C. Four-Lane iSingle iCarriageway iRoads
Design ishould ibe ibased ion i40% iof itotal inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iin iboth idirections.
D. Dual iCarriageway iRoads

The idesign iof idual itwo ilane icarriageway ishould ibe ibased ion i75% iof itotal inumbers iof
i commercial ivehicle iin ieach idirection. iFoe idual ithree ilane icarriageway iand idual ifour ilane
i carriageway, ithe idistribution ifactor iwill ibe i60% iand i45% irespectively.

Where ithere iis ino isignificant idifference ibetween itraffic iin ieach iof ithe itwo idirections
i design itraffic ifor ieach idirection imay ibe itaken ias ihalf iof ithe isome iof itraffic iin iboth idirections.
i Where isignificant idifference ibetween ithe itwo istreams iexist, ipavement ithickness iin ieach
i direction ican ibe idifferent iand idesigned iaccordingly.

For itwo-way itwo-lane iroads, ipavement ithickness ishould ibe isame ifor iboth ithe ilanes
i even iif iVDF ivalues iare idifferent iin idifferent idirections iand idesigned ifor ihigher iVDF.VDF iis ia
i critical ifactor ifor iestimation iof itotal itraffic.

22
 For idivided icarriageways, ieach idirection imay ihave idifferent ithickness iof ipavement iif
i the iaxle iload ipatterns iare isignificantly idifferent.
2.3.5 iComputation iof i iDesign iTraffic
The idesign itraffic iin iterms iof icumulative inumber iof istandard iaxle ito ibe icarried iduring
i the idesign ilife iof ithe iroad iis icalculated iusing ithe ifollowing iequation
.Where, i𝑁 i= i i365 i∗ i[(1 i+ i𝑟)𝑛 i− i1] i∗ i𝐴 i∗ i𝐷 i∗ iF
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i N=Cumulative inumber iof istandard iaxles ito ibe icatered ifor iin ithe idesign iin iterms imsa
i A=Initial itraffic iin ithe iyear iof iconstruction iin iterms iof inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iper iday
i (CPVD)
i D=Lane idistribution ifactor, iF=Vehicle idamage ifactor, in i=Design ilife iin iyears
r=annual igrowth irate iof icommercial ivehicles iin idecimals i(e.g. ifor i5 ipercent iannual igrowth irate,
i r= i0.05).
ii The itraffic iin ithe iyear iof icompletion iis iestimated iusing ifollowing iformula: iA=P*(1+r)X
Where,
iiii P=Number iof icommercial ivehicle ias iper ilast icount.
iiii X=Number iof iyear ibetween ithe ilast icount iand ithe iyear iof icompletion iof iconstruction.

2.3.6 iSubgrade
2.3.6.1 iRequirements iof iCBR iof iSubgrade
The iSubgrade iis itop i500 imm iof ithe iembankment iimmediately ibelow ithe ibottom iof
i the ipavement, iand iis imade iup iof iin-situ imaterial i,select isoil i,stabilize isoil ithat iforms ithe
i foundation iof ia ipavement i.It ishould ibe iwell icompacted ito ilimit ithe iscope iof irutting iin ipavement
i due ito iadditional idensification iduring ithe iservice ilife iof ipavement. iSubgrade ishall ibe
compacted ito ia iminimum i97 ipercent iof ilaboratoryidryidensityiachieved iwith iheavy icompaction ias
i

i per iIS:2720(Part i8) ifor iExpressways, iNational iHighways, iState iHighways, iMajor iDistrict
i Roads iand iother iheavily itrafficked iroads.
The iselect isoil iforming ithe isubgrade ishould ihave ia iminimum iCBR iof i8 ipercent ifor
i roads ihaving itraffic iof i450 icommercial ivehicles iper iday ior ihigher.
2.3.6.2 iEffective iCBR
Where ithere iis isignificant idifference ibetween ithe iCBRs iof ithe iselect isubgrade iin
i embankment isoils, ithe idesign ishould ibe ibased ion ieffective iCBR. iThe ieffective iCBR iof ithe
i subgrade ican ibe idetermined ifrom ifigure i2.1

23
 Fig. i2.1 iEffective iCBR iof iSubgrade
iiiiiiiiiiii CBR iof iCompacted iBorrow iMaterial i500 imm ithick.
In icase ithe iborrow imaterial iis iplaced iover ithe irocky ifoundation, ithe ieffective iCBR imay
ibe ilarger iwhen ithe iCBR iof ithe iborrow imaterial. iUse iof ithe iCBR iof iborrow imaterial imay ibe
i adopted ifor ipavement idesign iwith iproper isafeguards iagainst idevelopment iof ipore iwater
i pressure ibetween ithe ifoundation iand iborrow imaterial.
2.3.6.3 iDetermination iof iResilient iModulus
Resilient imodulus iis ithe imeasure iof ielastic ibehavior idetermined iby irecoverable
i deformation iin ithe ilaboratory itest. iThe imodulus iis ian iimportant iparameter iin ithe idesign iand ithe
iperformance iof ipavement. iThis ican ibe idetermined iin ithe ilaboratory iby iconducting itest ias iper
i procedure ispecified iAASHTOT307 i99(2003) i(1). iSince ithe irepetitive itri iaxial itesting ifacility iis
i not iwidely iavailable iand iis iexpensive, ithe idefault iresilient imodulus ican ibe iestimated ifrom
i generally iacceptable icorrelation:
The irelation ibetween iresilient imodulus iand ieffective iCBR i(%) iis igiven iin iequation i2.5
i and i2.6 ibelow.
MR(MPa)=10*CBRfor iCBR≤5 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i2.5
MR(MPa)=17.6*(CBR)0.64 ifor iCBR>5 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i2.6
2.3.6.4 iPoison iratio
Recommended ivalue iis i0.25.

2.3.7 iGranular iLayer

2.3.7.1 iGeneral
Granular iconstruction iis iused ito iconstruct ibases iand isub-bases iin ithe ipavement. iSub-
base ilayer imay iconsist iof inatural isoil, imoorum, icrushed istone, icrushed islab iand ireclaimed
i crushed iconcrete/ ireclaimed iasphalt ipavement icombinations ithereof imeeting ithe iprescribed
24
i grading iand iphysical irequirement. iThe ibase ilayer imay iconsist iof iwet imix imacadam, iwater
i bound imacadam, icrushed irun imacadam, ireclaimed iasphalt ietc.

2.3.7.2 iResilient iModulus iof iGranular iLayer iis igiven iin iequation i2.7

Mr_gsb=0.2*h0.45*Mr_subgrade i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i.2. i7
Where, ih=thickness iof igranular isub ibase iand ibase ilayer iin imm.
2.3.7.3 iPoisson’s iRatio
Poisson’s iRatio iof igranular ibases iand isub ibases iis irecommended ias i.35.
2.3.8 iBituminous iLayer
2.3.8.1 iGeneral
Bituminous ilayer iis itop imost ilayer iof ithe iflexible ipavement iand iit iis isubjected ito imost
i of ithe iwear iand itear icaused idue ito itraffic. iTherefore, ibituminous. ilayer ishould ibeiconstructed
i with ithe istronger imaterials ias icomparison ito igranular ilayers.
2.3.8.2 iResilient iModulus iof iBituminous iLayer
Resilient imodulus iof ibituminous ilayer iis igiven iin itable i2.1.
Table i2.1 iResilient iModulus iof iBituminous iLayer
Mix iType Temperature i℃
20 25 30 35 40
BC i& iDBM ifor iVG10 2300 2000 1450 1000 800
Bitumen
BC i& iDBM ifor iVG30 3500 3000 2500 1700 1250
Bitumen
BC i& iDBM ifor iVG40 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000
Bitumen

25
 BC i& iDBM ifor imodified 5700 3800 2400 1650 1300
Bitumen
BM iwith iVG10 ibitumen 500 iMPa iat i35℃
BM iwith iVG30 ibitumen 700 iMPa iat i35℃

WMM/RAP treated with

3%
i bitumen
600 iMPa iat i35℃ i(laboratory ivalues ivary ifrom i600 ito
emulsion/foamed bitumen
i 1200MPa ifor iwater isaturated isamples)
(2% i iresidual i ibitumen i i and
i

1% icementitious imaterial)

2.3.8.3 iPoisson’s iRatio

Poisson’s iratio ifor ibituminous ilayer idepends iupon ithe ipavement itemperature iand ia
i value iof i0.4 iis irecommended ifor itemperature iup ito i35℃ iand ia ivalue iof i.50 ifor ihigher
i temperatures.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Pavement iDesign iProcedure iand iUse i iof iIITPAVE iSoftware i

The ianalysis iand idesign iof ipavement ican ibe icarried iout iby ifollowing iapproach:
A. For itraffic iless ithan i2 imsa irecommendations iof iIRC: iSP:72-2007 imay ibe iused.
B. In icase iof ihigher itraffic, iIITPAVE isoftware imay ibe iused. iIt iis ia imultilayer
i elastic ilayer ianalysis iprogram. iThe inecessary isteps irequired ito iuse ithis
i software iare:
i. Open ithe ifolder iIITPAVE.
ii. Double iclick iIITPAVE_EXfile iin ithe iIITPAVE ifolder. iThis iin ian iexecutable ijar
i file. iA ihome iscreen iwill iappear.
iii. From ithe ihome iscreen iuser ican igive iinput ithrough iinput iwindow iby iclicking ion
i ‘Design iNew iPavement iSection’. iUser ican ialso igive iinput ithrough iproperly
i formatted iinput ifile iby iclicking ion i‘edit iexisting ifile’ ioption ithen ibrowsing iand
i opening ithe iinput ifile.
iv. Next ian iinput iwindow iwill icome. iAll ithe iinputs irequired ihave ito ibe igiven ithrough
i the iinput iwindow.
v. First, inumber iof ilayers ito ibe iselected ifrom idropdown imenu ito ifix iup iinput iboxes
i for idifferent ilayer.
vi. Next ielastic imodulus i(E) ivalues iof ithe ivarious ilayers iin iMPa. iPoisson’s iratio iand
i thickness iof ilayer iin imm iexcluding ithe isubgrade ithickness ito ibe iprovided.

26
 vii. Single iwheel iload iand ithe ityre ipressure iare ito ibe iprovided i(tyre ipressure iof i.56
i MPa ihas ibeen iused ifor icalibration iof ifatigue iequation iat isame ipressure ican ibe iused
i or istress ianalysis. iChange iof ipressure ieven iup ito i80 iMPa ihas ia ismall ieffect iupon
i stress ivalue iin ilower ilayer).
viii. Then ithe inumber iof ipoints iof ia istress icomputation iis ito ibe igiven ithrough ithe
i dropdown imenu ifor ianalysis.
ix. Then icorresponding ito idifferent ipoints ithe ivalues iof iZ idepth iin imm iand ithe
i corresponding ivalue iof iradial idistances ifrom iwheel icentre i(r) iin imm iare ito ibe igiven
i (wheel icentre ito icentre idistance iof i310 imm iis iconsidered).
x. Provide iwhether ianalysis iis ifor isingle iwheel iload ior idual iwheel iload iby iclicking
i one ior idual iwheel iload iis ithe imost icommon icase.
xi. The ioutput iof iprogram iwill iprovide istresses, istrains iand ideflections iat ithe idesired
i points. iNext icheck iif ithe icomputed istrains iare iless ithan ithe ipermissible istrain. iIf
i not ithan irun ithe iprogram iwith ia inew ithickness icombination itill ithe ipermissible
i strain ivalue iare iachieved. iepT, iepR iand iepZ iwill ibe ithe ioutputs ithat iwill iof iinterest.
xii. In imost icases ithe itensile istrain iat ithe ibottom iof ibituminous ilayer iis ihigher iin ithe
i longitudinal idirection i(epT) irather ithan iin iradial idirection i(epR). iIf itensile istrain iin
i the ibituminous ilayer iis ihigh, iincrease ithe ithickness iof ibituminous ilayer.
xiii. Vertical isubgrade istrain i(epZ) ishould ibe iless ithan ithe ipermissible ivalue ifor ithe
i design itraffic. iIf ithe ivertical isubgrade istrain iis ihigher, iincrease ithe ithickness iof isub
i base ilayer.
xiv. Stress ivalue ican ialso ibe ieasily icomputed iby ichanging idirectly ithe iinput ifile iis ito ibe
i written iin ithe iformat ias iillustrated iin ithe imanual iand ibrowse ithe iinput ifile iby
i clicking i‘Edit iExisting iFile’ ion ihome iscreen iof iIITPAVE.

2.4 iIRC:58-2012 iGUIDELINES iFOR iRIGID iPAVEMENT

The imain ifactors igoverning idesign iof iconcrete ipavements iare idesign iperiod, idesign
i commercial itraffic ivolume, icomposition iof icommercial itraffic iin iterms iof isingle, itandem,
i tridem iand imulti-axles, iaxle iload ispectrum, ityre ipressure iof icommercial ivehicles, ilateral
i placement icharacteristics iof icommercial ivehicles, idirectional idistribution iof icommercial
i vehicles, icomposition iand istrength iof ifoundation iand iclimatic iconsiderations.
2.4.1 iAxle iLoad iCharacteristics
Though ithe ilegal iaxle iload ilimits iin iIndia iare i10.2 itonnes i(100KN), i19 itonnes i(186KN)
i and i24 itonnes i(235KN) ifor isingle, itandem, itridem iaxles irespectively, ia ilarge inumber iof iaxles

27
i on iNational iHighways icarry imuch iheavier iloads ithan ithe ilegal ilimits. iData ion iaxle iload
i spectrum iof ithe icommercial ivehicles iis irequired ito iestimate ithe irepetitions iof isingle, itandem i&
i tridem iaxles iin ieach idirection iexpected iduring ithe idesign iperiod. iMinimum ipercentages iof
i commercial ivehicles ito ibe iweighed
 Single iaxle i10 iKN
 Tandem iaxle i20 iKN
 Tridem iaxle i30 iKN

For imost iof ithe icommercial ivehicles, ithe icommunity iused ityre iinflation ipressures irange
i from iabout
0.7 iMPa ito i1.0 iMPa. iIt iis ifound ithat istresses iin iconcrete ipavements ihaving ithickness iof i200 imm
i or ihigher iare inot iaffected isignificantly iby ithe ivariation iof ityre ipressure. iA ityre ipressure iof i0.8
i MPa iis iadopted ifor idesign iin ithese iguidelines.
2.4.2 iWheel iBase iCharacteristics
Information ion itypical ispacing ibetween isuccessive iaxles iof icommercial ivehicles iis
necessary ito iidentify ithe iproportion iof iaxles ithat ishould ibe iconsidered ifor iestimating itop-down
i

i fatigue icracking icaused iby iaxle iloads iduring inight iperiod iwhen ithe islab ihas ithe itendency iof
i curling iup idue ito inegative itemperature idifferential. iData ion ithe ispacing iof ithe iaxle imay ibe
collected iduring ithe itraffic isurvey. iAs idiscussed iin isubsequent isections iof ithese iguidelines, iif
i

i the ispacing ibetween iany ipair iof iaxles iis iless ithan ispacing iof itransverse ijoint, isuch iaxle ineed ito
i be iconsidered iin ithe idesign itraffic ifor icomputing itop idown ifatigue icracking idamage. iWheel
i bases iof itrucks iof idifferent imodels igenerally irange ifrom i3.6m ito imore ithan i5.0m iwhereas ithe
i commonly iused ispacing iof itransverse ijoints iis i4.5m. iThus iaxles iwith ispacing iof imore ithan i4.5m
are inot iexpected ito icontribute ito itop idown ifatigue icracking. iHowever, iif ithe iactual ispacing iof
i

i transverse ijoints iis idifferent ifrom i4.5m, idesign itraffic ifor iestimation iof itop- idown icracking
i damage imay ibe iselected iappropriately. iThe ipercentage iof icommercial ivehicles iwith ispacing
between ithe ifront iand ithe ifirst irear iaxleiless ithanithe iproposed ispacing iof ithe itransverse ijoints iin ithe
i

i concrete islab ishould ibe iestablished ifrom iaxle iload isurvey.

2.4.3 iDesign iPeriod
Cement iconcrete ipavements imay ibe idesigned ito ihave ia ilifespan iof i30 iyears ior imore.
i However, ithe idesign iengineer ishould iuse ihis/her ijudgement iabout ithe idesign iperiod itaking iinto
i consideration ifactors isuch ias itraffic ivolume, iuncertainty iof itraffic igrowth irate, ithe icapacity iof
i the iroad iand ithe ipossibility iof iaugmentation iof icapacity iby iwidening.

28
2.4.4 Traffic iConsideration

(A) iDesign iLane

The ilane icarrying ithe imaximum inumber iof iheavy icommercial ivehicles iis itermed ias
i design ilane. iEach ilane iof ia itwo-way itwo-lane ihighway iand ithe iouter ilane iof imulti-lane
i highways ican ibe iconsidered ias idesign ilane.
(B) iDesign iTraffic
Assessment iof iaverage idaily itraffic ishould inormally ibe ibased ion iseven idays i24 ihours
i count imade iin iaccordance iwith iIRC: i9 i“Traffic iCensus ion iNon-Urban iRoads”. iThe iactual
i value iof iannual irate iof igrowth i`r` iof icommercial ivehicles ishould ibe idetermined iusing
i appropriate imethods. iAs iper iIRC-SP:84, iannual igrowth irate iof icommercial ivehicles ishall ibe
i taken ito ibe ia iminimum i5%. iHowever, iin ithe itypical idesign iexample i7.5 ipercent ivalue ihas ibeen
i considered ikeeping iin iview ithe ihigher itraffic igrowth ion isome ihighways. iThe itraffic icounts
corresponding itraffic iestimates ishould iindicate ithe iday iand inight itraffic itrends ias ithe iloading
i

during ithe iday ihours iare igenerally iresponsible ifor ibottom iup icracking iwhereas ithe inight itime
i

i traffic imay ilead ito itop-down icracking.

The iedge iflexural istress icaused iby iaxle iloads ifor ibottom iup icracking iis ithe imaximum iwhen ithe
i tyre iimprint iof ithe iouter iwheel itouches ithe ilongitudinal iedge. iWhen ithe ityre iposition iis iaway
i even iby i150mm ifrom ithe ilongitudinal iedge, istress iin ithe iedge iregion iis ireduced isubstantially.
i The iedge iflexural istress iis ismall iwhen ithe iwheels iare iclose ito ithe itransverse ijoints. iTypical
i lateral idistribution icharacteristics iof iwheel ipaths iof icommercial ivehicles iobserved i on i Indian
i highways i indicate i that i very i few i tyre i imprints i of i moving i vehicles i are itangential ito ithe
i longitudinal iedge/joint ion itwo-lane itwo-way iroads iand idivided imulti-lane ihighways. iSome
i multi-lane idivided ihighways ihave i8.5-9.0m iwide icarriageways iwith ia isingle ilongitudinal ijoint
i in ithe icenter. iThe ilane imarkings iin ithese icases ido inot icoincide iwith ithe ilongitudinal ijoint
resulting iin ia ilarger iproportion iof iwheel ipaths ibeing ipositioned iclose ito ithe ilongitudinal ijoint
i

compared ito ithe isituation iwhere ithe ilane imarkings imatch iwith ilongitudinal ijoints. iTaking iinto
i

i consideration ithese iissues, iit iis irecommended i25 ipercent iof ithe itotal itwo iway icommercial
i traffic imay ibe iconsidered ias idesign itraffic ifor itwo-lane itwo-way iroads ifor ithe ianalysis iof
i bottom-up icracking. iIn ithe icase iof ifour-lane iand iother imulti-lane idivided ihighways, i25 ipercent
i of ithe itotal itraffic iin ithe idirection iof ipredominant itraffic imay ibe iconsidered ifor idesign iof
i pavement ifor ibottom-up icracking.
The idesign itraffic ifor itop-down icracking itraffic ianalysis iwill ibe ia iportion iof ithe
i design itraffic iconsidered ifor ibottom-up icracking ianalysis. iOnly ithose icommercial ivehicles iwith

29
the ispacing ibetween ithe ifront iaxle iand ithe ifirst irear iaxle iless ithan ithe ispacing iof itransverse ijoints
i

should ibe iconsidered ifor itop-down icracking ianalysis. iThis ipercentage ishould ibe iestablished
i

i from iaxle iload/traffic isurvey. iA idefault ivalue iof ififty ipercent iof ithe idesign itraffic iused ifor
i bottom- iup itraffic ianalysis imay ibe iconsidered.
1. In icase iof inew ihighway ilinks, iwhere ino itraffic icount idata iis iavailable, idata ifrom
i roads iof isimilar iclassification iand iimportance imay ibe iused ito ipredict ithe idesign
i trafficiintensity.
2. Expected inumber iof iapplications iof idifferent iaxle iload igroups iduring ithe idesign
i period ican ibe iestimated iusing ithe idetails iof icommercial itraffic ivolume iexpected irate
i of igrowth iof icommercial itraffic iand ithe iinformation iabout iaxle iload ispectrum iand
i the inumber iof isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxles iobtained ifrom iaxle iload isurvey. iSince
ifront iaxles i(steering iaxle) iwith isingle iwheels ion ieither iside icause ionly inegligible
i bottom-up ifatigue idamage, iit iis ionly ithe irear iaxles ithat imay ibe iincluded iin ithe iaxle
i load ispectrum.
3. The icumulative inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iduring ithe idesign iperiod imay ibe
i estimated ifrom ithe ifollowing iexpression ias ishown iin iEquation i2.8

C i= i(365*A*((1+R)N-1))/ ir i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……..…(2.8)
Where
C i= iCumulative inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iduring ithe idesign iperiod
A i= iInitial inumber iof icommercial ivehicles iper iday iin ithe iyear iwhen ithe iroad iis iopened ito
i traffic.
r i=Annual irate iof igrowth iof icommercial itraffic ivolume i(expressed ias idecimal)
N i= iDesign iperiod iin iyears

2.4.5 iTemperature iConsideration

2.4.5.1 iTemperature iDifferential i i i i i
Temperature iDifferential ibetween ithe itop iand ibottom ifibers iof iconcrete ipavement
i causes ithe iconcrete islab ito icurl, igiving irise ito istresses. iThe itemperature idifferential iis ia
i function iof isolar iradiation ireceived iby ithe ipavement isurface, iwind ivelocity, ithermal idiffusivity
i of iconcrete, ilatitude, ilongitude iand ielevation iof ithe iplace iand iis ithus iaffected iby igeographical
i features iof ithe ipavement ilocation. iAs ifar ias ipossible, itemperature idifferential ivalues iestimated
realistically ifor ithe igiven isite iusing irelevant igeographical iparameters iand imaterial
i

characteristics ishould ibe iused ifor ianalysis. iIn ithe iabsence iof iany ilocal idata, ithe imaximum
i

30
temperature idifferential ivalues igiven iin iTable2.2 imay ibe iadopted ifor ipavement idesign. iThe
i

i variation iof itemperature iwith idepth iis inon-linear iduring ithe iday itime iand inearly ilinear iduring
i night ihours. iThe imaximum itemperature idifferential iduring ithe inight iis inearly ihalf iof ithe iday
i time imaximum itemperature idifferential. i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Table i2.2 iRecommended iTemperature iDifferentials ifor iConcrete iSlabs
Zones State i/ iRegion i 150 imm 200 imm 250 imm 300-400
i
i mm
1 Hilly iregion iUttarakhand, iwest 12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8
i Bengal, J&k,
i i HP, Arunachal
i

i Pradesh
2 Punjab, iUP, iUttaranchal, iGujrat, 12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8
i Rajasthan, iHaryana, inorth iMP,
i excluding ihilly iregions
3 Bihar, iJharkhand, iwest iBengal 15.6 16.4 16.6 16.8
i aasam, ieastern iodisha, iexcluding
i hilly iregions iand icoastal iareas.
4 Maharastra, iKarnataka, isouth iMP, 17.3 19 20.3 21
i chattisgarh, iandhra ipradesh
5 Kerala, isouth itamilnadu, iexcluding 15 16.4 17.6 18.1
i hilly iregions iand icoastal iareas i
6 Coastal iareas ibounded iby ihills 14.6 15.8 16.2 17.0
7 Coastal iareas iunbounded iby ihills 15.5 17 19 19.2
Note: iThe iabove itemperature idata iwas irecommended iby iCentral iRoad iResearch iInstitute, iNew
iDelhi. iThe idata ifor icold ihilly iregions iof iJammu i& iKashmir, iHimachal iPradesh, iWest iBengal,

iUttarakhand iand iArunachal iPradesh iare isuggested iin iRow-1 iin iabsence iof iavailable irecords.

2.4.6 iEmbankment iSoil iand iCharacteristics iof iSubgrade iand iSubbase iEmbankment

2.4.6.1 iCBR iof iembankment isoil iplaced ibelow ithe i500mm iselect isubgrade ishould ibe
idetermined ifor iestimating ithe ieffective iCBR iof isubgrade iand iits i‘k’ ivalue ifor idesign.

2.4.6.2 iThe inature iof iembankment ifoundation istrata isuch ias iexpansive isoil, imarine iclays, isoft
iclays, iblack icotton isoil, ietc. ineeds ito ibe istudied ito itake ispecial imeasures ilike iconsolidation iof

ithe istrata iby iaccelerated i pore ipressure idissipation, iremoval iof iexpansive iblack icotton isoil istrata

iand ireplacement iby inon-expansive isoil, iuse iof igeo isynthetics ito iarrest itension icracks ior isoil

istabilization ietc. iSoil iswell ican ibe icontrolled iby isurcharge iloads, iby iplacing ithe iswelling isoils

31
iin ilower ipart iof ithe iembankment. iSelective igrading iand isoil imixing iis ialso ihelpful. iIn ideep icut
isections, iconstruction iremoves isurcharge iloads iand iallows isoil ito iswell. i It iis itherefore

iadvisable ito iexcavate ideep icuts iin iadvance iof iother igrading iwork ito iallow iexpansion ito ioccur

iand istabilize. iExpansive isoil ishould ibe icompacted iat i1-3% iabove iOptimum iMoisture iContent

i(OMC) ias idetermined iby iStandard iProctor. iUse iof ithe iOMC ifrom ithe iModified iProctor iwill

ileave ithe isoil itoo idry iand imore iprone ito ifuture iexpansion. iThe isoil ishould inot ibe iallowed ito idry

iout iexcessively ibefore iGSB iand iother ilayers iare ilaid. iIf inon-expansive isoils iare inot

Subgrade

2.4.6.3 iThe isubgrade iis iusually iconsidered ias ia iWinkler ifoundation, ialso iknown ias idense iliquid
ifoundation. i In iWinkler imodel, iit iis iassumed ithat ithe ifoundation iis imade iup iof isprings

isupporting ithe iconcrete islab. iThe istrength iof isubgrade iis iexpressed iin iterms iof imodulus iof

isubgrade ireaction, ik, iwhich iis idefined ias ithe ipressure iper iunit ideflection iof ithe ifoundation ias

idetermined iby iplate iload itests. iThe ik-value iis idetermined ifrom ithe ipressure isustained iat ia

ideflection iof i1.25mm. iAs ik-value iis iinfluenced iby itest iplate idiameter, ithe istandard itest iis ito ibe

icarried iout iwith ia i750mm idiameter iplate. iIS i9214- i1974 i“Method iof iDetermination iof

iModulus iof iSubgrade iReaction iof iSoil iin ithe iField” imay ibe ireferred ifor i guidance iin ithe iregard.

iA ifrequency iof ione itest iper ikm iper ilane iis irecommended ifor iassessment iof ik-value. iIf ithe

ifoundation ichanges iwith irespect ito isubgrade isoil, itype iof isubbase ior inature iof ifoundation i(i.e

icut ior ifill) ithen iadditional itests imay ibe iconducted.

2.4.6.4 iThough i750mm iis istandard iplate idiameter, ismaller iplate idiameter ican ibe iused iin icase iof
ihomogenous ifoundation ifrom ipractical iconsideration iand ithe itest ivalues iobtained iwith iplates

iof ismaller idiameter imay ibe iconverted ito ithe istandard i750mm iplate iusing iEquation i(2.9).

K750 i= ik(1.2φ+0.078) i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……....…(2.9)

Where,

φ i= iplate idiameter

k i= imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction i(MPa/m) iwith iplate idiameter

K750 i= imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction i(MPa/m) iwith iplate idiameter iof i750 imm i

The iestimate iobtained ifrom iEquation i2 iis iregarded ias iapproximate ionly. iHowever, iin
icase iof ilayered iconstruction, ithe itests iconducted iwith ismaller iplates igive igreater iweightage ito

ithe istronger itop ilayer iand idirect iconversion ito i750 imm iplate ivalues iusing iEquation i2 iresults iin

isomewhat iover-estimation iof ithe ifoundation istrength.

2.4.6.5 iThe isubgrade isoil istrength iand iconsequently ithe istrength iof ithe ifoundation ias ia iwhole,
iis iaffected iby iits imoisture icontent. iSince ithe ik-value icannot ibe idetermined iin ithe ifield iat

idifferent imoisture icontents iand idensities, iCBR itests imay ibe icarried iout iat ifield imoisture

icontent iand ifield idensity iboth iin isoaked iand iun-soaked iconditions iand ithe imeasured ik-value

ifrom iplate iload itest imay ibe icorrected iin ithe iratio iof iCBR ivalues iunder isoaked iand iun-soaked

32
 iconditions ito iobtain ithe ik-value icorresponding ito ithe iweakest icondition iof isubgrade. iThe iplate
iload itest iis itime-consuming iand iexpensive; itherefore, ithe idesign ik-value i is ioften iestimated

ifrom isoaked iCBR ivalue. iThe irelationship ibetween ithe iCBR iand ik-value iillustrated iin iTable i2.3

ican ibe iused ifor ithis ipurpose.

ii Table i2.3 i iRelationship ibetween ik-value iand iCBR ivalue ifor ihomogenous isoil isubgrade

Soaked iCBR(%) 2 3 4 5 7 10 15 20 50 100

k-value i(MPa/m) 21 28 35 42 48 55 62 69 140 220

The iin-situ iCBR iof ithe isubgrade isoil ican ialso ibe idetermined iquickly ifrom ithe
iDynamic iCone iPenetrometer i(60 iCone) itests iusing ithe ifollowing iequation i2.10.

i Log10CBR= i2.465-1.12Log10N i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i..……….2.10

Where

NDCP= irate iof icone ipenetration i(mm/blow)

2.4.6.6 iThe imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction iof ithe isubgrade iof ian iin-service ipavement ior iof ia
iprepared- ifoundation ican ialso ibe idetermined iby iconducting iFalling iWeight iDeflectometer

i(FWD) itests. iThe ik- ivalue iof ithe isubgrade iback icalculated ifrom ithe iFWD itest idata iis ithe

idynamic ik-value. iThe icorresponding istatic ik-value, iwhich ishould ibe iused ifor ianalysis, ican ibe

iestimated ias i50% iof ithe idynamic ik-value iobtained ifrom ithe iFWD itest.

2.4.6.7 iIt iis iadvisable ito iprovide ifilter iand idrainage ilayers iabove ithe isubgrade ifor idrainage iof
iwater ito iprevent i(1) iexcessive isoftening iof isubgrade iand isubbase iand i(2) ierosion iof ithe

isubgrade iand isubbase iparticularly iunder iadverse imoisture icondition iand iheavy idynamic iloads.

i IRC:15, i IRC: iSP:42 iand iIRC: iSP:SO, imay ibe irefer ifor ifurther idetails. iSynthetic igee-composite

ilayer ican ialso ibe iused iat ithe iinterface iof isubgrade iand igranular isubbase ilayer ifor ifiltration iand

idrainage. i It iwill inot iallow imigration iof ifine iparticles iof isubgrade isoil ito ithe igranular idrainage

ilayer iabove.

Sub iBase

2.4.6.8 iThe imain ipurpose iof ithe isub ibase iis ito iprovide ia iuniform, istable iand ipermanent isupport
ito ithe iconcrete islab ilaid iover iit. iIt imust ihave isufficient istrength iso ithat iit iis inot isubjected ito

idisintegration iand ierosion iunder iheavy itraffic iand iadverse ienvironmental iconditions isuch ias

iexcessive imoisture, ifreezing iand ithawing. iIn ithe ilight iof ithese irequirements iSub ibase iof iDry

i Lean iConcrete i(DLC) ihaving ia i7-day iaverage icompressive istrength iof i10 iMPa idetermined ias

iper i IRC-SP:49 iis irecommended. iMinimum irecommended ithickness iof iDLC ifor imajor

ihighways iis i150mm.

33
 2.4.6.9 iIn icase iof ithe iproblematic isubgrades isuch ias iclayey iand iexpansive isoils iappropriate
iprovisions ishall ibe imade ifor iblanket icourse iin iaddition ito ithe isub ibase ias iper ithe irelevant

istipulations iof iIRC i15.

2.4.6.10 iEffective ik-values iof idifferent icombinations iof isubgrades iand isub ibase i(untreated
igranular iand icement itreated igranular) ican ibe iestimated ifrom iTable i2.4.

For iconcrete ipavements ilaid iover ia ibituminous isub ibase, ik-value ican ibe iadopted ifrom
i IRC: iSP:76. iK- ivalue ifor idifferent icombinations iof iDLC isubbase i(with iDLC ihaving iminimum

i7-day icompressive istrength iof i10 iMPa) ithickness ilaid iover igranular iSub ibase iconsisting iof

idrainage iand ifilter ilayers ican ibe iadopted ifrom iTable i2.4. iThe icontribution iof ithe igranular iSub

ibase iplaced ibelow ithe iDLC ilayer ican ibe iignored ifor iestimating ithe ieffective imodulus iof

isubgrades ireaction iof ithe ifoundation. iThe ivalue igiven iin iTable i2.5 iare ibased ion itheoretical

ianalysis iand ian iupper ilimit iof i300MPa/m iis irecommended iconsidering ithe iloss iof isubgrades

isupport iexpected ito ibe icaused iby iheavy itraffic.

Table i2.4 i ik-values ifor iSubgrade iand iCement iTreated iSubbases

k-value iof Effective ik i(MPa/m) iof iuntreated Effective ik i(MPa/m) iof icement itreated

subgrade granular isubbase iof ithickness i(mm) subbase iof ithickness i(mm)

150 225 300 100 150 200

28 39 44 53 76 108 141

56 63 75 88 127 173 225

84 92 102 119 - - -

Table i2.5 ik-values ifor iDry iLean iConcrete iSub iBase

k-value iof isubgrade i(MPa/m) 21 28 42 48 55 62

Effective ik ifor i100 imm iDLC, i(MPa/m) 56 97 166 208 278 389*

(300)

Effective ik ifor i150 imm iDLC, i(MPa/m) 97 138 208 277 412* 300

(300)

34
2.4.7 iConcrete iStrength

2.4.7.1 iFlexure istrength iof iconcrete iis irequired ifor ithe ipurpose iof idesign iof iconcrete islab.
iFlexure istrength ican ibe iobtained iafter itesting ithe iconcrete ibreak ias iper iprocedure i given iin i IS

i516. iAlternatively, iit ican ibe iderived ifrom ithe icharacteristics icompressive istrength iof iconcrete

ias iper iIS i456- i2000 iusing ithe ifollowing iequation.

Fcr i= i0.7√fck i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……………(2.11)

Fcr= iFlexural istrength i(Modulus iof iRupture), iMPa

Fck= iCharacteristics icompressive icube istrength iof iconcrete, iM

2.4.7.2 iUsually iconcrete idesign iis ibased ion i28 idays istrength. iIn ithe iconcrete ipavement, i90 idays
istrength ican ibe ipermitted iin iview iof ithe ifact ithat iduring iinitial iperiod iof i90 idays, ithe inumber iof

irepetitions iof iload iis ivery ismall iand ihad inegligible ieffect ion icumulative ifatigue idamage iof

iconcrete. i Increasing ithe i28 idays iflexural istrength iby ia ifactor iof i1.1 iis irecommended ito iget i90

idays istrength. i In ino icase i28 idays iflexural istrength iof ipavement iquality iconcrete ishould ibe iless

ithan i4.5 iMPa.

2.4.7.3 iTarget imean iflexural istrength ito ibe iachieved iwhile idesigning ithe iMix ishould ibe isuch
ithat ithere iis i95% iprobability, ithat ithe icharacteristic istrength iwould ibe iachieved iwhen ithe iMix

iis iproduced iin ithe ifield. iThe itarget imean iflexural istrength iis igiven iby ithe ifollowing iEquation

i(2.12)

Fcr i= ifcr i+Za i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……..…(2.12)

where, iFcr i= iCharacteristic imean iflexural istrength iat i28 idays, iMPa

fcr i=Target imean iflexural istrength iat i28 idays iMPa

Za i= iA ifactor icorresponding ito ithe idesired iconfidence ilevel, iwhich iis i1.96 ifor i5% itolerance
ilevel ia i= istandard ideviation iof ifield itest isamples, iMPa

2.4.7.4 iModulus iof iElasticity iand iPoisson’s iRatio iof iConcrete

The iModulus iof iElasticity iand iPoisson’s iratio iof icement icovered iare iknown ito ivary
iwith iconcrete imaterials iand istrength. iThe ielastic imodulus iincreases iwith iincrease iin istrength

iand iPoisson’s iratio idecreases iwith iincrease iin ithe imodulus iof ielasticity. iWhile iit iis idesirable

ithat ithe ivalues iof ithese iparameters iare iascertained iexperimentally ifor ithe iconcrete imix iand ifor

ithe imaterials iactually ito ibe iused iin ithe iconstruction, ithis iinformation imay inot ialways ibe

iavailable iat ithe idesign istage. iA i25% ivariation iin iE iand imu ivalues iwill ihave ionly ia imarginal

ieffect ion ithe iflexural istresses iin ithe ipavement iconcrete. iFollowing ivalues iwere iadopted ifor

istress ianalysis ifor ithe iconcrete iwith i28 idays iflexural istrength iof i4.5 iMPa i(4.95 ifor i90 iday

istrength).

35
Modulus iof iElasticity iof iconcrete, iE i= i30,000 iMPa

Poisson’s iRatio, i= i0.15

2.4.7.5 iCoefficient iof iThermal iExpansion

The icoefficient iof ithermal iexpansion iof iconcrete iis idependent ito ia igreat iextent ion ithe
iroute iof iaggregates iused iin iconcrete. iHowever, ifor idesign ipurpose ia ivalue iof iα= i10×10
-6
i°C
i

2.4.7.6 iFatigue iBehavior iof iCement iConcrete

Due ito irepeated iapplication iof iflexural istress iby itraffic iloads, iprogressive ifatigue
idamage itakes iplace iin ithe icement iconcrete islab iin ithe iform iof igradual idevelopment iof imicro-
cracks iespecially iwhen iratio ibetween ithe iapplied iflexural istress iand ithe iflexural istrength iof
iconcrete iis ihigh. iThis iratio iis itermed ias: iStress iRatio i(SR). i If ithe iSR iless ithan i0.45, ithe i

iconcrete iis iexpected ito isustain iinfinite inumber iof irepetitions. iAs ithe iStress iratio iincreases, ithe

inumber iof iload irepetitions irequired ito icause icracking idecreases ithe irelation ibetween ifatigue

ilife i(N) iand istress iratio iis igiven iin iEquation i(2.13) iand i(2.14);

N=unlimited for iSR i< i0.45

N i=14.2577/ i(S iR-0.4325)] i3. i268 i i i iwhen i0.45 i≤ iSR i≤ i0.55 i i i i i i

i i i i… i(2.13)

Log10 i iN i= i(0.9718-SR)/0.0828 when iSR i> i0.55 i i i i i i i

i…(2.14)

2.4.8 iDesign iof iSlab iThickness

In-service icement iconcrete ipavements iare isubjected ito istresses idue ito ia ivariety iof
ifactors iacting isimultaneously. iThe iseverest icombination iof idifferent ifactors ithat iinduce ithe

imaximum istress iin ithe ipavement iwill igive ithe icritical istress icondition.

The iflexural istress idue ito ithe icombined iaction iof itraffic itoads iand itemperature
idifferential ibetween ithe itop iand ibottom ifibers iof ithe iconcrete islab iis iconsidered ifor idesign iof

ipavement ithickness. iThe ieffect iof imoisture ichange iis iopposite ito ithat iof itemperature ichange

iand iis inot inormally iconsidered icritical ito ithickness idesign. iThe iflexural istress iat ithe ibottom

ilayer iof ithe iconcrete islab iis ithe imaximum iduring ithe iday ihours iwhen ithe iaxle iloads iact imidway

ion ithe ipavement islab iwhile ithere iis ia ipositive itemperature igradient ias iillustrated iin iFig i2.2 iand

i2.3. iThis icondition iis ilikely ito iproduce ibottom-up icracking i(BUC).

Fig i2.2 iAxle iload iplaced iin ithe imiddle iof islab iduring imid-day
36
i Location iof iMaximum iTensile iStresses iat ibottom iof islab iwithout itied iconcrete ishoulders

Fig i2.3 i iPlacement iof iAxles ifor iMaximum iEdge iFlexural istress iat iBottom iof ithe iSlab
iwithout iTied iConcrete iShoulders

2.4.8.2 iLocations iof ipoints iof imaximum iflexural istress iat ithe ibottom iof ithe ipavement i1 islab
iwithout itied iconcrete ishoulder ifor isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxles iare ishown iin iFig i2.3. iThe

itire iimprints iare itangential ito ithe ilongitudinal iedge. iFor itied iconcrete ishoulders ialso, ithe

imaximum istress ioccurs iat ithe isame ilocations. iSingle iaxles icause ihighest istress ifollowed iby

itandem iand itridem iaxles irespectively. iSpacing ibetween iindividual iaxles ifor itandem iand itridem

iaxles ivaries ifrom i1.30 im ito iabout i1.40 im. iThere iis ipractically ino idifference iin istresses ifor iaxle

ispacing ibetween i1.30 im iand i1.40 im. iA iSpacing iof i1.30 im ihas ibeen iused iin ithese iguidelines ifor

istress icomputation.

2.4.8.3 iDuring ithe inight ihours, ithe itop isurface iis icooler ithan ithe ibottom isurface iand ithe iends iof
ithe islab icurl iup iresulting iin iloss iof isupport ifor ithe islab ias ishown iin iFig i2.4. iDue ito ithe irestraint

iprovided iby ithe iself-weight iof iconcrete iand iby ithe idowel iconnections, itemperature itensile

istresses iare icaused iat ithe itop. iFig i2.4. ishows ithe iplacement iof iaxle iloads iclose ito itransverse

iJoints iwhen ithere iis inegative itemperature igradient iduring inight iperiod icausing ihigh iflexural

istresses iin ithe itop ilayer ileading ito itop-down icracking. iPositioning iof iaxles iof idifferent

iconfigurations ion ithe islab iwith isuccessive iaxles iplaced iclose ito ithe itransverse ijoints iis ishown

iin iFig i2.5. iThese iaxle ipositions ican iinitiate itop-down icracking i(TDC) iduring ithe inight ihours

iwhen ithe iPavement ihas ithe itendency ito icurl iup. iBuilt-in ipermanent icurl iinduced iduring ithe

icuring iof ithe iconcrete islab ifurther iaggravates ithe iproblem.

37
Fig i2.4 i iPlacement iof iAxles iof ia iCommercial ivehicle ion ia iSlab icurled iDuring iNight iHour

Fig i2.5 i iDifferent iAxle iLoad iPosition iCausing iTensile iStresses iat ithe iTop i iFiber iof ithe i
iSlab i iwith iTied iConcrete iShoulder

2.4.9 iCalculation iof iFlexural iStress

2.4.9.1 iSince ithe iloads icausing ifailure iof ipavements iare imostly iapplied iby isingle, itandem,
itridem iand iother imultiple iaxles, istresses ishould ibe idetermined ifor ithe iconditions iillustrated iin

iFigures iThe i IITRIGID isoftware iused ifor ithe ipreparation iof ithe iprevious iversion iof i1RC:58 ifor

ithe icomputation iof iflexural istress iin ithe iedge iregion i17 idue ito isingle iand itandem iaxle iloads iwas

ibased ion iPicket iand iRay i(1951) i's iwork ion icomputation iof istresses iin iinfinite islabs. iThe

38
isoftware iis istill ivalid ifor icomputation iof iload istress iin ithe iedge iregion iof ipavements iwithout
itied iconcrete iShoulders iif ithere iis ino itemperature igradient iin ithe islab. iFinite iElement iMethod

i(FEM) iis imore

appropriate ifor istress icomputation ifor ia iwide ivariety iof iload iand itemperature, igeometry iand
iboundary iconditions. iFinite ielement ianalysis ihas ibeen icarried iout iusing i IITSLAB-11, ia

isoftware ideveloped i IIT iKharagpur, ito icompute iflexural istress idue ito ithe icombined iaction iof

iload i(single, itandem iand itridem iaxles) iand idifferent itemperature idifferentials i(positive iand

inegative).

2.4.9.2 iFor ian iaxle iload iof i200kN iand izero itemperature idifferential, iit ican ibe iseen ithat iflexural
istresses idecrease iwith iincrease iin ik- ivalues ifor iall ithicknesses. iif ithere iis ia ipositive itemperature

idifferential iof i17°C, ithe iwarping istresses iare ihigh ifor ithicker islabs iand iit iresults iin ihigher

iflexural istresses iin islabs ifor ihigher ik-values iwhile iflexural istresses iare ilower ifor ihigher ik-

values ifor ithinner islabs. iFor ia ithickness iin ithe iregion iof i270mm, ithere iis ipractically ino ieffect iof
imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction ion iflexural istresses. iIncreasing ithe isubgrade imodulus ito ihigh

ivalues idoes inot ihelp iin ithickness idesign idue ito ihigh icurling istresses icaused iby ia istiff isupport.

2.4.9.3 iThe ifollowing icombinations iof ipavements iand iloading iwere iconsidered ifor ithe ianalysis
iof ibottom-up iand itop-down icracking. iFor ibottom-up icracking icase, ithe icombination iof iload

iand ipositive inon-linear itemperature idifferential ihas ibeen iconsidered iwhereas ifor itop-down

icracking ianalysis, ithe icombination iof iload; iand inegative ilinear itemperature idifferential ihas

ibeen itaken. iFor ibottom-up icracking ianalysis, isingle/tandem iaxles ihave ibeen iplaced ion ithe islab

iin ithe ipositions iindicated. i In ibottom-up icracking icase, isingle iaxle iload icauses ithe ilargest iedge

istress ifollowed iby itandem iand itridem iaxles. iSince ithe istresses idue ito itridem iaxles iare ismall,

ithey iwere inot iconsidered ifor istress ianalysis ifor ibottom-up icracking icase. iAs iindicated, ionly

ione iaxle iof isingle/tandem/tridem iaxle iunits ihas ibeen iconsidered ifor ianalysis iin icombination

iwith ifront iaxle. iFront iaxle iweight ihas ibeen iassumed ito ibe i50 ipercent iof ithe iweight iof ione iaxle

iof ithe irear iaxle iunit i(single/tandem/tridem) ifor ianalysis.

2.4.10 iRecommended iProcedure ifor iSlab iDesign

2.4.10.1 iThe ifollowing isteps imay ibe ifollowed ifor idesign. iExamples iof idesign iof idifferent
icategories iof iconcrete ipavements iusing ithe icurrent iguidelines iare igiven iin iAppendix.

Step i1: iStipulate idesign ivalues ifor ithe ivarious iparameters i

Step i2: iSelect ia itrial idesign ithickness iof ipavement islab

Step i3: iCompute ithe irepetitions iof iaxle iloads iof idifferent imagnitudes iand idifferent icategories
iduring ithe idesign ilife.

39
step i4: iFind ithe iproportions iof iaxle iload irepetitions ioperating iduring ithe iday iand inight iperiods.

Step i5: iEstimate ithe iaxle iload irepetitions iin ithe ispecified isix-hour-period iduring ithe iday itime.
iThe imaximum itemperature idifferential iis iassumed ito iremain iconstant iduring ithe i6 ihours ifor

ianalysis iof ibottom-up icracking

Step i6: iEstimate ithe iaxle iload irepetitions iin ithe ispecified isix-hour iperiod iduring ithe inight ithe
imaximum inegative itemperature idifferential iduring inight iis itaken ias ihalf iof iday-time imaximum

itemperature idifferential. iBuilt iin inegative itemperature idifferential iof i50"C ideveloped iduring

ithe isetting iof ithe iconcrete iis ito ibe iadded ito ithe itemperature idifferential ifor ithe ianalysis iof itop-

idown icracking. iOnly ithose ivehicles iwith ispacing ibetween ithe ifront i(steering) iaxle iand ithe

itransverse ijoint ispacing ineed ito ibe iconsidered ifor itop-down icracking ianalysis.

Step7: iCompute ithe iflexural istresses iat ithe iedge idue ito ithe isingle iand itandem iaxle iloads ifor ithe
icombined ieffect iof iaxle iloads iand ipositive itemperature idifferential iduring ithe iday itime.

idetermine ithe istress iratio i(Flexural istress/ iModulus iof iRupture) iand ievaluate ithe icumulative

ifatigue idamage i(CFD) itor isingle iand itandem iaxle iloads. iSum iof ithe itwo iCFDs ishould ibe iless

ithan i1.0 ifor ithe islab ito ibe isafe iagainst ibottom-up icracking.

Step i8: iCompute ithe iflexural istress iin ithe icentral iarea iof ithe ipavement islab iwith ithe ifront iaxle
inear ithe iapproaching itransverse ijoint iand ithe irear iaxle iclose ito ithe ifollowing ijoint iin ithe isame

ipanel iunder inegative itemperature idifferential. iDetermine ithe istress iratio iand ievaluate ithe iCFD

ifor idifferent iaxle iloads ifor ithe ianalysis iof itop-down icracking. iCFD ishould ibe iless ithan i1.0 ifor

itop-down icracking idesign.

2.4.10.2 iThe ientire idesign iprocess iis iprogrammed ion ian iexcel isheet iand iis iincluded iin ia iCD
ienclosed iwith ithese iguidelines. iThis iwill ienable ithe idesigner ito imake iseveral itrials

iconveniently. iThe idesign ihas ito iprovide itraffic idata isuch ias irate iof itraffic igrowth, iaxle iload

ispectrum, iproportion iof isingle, itandem iand itridem iaxles, iproportion iof itrucks iwith iwheel ibase

iless ithan itransverse ijoint ispacing i(say i4.5 im). iAll irelevant itraffic iand imaterial idata iare iinputs ito

ithe iexcel isheet.

2.4.10.3 iIt iis iworth inoting ithat iconcrete istrength iincreases iwith iage. iThe iexcel isheets iprovide
idesigns iby iconsidering i90-day istrength iof ipaving iconcrete. iAny iother istrength iincluding ithat iof

ihigh-performance iconcrete ican ibe ithe iinput. i90-day istrength ican isafely ibe iused ibecause iof ithe

ifollowing iconsiderations.

40
 i) Design traffic for edge stress calculation is taken as 25 percent against only 2 to 3 percent
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

i axles ithat iactually imove inear ithe iedge.

ii) Assumption of low terminal load transfer efficiency at transverse and longitudinal joints
i i i i i i i i i i i

ifor istress icalculation. iLoad iinduced iflexural istress iin ithe iearly iyears iof ipavements iwill
ionly ibe ia iFraction iof icomputed istress. iThe iconservative iassumption iof ihighest

itemperature idifferential ibeing iconstant ifor i6 ihours, iboth iduring ithe iday imid inight ihours

ithroughout ithe idesign iperiod ileads ito ihigh icomputed iCFD.

Conservative irecommendation iof idowel ibar idesign. iThere iis ihardly iany igap ibetween ithe
iconcrete islabs iat itransverse ijoints idue ito ithe iabsence iof iexpansion ijoints ibut ia igap iof i5mm iis

iassumed iin ithe idesign iof idowel ibar. iThe imoisture igradient iacross ithe idepth iof ithe iconcrete iis

iopposite ito ithat iof ithe itemperature. igradient iand ihence ithe icurling icaused iby itemperature

igradient iis inullified ito isome iextent iby ithe iwarping icaused iby ithe imoisture igradient.

2.4.11 iDesign iof i iJoints

2.4.11.1 iSpacing iand i iLayout

(A). iGreat icare iis ineeded iin ithe idesign iand iconstruction iof ijoints iin icement iconcrete ipavements,
ias ithese iare icritical ilocations ihaving isignificant ieffect ion ithe ipavement iperformance. iThe ijoints

ialso ineed ito ibe ieffectively isealed iand imaintained iwell.

(B). iCement iConcrete iPavements ihave itransverse iand ilongitudinal ijoints. iDifferent itypes iof
itransverse ijoints iare:

1. iContraction ijoints

2. iConstruction ijoints

3. iExpansion ijoint

4. iLongitudinal ijoint

(C). iContraction ijoints iare itransverse ijoints iwhich irelieve ithe itensile istresses iin iconcrete
ipavements. iThe ijoint ispacing iof ia iconcrete ipavement idepends iupon ithe itype iof icoarse

iaggregates iand ithe iaverage itemperature ifluctuation iin idifferent iseasons. iThe ispacing iof

icontraction ijoints ishould ibe ilimited ito i4.5 im ito iprevent itop idown icracking iduring ithe inight

ihours,

41
(D). iExpansion ijoints iare itransverse ijoints ito iallow iexpansion iof iconcrete islab idue ito irise iin
iaverage itemperature iin isummer imonths. iThese ijoints iare idifficult ito imaintain iand ithey i get

ifilled iup iwith idirt iand

other iincompressible imaterials icausing ilocking iof ithe ijoints iand ipreventing iexpansion iof
iconcrete islabs. iThey iare, itherefore, ino ilonger iin iuse iexcept inear ipermanent istructure ilike

ibridges iand iculverts.

(E). iConstruction ijoints ishould, ias ifar ias ipossible, ibe iplaced iat ithe ilocation iof icontraction ijoints
iexcept iin icase iof iemergency iwhen ia ikey ijoint imay ibe iused.

i(F). ilongitudinal ijoints iare irequired iin ipavements iof iwidth igreater ithan i4.5 im ito iallow ifor
itransverse icontraction iand iwarping,

2.4.11.2 iLoad iTransfer iat iTransverse iJoints

(A). iLoad itransfer ito irelieve ipart iof ithe iload istresses iin iedge iand icorner iregions iof ipavement
islab iat itransverse ijoints iis iprovided iby imeans iof imild isteel iround idowel ibars. i In icoastal iand

ihigh iRainfall iareas icoated/corrosion iresistant idowel ibars iare ioften iused ito iprovide ilong iterm

iload itransfer. iThe icoating imay ibe izinc ior ilead ibased ipaint ior iepoxy icoating. iDowel ibars ienable

iriding iquality ito ibe imaintained iby ipreventing ifaulting iat ithe ijoints. iFor igeneral iprovisions iin

irespect iof idowel ibars, istipulations ilaid idown iin iIRC: i15 imay ibe ifollowed. iMore idowel ibars

imay ibe iprovided iunder ithe iwheel ipath iof iheavy i commercial ivehicles iin ithe ilight iof ipast

iexperience. iDesigner imay iuse ihis/her idiscretion iafter ia istudy iof ithe itraffic ipattern.

(B). iFrom ithe iexperience igained iall iover ithe iworld, iit iis ifound ithat iit iis ionly ithe ibearing istress
iin ithe iconcrete ithat iis iresponsible ifor ithe iperformance iof idowel ibars iat ithe ijoints. iHigh iconcrete

ibearing istress ican ifracture ithe iconcrete isurrounding ithe idowel ibars, ileading i to ithe ilooseness iof

ithe idowel ibar iand ithe ideterioration iof ithe iload itransfer isystem iwith ieventual ifaulting iof ithe

islab. iLarger idiameter idowel ibars iare ifound ito iprovide ibetter iperformance. iMaximum ibearing

istress i(Fb max) ibetween ithe iconcrete iand idowel ibar iis iobtained ifrom iEquation i(2.15).
i

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Fb max = i i i i ikinds P1 (2+ iβ) i4 iβ3E iI i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……. i(2.15)

i i i i

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

β= irelative istiffness iof ithe ibar iembedded iin iconcrete, iin imm; i i

kinds i= imodulus iof idowel isupport, iMPa/m

b i=diameter iof ithe idowel, imm

z= ijoint iwidth i(5 imm ifor icontraction ijoint iand i20 imm ifor iexpansion ijoint), iin imm

E i= imodulus iof ithe ielasticity iof ithe idowel ibar, iMPa

I i=moment iof iinertia iof ithe idowel, imm

42
P1 i= iload itransferred iby idesign idowel ibar, ikN

(C). iThe imodulus iof idowel isupport iranges ifrom i80,000 ito i415,000MPa/m. iA itypical ivalue
i415000MPa imay ibe iadopted ifor idesign isince ionly ithe ifourth iroot iof ithe ik-value iaffects ithe

icomputation iof iβ. i

Each idowel ibars ishould ibe idesigned ifor ithe imaximum iload ibeing itransferred iby iit ifor ithe
iallowable ibearing ipressure. iEquation i(2.15), ibased ion ithe iexpression igiven iby ithe iAmerican

i Institute i(ACI) iCommittee-225 imay ihe iused ifor icalculation ithe iallowable ibearing istress ion

iconcrete.

Where,

Fb = iallowable ibearing istress, iMPa i

i

bd i=dowel idiameter, imm

fa=characteristic icompressive istrength iof ithe iconcrete

(D). iSince ithe iinitial iload itransfer iefficiency i(LTE) iat ithe itransverse ijoint iis ialmost i100 ipercent
iand iit itakes ia ilong itime ifor ithe i LTE ito idecrease iwith itraffic irepetitions, i90 idays icompressive

istrength ican isafely ibe iused ifor ithe icomputation iof iallowable iBearing istress.

(E). iFor iheavy itraffic, igreater ithan i450 iCVPD, idowels iare ito ibe iprovided iat ithe icontraction
ijoints isince iaggregate iinter-lock icannot ibe irelied iupon ito ieffect iload itransfer iacross ithe ijoint ito

iprevent ifaulting idue ito ithe irepeated iloading iof iheavy iaxles. iJoint iwidths iof i5 imm iand i20 imm

imay ibe itaken ifor istress icomputation iin idowel ibar iat icontraction iand iexpansion ijoint

irespectively. iRecommended idiameter iand ilength iof idowel ibars iare igiven iin iTable i2.6

Table i2.6 i i iDowel ibar idetails

Slab ithickness imm Diameter imm Length imm i Spacing imm

200 25 360 300

230 30 400 300

250 32 450 300

280 36 450 300

300 38 500 300

350 38 500 300

43
(F). iDowel iGroup iAction

When iloads iare iapplied iat ia ijoint, ia iportion iof ithe iload iis itransferred ito ithe iother iside
iof ithe islab ithrough ithe idowel ibars. iIf ithe iload iis inear ithe ijoint iof ia ipavement islab itied ito ia

iconcrete ishoulder, ia ipart iof ithe iload iis itransferred ito ithe ishoulder ialso. i

Repeated iloading icauses isome ilooseness ibetween ithe idowel ibars iand ithe iconcrete
i slab iand irecent istudies iindicate ithat ithe idowel ibars iwithin ia idistance iof ione iAssuming ia ilinear
i variation iof ithe iload icarried iby idifferent idowel ibars iwithin i1.0, ithe imaximum iload icarried iby ia
i dowel ibar ican ibe icomputed.

2.4.12 iTie iBars ifor iLongitudinal iJoint

The ilongitudinal ijoint iis iexpected ito iopen iup i(in iany icase iof iheavy itraffic, iexpansive,
isubgrades) iand itie ibars imay ibe iprovided iin iaccordance iwith ithe itraffic, iexpansive

irecommendation iof i IRC: i15. iFor ithe isake iof iconvenience iof ithe idesigner idesign iprocedure

irecommended iin iIRC: i15 iis igiven ihere.

2.4.12.1 Design iof i iTie i iBars

(A). iThe iarea iof isteel irequired iper imeter ilength iof ijoint imay ibe icomputed iusing iEquation
i(2.16).

In iwhich,

As = ibfw i/Sst
ii …………. i2.16
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i

As i= iarea iof isteel iin imm2, irequired iper im ilength iof ijoint i

b i= ilane iwidth iin imeters

f=coefficient iof ifriction ibetween ipavement iand ithe isub ibase/base i(usually itaken ias i1.5) i

W i= iweight iof islab iin ikN/rn2 iand

Sst i= iallowable iworking istress iof isteel iin iMPa

(B). iThe ilength iof iany itie ibar ishould ibe iat ileast itwice ithat irequired ito idevelop ia ibond istrength
iequal ito ithe iworking istress iof ithe isteel. iThe iformula ifor iestimating ithe ilength iof itie ibar iis igiven

ias iEquation i(2.17).

In iwhich:

L i= i2 iSst Acs iB* iPptb i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i………… i2.17 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

i

iiii

L=Length iof itie ibar, iin imm i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Sst= iAllowable iworking istress iin isteel(MPa) i

44
Acs=Cross isectional iof ione itie ibar, iin imm2

Pptb=Perimeter iof itie ibar, iin imm

B*=Permissible ibond istress iof iconcrete

i (i) ifor ideformed itie ibars= i2046 iMPa, i

(ii) ifor iplain itie ibars=1.75 iMPa

(C). iTo ipermit iwarping iat ithe ijoint, ithe imaximum idiameter iof itie ibars imay ibe ilimited ito i16 imm,
iand ito iavoid iconcentration iof itensile istress ithey ishould inot ibe ispaced imore ithan i750 imm iapart.

iThe icalculated ilength, iL, imay ibe iincreased iby i50 ito i80 imm ito iaccount ifor iany iinaccuracy ithat

imay ioccur iin ithe iplacement iduring iconstruction.

(D). iReinforced iCement iConcrete ineeds ito ibe iprovided iin ipavement ipanels iin icurved iPortions
iof iradius iless ithan i45 im iand iat iunderpasses, ion isteep igradients, iand ifor islabs ihaving iman-hole

icover islab ihaving iL/B i(length ito ibreadth) iratio imore ithan i1.5 iand iin iother isimilar isituations.

(E). iTypical itie ibar idetails ifor iuse iat icentral ilongitudinal ijoint iin idouble-lane irigid ipavements
iwith ia ilane iwidth iof i3.50 imeter igiven iin iTable i2.7 iThe isame ispecifications imay ibe iused ifor ithe

itied iconcrete ishoulder ialso.

Table i2.7 i iDetails iof iTie iBars ifor iLongitudinal iJoint iof iTwo iLane iRigid iPavements

Slab Diameter Spacing iin Spacing iin Min. ilength Min. ilength
ithickness iplain ibars ideformed iin iplain iin ideformed

imm imm ibars imm ibars ibars(mm)

(mm) i

150 8 330 530 440 480

10 520 830 510 560

200 10 390 620 510 560

12 560 900 580 640

250 12 450 720 580 640

300 12 370 600 580 640

16 660 1060 720 800

350 12 320 510 580 640

16 570 910 720 800

45
 2.4.13 iRegression iEquations ifor iFlexural iStress iin iConcrete iSlab

Regressions iequations iare igiven iin ithis iappendix ifor iestimation iof ithe imaximum
itensile istress iin ithe islab iin ithe iedge iregion idue ito ithe icombined ieffect iof iaxle iloads iand

itemperature idifferential. iThe iequations iare igiven ifor ibottom-up iFor icracking icase iillustrated

ithrough iFigs. i2.2 iand i2.3 iand ifor itop-downcase idepicted iin iFigs. i2.4 iand i2.5. iFlexural istress ifor

ibottom-up icase ihas ibeen icomputed ifor inon-linear ipositive itemperature idifferential ioccurring iin

ithe islab iduring idaytime.

The istress itor itop idown icracking icase iis ifor ithe icombination iof iaxle iloads iand ilinear
inegative itemperature idifferential iin ithe islab ioccurring iduring inight itime. iFor ithe icomputation

iof istress ifor ibottom-up icracking ianalysis, ionly ithe irear iaxle iwith itwo iwheels ion ieither iside iof

ieach iaxle ihave ibeen iconsidered ias ithe ifront iaxles ido inot icontribute ito iany isignificant ifatigue

idamage. iFor itop-down, icracking. irear iaxle iis iconsidered iat ione iend iand ithe ifront iaxle iat ithe

iother iend. iOnly ione iaxle iof ithe itandem iand itridem iaxles iis iassumed ito ibe iplaced ion ithe islab

iunder iconsideration. iThus, ifor ia itandem iaxle, i50 ipercent iof ithe itandem iaxle iweight iis

iconsidered ifor ianalysis. iFor ia itridem iaxle i33 ipercent iof ithe itridem iaxle iweight imay ibe itaken ifor

ianalysis. iThe icorresponding ifront iaxle iis itaken ias i50 ipercent iof ithe irear iaxle iaxle, i(25 ipercent

iof irear itandem iaxle iand ione isixth iof irear itridem iaxle).

2.4.13.1Expressions i ifor i imaximum i itensile istress iat ithe ibottom iof islab(for ibottom iup icracking
icase)

1.Single iaxle- iPavement iwith itied iconcrete ishoulders

(a). ik<80 iMPa/m

S i= i0.008 i-6.12 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i2.36 iPh/ i(kl4) i+ i0.0266AT i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i………………2.18

(b). ik> i80 iMPa/m, ik<150 iMPa/m

S i= i0.08 i- i9.69 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i2.09 iPh/ i(kl4) i+ i0.0409∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……………….2.19

(c). ik>150 iMPa/m

S i= i0.042 i+ i3.26 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i1.62 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0522∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……………….2.20

2.Single iaxle- iPavement iwithout iconcrete ishoulders

(a). ik< i80 iMPa/ im

S i= i- i0.149 i-2.60 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i3.13 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0297∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i………………..2.21

(b). ik> i80 iMPa/m, ik<150 iMPa/m

S i= i- i0.119 i- i2.99 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i2.78 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0456 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i………………..2.22 i i i

(c) ik> i150 iMPa/m

46
S i= i0.238 i+ i7.02 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i2.41 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0585 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………2.23 i i i i i i
i

3.Tandem iaxle- iPavement iwith itied iconcrete ishoulders

(a). ik<80 iMPa/m

S i= i- i0.188 i+ i0.93 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i1.025 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0207 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………2.24 i

(b). ik> i80 iMPa/m, ik<150 iMPa/m

S i= i- i0.174 i+ i1.21 i(yh2/kl2)+0.87 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0364 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………2.25

(c). ik> i i150 iMPa/m

S i= i- i0.210 i+ i3.88 i(yh2/k12) i+ i0.73 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0506 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………2.26 i i i

4.Tandem iaxle i- iPavement iwithout iconcrete ishoulders

(a). ik<80 iMPa/m

S i= i- i0.223 i+ i2. i73 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i1.335 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0229 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………2.27 i

(b). ik> i80 iMPa/m, ik<150 iMPa/m

S i= i- i0.276 i+5.78 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i1.14 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0404 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………..2.28

(c). ik> i150 iMPa/m

S i= i- i0.3 i+ i9.88 i(yh2/kl2) i+ i0.965 iPh/(kl4) i+ i0.0543 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i……………………2.29 i i i

ii

2.4.13.2 iExpression iFor iMaximum iTensile iStress iAt iThe iTop iOf iThe iSlab i(For iTop-Down
iCracking iCase)

For ithe ianalysis iof itop-down icracking, ionly irear iaxle iload iis ithe iinput. iFront iaxle iload iis

assumed ito ibe i50% iof ithe irear iaxle iload i(tandem/tridem).

S i= i-0.219 i+ i1.6868Ph/kl4 i+ i168.48h2/kl2+ i0.1089 i∆T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i…………………2.30

The isymbols iin ithe iequations ihave ithe ifollowing imeaning:

s= iflexural istress iin islab, iMPa

∆T-. iminimum itemperature idifferential iin i°C iduring iday itime ifor ibottom-up icracking isum iof
ithe imaximum inight itime inegative itemperature idifferential iand ibuilt-in inegative itemperature

idifferential iin i°C ifor itop-down icracking

h= ithickness iof islab

k i=effective imodulus iof isubgrade ireaction iof ifoundation, iMPa/m

L i=radius iof irelative istiffness= i(Eh3/(12k( i1-µ2))^0.25

47
E i=elastic imodulus iof iconcrete, iMPa

µ i= iPoisson's iratio iof iconcrete

y i= iunit iweight iof iconcrete i(24 ikN/m3)

p i= iFor iBottom-up icracking ianalysis: i- isingle/tandem irear iaxle iload i(kN). i

No ifatigue idamage iestimated ifor ifront i(steering) iaxles ifor ibottom-up icracking icase

For iTop-down icracking ianalysis: i- i100 ipercent iof irear isingle iaxle, i50 ipercent iof irear
itandem iaxle, iand i33 ipercent iof irear itridem iaxle. iNo ifront iaxle iweight iis irequired ito ibe igiven ias

iinput ifor itop-down icracking icase. i50 ipercent iof irear isingle iaxle, i25 ipercent iof irear itandem iaxle,

i16.5 ipercent iof irear itridem iaxle, ihas ibeen iconsidered iin ithe ifinite ielement ianalysis ias ithe ifront

iaxle iweights ifor isingle, itandem iand itridem irear iaxles irespectively.

B i= i0.66 ifor itransverse ijoint iwith idowel ibars i(load itransfer iefficiency iwas itaken ias i50 ipercent).

B= i0.90 ifor itransverse ijoint iwithout idowel ibars i(load itransfer iefficiency iwas itaken ias i10
ipercent.

48
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 GENERAL

The project design and cost estimation of a flexible and rigid pavement is done using
IRC 37:2012 and IRC 58:2015 respectively. These guidelines have been discussed in
previous chapter. The cost estimation has been done for both the cases with a view to
determine Economy of Flexible Pavement construction versus Rigid Pavement construction.

The cost estimation is carried out as per the MoRTH Standard Data Book. The rates
of materials and labour have been ascertained from the local PWD B&R Office and the D.C.
Office respectively whereas cost of machinery is taken from the data book with due inflation.

The Methodology of the project is shown in Fig 3.1 in the form of a Flow Diagram.

Topic Selection

Review of Literature

Study of IRC Guidelines

Input Traffic and Soil Data

Thickness Design of Flexible and Rigid by

relevant IRC Guidelines

Effect on thickness with Varying CBR and

Initial Traffic

Cost Estimation

Evolving Economy of Flexible and Rigid

Pavement

49
 Conclusion
Fig.3.1 Methodology of Project

3.2 INPUT PARAMETERS

The standard design catalogues given in IRC code have been used to adopt the design
thickness values for CBR values of the subgrade 3,4,6,8 percent and for traffic of
500,2000,4000,6000, Commercial Vehicles Per Day(CVPD) in both directions for 7 meters
wide dual carriageway road assumed to be located in Kurukshetra, Haryana. Cost Estimation
is done for 7 meters width and 1 km road length in Kurukshetra, Haryana. Note that Earthen
shoulders have been considered in Rigid Pavement.

3.3 DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Flexible Pavement is designed using IRC 37:2012 guidelines which we have already
discussed in previous chapter.

3.4 DESIGN OF RIGID PAVEMENT

Rigid Pavement is designed using IRC 58:2015 guidelines we have already discussed
in previous chapter.

3.5 COST ESTIMATION

Cost estimation for both cases of Flexible and Rigid Pavements has been done based
upon rate analysis as per standard data book of MoRTH. The rate analyses for various items of
design such as sub-grade preparation, granular sub base, wet mix macadam, dense mix
macadam, bituminous concrete, dry lean concrete (DLC) and PQC (pavement quality concrete,
grade M-40) have been done as per data book following the rates of labour, materials and
machinery as applicable for Kurukshetra, Haryana. The rates of labour have been taken from
approved rate of the D.C. Office, the rates of material have been taken from PWD B&R
Kurukshetra as per approved rates of Haryana Government and rates of machinery have taken
from standard data book assuming suitable inflation. The rates of these items as worked out in
rate analyses which are then used to estimate cost of 7.0 meters wide and 1 km long pavement.
The cost estimation is used to determine economy of flexible and rigid pavement for given
conditions of subgrade strength and traffic.

50
 Items Source

Labour D.C. Office, Kurukshetra

Materials Cost PWD, Haryana Government

Table 3.1 Source of
Machinery Cost MoRTH Data Book (2003)
Input Rates

51
 CHAPTER-4

PAVEMENT DESIGN

4.1 GENERAL

Indian Roads Congress has specified the design procedures for flexible pavements
based on CBR values. The pavement designs given in IRC-37-2012 are based upon empirical-
mechanistic approach. The design has been done adopting conventional granular layers in sub
base and base course of the pavement for varying values of effective CBR of subgrade as 3%,
4%, 6% and 8%, and Initial Traffic values of 500, 2000, 4000 and 6000 CVPD. The design of
rigid pavement is given in IRC:58-2015 guidelines. The design of rigid pavement has been
done for the same values of CBR of subgrade and same initial traffic as for flexible pavement.
The rigid pavement has been designed with earthen shoulders.

4.2 DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

GIVEN DATA

i. Four lane divided carriageway

ii. Initial traffic in year of completion of construction = 5000 CVPD

iv. Traffic Growth Rate per annum = 6%

v. Design life = 20 years

vi. Vehicle damage factor (based on type of Terrain and Traffic) = 4.5

vii. Lane Distribution Factor = 0.75

viii. Effective CBR of subgrade =3%

DESIGN CALCULATIONS:-

Design Traffic:-

52
From this formula we get N = 35.245 msa

Resilient Modulus of Compacted Subgrade and Bituminous Layer:-MR_subgrade of the

compacted subgrade = 17.6*70.64 = 66.6 MPa

MR_Bituminous Layer of BC and DBM for VG 30 bitumen [taking 25ºC as the most
appropriate AAPT (annual average pavement temperature) for plains of India] =3000 MPa

Bituminous Pavements with Untreated Granular layer

An example of the design has been shown below for one of the cases i.e. CBR 3% and Initial
Traffic 2000 CVPD.

Thickness of Pavement Layers

From IRC37, corresponding to effective CBR of 3% and Traffic 35.245msa :-

BC = 40 mm

DBM = 138.69 mm

G. BASE = 250 mm

GSB = 380 mm

Resilient Modulus of Granular Layer

MR_granular layer = 0.2*(380+250)0.45*66.6 = 208.19 MPa

Calculations of Allowable Strains

Allowable horizontal tensile strain in bituminous layer, (Ɛt)

53
Va = 3% , Vb= 13 %

MR_Bituminous Layer =3000 MPa (corresponding to VG 30 and 25ºC)

M = 0.5929

C = 10M = 3.9165

Using, Nf = 0.5161* C*10-4*[1/Ɛt] 3.89* [1/ MR]0.854

Ɛt = 2.22* 10-4

Allowable Vertical strain on subgrade, (Ɛv)

Using, N(for 90% reliability level) = 1.41*10-8*[1/ Ɛv ]4.5337

Ɛv = 4.014*10-4

Computation of Actual Strains from IIT PAVE Software

Input parameters for IIT PAVE software for the conventional case of bituminous pavements
with untreated granular layer are as follows:-

i. No. of layers - 3

ii. Material properties in thickness of layers

Elastic Modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Thickness (mm)

Layer 1 3000 0.4 178.69

Layer 2 208.19 0.35 630

Layer 3 66.6 0.25

iii. Wheel load(N) = 20500

iv. Tyre Pressure (MPa) = 0.56

v. Analysis point = 3

Depth (mm) Radius (mm)

54
 Point 1 178.69 0

Point 2 178.69 155

Point 3 808.69 0

vi. Wheel set = 2

vii. Computation of actual horizontal tensile strain in Bituminous Layer and actual vertical
compressive strain on the top of subgrade using IIT PAVE software can be read from the result
screen as shown in Fig 4.1 :-

Fig. 4.1 Output screen of IITPAVE

Here,

Maximum Horizontal Tensile Strain in Bituminous Layer = 0.1503E-03

Maximum Vertical Compressive Strain on the Subgrade = -0.3458E-03

Comparison of Strains

The actual value of strains as calculated from IIT PAVE software should be less than
the permissible values of the strains as calculated from empirical formulas suggested by
IRC:37-2012. The comparison of these values is as shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Comparison of Results

Allowable Strain Actual Strain Remarks

55
 Horizontal Tensile 2.22 * 10-4 1.503 * 10-4 SAFE
Strain in Bituminous
Layer

Vertical 4.014 * 10-4 3.458 * 10-4 SAFE

Compressive Strain
on the Subgrade

The strains are in permissible limit, hence the pavement design is Safe.

Further, for all the cases of varying traffic and CBR values, the results of horizontal
tensile strain and vertical compressive strains have been compared in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Comparison of Results for all cases

Vertical Strain (x10-4) Tangential Strain (x10-4)

Initial
CBR Remarks
Traffic Permissible Actual Permissible Actual
Strain Strain Strain Strain

500 6.922 2.38 3.31 2.96 SAFE

2000 4.014 3.458 2.22 1.5 SAFE

3%
4000 3.259 3.06 1.74 1.63 SAFE

6000 2.981 2.76 1.57 1.46 SAFE

500 6.922 4.19 3.315 2.83 SAFE

2000 4.014 3.089 2.22 1.82 SAFE

4%
4000 3.259 2.86 1.74 1.63 SAFE

6000 2.981 2.67 1.57 1.48 SAFE

500 6.922 4.04 3.31 2.8 SAFE

2000 4.014 1.67 2.22 1.95 SAFE

6%
4000 3.259 2.75 1.74 1.65 SAFE

6000 2.981 2.56 1.57 1.49 SAFE

56
 500 6.922 4.15 3.31 2.71 SAFE

2000 4.014 3.16 2.22 1.93 SAFE

8%
4000 3.259 1.58 1.74 1.68 SAFE

6000 2.981 1.42 1.57 1.48 SAFE

Similarly, flexible pavement has been designed for all other values of effective CBR
of subgrade as 3%, 4%, 6% and 8% and initial traffic as 500, 2000, 4000, 6000 CVPD.

The design thickness of all the layers for the above cases is shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Thickness of layers for all cases

Initial Traffic Thickness (mm)

CBR Total Thickness (mm)
(CVPD) BC DBM G. Base GSB

500 36.433 82.866 250 369.3 738.598

2000 40 138.688 250 380 808.688

3
4000 48.126 151.252 250 380 829.378

6000 50 165.7895 250 380 845.7895

500 36.433 75.244 250 319.3 680.976

2000 40 130 250 330 750

4
4000 48.126 138.126 250 330 766.252

6000 50 150.7835 250 330 780.7835

500 36.433 61.433 250 248.1 595.976

2000 40 106.311 250 260 656.311

6
4000 48.126 122.189 250 260 680.315

6000 50 135.7835 250 260 695.7835

500 36.433 57.622 250 188.1 532.165

8 2000 40 100 250 200 590

4000 48.126 112.189 250 200 610.315

57
 6000 50 129.378 250 200 629.378

4.2.1 Effect of effective CBR of Subgrade on Design of Flexible Pavement

The thickness of different layers of the pavement changes with change in the effective CBR of
subgrade.

CBR-Thickness (BC)
60

50
Thickness (mm)

40

30

20

10

0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

500 CVPD 2000 CVPD 4000 CVPD 6000 CVPD

Fig. 4.2 CBR vs Thickness of BC

From fig. 4.2 it can be observed that any change in the effective CBR of the subgrade has no
effect on the thickness of the Bituminous Concrete (BC) layer.

CBR-Thickness (DBM)
180
160
140
Thickness (mm)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade(%)

500 CVPD 2000 CVPD 4000 CVPD 6000 CVPD

Fig. 4.3 CBR vs Thickness of DBM

58
From fig. 4.3 it can be observed that the thickness of the dense bituminous macadam (DBM)
decreases with increase in the effective CBR of the subgrade.

CBR-Thickness (G. Base)

300

250
Thickness (mm)

200

150

100

50

0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

500 CVPD 2000 CVPD 4000 CVPD 6000 CVPD

Fig. 4.4 CBR vs Thickness of G. Base

From fig. 4.4 it can be observed that any change in the effective CBR of the subgrade has no
effect on the thickness of granular base (G. Base) layer.

CBR-Thickness (GSB)
400
350
300
Thickness (mm)

250
200
150
100
50
0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

500 CVPD 2000 CVPD 4000 CVPD 6000 CVPD

Fig. 4.5 CBR vs Thickness of GSB

59
From fig. 4.5 it can be observed that the thickness of granular sub-base (GSB) layer decreases
with increase in the effective CBR of the subgrade.

CBR-Total Thickness
1000

800
Thickness (mm)

600

400

200

0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

500 CVPD 2000 CVPD 4000 CVPD 6000 CVPD

Fig. 4.6 CBR vs Total Thickness

From fig. 4.6 it can be observed that the total thickness of the flexible pavement decreases with
increase in the effective CBR of the subgrade.

4.2.2 Effect of Traffic on Design of Flexible Pavement

The thickness of different layers of the flexible pavement change with change in the initial
traffic.

60
 Traffic-Thickness(BC)
60
50
Thickness (mm)
40
30
20
10
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

CBR=3 CBR=4 CBR=6 CBR=8

Fig. 4.7 Traffic vs Thickness of BC

From fig. 4.7 it can be observed that the thickness of bituminous concrete (BC) layer increases
with increase in initial traffic.

Traffic-Thickness(DBM)
200
Thickness (mm)

150

100

50

0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

CBR=3 CBR=4 CBR=6 CBR=8

Fig. 4.8 Traffic vs Thickness of DBM

From fig. 4.8 it can be observed that the thickness of dense bituminous mecadam (DBM)
increases with increase in initial traffic.

61
 Traffic-Thickness(G.Base)
300

250
Thickness (mm)
200

150

100

50

0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

CBR=3 CBR=4 CBR=6 CBR=8

Fig. 4.9 Traffic vs Thickness of G.Base

From fig. 4.9 it can be observed that any change in initial traffic has no effect on the thickness
of granular base (G. Base) layer.

Traffic-Thickness(GSB)
400
350
300
Thickness (mm)

250
200
150
100
50
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

CBR=3 CBR=4 CBR=6 CBR=8

Fig. 4.10 Traffic vs Thickness of GSB

From fig. 4.10 it can be observed that there is a slight increase in the thickness of granular sub-
base (GSB) when traffic varies from 500 CVPD to 2000 CVPD but this increase gets nullified
when the value of initial traffic exceeds 2000 CVPD.

62
 Traffic-Total Thickness
900
800
700
Thickness (mm)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

CBR=3 CBR=4 CBR=6 CBR=8

Fig. 4.11 Traffic vs Total Thickness

From fig. 4.11 it can be observed that the total thickness of the flexible pavement increases
with increase in the initial traffic.

4.3 DESIGN OF RIGID PAVEMENT

4.3.1 Introduction

In this study, rigid pavement for dual carriageway road consists of dowel and tie bars,
without tied concrete shoulders has been designed for varying initial traffic and subgrade
strength using IRC 58: 2015.

4.3.2 Design Parameters

4.3.2.1 Given Traffic Data

The traffic on the road mainly consists of:

a. Single axle load vehicles

b. Tandem axle load vehicles

c. Tridem axle load vehicles.

Details of axle load spectrum of rear single, tandem and tridem axles are given in table 4.4.

63
 Table 4.4 Axle load spectrum

Single Axle Tandem Axle Tridem Axle

Axle Load Frequency Axle load Frequency Axle load Frequency

Class (kN) (% of axles) class (kN) (% of axles) class (kN) (% of axles)

185-195 18.15 380-400 14.5 530-560 5.23

175-185 17.43 360-380 10.5 500-530 4.85

165-175 18.27 340-360 3.63 470-500 3.44

155-165 12.98 320-340 2.5 440-470 7.12

145-155 2.98 300-320 2.69 410-440 10.11

135-145 2.62 280-300 1.26 380-410 12.01

125-135 2.62 260-280 3.9 350-380 15.57

115-125 2.65 240-260 5.19 320-350 13.28

105-115 2.65 220-240 6.3 290-380 4.55

95-105 3.25 200-220 6.4 260-290 3.16

85-95 3.25 180-200 8.9 230-260 3.1

<85 14.15 <180 34.23 <230 17.58

100 100 100

4.3.2.2 Design Data

Number of lanes = 2

Design period (years) = 30

Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic = 0.075

Two-way commercial traffic volume per day = 6000 CVPD

% of traffic in predominant direction = 50%

Average number of axle per commercial vehicle = 2.35

Transverse joint spacing (m) = 4.5

64
Lane width (m) = 3.5

Percentage contribution of different types of Axle categories are given in table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Proportion of Axle Category

Axle Type Proportion of Axle Category

Front (steering) single 0.45

Rear Single 0.15

Tandem 0.25

Tridem 0.15

% of traffic in terms of msa with spacing between font axle and first rear axle < 4.5m = 55%

% of traffic in terms of msa during night hours (6pm to 6am) = 60%

4.3.3 Solution:-

Selection of modulus of subgrade reaction

 Effective CBR of compacted subgrade 8%

 Modulus of subgrade reaction 35 MPa/m

 Thickness of Granular Subbase 150 mm

 Thickness of DLC Subbase with a minimum 7 days compressive 150 mm

strength of 7 MPa

 Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of combines foundation of 285 MPa/m

subgrade + granular subbase and DLC subbase

Selection of flexural strength of concrete

 28 day compressive strength of cement concrete 40 MPa

 90 day compressive strength of cement concrete 48 MPa

 28 day flexural strength of cement concrete 4.4 MPa

65
  90 day flexural strength of cement concrete 4.9 MPa

Selection of Design Traffic for Fatigue Analysis

 Total two-way commercial vehicles during design period, C =

365*6000*(1+.075)30/.075 = 226,444,692 CVs

 Total two-way axle load repetitions during design period = 226,444,692*2.35

= 532,145,025 axles

 Number of axles in predominant direction = 532,145,025*0.5 = 266,072,513 axles

 Design traffic after adjusting for lateral placement of axles (25% of predominant
direction traffic for multi-lane highways) = 266,072,513*0.25 = 66,518,128 axles

 Night time (12-hour) design axle repetitions = 66,518,128*0.6 = 39,910,877

 Day time (12-hour) design axle repetitions = 66,518,128*(1-0.6) = 26,607,251

 Day time 6-hour (10am-4pm) axle load repetitions = 26,607,251/2 = 13,309,626

 Hence, design number of axle load repetitions for Bottom-up cracking analysis =
13,309,626

 Night-time 6-hour (12am-6am) axle load repetitions = 39,910,877/2 = 19,955,439

 6-hour night time design axle load repetitions for Top-down cracking analysis
=19,955,439*0.55 = 10,975,491 (wheel base < 4.5 m)

 The axle load category-wise design axle load repetitions for bottom-up and top-down
fatigue cracking analysis are given table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Axle load category-wise design

Axle Category Proportion of Axle Category wise Axle Category wise axle
Category repetitions for BUC repetitions for TDC
analysis analysis

Front (steering) single 0.45 498886 411581

Rear Single 0.15 166295 137194

Tandem 0.25 277159 228656

Tridem 0.15 166295 137194

66
Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis (CFD) for BUC and TDC and Selection of Slab
Thickness

 Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation, k 173 MPa/m

 Poisson’s ratio of concrete 0.15

 Unit weight of concrete 24 kN/m3

 Design flexural strength of concrete 4.9 MPa

 Maximum day time Temperature differential in slab (BUC) 16.8oC

 Night time Temperature differential in slab (TDC) 13.4oC

 Thickness of slab 0.330 m

Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis for Bottom-Up Cracking

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for bottom-up cracking due to rear single axles
is given in table 4.7.

Table 4.7 CFD analysis for BUC due to rear single axles

BUC fatigue analysis for day-time (6-hour) traffic & positive temperature differential

Rear Single Axles

Expected Flexural Stress Stress Ratio Allowed Fatigue

Repetitions (ni) MPa (SR) Repetitions Damage (ni/Ni)
(Ni)

362191 2.502 0.506 589852 0.614

347823 2.416 0.488 1442861 0.241

364586 2.329 0.471 4964384 0.073

259022 2.243 0.453 37080729 0.007

59467 2.156 0.436 Infinite 0.000

32328 2.070 0.418 Infinite 0.000

52283 1.983 0.401 Infinite 0.000

67
 52882 1.897 0.383 Infinite 0.000

52882 1.810 0.366 Infinite 0.000

64855 1.723 0.348 Infinite 0.000

64855 1.637 0.331 Infinite 0.000

282369 1.550 0.313 Infinite 0.000

1995544 Fatigue Damage from rear single axles = 0.936

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for bottom-up cracking due to rear tandem axles is given
in table 4.8.

Table 4.8 CFD analysis for BUC due to rear tandem axles

BUC fatigue analysis for day-time (6-hour) traffic & positive temperature differential

Rear Tandem Axles

Expected Flexural Stress Stress Ratio Allowed Fatigue

Repetitions (ni) MPa (SR) Repetitions Damage (ni/Ni)
(Ni)

40188 2.123 0.429 Infinite 0.000

29102 2.054 0.415 Infinite 0.000

10061 1.984 0.401 Infinite 0.000

6929 1.915 0.387 Infinite 0.000

7456 1.846 0.373 Infinite 0.000

3492 1.777 0.359 Infinite 0.000

10809 1.707 0.345 Infinite 0.000

14385 1.638 0.331 Infinite 0.000

17461 1.569 0.317 Infinite 0.000

68
 17738 1.499 0.303 Infinite 0.000

24667 1.430 0.289 Infinite 0.000

94872 1.361 0.275 Infinite 0.000

277159 Fatigue Damage from tandem axles = 0.000

Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis for Top-Down Cracking

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for top-down cracking due to rear single axles is given in
table 4.

Table 4.9 CFD analysis for TDC due to rear single axles

TDC fatigue analysis for night-time (6-hour) traffic & negative temperature
differential

Rear Single Axles

Expected Flexural Stress Stress Ratio Allowed Fatigue

Repetitions (ni) MPa (SR) Repetitions Damage (ni/Ni)
(Ni)

24901 2.113 0.427 Infinite 0.000

23913 2.073 0.419 Infinite 0.000

25065 2.033 0.411 Infinite 0.000

17808 1.993 0.403 Infinite 0.000

1.953 0.395 Infinite 0.000

4088

2223 1.913 0.386 Infinite 0.000

3594 1.873 0.378 Infinite 0.000

69
 3636 1.833 0.370 Infinite 0.000

3636 1.793 0.362 Infinite 0.000

4459 1.753 0.354 Infinite 0.000

4459 1713 0.346 Infinite 0.000

19413 1.673 0.338 Infinite 0.000

137194 Fatigue Damage from rear single axles = 0.000

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for top-down cracking due to rear single axles is given in
table 4.10.

Table 4.10 CFD analysis for TDC due to rear tandem axles

TDC fatigue analysis for night-time (6-hour) traffic & negative temperature
differential

Rear Tandem Axles (Stress computed for 50% of axle load)

Expected Flexural Stress Stress Ratio Allowed Fatigue

Repetitions (ni) MPa (SR) Repetitions Damage (ni/Ni)
(Ni)

397862 2.133 0.431 Infinite 0.000

288107 2.093 0.423 Infinite 0.000

99603 2.053 0.415 Infinite 0.000

68597 2.013 0.407 Infinite 0.000

73810 1.973 0.399 Infinite 0.000

34573 1.933 0.390 Infinite 0.000

107011 1.893 0.382 Infinite 0.000

142407 1.853 0.374 Infinite 0.000

172864 1.813 0.366 Infinite 0.000

175608 1.773 0.358 Infinite 0.000

244205 1.733 0.350 Infinite 0.000

939228 1.693 0.342 Infinite 0.000

70
 2743873 Fatigue Damage from rear tandem axles = 0.000

Cumulative fatigue damage analysis for top-down cracking due to rear single axles is given in
table 4.11.

Table 4.11 CFD analysis for TDC due to rear tandem axles

TDC fatigue analysis for night-time (6-hour) traffic & negative temperature
differential

Rear Tandem Axles (Stress computed for 33% of axle load)

Expected Flexural Stress Stress Ratio Allowed Fatigue

Repetitions (ni) MPa (SR) Repetitions Damage (ni/Ni)
(Ni)

86103 2.079 0.420 Infinite 0.000

79847 2.039 0.412 Infinite 0.000

56634 1.999 0.404 Infinite 0.000

117218 1.960 0.396 Infinite 0.000

166443 1.920 0.388 Infinite 0.000

197724 1.880 0.380 Infinite 0.000

256333 1.840 0.372 Infinite 0.000

218632 1.800 0.364 Infinite 0.000

74908 1.760 0.356 Infinite 0.000

52024 1.720 0.347 Infinite 0.000

51036 1.680 0.339 Infinite 0.000

289424 1.640 0.331 Infinite 0.000

1646324 Fatigue Damage from rear tridem axles = 0.000

Similarly, Cumulative Fatigue Damage values for different trial thickness has been carried out
and given in Table 4.12.
71
 Table 4.12 Cumulative Fatigue Damage values for different trial thickness

Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Total Remarks
thickness CFD=
in metre Rear Tandem Total Rear Tandem Rear Total (BUC+
single axles CFD single axles tridem CFD TDC)
axles (BUC) axles axles (TDC)

0.300 11.056 0.331 11.387 0.016 0.046 0.001 0.063 11.450 Unsafe

0.310 5.252 0.054 5.306 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.008 5.314 Unsafe

0.320 2.359 0.000 2.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.359 Unsafe

0.330 0.936 0.000 0.936 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.936 Safe

Hence, for trial thickness 330 mm, total CFD is coming less than one as given in
Table 4.12. So, slab thickness of 330 mm is safe for the design.

Similarly, thickness of slab of a rigid pavement for different CBR of subgrade as 3%,
4%, 6% and 8% with different initial traffic as 500, 2000, 400and 6000 CVPD has been carried
out and given in table 4.13.

However, the thickness of GSB and DLC layers remain unchanged for different
subgrade strength and initial traffic. Thickness of both GSB and DLC layers are taken as 150
mm for all given CBR of subgrade and initial traffic.

Table 4.13 Slab thickness for different CBR and initial traffic

CBR CBR CBR CBR

3% 4% 6% 8%

Initial Traffic
(CVPD) Thickness (mm)

500 302 303 301 300

2000 317 321 319 318

4000 323 329 327 326

6000 327 333.5 331 330

72
4.3.4 Effect of CBR of subgrade on slab thickness of pavement

340
335
330
325
320 6000 CVPD

315 4000 CVPD

2000 CVPD
310
500 CVPD
305
300
295
0 2 4 6 8 10
CBR (%)

Figure 4.7 Thickness of Slab v/s CBR of Subgrade

4.3.5 Effect of initial traffic on slab thickness of pavement

73
 340

335

330

325

320 CBR 3%

315 CBR 4%

310 CBR 6%
CBR 8%
305

300

295
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

Figure 4.8 Thickness of Slab v/s Initial Traffic

From fig. 4.7 and fig. 4.8 , it can be observed that there is no significant change in the thickness
of the slab due to change in the subgrade strength but as the initial traffic increases from 500
CVPD to 6000 CVPD, there is gradual increase in the thickness of slab required.

However, as observed from fig 4.8, when the initial traffic is low, due to change in
initial traffic, rate of increase of slab thickness is higher than that compared to the case when
initial traffic is high.

4.3.6 Design of Dowel Bars

Note:- Dowel bars upto a distance of 1.0*radius of relative stiffness (l), from the point of load
application are effective in load transfer.

Hence, number of dowel bars participating in load transfer when the load is just over

 Slab thickness, h 330 mm

 Joint width, z expansion 20 mm

 Joint width, z contraction 5 mm

 Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 80 MPa/m

 Radius of relative stiffness 1035.3 mm

 E for dowel bar 2*105 MPa

74
  Modulus of dowel support 4*105 MPa

 Maximum single axle load 190 kN

 Maximum single wheel load 95 kN

 Load transfer to the tied concrete shoulders 30%

 Wheel load to be considered for dowel design 66.5 kN

 Safety of the dowel bar can be examined for a load 66.5 kN

 Percentage of load transfer through dowel bar (assumed) 50%

 Load to be transmitted 33.25 kN

 Characteristic compressive strength 40 MPa

 Diameter of dowel bar (assumed) 38 mm

 Permissible bearing stress in concrete 26.71 MPa

 Spacing between dowel bars (assumed) 300 mm

 Distance of first dowel bar from pavement edge 1035.3 mm

 Length of dowel bar (assumed) 500 mm

the dowel bar close to the edge of the slab = 1+l/spacing = 4.451 = 4 dowel bars.

The variation of diameter, spacing and length of dowel bar with different CBR and initial traffic
are given in table 4.15.

Table 4.15 Variation of diameter, spacing and length of dowel bar

CBR Initial Traffic (CVPD) Diameter (mm) Spacing (mm) Length (mm)

500 36 300 500

2000 36 300 500

3
4000 36 300 500

6000 36 300 500

4 500 38 300 500

75
 2000 36 300 500

4000 36 300 500

6000 36 300 500

500 40 300 500

2000 40 300 500

6
4000 40 300 500

6000 38 300 500

500 44 300 500

2000 42 300 500

8
4000 42 300 500

6000 40 300 500

50
45
40
35
30
Diameter (mm)

CBR 3%
25
CBR 4%
20
CBR 6%
15
CBR 8%
10
5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

Figure 4.9 Diameter of Dowel bar v/s Initial traffic

76
 43

42

41

40
Diameter (mm)

6000 CVPD
39
4000 CVPD
38
2000 CVPD
37 500 CVPD
36

35
0 2 4 6 8 10
CBR %

Figure 4.10 Diameter of Dowel bar v/s CBR

From fig. 4.9 and fig. 4.10, it can be observed that there is slight decrease in diameter of dowel
bar with increase in initial traffic whereas there is slight increase in diameter of dowel bar with
increase in subgrade strength.

4.3.5 Design of Tie Bars

Input Data

 Slab thickness 330 mm

 Lane width, b 3.5 m

 Coefficient of friction, f 1.5

 Density of concrete 24 kN/m3

 Allowable tensile stress in plain bars (as per IRC:15 2011) 125 MPa

 Allowable tensile stress in deformed bars (as per IRC:15 2011) 200 MPa

 Allowable bond stress for plain bars 1.75 MPa

 Allowable bond stress for deformed bars 2.46 MPa

77
Design for Plain Bars

 Diameter of tie bars (assumed) 12 mm

 Area of plain steel bar required per meter width of joint to resist the 332.64mm2/m
frictional force at slab bottom, As=bfW/Sst

 Cross sectional area of tie bar, A=(122)*(3.14/4) 113.04 mm2

 Perimeter of tie bars, Pptb 37.68 mm

 Spacing of tie bars = A/ As 340 mm

 Spacing of tie bars provided 320 mm

 Number of bars required 14

 Length of tie bar, L=(2*Sst*A)/(b*Pptb) 428.571 mm

 Increase length for loss of bond due to painting 100 mm

 Increase length for tolerance in placement 50 mm

 Therefore, required length of tie bars 578.571 mm

Design of Deformed Bars

 Diameter of tie bars (assumed) 12 mm

 Area of plain steel bar required per meter width of joint to resist the 207.9 mm2/m

frictional force at slab bottom, As

 Spacing of tie bars = A/ As 543.723 mm

 Provide a spacing of 540 mm c/c

 Length of tie bar, L=(2*Sst*A)/(b*Pptb) 487.805 mm

 Increase length for loss of bond due to painting 100 mm

 Increase length for tolerance in placement 50 mm

 Therefore, required length of tie bars 637.805 mm

The diameter, spacing and length of plain tie bars required for different CBR of subgrade and
initial traffic are given in Table 4.15.

78
 Table 4.15 Variation of diameter, spacing and length of plain tie bars

CBR Initial Traffic (CVPD) Diameter (mm) Spacing (mm) Length (mm)

500 12 374 580

2000 12 357 580

3
4000 12 349 580

6000 12 346 580

500 12 375 580

2000 12 354 580

4
4000 12 346 580

6000 12 341 580

500 12 377 580

2000 12 357 580

6
4000 12 348 580

6000 12 344 580

500 12 378 580

2000 12 357 580

8
4000 12 349 580

6000 12 342 580

The diameter, spacing and length of plain tie bars required for different CBR of subgrade and
initial traffic are given in Table 4.15.

Table 4.16 Variation of diameter, spacing and length of deformed tie bars

79
CBR Initial Traffic (CVPD) Diameter (mm) Spacing (mm) Length (mm)

500 12 374 580

2000 12 357 580

3
4000 12 349 580

6000 12 346 580

500 12 375 580

2000 12 354 580

4
4000 12 346 580

6000 12 341 580

500 12 377 580

2000 12 357 580

6
4000 12 348 580

6000 12 344 580

500 12 378 580

2000 12 357 580

8
4000 12 349 580

6000 12 342 580

4.4 SUMMARY OF DESIGN

The design of flexible pavement has been done on the basis of the guidelines provided in IRC
37:2012 and the design of rigid pavement has been done on the basis of guidelines provided
in IRC 58:2015
The depth of different layers for the two type of pavements have been designed for varying
CBR of subgrade and initial traffic.

In case of flexible pavement it is observed that the thickness of pavement decreases

with an increase in effective CBR of subgrade. The thickness of pavement increases with an
increase in traffic.

80
 In case of rigid pavement it is observed that there is no significant change in thickness
of pavement with an increase in effective CBR of subgrade. However, with an increase in initial
traffic, the thickness of the rigid pavement increases.

CHAPTER-5

COST ESTIMATION

5.1 GENERAL

This chapter deals with the rate analysis of pavement. The cost estimation is carried
out as per the MoRTH Standard Data Book. The rates of labor, material and machinery are
ascertained from the PWD office and the DC office of the area where the project is located.
When these rates are given as an input in the MoRTH Standard Data Book, the cost per cubic
meter or per square meter as per various item of work of construction is obtained as input.

5.2 ANALYSIS OF RATES FOR VARIOUS LAYERS

81
 Rates of various items that are to be considered in the cost estimation of the pavement
were taken from the PWD Office Kurukshetra. The rate analysis for Subgrade, GSB (Granular
Sub-base), WMM (Wet Mix Macadam), Prime Coat, DBM (Dense Graded Bitumen
Macadam), Tack Coat, BC (Bituminous Concrete), Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) and PQC have
been carried out as per MoRTH Standard Data Book.

5.2.1 Subgrade

Subgrade is defined as the top 500 mm of embankment. Subgrade layer is constructed

either with the help of select soil or by compacting existing ground. When the CBR of existing
ground is very low, then the top 500 mm of embankment is replaced with the borrowed soil.
Avg. lead of 20 km is taken from the borrowed site to construction site. In the present case the
subgrade layer was prepared with the help of existing soil. Rate analysis of subgrade when
ground is compacted is done in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Rate analysis of subgrade

Description Unit Quantity Rate Cost

(In Rs.) (In Rs.)

Taking output= 100 cum

(a) Labour

Mate day 0.040 483.39 19.34

Mazdoor day 1.000 483.39 483.39

502.73

(b)Machinery

Hydraulic excavator 1 cum hour 1.67 1092.00 1823.64

bucket capacity @ 60 cum per
hour

Tipper 10 tonne capacity t.km 480.00 3.00 1440.00

Dozer 80 HP for spreading hour 0.500 1850.00 925.00

@200 cum per hour

Motor Grader for grading @ hour 1.000 2009.00 2009.00

50 cum per hour

82
 Water tanker with 6 km lead hour 4.000 400.000 1600.00

Vibratory roller 8-10 tonne @ hour 1.00 1292.00 1292.00

80 cum per hour

9089.64

(c)Material

Cost of water KL 24.000 20.00 480.00

Compensation for earth taken cum 100.00 60.00 6000.00

from private land

6480.00

(d)Overhead charges @ 0.1 on 1607.24

(a+b+c)

(e)Contractor’s profit @ 0.1 on 1767.96

(a+b+c+d)

Cost for 100 cum=a+b+c+d+e 19447.56

Rate per cum = 194.48

(a+b+c+d+e)/100

Say Rs. 194.00 per

cum

5.2.2 Granular Sub-base (GSB)

There are six grading of GSB as per MORTH specification and it can be constructed
either by Mix in Place Method or by Plant Mix Method. Rate analysis of GSB layer for grading-
1 and construction by Plant Mix Method is done in Table 5.2 with avg. lead of 20 km from
Batching plant to the construction site.

Table 5.2 Rate analysis of GSB

Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount

(In Rs.) (In Rs.)

83
Unit/Cum Taking output =
300 Cum

a) Labour

Mate 0.40 Day 483.39 193.36

Mazdoor Skilled 2.00 Day 483.39 966.78

Mazdoor 8.00 Day 483.39 3867.12

5027.26

b) Machinery

Water tanker 6 Kl capacity 3.00 hour 400.00 1200.00

5 Km lead with one trip per hour

Motor grader 110 HP
6.00 hour 2009.00 12054.00

Vibrator roller 8-10 tonnes 6.00 hour 1292.00 7752.00

21006.00

c) Material (Grading-I)

For coarse graded

granular sub base

53 to 26.5mm @35% 134.48 Cum 1129.00 151827.92

26.5 to 4.75mm @45% 172.80 Cum 1129.00 195091.20

2.36mm below @20% 76.80 Cum 1129.00 86707.20

Cost of water 18.00 KL 20.00 360.00

433986.32

Total (a+b+c) 460019.58

d) Overhead charges 10% 46001.96

on (a+b+c)

506021.53

84
 e) Contractor's Profit @10% 7239.52
on Rs.72395.21

Cost for 300 Cum = 513261.05

a+b+c+d+e

Rate per cum =(a+b+c+d+e)/300 1710.87

Say 1711
Rs.

5.2.3 Wet Mix Macadam (WMM)

Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) is used as a base course in a pavement structure in one
or more layers. Rate analysis of WMM layer is done in Table 5.3 with avg. lead of 20 km from
the batching plant to the construction site.

Table 5.3 Rate analysis of WMM

Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount

(In Rs.) (In Rs.)

Unit/Cum Taking
output =

225
cu
m (495
tonne)

a) Labour

Mate 0.48 Day 483.39 232.03

Mazdoor Skilled 2.00 Day 483.39 966.78

85
 Mazdoor 10.00 Day 483.39 4833.90

6032.71

b) Machinery

Wet Mix plant of 75 6.60 hour 1010.00 6666.00

tonne hourly

capacity

Electric Generating 6.00 hour 585.00 3510.00

set, 125 KVA

Front end loader 1 6.00 hour 676.00 4056.00

Cum capacity

Paver finisher 6.00 hour 818.00 4908.00

Vibrator roller 8-10 3.90 hour 1292.0 5038.80

tonnes (6x0.65)

Water Tanker 3.00 Nos. 400.00 1200.00

Tipper 2,237.40 Km 2.00 4474.80

(495x2x2.26)

Add 10% cost of 447.48

carriage to cover

cost for loading and

unloading

30301.08

c) Material (Table 400-

11)

45mm to 22.4mm 89.10 Cum 1129.00 100593.90

@30%

22.4mm to 2.36mm 118.80 Cum 1129.00 134125.20

@40%

86
 2.36mm to 75 89.10 Cum 1129.00 100593.90
micron@30%

Cost of water 18.00 KL 20.00 360.00

335673.00

Total (a+b+c) 372006.79

d) Overhead 37200.68
charges

10% on (a+b+c)

Total 409207.47

e) Contractor's Profit 73894.47 7389.45

@10% on Rs.

Total 416596.91

Cost for 300 Cum = 416596.91

a+b+c+d+e

Rate per Cum 1851.54

=

a+b+c+d+e/225

Say Rs. 1852.00 Per Cum

5.2.4 Prime Coat

It is an application of single coat of bituminous material over porous granular surface

before laying a bituminous mix layer. Rate analysis for Prime Coat is done in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Rate analysis of Prime Coat

Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount

(In Rs.) (In Rs.)

Taking output = 3500 sqm

87
 Providing and

applying primer coat with

bitumen emulsion on
prepared surface of granular
base i/c cleaning of road
surface and spraying primer

a) Labour

Mate 0.08 Day 483.39 38.67

Mazdoor 2.00 Day 483.39 966.78

1005.45

b) Machinery

i) Mechanical brooms @1250 hour 299.00 837.20

sqm/ hour
2.80

ii) Air Compressor 250 hour 268.00 750.40

Cum 2.80

iii) Bitumen pressure hour 671.00 1342.00

distributor 2.00

iv) Water Tanker (6 KL cap. 1 hour 400.00 400.00

trip/ hour)
1.00

3329.60

c) Material

i) Bitumen emulsion @ 0.6 Kg/ 2.10 Tonne 27685.00 58138.50

sqm

ii) Cost of water 6.00 KL 20.00 120.00

58258.50

Total (a+b+c) 62593.55

d) Overhead charges 6259.36

10% on (a+b+c)

88
 Total 68852.91

e) Contractor's Profit 6885.29

@10%

Total 75738.20

Cost for 3500 Sqm

= a+b+c+d+e

Rate per sqm = 75738.20 21.64

a+b+c+d+e/3500

Say Rs. 22 Per Sqm

5.2.5 Tack Coat

It is the application of single coat low viscosity bituminous material on existing

bituminous surface. Rate analysis of Tack Coat is done in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Rate analysis of Tack Coat

Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount

(In Rs.) (In Rs.)

Taking output = 3500 Sqm

a) Labour

Mate 0.08 Day 483.39 38.67

Mazdoor 2.00 Day 483.39 966.78

1005.45

b) Machinery

i) Mechanical brooms @1250 sqm per 2.80 hour 299.00 837.20

hour

89
 ii) Air Compressor 250 Cum 2.80 hour 268.00 750.40

iii) Emulsion pressure 2.00 hour 671.00 1342.00

distributor (@1750 sqm
per hour)

2929.60

c) Material

i) Bitumen 80/100 @0.20 Kg per Sqm Tonne 32417.00 22691.90

0.700

22691.90

Total (a+b+c) 26626.95

d) Overhead charge 10 % on 2662.70

(a+b+c)

Total 29289.65

e) Contractor's Profit @10% 2928.96

Total 32218.61

Cost for 3500 Sqm = a+b+c+d+e 32218.61

Rate per sqm = a+b+c+d+e/3500 9.21

Say Rs. 9.30 Per.sqm

5.2.6 Dense- Graded Bituminous Macadam (DBM)

It is used as base or binder course. Rate analysis of DBM is done in Table 5.6 with
the avg. lead of 20 km from Hot Mix Plant to construction site.

Table 5.6 Rate analysis of DBM

Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount

(In Rs.) (In Rs.)

Unit/Sqm Taking output = 195 Cum or 450 tonne

90
a) Labour

(i) Mate 0.84 Day 483.39 406.05

(ii) Mazdoor working with Day 483.39 7734.24

HMP,
16.00
mechanical broom
paver, roller, asphalt
cutter and layout of
construction

(iii) Skilled Mazdoor for Day 483.39 2416.95

checking line and
5.00
level

10557.24

b) Machinery

i) Batch mix HMP @75 hour 11609.00 69654.00

tonne per hour
6.00

ii) Paver finisher hour 2243.00 13458.00

hydrostatic with
sensor control @ 75 6.00

cum per hour

iii) Generator 250 KVA 6.00 hour 585.00 3510.00

iv) Fron end loader 1 cum hour 676.00 4056.00

bucket capacity
6.00

v) Tipper (10 tonne hour 2.00 5400.00

capacity) (450x5)
2,700.00

vi) Add 10% cost of 540.00

carriage to cover cost of
loading and

unloading Rs.6102/-

91
vii) Smooth wheeled roller hour 386.00 1505.40
8-10 tonne for initial
break down rolling 3.90

(6x0.65)

viii Vibratory roller 8 hour 1292.00 5038.80

tonnes for
) intermediate rolling 3.90
(6x0.65)

ix) Finish rolling with 6-8 hour 959.00 3740.10

tonne smooth wheeled 3.90

tendon roller

106902.30

c) Material (Grading-

II)

i) Bitumen 60/70 Grade Tonne 33361.00 675560.25

@4.50 per cent of 20.25

weigh of mix

ii) Aggregate

Wt. of aggregate =450 tonne

Weight of bitumen =20.25 tonne

Weight of aggregate =450-20.25 =

429.75 tonne

Taking density of = 1.6 ton/ cum

aggregate

Volume of aggregate = 268.59 cum

25-10mm 30 percent 80.58 Cum 1128.00 90894.24

10-4.75mm 28 percent 75.21 Cum 1128.00 84836.88

92
 4.75mm and below 42 112.81 Cum 1128.00 127249.68
percent

Total (a+b+c) 1096000.59

d) Overhead charges 109600.06

10% on (a+b+c)

e) Contractor's Profit 1205600.65 120560.06

@10% on Rs.

Cost for 195 Cum = 1326160.71 Total 1326160.71

a+b+c+d+e

Rate per Cum = 6800.82

a+b+c+d+e/195

Say Rs. 6801.00 Per Cum

5.2.7 Bituminous Concrete (BC)

It is used as wearing course. Rate analysis of Bituminous Concrete is done in Table

5.7 with avg. lead of 20 km from Hot Mix Plant to construction site.

Table 5.7 Rate analysis of BC

Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount

(In Rs.) (In Rs.)

Unit/Cum Taking output

= 191 Cum or 450

tonne

a) Labour

(i) Mate 0.84 Day 483.39 406.05

(ii) Mazdoor working with 16.00 Day 483.39 7734.24

HMP,

93
 mechanical broom
paver, roller, asphalt

cutter etc.

(iii) Skilled Mazdoor for 5.00 Day 483.39 2416.95

checking line and

level

10557.24

b) Machinery

i) Batch mix HMP 6.00 hour 14514.00 87102.00

@75 tonne per hour

ii) Paver finisher 6.00 hour 2243.00 13458.00

hydrostatic with sensor
control @ 75

cum per hour

iii) Generator 250 KVA 6.00 hour 585.00 3510.00

iv) Front end loader 1 cum 6.00 hour 676.00 4056.00

bucket capacity

v) Tipper (10 tonne 2,250.00 hour 2.00 4500.00

capacity) (450x5)

vi) Add 10% cost of 450.00

carriage to cover cost
of loading and

unloading Rs.6102/-

vii) Smoot wheeled roller 3.90 hour 386.00 1505.40

8-10 tonne for initial
break down rolling
(6x0.65)

viii) Vibratory roller 3.90 hour 1292.00 5038.80

8 tonnes
for

intermediate rolling
(6x0.65)

94
ix) Finish rolling with 6- 3.90 hour 959.00 3740.10

8 tonne smooth
wheeled tendon roller

105912.30

c) Material (Grading-
II)

i) Bitumen CRMB - 55 24.30 Tonne 35237.00 856259.10

@5.4% of mixed

wt.

ii) Aggregate

Wt. of aggregate 450-24.30 = 425.70

MT

Taking density =1.6tonne

of aggregate / Cum

Volume of aggregate = 266.06

Cum

Grading-II (40mm
nominal size)

20-10mm 30 percent 79.82 Cum 1128.00 90036.96

10-5mm 25 per cent 66.52 Cum 1128.00 75034.56

5mm and below 45 119.72 Cum 1128.00 135044.16

percent

Filler @2% of wt. 5.34 Cum 1129.00 6028.86

1162403.64

Total (a+b+c) 1278873.18

d) Overhead 127887.32
charges

10% on (a+b+c)

Total 1406760.50

95
 e) Contractor's Profit 1406760.50 140676.05

@10% on Rs.

Total 1547436.54

Cost for 205 Cum = 1547436.54

a+b+c+d+e

Rate per Cum 8101.76

=

a+b+c+d+e/191

Say Rs. 8102 Per Cum

5.2.8 Dry Lean Cement Concrete Sub-Base (DLC)

Construction of DLC over a prepared subgrade with course and fine aggregate
conforming to IS: 383, with concrete strength not to be less than 10 Mpa at 7 days. Rate analysis
of DLC is done in Table 5.8. Output taken as 450 cum.

Table 5.8 Rate analysis of DLC

a) Labour

Mate Day 1.120 506.15 566.89

Mazdoor skilled Day 6.000 529.84 3179.04

Mazdoor Day 22.000 439.38 9666.36

b) Machinery

Front end loader 1 cum bucket Hour 6.000 676.00 4056.00

capacity

Cement concrete batch mixing plant Hour 6.000 5304.00 31824.00

@75 cum per hour

Electric generator 100 KVA Hour 6.000 585.00 3510.00

96
 Paver with electronic sensor Hour 6.000 2243.00 13458.00

Vibratory roller 8-10 t capacity Hour 8.000 1292.00 10336.00

Water tanker 6 KL capacity Hour 8.000 20.00 160.00

Tipper Tonne.km 990* L 2.00 39600.00

Add 10 %of cost of carriage to 3960.00

cover cost of loading and unloading

c) Material

Crushed stone coarse aggregate of Cum 405.000 1008.00 408240.00

25mm and 12.5 mm nominal sizes
graded as per table 600-1 @
0.90cum/cum of concrete, clause
602.2.4

Coarse sand as per IS: 383 @ 0.45 Cum 203.000 385.00 78155.00
cum/cum of concrete

Cement @ 150 kg/cum of concrete Tonne 67.500 6000.00 40500.00

Cost of water KL 48.000 20.00 960.00

d) Overhead charges @ 0.1 101267.13

on(a+b+c)

e) Contractor’s profit @ 0.1 111393.84

on (a+b+c)

Cost for 450 cum = (a+b+c+d+e) 1225332.26

Rate per cum = (a+b+c+d+e)/450 2722.96

Say Rs. 2723.00

5.2.9 Pavement Quality Control (PQC)

Construction of unreinforced, dowel jointed, plain cement concrete pavement over a

prepared sub-base with 43 grade cement @ 400 kg per cum, coarse and fine aggregate
conforming to IS: 383. Rate analysis of PQC is done in Table 5.9. Output taken as 1050 cum.

97
 Table 5.9 Rate analysis of PQC

a) Labour

Mate Day 2.000 506.15 1012.30

Mazdoor skilled Day 15.000 529.84 7947.60

Mazdoor Day 35.000 439.38 15378.30

b) Machinery

Road sweeper @1250 sqm per hour Hour 2.800 299.00 837.20

Front end loader 1 cum bucket Hour 18.000 667.00 12168.00

capacity

Cement concrete batch mix plant Hour 6.000 10920.00 65520.00

@175 cum per hour

Electric generator 250 KVA Hour 6.000 585.00 3510.00

Slip from paver with electronic Hour 6.000 2405.00 14430.00

sensor

Water tank 6 KL capacity Hour 36.000 20.00 720.00

Transit truck agitator 5 cum Tonne.km 2415*L 4.32 208656.00

capacity

Add 10 % of cost of carriage to 20865.60

cover cost of loading and unloading

Concrete joint cutting machine Hour 12.000 105.00 1260.00

Texturing machine Hour 12.000 128.00 1536.00

c) Material

Crushed stone coarse aggregates of Cum 945.000 1008.00 952560.00

25 mm and 12.5 mm nominal size
@j0.90 cum/cum of concrete to
clause 602.2.4

Sand as per IS: 383 and conforming Cum 473.000 385.00 182105.00
to clause 602.2.4 @ 0.45 cum/cum
of concrete

98
Cement 43 grade @400 kg/cum of Tonne 414.000 6000.00 2484000.00
concrete

32 mm mild steel dowel bar of Tonne 9.450 48000.00 453600.00

grade S 240

16 mm deformed steel tie bars of Tonne 1.170 50800.00 59436.00

grade S 415

Separation membrane of Sqm 3675.000 38.00 139650.00

impermeable plastic sheeting 125
micron thick

Pre moulded joint filler, 25mm Sqm 16.330 708.07.00 11562.79

thick expansion joint

Joint sealant Kg 875.000 145.00 126875.00

Sealant primer Kg 116.670 490.00 57168.30

Plastic sheath, 1.25 mm thick for Sqm 46.670 48.00 2240.16

dowel bars

Curing compound Liter 1850.000 93.00 172050.00

Super plasticizer admixture IS Kg 2070.000 50.00 103500.00

marked as per 9103-1993 @ 0.5%
by weight of cement

Cost of water KL 216.000 20.00 4320.00

Add 1 % of material for cost of 47490.67

miscellaneous material like metal
cap, cotton, sponge and cradle for
dowel bar, work bridge for men,
cutting blade and bites, minor
equipment like thread, ropes, guide
wires and any other unforeseen
items.

d) Overhead charges@0.1 on 515039.89

(a+b+c)

e)Contractor’s profit @ 0.1 on 566543.88

(a+b+c+d)

Cost for 1050cum=a+b+c+d+e 6231982.69

99
 Rate per cum=( a+b+c+d+e)/1050 Say Rs. 6529.00

5.2.8 Rates of different layers used in Cost estimation

Table 5.10 Summary of Rate analysis of different layers

Sr. no. Layer Unit Rate per unit

1. Subgrade cum 200

2. GSB cum 1711

3. WMM cum 1852

4. Prime Coat sq.m 22

5. Tack Coat sq.m 9.3

6. DBM cum 6801

7. BC cum 8102

8. DLC cum 2723

9. PQC cum 6529

5.3 COST ESTIMATION

The cost has been calculated for the designed pavement with variation in the effective
CBR value of 3%, 4%, 6%, and 8% with variation in traffic. Also in each case the cost has
been calculated for flexible pavement as well as for rigid pavement.

5.3.1 For Flexible Pavement

Table 5.11 With Effective CBR value as 3% and Traffic as 500 CVPD

Sr. No. Item Dimension Volume Unit Rate Cost

100
 Length Width Depth

1 Subgrade 1000 15 0.5 7500 m3 200 1500000

2 Granular 1000 7.6 0.37 2812 m3 1711 4811332

Sub Base

3 Wet Mix 1000 7.3 0.25 1825 m3 1852 3379900

Macadam

4 Prime Coat 1000 7 7000 m2 22 154000

5 Tack Coat 1000 7 7000 m2 9.3 65100

6 DBM 1000 7 0.085 595 m3 6801 4046595

7 Tack Coat 1000 7 7000 m2 9.3 65100

8 Bituminous 1000 7 0.04 280 m3 8102 2268560

concrete

Total Cost (Rs.) 16290587

Similarly, Cost Estimation has been done for different values of CBR and Traffic. Summary
of the Cost Estimation for Flexible Pavement is shown in Table 5.12.

Table 5.12 Summary of Cost Estimation for Flexible Pavement

CBR Traffic Total Cost

(%) (CVPD) (Rs.)

3 500 16290587

2000 19039008

4000 20320253

6000 21034358

4 500 15402372

2000 17912758

4000 18955968

6000 19670073

6 500 13778015

101
 2000 16050366

4000 17331611

6000 18045716

8 500 12759764

2000 14794080

4000 16075325

6000 16789430

5.3.2 For Rigid Pavement

Table 5.13 With Effective CBR as 3% and Traffic as 500 CVPD

Sr. Item Dimension Volume Unit Rate Cost

no.

Length Width Depth

1 Subgrade 1000 15 0.5 7500 m3 200 1,500,000

2 GSB 1000 7.6 0.15 1140 m3 1711 1,678,080

3 DLC 1000 7.3 0.15 1095 m3 2723 2,981,685

4 PQC 1000 7 0.302 2114 m3 6529 13,802,306

Total Cost (Rs.) 19961000

Similarly cost estimation has been done for different values of CBR and Traffic. Summary of
the Cost Estimation for Rigid Pavement is shown in Table 5.14.

Table 5.14 Summary of Cost Estimation for Rigid Pavement

CBR Traffic Total Cost

(%) (CVPD) (Rs.)

3 500 19961000

102
 2000 20647000

4000 20922000

6000 21105000

4 500 20007000

2000 20829000

4000 21196000

6000 21402000

6 500 19915000

2000 20739000

4000 21105000

6000 21287000

8 500 19870000

2000 20693000

4000 21059000

6000 21242000

5.4 COST COMPARISON

Table 5.15 Cost Comparison of Flexible and Rigid Pavement

CBR Initial Design Traffic Total Cost (Rs.)

(%) Traffic (msa) For Flexible For Rigid

Pavement Pavement
(CVPD
)

3 500 8.811 16290587 19961000

2000 35.245 19039008 20647000

4000 90.63 20320253 20922000

6000 135.945 21034358 21105000

103
 4 500 8.811 15402372 20007000

2000 35.245 17912758 20829000

4000 90.63 18955968 21196000

6000 135.945 19670073 21402000

6 500 8.811 13778015 19915000

2000 35.245 16050366 20739000

4000 90.63 17331611 21105000

6000 135.945 18045716 21287000

8 500 8.811 12759764 19870000

2000 35.245 14794080 20693000

4000 90.63 16075325 21059000

6000 135.945 16789430 21242000

5.5 EFFECT OF TRAFFIC ON COST OF FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT

CBR 3%
25000000

20000000
Cost (Rs.)

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.1 Effect of Traffic on Cost of Pavement for Subgrade CBR 3%

104
 CBR 4%
25000000

20000000
Cost (Rs.)
15000000

10000000

5000000

0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD)

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.2 Effect of Traffic on Cost of Pavement for Subgrade CBR 4%

CBR 6%
25000000

20000000
Cost (Rs.)

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.3 Effect of Traffic on Cost of Pavement for Subgrade CBR 6%

105
 CBR 8%
25000000

Cost (Rs.) 20000000

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
500 2000 4000 6000
Initial Traffic (CVPD

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.4 Effect of Traffic on Cost of Pavement for Subgrade CBR 8%

5.6 EFFECT OF CBR ON COST OF FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT

Initial Traffic 500 CVPD

25000000

20000000
Cost (Rs.)

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.5 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 500 CVPD

106
 Initial Traffic 2000 CVPD
25000000

Cost (Rs.) 20000000

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.6 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 2000 CVPD

Initial Traffic 4000 CVPD

25000000

20000000
Cost (Rs.)

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.7 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 4000 CVPD

107
 Initial Traffic 6000 CVPD
25000000

Cost (Rs.) 20000000

15000000

10000000

5000000

0
3 4 6 8
CBR of subgrade

Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement

Fig. 5.8 Effect of CBR on Cost of Pavement for Traffic 6000 CVPD

108
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 GENERAL
The Project entitled “ Design and Cost Estimation of Flexible and Rigid Pavement”
has covered the design and cost estimation of flexible and rigid pavement and their comparison
on the basis of design and cost. The main conclusions drawn from the project are:

6.2 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

 Any change in the effective CBR of the subgrade has no effect on the thickness of the
Bituminous Concrete (BC) layer.
 The thickness of the dense bituminous macadam (DBM) decreases with increase in the
effective CBR of the subgrade.
 Any change in the effective CBR of the subgrade has no effect on the thickness of
granular base (G. Base) layer.
 The thickness of granular sub-base (GSB) layer decreases with increase in the effective
CBR of the subgrade.
 The total thickness of the flexible pavement decreases with increase in the effective
CBR of the subgrade.
 The thickness of different layers of the flexible pavement change with change in the
initial traffic.
 The thickness of bituminous concrete (BC) layer increases with increase in initial
traffic.
 The thickness of dense bituminous mecadam (DBM) increases with increase in initial
traffic.
 Any change in initial traffic has no effect on the thickness of granular base (G. Base)
layer.

 There is a slight increase in the thickness of granular sub-base (GSB) when traffic varies
from 500 CVPD to 2000 CVPD but this increase gets nullified when the value of initial
traffic exceeds 2000 CVPD.

 The total thickness of the flexible pavement increases with increase in the initial traffic.

109
6.3 RIGID PAVEMENT
 There is no significant change in the thickness of the slab due to change in the subgrade
strength but as the initial traffic increases from 500 CVPD to 6000 CVPD, there is
gradual increase in the thickness of slab required.
 When the initial traffic is low, due to change in initial traffic, rate of increase of slab
thickness is higher than that compared to the case when initial traffic is high.
 There is slight decrease in diameter of dowel bar with increase in initial traffic whereas
there is slight increase in diameter of dowel bar with increase in subgrade strength.
 Thickness of GSB and DLC layers remain unchanged with the change in subgrade
strength and initial traffic.

6.4 COST OF PAVEMENT

 Cost of pavement increases with traffic keeping the CBR constant and the cost gap
between rigid and flexible tapers off for higher values of traffic.When CBR is 3%, the
cost of flexible and rigid pavement is 1.62cr and 1.99cr respectively for 500 CPVD
traffic while the cost is nearly same (2.1cr) for both the pavement when traffic reaches
6000 CPVD.
 Cost for flexible pavement is less than that of rigid pavement for low traffic but for
high traffic it is the other way round. The value of that particular traffic depends on
CBR value, for instance it is 6000 CPVD for 3%CBR .
 Cost of flexible pavement is less than rigid pavement for any value of CBR keeping the
traffic constant and the cost gap continues to increase as the CBR increases. Keeping
traffic 500CPVD, the cost changes from 1.62cr and 1.99cr (CBR 3%) to 1.27cr and
1.92cr (CBR 8%) for flexible and rigid pavement respectively.
 This belief that a flexible pavement is cheaper than a rigid pavement is thus not true for
all values of CBR and traffic specially for higher traffic values.

110
REFRENCES

1. Arora, K.R. (2003) Soil mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Standard Publishers
Distributors, Delhi.
2. Chou, Y. (1983). ”Subgrade Contact Pressures under Rigid Pavements.” J. Transp. Eng.,
109(3), 363–379. Chou, Y. (1983). ”Comparative Analyses of Rigid Pavements.” J.
Transp. Eng., 109(5), 669–688.
3. Cojocaru, R., Pais, J.C., Andrei, R. and Budescu, M. (2013) Modeling of Airport Rigid
Pavement Structure Made of RCC and Recycled Cement Concrete for Complex
Configuration of Landing Gears, Advanced Materials Research, Vol.649, pp.254-257.
4. Darestani, M.Y., Nataatmadja and Thambiratnam, D.P. (2006) A Review of 2004
Austroads Rigid Pavement Design, ARRB Conference-Research into Practice, Canberra,
Australia.
5. Das, A. (2008) Reliability Considerations of Bituminous Pavement Design by
Mechanistic Empirical Approach, the International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
Vol.9, No.1, pp. 19-31.
6. Dilip, D., Ravi, P. and Babu, G. (2013) System Reliability Analysis of Flexible
Pavements, Journal Transportation Engineering, Vol.139, No.10, pp. 1001-1009.
7. Hadi, M.N.S. and Arfiadi (2001) Optimum Rigid Pavement Design by Genetic
Algorithms, Computers and Structures, Vol.1, No.5.
8. IRC :58-2015, Tentative Guidelines for the design of Rigid Pavements, IRC, New Delhi.
9. IRC:37-2012, Tentative Guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements, IRC, New
Delhi.
10. Jain, S., Joshi,Y.P., Golia, S.S. (2013) Design of Rigid and Flexible Pavements by
Various Methods and Their Cost Analysis of Each Method, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Applications, Vol.3, No.5 pp.119-123.
11.Khan, I.H. (1998) A Textbook of Geotechnical Engineering, Pentice Hall of India Private
Limited, New Delhi
12. Krauthammer, T. and Western, K.L. (1988) Joint Shear Transfer Effects on Pavement
behaviour, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.114, No.5, pp.505-529.
13. Long,B.and Shatnawi, S. (2011) Structural Evaluation of Rigid Pavement Sections, Road
Materials and Pavement Design, Vol.1, No.1, pp.97-117.
14. Maharaj, D.K. and Gill, S. (2014) Development of Design Chart for Flexible Pavement

111
 by Finite Element Method, International Journal of Latest Research in Engineering and
Computing, Vol.2, Issue 2, March- April,pp. 8-23.
15. MORTH Specification for Roads and Bridge Works,2013, New Delhi.
16. MORTH Standard Data Book for Analysis of Rates, IRC, New Delhi.
17. Punmia, B.C., Jain, A.K. and Jain Arun, K. (2005) Soil Mechanics and Foundations,
Lakshmi Publications, New Delhi.
18. Rahman, M.T., Mahmud, K. and Ahsan, K. (2011), Stress-Strain Characteristics of
Flexible Pavement Using Finite Element Analysis, International Journal of Civil and
Structural Engineering, Vol.2, No.1, pp.233-240
19. Subagio, B. Cahyanto, H., Rahman, A. and Mardiyah, S. (2005) Multilayer Pavement
Structural Analysis Using Method of Equivalent Thickness, Case Study: Jakarta-
Cikampeck Toll Road, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies,
Vol.6,pp.55-65.
20. Tarefder, R., Saha, N. and Stormont, J. (2010) Evaluation of Subgrade Strength and
Pavement Designs for Reliability, Journal Transportation Engineering, Vol.136, No.4, pp.
379-391.

112