tqn architects
pvt. [d.
engineers8
ut/
consultants
Lette
r N s. AA/ KRDCL/YAP
BTP L/
880/20 1 6- 17 I L9t
To,
Subject: - Improvement of
to
Km. 89+417
of
Pavement Design
Ref: - Your Letter No. YAPBTLIAaweel20t6-t7lt03 dated: 07.06.2016
Dear Sir,
This has reference to above mentioned, wherein the you had submitted the reports
Pavement Design for IE's review.
The Concessionaire's above submission has been reviewed and our observations
are enclosed herewith,
on
/ comments
The Concessionaire is advised to comply with the above observations and resubmit for our
review.
Project Office
Head
Office :
Chennakasava Swamy Nilaya, L-5220819, Chandra Mouleswara Layout, Behind Basava Marriage Hall,
Doddaballapur - 561203, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka. e-mail: aarveeyelahanka@gmail.com
Ravula Residency, Srinagar Colony Main Rd., Hyderabad - 500 082, India. CIN: U742OOTG2OO5PTC045491
Tel: +91-40-23737633; Fax: +91-40-23736277i e-mail: aarvee@aarvee.net: web: www.aarvee.com
BY INDEPENDENT ENGINEER'
ANKATo AP
Proiect:|mprovementofYe|ahankatoAPBorderfromkm13+800tokm8g+4L7onPPP-DBFoT-VGF
which
pavement Design for the project stretch'
the
submitted
had
Design)' the
the concessionaire
on rrJidening portion (New
constructed
be
incrudes the design for flexibre o.u.*"n*1o
discrepancy in traffic
overlaydesigntobeapp|iedonexisting-.",,.",.*,y:nd.DesignofRigidPavement.Comments
as axle load speirum details,
such
daia
traffic
for
is not
were communicated asking
on Rigid p'ovement stoting that Design
ouserv.iion,
and
d-ata
test
BBD
growth rates,
cifi cati ons'
a cco rdin g to r el ev a nt spe
the
il}"ff
dated o2lo4l2ot6',
with
Later,
1T:1^'.1.t':[:.i*ilJi";":#HlJi"
|:X,,,,,t"ilT:::;l?;:J:ilil;:.;"i.r-,,
r'
Design
r'
r'
r'
stage
period
23 Years including construction
Shall be as per IRC 37 -2OI2
'
Metnod:
Design
construction:
il':*".'Jn:::frt,:f'HJ;1?"1ffi:ff115::T
period of 10 years'
bituminous courses to a minimum
r'DesignLifeforRigidPavement:30Years,nostageconstructionispermitted
be as per IRC 58 -zott
r'
r'
Method:
Traffic Growth Factors:
r'
Data
Shall
5% at
Design
Collection:
sections
had identified three *affic homogeneous
concessionaire
the
report
2015' Traffic survey
As per the design
in the month of January & February
conducted
were
surv"ys
and rraffic
provided in the report is as follows:
locations and the t'aitic data
n)-r
lane
HS-2
HS-3
;il"
a6sL
Page 1 of 6
Km. 13.800
Km 18.960
Km 18.960
19.310
Km 38.259
Km.39.525-;
Km 89.417
49.892
25.100 tt43
F- nn^
5b.000 488
^RR
r2
1478
- ':
682
682
359
ttt
'ro
351
--
:---
324
386
is
considered
for
this section
town areo
pty from Doddobollopur
vehicres
34+100.
Km.
on the for side ot
simiror situation exist
qndexitonthesomesidewithoutenteritngtheproposedTollPlaza|ocation.
s;ection
One
done
dayvolume count was
at
this location
'?'''\:"'::td:r:r:::r,';;"''::'::':!i:;':;:l1:;'i: {:;t
;:L
no'[ be
desisn repo* and shatt
v't^it;''sed
have been considered" '
;i,-:l;;:";;'l';::'i;:';,;i:i";:'::'i;
vonJl oriri'^'-t7-2072
designpurpose. VOf
for
considered
BaseYeartrafficfor2015isfoundtobeinorderasperthesubmitteddata.
ffiffi,,'E\);,:::;::,:#:::;|:';::,:';";;';:':;;::i;T':;"':::::',!',1',o"'
rotes me.eti,? ,h:,.::ii:i^j"
Page 2 of 6
{;"|:frffiffi#use
Km.25.100
Towards Yelahanka
Towards AP Border
Km. 56.100
Towards DoddaballaPura
0.61
0.89
0.88
o.41
2.84 1.44
2.98
0.77
3.98 6.86
1.17
0.81
2.81. 1.35
0.68
0.92
J.O
6.3
7.73
PS-lll
1..
Km' 39.525
5+.O
20.78
Km 89'417
-L
50.50
7r:;::':;':r'niJa
2.
Section
Chainage
Km. 13.800
18.52
- 19.000
PS-l
30.89
49.38
,
Km.19'000
Ps-ll -
Ps-ur
3.
39.ooo
Yrt'..itt
18,52
20;8
30.89
34.61
49.38
56.36
23.42
40.55
62.48
LL.42
t9.76
30.45
Towards DoddaballaPur
4r.74
64.42
Towards Yelahanka
23.42
40.55
62.48
25.44
35.45
56.73
;;;
directions
Page 3 of 6
FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT CRUST DESIGN FOR NEW
PAVEMENT:
PA
Concessionaire has submitted the
details of pavement condition survey for the project stretch, BBD test data is provided
and given
the characteristic Deflection values. Overlav design for different stretches were presented in
the
following table.
Homogenous
Section
5.
No
From
To
As per Concessionaire
Overlay Thickness (mm)
Max BBD
Deflection
Maximum
for the
thickness of
BC/DBM as per
'B
stretch
(mm)
DBM
BBD
1
13+800
19+000
53
55
1.08
24
63
40
13+800
19+000
53
55
1.05
24
bU
60
bU
1.58
24,
111
4tr
75,,,
rn
19+000
38+259
77
AA
39+525
56+000
98
4A
60
1.60
2'1"'
1,Lu.
4tr"
75.,,,:
56+000
73+000
102
65
40
1.53
2,\'
106
4E'
1n
76+100
89+477
77
50
1.19
ZL
76
50
:::::
period
yeors,
be
designed
for
IRC:Sg,,,
concessionaire has done the rigid pavement design according to IRC: 5g:2002,
However, it is bring
your l<ind notice that rigid pavement design has to be carried out
according to the IRC:5g-2011".
Conclusions:
l"
Pavement crust thickness suggested was based on the traffic data provided
in pavement
design report. Pavement crust as suggested in tables
{bv lE) is the minimum requirement to
be adopted in the project stretch as per the standard specifications.
2'
Whenever, the overlay is proposed for section wise the maximum deflection
value shall be
considered for arriving overlay thickness. The overlay thickness as suggested
in tables {hy
lf;) is the minimum requirernent to adopt in the pro.iect stretch as per the
standard
specifications.
4'
Before taking-up
carriageway,
all
distresses have
to
be
lt is very important that the crust thickness proposed for overlay intends to cater
the design
traffic for available residual strength of the pavement. But it can not be adjusted
for pcc,
generally used to bring the surface irregularities to required cross
section. Hence it is
essential to make pCC schedule for the project highway.
\ -..
Page5of6
6.
Crust proposed for flexible pavement in above table is based on certain assumptions on
DBM mix design. Hence to validate the pavement design following shall be implemented
during construction:
Material Specification
Pavement Layer
Sl. No
of
MoRTH
Grade of Bitumen VG 40
Dense
Macadam (DBM)
Wet Mix
of design
Macadam
(wMM)
to V or Vl of
Subgrade & Embankment Conforming to Section 305 of MoRTH 5th Revision. Shall have
(500mm below subgrade) effective CBR 10% minimum.
7.
8.
Any change from that mentioned in above table leads to change in pavement design.
Rigid pavement design shall be in accordance with IRC 58-2011. All supporting data shall be
submitted. This was already communicated. The Concessionaire has to submit revised Rigid
Pavement Design for further review and comments.
K. Srinivasa Rao
5r. Pavement Specialist
YELAHANKA TO AP BORDER (KRDCL Project)
Vice President * l-lighways; f,#esfec&, fnwemenf & Materidls)
Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad (HO)
Mob. +91-9440804020.
Page 5 of 6
\ I ?OY