Analysis of CTSB Method over

Conventional Method in Flexible

Pavements
For constructions of Highways in Heavy
traffic the Pavement should be good
enough to bear the traffic load as well as
heavy rainfall. To increase the strength of
the pavement the crust thickness should
be increased as compare to the
conventional highway design. It increases
the material requirement and more
consumption of other resources also. Thus
to achieve desired strength of pavement
with limited resources, pavement design
needs to be re-engineered.
To overcome this problem the pavement should
be designed differently or the materials should
be replaced by the better one. In this regards,
the Cement treated sub-base becomes to be a
better one to replace traditional GSB layer. With
the use of CTSB, the GSB & WMM layer
thickness can be minimized without affecting
the strength criteria of the pavement. It
achieves good saving of material, machinery
uses and fuel consumption hence results into
saving of money.
 OBJECTIVES
• To study the concept of Cement Treated Sub-base.
• To study the reasons of failure of flexible pavements.
• To study the effect of using Cement treated Sub-base
on Crust thickness in Highway Pavement. (Reduction
in Crust thickness i.e. WMM, DBM layers).
• To compare the performance, required material
quantity, transportation charges, fuel consumption,
machineries required for CTSB method and
traditional method of Flexible pavement
construction.
• In next coming slide, the concept of CTSB is
studied. The effects of using CTSB rather than
using the Conventional sub-base materials are
also studied. The comparison of both types of
pavements construction design is done and
the factors affecting for performance of
pavements of road are also studied.
 Comparison of Design with CTSB & Conventional Method
Using CTSB Method (25 MSA)

Layer Description Depth Qty. in Cum/KM Unit Cost Amount

SG 0.500 6750 350 2362500

CTSB-I 0.100 1372 9843 13504596
CTSB-II 0.100 766 8952 6857232
WMM 0.150 1074 6041 6488034
DBM 0.050 350 15809 5533150
BC 0.030 210 16591 3484110
TOTAL = 0.930 38229622
Using Conventional Method (25MSA)

Layer Description Depth Qty. in Cum/KM Unit Cost Amount

SG 0.500 6750 350 2362500

GSB 0.200 2700 5143 13886100
WMM 0.250 1825 6041 11024825
DBM 0.090 630 15809 9959670
BC 0.040 280 16591 4645480
TOTAL = 1.080 41878575
Design conclusion
 Required Quantity of Material
• The required quantity of material for each layer in
both the methods is different. Following figure shows
the difference of quantity of material required for
both methods in each layer.
• Figure below shows that, GSB layer is present in
conventional method. The CTSB layer is present in
only CTSB method. So the quantity of materials
required is different. The thickness of WMM and DBM
layer is less in CTSB method than the Conventional
method. Hence It reduces the material requirement.
 Comparison of layer Thickness
0.500

0.450

0.400

0.350

0.300

0.250

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
SG GSB CTSB-I CTSB-II WMM DBM BC

CTSB Conventional
 Cement Content in CTSB-I & II Layer
1. Manual Casting CTSB -I
SL NO % of Cement Unconfined Compressive Strength for & days
of Curing (Mpa)
1 1.5 1.18
2 2.5 2.18
3 3.0 2.17
4 2.5 2.10
5 2.5 2.07
2. Manual Casting CTSB -II
SL NO % of Cement Unconfined Compressive Strength for & days
of Curing (Mpa)
1 1.5 1.50
2 2.0 2.10
3 2.5 2.16
4 3.0 2.21
5 2.0 2.19

Note : Cement Content in CTSB-I layer 2.5% and for CTSB-II 2%. As per
MoRTH it is recommended that the strength should not be less than 1.75
Mpa.
Equipments Comparison Between CTSB & Conventional Method
Equipment Required for Conventional Method
Sl No Equipments Capacity Monthly Hire Charge
1 Loader 3MT 175000
2 Tipper 10 Cum 150000
3 Grader 80 Cum/Hr 350000
4 Roller 80Cum/Hr 145000
5 Water tanker 12 KL 60000

Equipment Required for CTSB Method

Sl No Equipments Capacity Monthly Hire Charge
1 Recycling Machine 100TPH 2500000
2 Cement Spredar 750000
3 Grader 80 Cum/Hr 350000
4 Roller 80Cum/Hr 145000
5 Water tanker 12 KL 60000
6 Tipper 10 Cum 150000
7 Loader 3MT 175000
8 Cement Loading 50HP Motor 50000
9 DG 250KVA 72000
 CONCLUSION
• 1. Longer Life of pavements.
• 2. Speed of the Project Completion is accelerated.
• 3. Reduced Use of Aggregates.
• 4. Less local construction traffic due to fast construction.
• 5. Transportation/haulage is reduced.
• 7. Reduced thickness of pavement.
• 8. Reduction of bitumen consumption due to strong Sub Base.
• 9. Aggregate consumption is less for the case of stabilized base compared to that
of the conventional method.
• 10. Uniform distribution of Load in Cement treated service road as compared to
conventional road.
• 11. Resistance against cracking and fatigue cracking.
• 12. Best option in low lying water clogged area.
 CONCLUSIONS

The use of CTSB saves the material required for the

construction of flexible pavement. The transportation
charges, fuel consumption, machineries required is
less by using CTSB method than the traditional
method. Hence the initial cost of construction is less
by adopting CTSB method. The CTSB is having more
strength as compare to the conventional material due
to presence of Cement . So this will save the
maintenance cost and affects the life cycle cost of the
project.
Photographs During CTSB Work
Photographs During CTSB Work