INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON “CONSTRUCTION AND

REHABILITATION OF RIGID PAVEMENT – CURRENT

PRACTICE AND WAY FORWARD

SUSTAINABILITY OF RIGID PAVEMENTS & A CASE STUDY OF HOSPET

BELLARI ROAD PROJECT

V N Heggade
Executive Director (Technical)
Gammon Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd.

V.N. Heggade, presently is Technical Director of Gammon

Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd. He has more than 33 years of
experience of Designing & Constructing Bridges, Marine
structures and Special structures like Cooling towers and
Chimneys. He is a recipient of 7 awards for engineering from
almost all civil engineering institution of the country apart from
receiving an international IABSE- Prize. He is a member of
various BIS & IRC code making committees in addition to
commissions of FIB. He has more than 125 papers to his credit
and is a Fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineers.
 Climate Change-global warming
 Global warming and Climate
change causing the extreme
events all over the world is the
topic in ‘vogue’
 Increase in temperature ( >2.40C
) is due to GHG emissions
mainly CO2
 On the other hand non-
renewable energy sources are
fast depleting.
 For ‘Sustainability’ there is an
urgent need to :
 Reduce GHG emissions.
 Conserve non-renewable
energy sources for posterity.
Construction Industry contribution to climate
change
Concrete & steel are the major building
material in construction industry
The cement which is a vital ingredient of
concrete & also steel produces GHG &
consumes energy while being manufactured
1 t production of cement
Emits 0.93 t of CO2 & consumes 5-8 GJ of energy.
1 t production of steel
Emits 2 t of CO2 & Consumes 30-60 Giga joules
Concrete Construction process Energy Consumption &
CO2emission

Specific CO2 emission +

energy consumption for
each process
 CO2 emission & energy consumption analysis
Concrete production

CO2 emission for concrete production excluding cement

contribution = 60 kg eq CO2/m3 of concrete.
Energy required to produce 1m3 of concrete excluding
cement contribution= 1.4*1.5 + 1.4*2.5- 0.4*4.985 = 3.6 GJ
Source : ADME, January 2007, corbon footprint realised by l’Agence de l’ Environment et
de la Maitrise de l’Environment
SUSTAINABILITY IN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
 Energy conservation
 GHG ( CO2) emission reduction.
 Cement & steel production processes

• Despite the current energy efficiency, production of OPC consumes the energy of 5-8 GJ /ton
& steel consumes 30-60 GJ/ton.
• 1.8 GJ energy sustains 1 house hold for 1 month
• There is a need to reduce energy consumption during production itself by
 Improving energy efficiency by upgrading plants with the state of the art equipment.
 Improve product formulation to reduce energy of production and minimise the use of
natural resources.
 Conduct research to develop new applications for improving energy efficiency.
 Also 0.9 t & 2 t CO2 emitted for cement & steel respectively for 1 ton production should
be captured in some form and should be used again for production of CaCO3
 SUSTAINABILITY OF RIGID PAVEMENTS
 Many features during various
phases of the life cycle affect
the sustainability. Phases are :
 Design,
 Material selection,
 Construction,
 Operation & Maintenance
 Rehabilitation &
Reconstruction
 There are relationships between
these features and the life-cycle
phases and again among the
features themselves.
 Design phase
 PQC design mainly focusses on joint
spacing, load transfer, slab support
Two lift
considerations, drainage, and edge
support etc.
 From sustainability considerations
further, emphasis can be given to
surface texture, light color, long life, Pre cast
and improved storm water quality
during the design process.
 Innovative pavement types can be
explored, like fiber reinforced
concrete, two-lift concrete pavement,
roller-compacted concrete (RCC),
precast concrete and concrete pavers, RCC
and thin concrete pavement (TCP)
etc.
 Material selection phase
The energy consumption and emissions generated
through the acquisition, processing, and transportation of
materials used in the construction, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of pavements impact the overall
sustainability of the system.

Sustainability in Material selection process:

Reducing the use of virgin material in favor of
various recycled, co- product, and waste materials
(RCWMs).
Reducing the use of virgin material through
improved mix design and increased longevity.
Reducing the impacts of materials production by
improving efficiency and reducing emissions.
Material selection phase
OPC
 Concrete pavements are found to be
more sustainable these days due to its
longevity & less maintenance
requirements.
 Cement content acounts for 62-68% in
concrete and the same can be replaced
by Industrial wastes like fly ash and
GGBFS which is available in
abundance.
 Unless the OPC content is brought
down to 50% of cementitious content,
i.e., around 7 to 9% in concrete
pavement vis-a-vis 10 to 12 % asphalt
binder in asphalt concrete, PQC will
not be more sustainable than flexible
pavement.
 For PQC & DLC very high content of
GGBFS up to 85% & HVFAC are
ideally suited for sustainability.
Maximum replacement of OPC with mineral admixtures
Typical mix proportions for HVFAC for different strengths

IS :456 basic code on concrete does not

put any restriction on the use of fly ash.
It states in its amendment no 4 that in a
cementitious content of a mix design
maximum 35% can be fly ash beyond
which the fly ash may be present but
can not be considered as a part of
cement content.
Material selection phase
Aggregates
 Aggregates make up the largest share of
the mass and volume in a pavement
structure whether used without binding
material (e.g., unbound sub base or base
material), or as part of an asphalt or
hydraulic cement bound layer.
 Although aggregates are relatively low
cost and have a relatively low
environmental impact per unit mass,
they have a significant impact on
pavement sustainability
 Reduce virgin aggregate content by
increasing the use of aggregates as
per latest IS: 383.
 Minimize aggregate transportation
and/or optimize the modes of
transportation used (barge, rail, or
truck).
Mix design aspects, IS:383-2016
 A CASE STUDY OF BELLARI-HOSPET
ROAD PROJECT

 This case study is about an on going rigid pavement project

four laning of Hospet to Bellary from km. 280.080 to km.
375.450 of NH-63 in the state of Karnataka.
 The project consists of 95.37 Km rigid paving where 44.97
Km is 4 lane greenfield bypass and the rest is 4 laning from
the existing 2 lane
 Start of Project Highway Ch. km 280+080
Ingaligi Quarry

End of Project Highway Ch. km 375+450

Ch,. km 289+000 Kardidham Quarry
2 km Ch,. km 304+000
5 km

Camp-I @ Km 318+00
NH-63
Batching plants
120Cum/Hr- 2 Nos
60 cum/hr-1 nos

TORANGALLU BYPASS
CH. KM 312+160 TO CH. KM 316+600
Length=4.44 km
HOSPETE
KUDITHINI BELLARY
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
4 KM
TORANGA

14 KM
LLU

AP/KARNATAKA BRODER
NH-13

PROPOSED BELLARY BYPASS

CH. KM 333+060 TO CH. KM 361+550
HOSPET BYPASS Length=28.490 km
CH. KM 280+080 TO CH. KM 288+000 KUDITHINI BYPASS
Length=7.920 km CH. KM 323+000 TO CH. KM 327+120 EXISTING BELLARY
Length=4.120 km BYPASS

Camp-II @ 350+000
Bypass
Anthapur Quarry & Crusher Batching plants
Ch,. km 320+000 120 cum/hr - 2 Nos
9 km 60 cum /hr-1 nos

NEMKAL Quarry &

Crusher
(13 KM)

 In the country for the first time perhaps sustainability measures for highway project is
adopted for Design, Material processing and Construction phases to such a large
magnitude.
 But for the codal and other constraints like inability despite the circular from Ministry
of Environment and Forest to procure flyash from nearby JSW, BEML and KPCL
thermal plants for embankment and subgrade, green concepts could have been
enhanced to a large extent.
Scope of work
OPC & Aggregate replacement potential
JSW Torangallu Plant was in the vicinity of the
project which also has captive coal based thermal
power plant.
Hence, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as
well as Fly Ash was available for concreting.
Different types of Iron and Steel Slags were
available to be used as aggregates in concrete
and GSB.
Apart from that pond ash was available for
embankment from JSW, BEML and KPCL
plants.
 Design of the PQC

 At the planning stage all the available ways and means to optimise the process and
product from economical and sustainable point of view were explored considering all
physical and technical constraints.
 As per the contract, the design of concrete pavement was done as per IRC:58 and IRC
SP:62.
 On the basis of traffic studies conducted, considering the future forecast, the cross
section was arrived at.
 Embankment filling
 The depth of embankment varied
across the stretch. Mass haul
diagram was adopted to minimize
the earthwork for cut and fill.
 Over all around 55,00,000 cum of
earthwork was required to be
done.
 The bottom ash and pond ash
available in the captive power
plants of JSW, BEML and KPCL
were envisaged to be used as an
alternative to burrow earths from
sustainability consideration.
 This replacement has the
potential of saving 2,16,000 T,
CO2 emission and 1,35,000 GJ
energy consumption.
 Granular Sub Base (GSB)
It was planned to utilize the
Steel Slag as an alternative to
aggregates manufactured from
local rock.
The total quantity of the GSB
was around 10,00,000T.
This has the potential of
saving 10,000T, CO2 and
5,00,000 GJ energy
consumption to posterity.
 Dry Lean Concrete (DLC)
 Total DLC required for the
Project being 296,039 cum
The entire fine aggregates
used was Processed Iron
Slag Sand in accordance
with IS 383- 2016
The mix was designed with
120 kg Cement and 30 kg
of Fly Ash.
This was the minimum
allowable Cement content
as per MoRTH Rev. 5
Section 600.
 Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC)
 Total PQC required for the
Project being 4,76,951 cum
 The thickness of the PQC was
reduced from 300 mm (as
prescribed) to 290 mm (as per
the design done as per IRC
58). This itself reduced the
quantity by 3.33%
 50% fine aggregates to be
used was planned to be
Processed Iron Slag Sand as
per IS 383 2016.
 Two mixes have been used
 Cement : 310 kg and Fly Ash : 78
kg
 Cement: 255 kg and GGBS: 120 kg
 Structural Concrete
 Different grades of Structural Concrete were designed
using Cement + GGBS.
 Whenever possible the Nominal Maximum Size of Aggregate
was selected as 40 mm instead of 20 mm. This results in
approximately 30 Kgs of cementicious material saving per
cum of concrete.
 The mixes were designed with ternary cementicious blend
(OPC + Fly Ash + GGBS) but the same was not approved by
the AE owing to his interpretations of MoRTH. The same
would also require additional Silos in smaller batching plant
so this issue was not pursued further.
 The adopted mixes were done with GGBS (70 % replacement
for lower grades and 50% replacement for higher grades)
CARBON & ENERGY FOOTPRINT FOR
PQC,DLC & STRUCTURES
MIX DESIGN – DLC

20 mm 10 mm Crushed Water
Cement Fly Ash Slag Sand
Grade (Kg/ (Kg/ Sand
(Kg/ Cu.m) (Kg/cum) (Kg/ Cu.m)
Cu.m) Cu.m) (kg/cum) (Kg/ Cu.m)

DLC 120 30 693 693 420 294 130

MIX DESIGN – PQC

Crushed Slag
Grade Cement Fly Ash 31.5 mm 20 mm 10 mm Water Admix.
Sand Sand

PQC 310 78 439 382 380 592 93 136 2.33

CARBON & ENERGY FOOTPRINT FOR
PQC,DLC & STRUCTURES
MIX DESIGN – Structural Concerte

Cement 20 mm 10 mm Crushed Slag Sand Water Admix.

Grade GGBS 40 mm
Sand
M15 93 217 456 342 341 384 386 155 0.93
M15a 102 238 0 651 432 381 382 170 0.68

M20 102 238 450 337 336 575 192 153 1.02

M-20a 102 238 0 648 432 587 195 153 0.85

M25 108 252 451 338 337 577 192 144 1.08

M-25a 108 252 0 677 449 577 192 144 1.08

M30 111 259 456 341 340 583 194 133 1.48

M-30a 185 185 0 678 451 578 193 140 1.48

M35 205 205 0 662 441 566 189 143.00 2.05

M40 210 210 0 664 441 567 189 138 2.52

M45 225 225 0 652 433 741 0 139.50 3.60

CARBON & ENERGY FOOTPRINT NORMS
Carbon Emissions Norms (tons) Energy consumption norms
Production Transportation Production Transportation
Ingredients (GJ/ MT) (MJ/ MT per km)
(per MT) (per MT per km)
OPC 0.930 0.002 5-8 2.85
PPC 0.670 0.002 2.85
PSC 0.480 0.002 2.85
Fly Ash 0.004 0.002 0.5 2.85
GGBS 0.052 0.002 2.85
Silicafume 0.100 0.002
UFFA 0.100 0.002
UFGGBS 0.200 0.002
Coarse aggregate 0.010 0.002 0.5
Steel Slag Aggregate 0.005 0.002
Natural Sand 0.005 0.002 0.15 2.85
Crushed sand 0.010 0.002 0.22 2.85
Iron Slag Sand 0.005 0.002 0.5 2.85
Admixture 0.050 0.002
Concrete 0.050 0.002
Natural Soil 0.024 0.002 0.015
Pond Ash 0.010 0.002 2.85
 CARBON & ENERGY FOOTPRINT FOR PQC,DLC &
STRUCTURES

 On the basis of the mix design adopted for DLC,PQC &

Structures, the total saving in CO2 emission to
environment is staggering 90,302 MT of CO2
 In the entire project, it is proposed to replace 1,00,773 T
of OPC with GGBFS and 1, 89,926 T of sand to be
replaced with slag sand.
 The total energy foot print because of these replacement will
be around 7,33,900 GJ.
 This reduction in energy consumption can sustain
33,977 families per annum just give the measure of
impact on society of sustainable practices in concrete
production.
CONSTRAINTS FOR HIGHER SUSTAINABILITY
Prescription based Specification
 CONSTRAINTS FOR HIGHER SUSTAINABILITY
 Ministry’s specification encourages the use of fibres and in some cases
authorities make it mandatory to use fibres in the concrete. However, in
the design, the permissible tensile strength is restricted to 4.5 Mpa which
does not give any benefit for adding fibres in the concrete.
 Although the Standards are in agreement in usage of Slag Sand up to a
certain percentages as per IS 383 2016 but the Authority Engineers felt
that the same was not explicit in IRC 15 2017 (Despite mentioning the
reference of IS 383 2016) hence didn’t allow the use of Slag Sand for
PQC.
 Also, ternary concrete mixes replacing cement with both Fly Ash and
GGBS performing excellently was not accepted as the same was not
explicitly allowed in MoRTH.
 In spite of the project being in vicinity to a Steel Plant, still there was not
enough supply of Slag Coarse Aggregates as per the required volume
hence crushed rock has been used depleting non-renewable resource that
could have been avoided.
 Pond ash for embankment
 There are two captive thermal power stations JSW and BEML and
one state electricity board KPCL power station producing abundant
pond ash which can be used as filling material for embankment
instead of soil.
 There are circulars both from ministry of Road Transport (MORTH)
and Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change
(MoEF&CC) for use of fly ash utilisation.
 However, JSW, BEML and KPCL has not been able to supply flyash
for embankment stating that these circulars are not applicable to
captive and state power plants.
 There is a strong need to extend these circulars to all power plants not
only to NTPC from the sustainability point of view.
 Had this circular been applied to this project the country could have
saved 55,00,000 m3 of soil quarrying, saving around 2,60,000Tonnes
CO2 emissions to environment and 1,35,000GJ energy from non-
renewable source.
 Inferences as way forward
 The cost reduction aspect of concrete (Economical) construction
happens to be the aspect of better environment (Ecological) &
poverty alleviation (Social) and sustainability measures in the
Indian context.
 A Green initiative taken in the project will save 25 hectares of
Quarrying by utilization of by products of Iron and Steel Industry.
 The saving in GHG emissions & energy consumptions could have
been doubled :
 Extending the Ministry’s circular on utilisation of fly ash & GGBFS to all
power plants.
 Allowing HVFA & High volume GGBFS concrete
 Allowing the use of slag coarse aggregates in concrete
 If the use of fibers in concrete made mandatory, increase the flexural
strength so that PQC thickness can be reduced.
NAMASTE