Contents Page

1. Introduction

Page 2

1.2. Background

Page 2

1.3. Design Process Followed

Page 2

2. Traffic Study

Page 3

3. Traffic Growth

Page 4

4. Type of Pavement

Page 3

5. Pavement Balance

Page 4

6. Lifespan of Pavement

Page 4

7. Conclusion

Page 6

8. Appendix A

Page 7

9. DCP results

Page 8-9

2.

1. Introduction
1.1.

Background

A gravel road is to be upgraded to the standard of a bituminous road. The road is situated in the
South-Eastern corner of the campus of the Tshwane University of Technology. This part of
Tshwane has warm with a low rainfall percentage of rain per annum, therefore the moisture of
the road can be taken as dry. Only busses will use the road, and therefore the road can be
classified as a type C road.

1.2.

Design Process Followed

I was approached by Dr. W.A. van Wyngaard to do an assessment of a given pavement design.
(See Appendix Table 1). A dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test was done on 17-02-2010 on
the current gravel pavement. Six tests were done in 15m intervals. The results were used to
determine a California bearing ratio (CBR) value for the top 200mm deep layer. (See Attached
DCP results). Traffic data was obtained from the transportation office in Building 2 on TUTPretoria campus, to determine the traffic growth for the proposed road. The type, balancing and
lifespan of the pavement was then determined through calculations.
2. Traffic Study
From the information obtained from the transportation office at TUT, there are fifteen busses
daily on continuous routes from campus to various destinations in Pretoria, seven to Soshanguve
and two to Garankuwa. Busses arrive in 30min intervals on campus. (See Appendix Table 2 for
schedule)
Daily number of busses:

21:30 07:00 = 14:30 hours

30min intervals = 29 busses daily

3. Traffic Growth
1

Information was obtained from the transportation office at TUT that an extra bus will be
purchased in January 2011. Refer to Appendix Table 3 for traffic information. Therefore the
traffic growth will be one bus per year or:

( 2524 ) ( 100 )100=4.17

Round up to 5% traffic growth per annum
4. Type of Pavement
Refer to Appendix Table 4 for pavement assessment values.
The values in table 4 for DN, UCS and DSN% were calculated with the following
formulas:

DN 1, 27

CBR
410

DN 1,09

UCS
2900

and
DSN%=CUM(mm/DN)/DSN800 x 100

4 AD 200 A 200 D

4 AD 200 A 200 D 2 4 A D 10000 D A

2 A D

The value for

B was calculated with the following formula:

The value for D was calculated with the following formula:

D=(Pavement depth / 800) x 100
Road will be a Class C road, because of the low volume of vehicles per day travelling on the
road.
Climate: CM = 64

(DRY)

DSN800 = 167.68
MISA=( CM109 )( DSN 800 )

3.5

3.5

MISA=( 64109 )(167.68 )

MISA=3.907
400 B 100 B 2
DSN 100 % D
2
4 DB 100 B

DSN100=29.05% Thus the pavement is a deep pavement.

5. Pavement Balance
Standard deviation (s) = 10.07
RK = s x 88+2,9 x s2
RK = 10.07 x 88+2,9 x 10.072
RK=1180.23 Thus the pavement is bad balanced.

6. Lifespan of Pavement
Counting date : 2010
Opening date : 2011
E8 0

T F

Counting date

E8 0

T F g

Opening date

E8 0

Life span

E80

Opening date

 9750

Counting date
8000
E8 0

4, 2

2 29

E8 0

133.13E80

Counting date

Design traffic at counting date = 133.13E80

i
g 1

100

x=2 ; i=5

g=1.1
n

P
F

80

n=0.044( DSN 100 )1.24

;

n=2.87

F=

9750
8000

2.87

F=1.76
E8 0

146.78E80

Opening date

365 1 0,01i 1 0,01i 1

f
0,01i
y

f =9814
4

; y=15 (design life is 15 years)

MESA Lifespan
E 80

1
1000000

MESA=1.496

MISA>MESA Thus OK.

Lifespan log

%
100

%
100
%

E 80opening 365 1

100

MISA 106

Lifespan=30 years

7. Conclusion
The proposed pavement is of a bad design, because the pavement is out of balance and it is over
designed for 30 years. Overdesigning can result in an expensive pavement. The design should be
altered to get the layers in balance en the lifespan shortened to be between 15 an 20 years.

APPENDIX A
Table 1
PAVEMENT COMPOSITION
Thickness
Layer
Construction method
Specification
Import material from
Compact to 98% Mod AASHTO
150 mm
Base
borrow pit. Cemented
density. Minimum UCS 1200 kPa
with cement
Import material from Compact to 95% Mod AASHTO
150 mm
Subbase
borrow pit.
density. Minimum CBR 45
Import material from Compact to 93% Mod AASHTO
150 mm
Upper Selected
borrow pit.
density. Minimum CBR 30
Import material from Compact to 93% Mod AASHTO
150 mm
Lower Selected
borrow pit.
density. Minimum CBR 15
Remainder of the pavement In situ material
Left undisturbed
Table 2
Days of the week
Monday Thursday
Friday

Time
07:00-21:30
07:00-18:00

Table 3
Traffic information
Mass of truck
Number of
and load in kg
axles per
load
19500
2

Product
Busses

Daily
number of
loads
29

Table 4

Layer
thickness
(mm)

CBR

UCS
(kPa)

Depth
(mm)

DN

150
150
150
150
200

147
45
30
15
51

1200
435
307
170
485

150
300
450
600
800

2.247
5.696
7.838
13.529
5.161

Layer Cumulative
thickness/ (Layer
DSN%
DN
thickness/
DN)
66.76
31.94
19.14
11.09
38.75

66.76
98.70
117.84
128.93
167.68

39.81
58.86
70.28
76.89
100

B
25.73
21.39
15.12
2.59

D
18.75
37.5
56.25
75