UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY PESHAWAR CAMPUS III BANNU

CEP Report

Transportation Engineering II

ALTAF HUSSAIN
Reg no: 17BNCIV0950
Sec# C

Submitted To: Engr: Muhammad Asim

i
 ABSTRACT

Thall Parachinar Road has been one of the important and busiest roads over the past decade. This is
due to the fact of increasing traffic, both light transport vehicle (LTV) and heavy transport vehicle
(HTV). But the condition of this highway has deteriorated over the time. Many time rehabilitations of
this pavement has been processed but was unable to complete its design life. Riding quality has
worsened day by day due to the daily distresses.

the pavement has to bear during its life period and resilient modulus of pavement layers. Our aim is to
propose a suitable design for the flexible pavement which is structurally strong and also to evaluate
the materials of construction. The main parts of our proposed design are:

• Determination of pavement layer thicknesses (Asphaltic coarse, Base coarse and Subbase
coarse.

• Analysis of materials of construction.

I have performed several laboratory tests (collect some data from the previous researches, projects
and agencies) on roadbed soil and aggregate samples to check whether these materials that will be
used in the construction meet the AASHTO and NHA standards or not. These tests include Sieve
analysis, Proctor test, Atterberg’s Limits, Moisture content, CBR test, Los Angeles Abrasion test, impact
load test, moisture content test, specific gravity test of coarse aggregates, shape test.

ii
 Table of Contents
Abstract ...............................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1 : Site Visit ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2 :Design Procedures ............................................................................................ 2
2.1 AASHTO Design Procedures ..................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Design Considerations for the AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design ..................... 2
2..1.2 Empirical equations ................................................................................................ 3
2.1.3 Inputs ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.4 Environmental Characteristics ............................................................................... 4
2.1.5Traffic Characteristics ............................................................................................ 4
2..1.6 Reliability ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.7 Serviceability life ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1.8 Subgrade support .................................................................................................... 6
2.1.9 Outputs .................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 3 : Geotechnical Investigation .............................................................................. 8
3.1 Sampling Approach ................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Sieve Analysis(Reference:ASTM D 422-63) ........................................................... 8
3.1.2Atteberg Limits ...................................................................................................... 10
3.1.3 CBR Test (Reference:(AASHTO T193/ASTMD1883-99) ................................... 12
Chapter 4 : Coarse Aggregate............................................................................................................13
4.1 Los Angeles abrasion test (Reference ASTM C 535 & AASHTO T-96) ................ 13
4.2Water absorption Test (Reference AASHTO T84 &T85/ ASTM C127-88) .......... 13
4.3 Specific Gravity of Coarse Aggregate (Reference AASHTOT84 & T85) .............. 13

Chapter 5 : Bitumen.......................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Penetration Value of Bitumen ................................................................................ 14
5.2 Softening Point of Bitumen ..................................................................................... 15
5.3Flash and Fire Point on Bitumen ................................................................................ 15

iii
Chapter 6 : Pavement Design ........................................................................................... 19
6.1Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) Determination .............................................. 19
6.2 Design Traffic Load ................................................................................................. 20
6.3 Serviceability loss ..................................................................................................... 20
6.4 Reliability ................................................................................................................. 21
6.5 Value of Standard normal deviation ...................................................................... 21
6.6 Overall Standard normal deviation ........................................................................ 21
6.7 Environmental Impact assessment .......................................................................... 21
6.8 Resilient Modulus .................................................................................................... 21
6.9 Base Course and Sub base CBR & Resilient Modulus values .............................. 22
6.10 Layer Coeffients ..................................................................................................... 22
6.11 Drainage Coeffients ............................................................................................... 23
6.12 Structural Coeffients Spread Sheets ..................................................................... 23
6.13 Thickness of Layers .............................................................................................. 28
6.14 Drawings ............................................................................................................... 29
REFRENCES ................................................................................................................ 30

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Road Study Area……………………………………………………….................................……………1

Figure 2: Design chart for flexible Pavement…………………………………………………….....………………7
Figure 3: Procedure for finding thickness of layer…………………………………………………………………7
Figure 4: Sieve vs passing of aggregate graph…………………………………………………………………...….9
Figure 5: Moisture Content vs Blows graph……………………………………………………………….....…….11
Figure 6: Thickness of layer 1st 8km…………………………………………………………..................……….29
Figure 7: Thickness of layers from 8km to 16km……………………………………………………………….…29
Figure 8: Thickness of layers from 16km to 25km……………………………………………………………….29

v
 List of Tables
Table 1: Sieve analysis of aggregate..........................................................................................8
Table 2: Coefficients of gradation and Uniformity Coefficients……………………………..10
Table 3: Moisture Content……………………………………………………………………10
Table 4: CBR Test……………………………………………………………………………12
Table 5: Penetration value of bitumen………………………………………………………..14
Table 6: Softening point of bitumen………………………………………………………….15
Table 7: Flash and Fire Point………………………………………………………………....16
Table 8: Traffic Data………………………………………………………………………....19

vi
 Chapter 1

Site visit

1.1 Study area

In this complex engineering problem (CEP) we are focusing on design of flexible pavement for THALL
PARACHINAR Road District Kurram. The design of Indus highway is not capable to bear the loads being
applied on it. According to recent studies on traffic volumes it is found that the existing Parachinar
Highwar Road doesn’t have enough capacity to facilitate the increasing traffic in the future so there is
an essential need to extend the pavements.

Figure 1: Road Study Area

1
 Chapter 02

Design procedures

There are several procedures for the design of flexible pavement which are as follows:

• National Crushed Stone Association design.

• Asphalt institute design.

• Multi-Layer Elastic analysis.

• California method of design.

AASHTO design method. Now a day AASHTO design methods are most widely used in world that is
why we will use AASHTO design method for design of flexible pavement.

2.1 AASHTO Design Procedure

The AASHTO (originally AASHO) pavement design guide was first published as an interim guide in 1972.
Updates to the guide were subsequently published in 1986 and 1993. The AASHTO design procedure is
based on the results of the AASHO Road Test conducted from 1958-1960 in Ottawa, Illinois.

Approximately 1.2 million axle load repetitions were applied to specially designed test tracks in the
most comprehensive pavement test experiment design ever conducted. The original AASHO design
process was strictly empirical in nature; subsequent updates have included some mechanistic
provisions, such as, classifying the subgrade stiffness in terms of resilient modulus and accounting for
seasonal variation in material stiffness.

AASHO design originated the concept of pavement failure based on the deterioration of ride quality as
perceived by the user. Thus, performance is related to the deterioration of ride quality or serviceability
over time or applications of traffic loading.

Also developed at the AASHO Road Test was the rendering of cumulative traffic loading in terms of a
single statistic known as the 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL).

2.1.1 Design considerations for the AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design

• Pavement performance
• Traffic
• Roadbed soils (subgrade material)
• Materials of construction
• Environment
• Drainage Reliability

2
2.1.2 Empirical equations

Flexible design using the AASHTO procedure requires the designer to derive a structural number (SN)
that is adequate for the anticipated traffic over the length of a desired performance period. The SN is
equivalent to the sum of a layer coefficient (a), layer thickness (D), and drainage coefficient (m) for
each layer.

One aspect that makes using this design procedure somewhat problematic is that layer coefficients are
not directly correlated to any universal system of measurement. AASHTO does provide some
guidelines for correlation to laboratory-derived resilient modulus are used to relate observed or
measurable phenomena (pavement characteristics) with outcomes (pavement performance). This
article presents the 1993 AASHTO Guide basic design equation for flexible pavements. This empirical
equation is widely used and has the following form:

Where

W18 = Predicted number of 18000lb ESALs

ZR = Standard normal deviation

So = Combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction

SN = Structural number

PSI = Difference between the initial design serviceability index and, Po nd th design terminal
serviceability, Pt

MR = Subgrade resilient modulus

3
2.1.3 Inputs

The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation requires a number of inputs related to loads, pavement structure
and subgrade support. These inputs are:

• The Predicted Loading: The predicted loading is simply the predicted number of18,000 lb ESALs
that the pavement will experience over its design lifetime.

• Daily traffic count

• Performance period (n)

•
• Growth rate per year(r) loads

• Legal axle

• Traffic growth factor (GF)

• Vehicle damage factor or truck factor

2.1.4 Environmental characteristics

• Temperature

• Frost and Thaw action

• Subgrade moisture (effects CBR or MR)

2.1.5 Traffic characteristics

Lane distribution

Lateral distribution of wheel path in a lane

Wheel configuration (Dual wheel, Tandem wheel, etc)

4
 2.1.6 Reliability

The reliability of the pavement design-performance process is the

probability that a pavement section designed using the process will
perform satisfactorily over the traffic and environmental conditions for
the design period (AASHTO, 1993). In other words, there must be some
assurance that a pavement will perform as intended given variability in
such things as construction, environment and materials. The ZR and So
variables account for reliability.

Functional Reliability%
Classification
Rural
Urban
Freeways 85-99.9 80-99.9
Arterials 80-99 75-95
Collectors 80-95 75-95
Locals 50-80 50-80

Value of Standard Normal Deviate

Reliability% ZR

50 -0.000
60 -0.253
70 -0.524
80 -0.841
85 -1.037
90 -1.282
95 -1.645
99 -2.327
99.5 -3.090

SD (So) For Flexible Pavements

SD(So)=0.35 Variation in Pavement performance prediction without traffic error

SD(So)=0.45 Variation in Pavement performance prediction in traffic prediction

5
2.1.7 Serviceability life

The difference in present serviceability index (PSI) between construction and end-of-life is the
serviceability life. The equation compares this to default values of 4.2 for the immediatelyafter-
construction value and 1.5 for end-of-life (terminal serviceability). Typical values used now are: Post-
construction: 4.0 – 5.0 depending upon construction quality, smoothness, etc.

End-of-life (called “terminal serviceability”): 1.5 – 3.0 depending upon road use (e.g., interstate
highway, urban arterial, residential)

ΔPSI = Initial PSI (pi) - PSI (pt) Terminal

PSI (pt)

serviceability index (PSI)

2.1.8 Sub-grade support

Sub-grade support is characterized by the sub-grade’s resilient modulus (MR). Intuitively, the amount
of structural support offered by the subgrade should be a large factor in determining the required
pavement structure.

• CBR (California Bearing Ratio), R-value (Resistance), and Mr (Resilient modulus) are used to
describe the property of the subgrade material.

• During the structural design, only Mr Values are used. The following conversion formulas are
used if either CBR or R-values are given.

• Mr (lb/in2) = 1500 x CBR for fine-grain soils with soaked CBR of 10 or less.
• Mr (lb/in2) = 1000 + 555 x (R-value) for R <= 20

6
2.1.9 Outputs

The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation can be solved for any one of the variables as long as all the others
are supplied. Typically, the output is either total ESALs or the required Structural Number (or the
associated pavement layer depths).

Figure 2: Design chart for Flexible Pavements

Figure 3:Procedure for determining thicknesses of lay

7
 Chapter 3

Geotechnical investigation

3.1 Sampling Approach

We collected soil samples of newly laid roadbed from two different locations. In laboratory several
tests are performed on these samples like Sieve analysis, Proctor test, Atterburg’s Limits, Moisture
content, CBR test so to check the characteristics and variation in soil type within this road segment and
to determine the CBR value of each sample. As we know that CBR test of subgrade is very important
test which gives us the strength value of subgrade material and which is the key design parameter in
AASHTO Flexible design process so our main focus is CBR test. We will perform the comparison
between the CBR values of these two locations and then we will take that CBR value that will be more
conservative for flexible pavement design with respect to strength.

3.1.1 Sieve Analysis (Reference: ASTM D 422-63)

Sieve # Mass Retained Cumulative Cumulative % Passing %

(gm) Mass (gm)

#4 7 7 1.41 98.58

#10 113 120 24.29 75.70

#16 68 188 38.05 61.94

#40 121 309 62.55 37.44

#50 40 349 70.64 29.35

#100 73 422 85.42 14.57

#200 51 473 95.75 4.25

Pan 21 494 100 0

Total 494 494 100 0

Table 1: Sieve Analysis of Aggregate

8
 12
0

P 10
0

s 80

i 60

n
40
g

20
%

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve Openings

Figure 4: Sieve vs Passing of Aggregate Graph

9
 Cc =(D30)2/(D60X
D10 D30 D60 Cu= D60/ D10 D10)
(Grain dia (Grain dia (Grain dia at
at 10% at 30% 60%
passing) passing) passing)

0.1256 0.27 0.8 6.4 0.73

Table 2: Coefficients of gradation and Coefficients of Uniformity

3.1.2 Atterberg Limits

No of blows → 17 23 32

Wt of wet soil +
container W1 67.87 58.85 58.79

Wt of dry soil + container W2 60.7 53.5 53.8

Wt of empty container W3 30 30 30

Wt of water (W1 -W2) Ww 7.17 5.35 4.99

Wt of soil (W2 -W3) Ws 30.7 23.5 23.8

Moisture content M.C 23.37 22.65 21

=(Ww/Ws) x100 (%)

Table 3: Moisture Content

10
Figure 5 M.C vs Blows Graph

Liquid Limit from graph

(L.L)= 22.2%

Plastic Limit (P.L) = 15 %

Plasticity Index (P.I) = (LL –
PL) = 7.2 %
Classification (AASHTO) = A-2-4

11
3.1.3 CBR Test (Reference: (AASHTO T193/ ASTM D1883-99)

PENT.(mm) %CBR Dial Load %CBR

Reading lb/in²

0.635 3.4 64.2

1.270 6.1 115.2

1.910 8.7 164.3

2.540 8.3 10.7 202.1 20.2

3.180 14.9 281.4

4.450 18.8 355.1

5.080 10.0 22.2 419.3 28.0

6.350 25.5 481.6

7.620 31.8 600.6

8.890 37.9 715.8

Table 4:CBR Test

12
 Chapter 4

Course Aggregate

We visited the consultant companies to ask for the quarry site. They told us that they use quarry
aggregate in Base and Subbase layers and in asphaltic layer also so we visited the quarry site and
collected the aggregate samples. We performed several laboratory tests on these samples to check
whether these aggregates meet the AASHTO and NHA standards or not. These tests include Los
Angeles Abrasion test, impact load test, moisture content test, specific gravity test of coarse
aggregates, shape test.

4.1 Los Angeles abrasion test (Reference ASTM C 535 & AASHTO T-96)

Weight of dry sample before test, W1 (gm) = 5000

Weight of sample passing from sieve# 12 W2(gm) = 1167

W2 =original sample mass –final sample mass

Abrasion value of Aggregate =W2/W1x100=23%

Specifications:
For granular sub base the coarse aggregate material retained on sieve No. 4 shall have a percentage of
wear by Los Angeles abrasion test (AASHTO T-96) of not more than 50 %.
For aggregate base course the coarse aggregate material retained on sieve no.
4 Shall have a percentage of wear by Los Angeles abrasion test of not more than 40%.
Observations:
The Abrasion value of selected aggregate sample is 23% which follows the AASHTO specification so
aggregate is suitable for both Base and Sub-base course.

4.2 Water absorption Test (Reference: AASHTO T84 & T85/ ASTM C127-88)

Weight of saturated surface dry sample, A = 1.106

Weight of oven dry sample, B = 1.093

Water absorption = [(A - B)/B] x 100% = 1.19%

4.3 Specific Gravity of Course Aggregate (Reference: AASHTO T84 & T85)

Air Dry Wt = 1000 g

A= Oven Dry weight = 994.2 g
B= SSD weight = 997.2 g
C= Suspended weight in water = 637.6 g
Apparent Specific Gravity, Gsa = A / (A-C) = 2.788%

Bulk Specific Gravity (OD), Gsb = A/ (B –C) = 2.765% Bulk

Specific Gravity (SSD) = B / (B –C) = 2.773%

13
 Chapter 5

Bitumen

5.1. Penetration Value of Bitumen:

Penetration value is the vertical distance traversed or penetrated by the point of a standard needle
into the bituminous material under specific conditions of load, time and temperature. This distance
is measured in one tenths of a millimeter.

Actual test temperature = 27 °C

Penetration dial reading Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Penetration Value 9.9 mm 7.5 mm 6.4 mm

Table 5:Penetration value of bitumen

Result of Test

Mean Penetration Value = 79.3

Specifications:
Penetration test is a commonly adopted test on bitumen to grade the material in terms of its hardness.
A 80/100 grade bitumen indicates that its penetration value lies between 80 & 100.

Grading of bitumen helps to assess its suitability in different climatic conditions and types of
construction. For bituminous macadam and penetration macadam, IRC suggests bitumen grades
30/40, 60/70, 80/100.

In warmer regions, lower penetration grades are preferred to avoid softening whereas higher
penetration grades like 180/200 are used in colder regions to prevent the occurrence of excessive
brittleness. High penetration grade is used in spray application works.

Penetration test on bitumen is carried to determine:

1. Consistency of bituminous material

2. Suitability of bitumen for use under different climatic conditions and various types of
construction.

Observations

According to ASTM D-5, it is 85-100 grade bitumen.

According to AASHTO T-49, it is 70-80 grade bitumen.

14
5.2. Softening Point of Bitumen:

Ring-Ball Test for Softening Point of Bitumen, Asphalt and Coal Tar

Observations and Calculations

Temperature when the ball touches bottom, °C 1 2

50.6 52.2

Table 6: Softening Point of bitumen

Results

Softening point of bitumen / tar =51.53 °C

Specifications:

The softening point of bitumen or tar is the temperature at which the substance attains particular
degree of softening. As per IS: 334-1982, ASTM E28-67 or ASTM D36 or ASTM D6493

– 11, it is the temperature in ºC at which a standard ball passes through a sample of bitumen in a
mould and falls through a height of 2.5 cm, when heated under water or glycerine at specified
conditions of test. The binder should have sufficient fluidity before its applications in road uses.

Softening point has particular significance for materials to be used as joint and crack fillers. Higher
softening point ensures that they will not flow during service. Higher the softening point, lesser the
temperature susceptibility. Bitumen with higher softening point is preferred in warmer places.

Observations

The experiment has been performed successfully and the softening point came out to be 51.53 °C.
Bitumen having this softening point can be used in Dera Ismail Khan as the city’s highest maximum
temperature was 51.53 °C recorded on June, 2017 And 50 °C was recorded on June 5, 1978.

As this value lies between 48°C to 56 °C, hence according to ASTM-D 36, AASHTO- T 53, IS
12051978 this is ‘Hard Bitumen’ and can be used in hot area like Dera Ismail Khan.

5.3. Flash and Fire Point Test on Bitumen

Flash and Fire point test is conducted on bitumen to know the safe mixing and application
temperature values of particular bitumen grade.

15
Time (minutes) Temperature (°C) Remarks

0 25

1 32

2 37

3 42

4 49

5 53

6 62

7 68

8 74

9 82

10 109

11 159

16
 13 205

14 224

15 241

16 257

17 272

18 288

19 305 Flash Point

9:12 309

20 314

21 319

22 330 Fire Point

Results Table 7:Flash and Fire Point of bitumen

• Flash point of the bitumen = 305 °C

• Fire point of the bitumen = 330 °C

Specifications:

For any type of Bitumen grade

17
Minimum Flash point value should be = 175 °C Minimum
Fire point value should be = 175 °C + 5 °C.

Observations

The Experiment has been performed successfully and the results which we have got are showing that
the flash point of the bitumen sample came out to be at 305◦ and time corresponding to this
temperature was 9.12 minutes. Whereas the fire point was found out to be at temperature of 330◦and
the time corresponding to this temperature was 24.25 minutes. The trend line of the graph is showing
the relationship between temperature and time.

18
 Chapter 6

Pavement Design

6.1 Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) Determination:

The estimated or projected magnitude and occurrence of the various traffic loading are converted to
the total number of passes of equivalent standard axle loading (ESAL), usually the equivalent 80KN
(18kips) single axle load. The total no. of ESAL is used as the traffic loading input for design of
pavement structure.

For determination of ESALs for our design we used the traffic data from C&W ROAD DIVISION
PARACHINAR DISTRICT KURRAM. As flexible pavement is used by Light vehicles (LTV) and Heavy
vehicles (HTV). So in our design for flexible pavement we are considering the ESALs of light vehicles for
the design life of 20 years (2020-2040). Traffic data of the concerned section( Parachinar Highway) is
collected from the C&W Parachinar as shown below.

Parachinar Traffic Data:

Number of vehicles
Vehicle Type Number of vehicles at Night
between 8am to 4pm

Cars (2D, Suzuki) 600 50

Trucks 150 to 300 150

Total Number of
3900
Vehicles in 24 hours

Table 8: Traffic Data

19
6.2 Design Traffic load

DESIGNED LIFE=20YEARS
AADT=3900

R=95%
Zr=-1.645
S0=0.45
Passenger Car(1000lb/axle)=50%
2 axle single unit truck20000lb/axle)=33%
3axle single unit truck(20000lb/axle)=17%
Fd=0.45
Growth rate=5%

Passenger Car
ESAL1=0.45*33.06*3900*0.5*365*1*0.00002=210lbs

2axle single unit truck

ESAL2=0.45*33.06*3900*0.33*365*2*0.1206=1685636

3axle single tanden unit truck

ESAL3=0.45*33.06*3900*0.17*365*3*0.027=291612lbs

W18=210+1685636+291612=1977458lbs

6.3 Serviceability loss

In the AASHTO system the roughness scale for ride quality ranges from 5 to 0. For design it is

necessary to select both an initial and terminal serviceability index. An initial serviceability

index of 4.2 is suggested to reflect a newly constructed pavement. A terminal serviceability

index of 2.5 is suggested to be used in the design of major highways. The design serviceability

loss, ∆PSI, is the difference between the newly constructed pavement serviceability and that

tolerated before rehabilitation so,

Initial service ability = 4.2

Terminal service ability = 2.5

∆PSI = 4.2 - 2.5 = 1.7

∆PSI ≈ 1.7

20
6.4 Reliability

Reliability concepts are given in detail in the AASHTO Guide, and are intended to account largely for
chance variations in traffic prediction and performance prediction

Reliability value is taken as 95%

6.5 Value of standard normal deviation

ZR = - 1.645

6.6 Overall standard deviation

To make the design more conservative we assume that there may be error in traffic data so taking the
value of Standard Deviation as

So = 0.45

6.7 Environmental Impact assessment

Specific attention to potential heaving due to frost and the possibility of swelling soils should be
considered, however loss of serviceability due to these conditions is very difficult to quantify. The
climatic condition of Parachinar is not severe cause frost and heave. The subgrade soil is classified as
an A-2-4, having a Plasticity Index of approximately 8%. As such, the soil is not considered to be a
highly swelling soil.

6.8 Resilient Modulus

The design CBR value is taken as 10%. As approximate methods for the estimation of resilient modulus.
Using correlation

Mr (psi) = CBR*1500

Resilient Modulus, Mr (psi) = 10* 1500

≈ 15000 psi

21
6.9 Base and Sub-base CBR & Resilience Modulus values

First 8km

Base course (Mr=30000psi) CBR=86%

Subbase CBR=50% (Mr=17500psi)

Sub grade (Mr=9000psi)
6.10Layer Cooeficients First 8km
To calculate asphalt layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.17 crossponding to elastic
modulus of 450000lb/in^2.
a1 =0.44
To calculate base layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.16 crossponding to Resilience
modulus of 30000psi value.
a2 =0.14
To calculate sub base layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.15 crossponding to Resilience
modulus of 17500psi value.
a3 =0.12

From 8 to 16km

Base Course CBR=99% ( Mr=31000psi)

Sub base CBR= 65% ( Mr=18000psi)
Sub grade ( Mr=9500psi)

Layer Cooeficients From 8km to 16km

To calculate asphalt layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.17 crossponding to elastic
modulus of 450000lb/in^2.
a1 =0.44
To calculate base layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.16 crossponding to Resilience
modulus of 31000psi value.
a2 =0.141
To calculate sub base layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.15 crossponding to Resilience
modulus of 18000psi value.
a3 =0.129

22
 From 16 to 25Km

Base Course CBR=90% ( Mr=29000)

Sub base CBR=70% (Mr=19000psi)
Sub grade ( Mr=10000psi)
Layer Cooeficients From 16km to 25km

To calculate asphalt layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.17 crossponding to elastic
modulus of 450000lb/in^2.

a1 =0.44
To calculate base layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.16 crossponding toResilience
modulus of 29000psi value.
a2 =0.139
To calculate sub base layer cooeficient select the value from the figure 20.15 crossponding toResilience
modulus of 19000psi value.
a3 =0.13
6.11 Drainage Coefficients

The value of m1,m2 is taken 0.80 because the in case of high rise pavements water normally drains
out in one day and according to climatic condition of Parachinar it is concluded that pavement
structure will be exposed to 25% moisture level in a year.

m2 = m3 = 0.80
6.12 Structural Coeffients Spread Sheets
Using Excell spread sheet to find the various
design structural numbers.

First 8km

SN1=2.43

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 30000 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.04
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 2.43 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

23
SN2=2.99

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 17500 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.04
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 2.99 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

SN3=3.85

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 9000 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.70
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 3.85 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

24
SN1=2.44

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 31000 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.05
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 2.44 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

From 8km to 16km

SN2=2.95

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 18000 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.05
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 2.95 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

25
SN3=3.7

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 9500 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.70
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 3.70 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

From 16km to 25km

SN1=2.46

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 29000 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.06
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 2.46 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

26
SN2=2.90

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 19000 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.06
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 2.90 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

SN3=3.7

1. W18 [Accumulated ESALs] 1,977,458

Zr -1.65 ZR
Std Dev 0.45 S
ΔPSI 1.70 DPSI
2. Subgrade M[r] 10000 psi
Surface mix Base mix P.A.B. subbase
a[i] 0.44 0.14 0.13
D[i], inches 4.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 inches
m[i] 0.80 0.80 0.80
3. Reliability, % 95 R

4. Initial and terminal

serviceability Po Pt
ΔPSI 4.20 2.50
Provided SN 3.06
Required SN (Solver will fill in) 3.70 Adequate

log10(W18) = 6.30 left side

6.30 right side
target cell 0.00

27
6.13 Thicknesses of Layers

SN1 = a 1 * D1

D1=2.43 /0.44=5.52in Provide 5.5in layer (first 8 km)

D1=2.4/0.44=5.45 in Provide 5.5 (from 8 to16 km)

D1=2.46/0.44=5.59 in Provide 5.5in(from 16 to 25 km)

SN2 = a1*D1 + (a 2 D2 m2)

D2=SN2-a1D1/a2m2
D2=5.08 in Provide 5in layer (first 8 km)
D2=4.69in Provide 4.5in layer (from 8 to 16 km)
D2=4.31 in Provide 4.5in layer (from 16 to 25 km)

SN3 = a1*D1+(a2 D2 m2) + (a3 m3 D3)

D3=SN3-a1D1-a2D2m2/a3m3
D3=8.49 in Provide 8.5in layer (first 8 km)
D3=8.16 in Provide 8in layer (from 8 to 16 km)
D3=7.49 in Provide 7.5in layer (from 16 to 25 km)

28
6.14 Drawings

Figure 6:Cross Section of Road First 8km

Figure 7:Cross Section Road From 8km to 16km

Figure 8:Cross Section Road From 8km to 16km

29
REFERENCES
1.Principles of pavement design,2nd edition by Yoder and M. W. Witczak.

2.AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993 Edition.

3.Traffic study by ACC(Associate Consultant Company), 2007.

4.The Design & Performance of Road Pavements 2nd Edition by David Croney & Paul Croney.

5.Principles of Transportation Engineering 1st Edition by Partha Chakroborty & Animesh Das.

6.Pavement Design & Materials by A.T Papagiannakis & E.A masad.

7.Asphalt handbook MS-2.

8.NHA specifications.

9.www.pavementinteractive.org

10. C&W Deptt; Parachinar District Kurram

30
THE END

31