Anda di halaman 1dari 7

aarvee assoclates

tqn architects
pvt. [d.
engineers8
ut/

consultants

Independent Engineer services for development of road from Yelahanka to


A.P. borderfor a length of 74.35 km under PPP - DBFOT - VGF (Toll) basis

Lette

r N s. AA/ KRDCL/YAP

BTP L/

880/20 1 6- 17 I L9t

Date: 24 June 2016

To,

The Authorized Signatory


Yelahanka AP border Toll ways Pvt, Ltd.,

G-I0-702, Wellworth City


Yelahanka, Doddaballapur Road
Marasandra, Bangalore- 561208
Karnataka.

Subject: - Improvement of

Road from Yelahanka to Andhra Pradesh State Border

SH-09 from Km. 13+800

to

Km. 89+417

of

Revised Review Report on

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.

For Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants Pvt. Ltd,

(Rajeev Kumar Bidwai)


Team Leader
Encl: Revised Review Report on Pavement Design.
Copy to:
1l The Chief Engineer, KRDCL Bengaluru for Information,
2l The Authorized Signatory, Aarvee Associates Architects Engineers & Consultants hrt. Ltd,
Hyderabad for information

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

Date: 21't June 2016

PAVHM fr SIT DHSIG f''I


RKVIHW RHPSRT ON RffiVISHD
BqBqEB

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',

reference to letter no' YAPBTPL/Aarvee/o7712016-2017


the project stretch' comments
Revised pavement Design for
the
submitted
had
Concessionaire
provided in the report'
for validation of traffic data
were again .ottuni..ied asking
Revised
f"i
repried
has
Now, concessionaire
:':::,"-:
r"ir"*ing are the observations and comments:

with

Later,

1T:1^'.1.t':[:.i*ilJi";":#HlJi"

|:X,,,,,t"ilT:::;l?;:J:ilil;:.;"i.r-,,

Life for Flexible Pavement:

r'

Design

r'
r'

Total Concession Period

r'

stage

period
23 Years including construction
Shall be as per IRC 37 -2OI2

'

Metnod:

Design

period whichever is more as


L5 Years or the concession
per Four Lane Manual (lRC SP 84-2009)

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

shall not be less than


Shall be as per IRC 108 and
any stage.
Manual (lRC SP 34-2009)
As per 5'13'2of Four Lane

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

of SH-09 from Yelahanka


Si* t.n" Section of Stretch
Avalahali
Police Station to BMS {lT) at
of existing two
,.
l Four Ianing and strengthening
1 of SH-09 from Avalahali
section
carriageway
to DoddaballaPura
existing two lane Section
Widening and strengtnening of
of Stretch- ll from
Border
AP
of SH-09 Doddaballapura km 39.525 to km 89'417

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

obove' pertoins fu Km'


"sect ion.1" as referred
reply
overloy wos
the concessionaire,s
observations: As per
carriage:woy, wher.e only
divided
i,i,
iir
existi,i
is heavy traffic
which is an
13+800 to 79+000
highty'ut,a'inizea and there
is
r,'""n
rn,r'
Though,
ii'elers' LCV',s with few number of
proposed qs per or"ri"^r^r.
o-1-or1o'n'
n"orv
i,
the traffic
:l-'"ry
movement as observed
pavement
a"rig'' Hence' troffic from neighboring
occou'nt
for
not
do
which
city transport buses,

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

ll & lll for


one on each of the section
available,
are
counts
onry two traffic
As per above starements,
pavement design'

considered

BaseYeartrafficfor2015isfoundtobeinorderasperthesubmitteddata.

' ^-"^a^6+ ronnrf was

less than the


hod revised
4 2'2 or tRC'

ffiffi,,'E\);,:::;::,:#:::;|:';::,:';";;';:':;;::i;T':;"':::::',!',1',o"'
rotes me.eti,? ,h:,.::ii:i^j"

the trorric srowth


37:2072.

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

were verified ond found


seporotely for section ll & section ll!
Observations: Above VDF volues token
satisfactory os per the doto provided'
:T
_

PS-lll

1..

Km' 39.525

5+.O

20.78

Km 89'417

-L

50.50

the maximum values supposed


vDF values are considered for section tl ogainst
tobeconsidered.Thiswosrorrunirotedalreadythroughearliercorrespondence'still
.l+na+ design
Aocinn
,r"a dverose vDF vatues in the desisn' with this the resuttant
Average

7r:;::':;':r'niJa

2.

traffic worked out become erroneous'


Traffic (MSA) between the Concessionaire's
Following is the comparison of Design
growth
using maximum VDF values ond the minimum
submission and that worked out by lE
rates specified in standards'
Remarks

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

For both directions

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

;;;

When combined bsth

directions

troffic exceeds 20 MSA as ProPosed


From the above tsble it is seen thot the actuol design
l*)'V
by the Concessionoire (for 10 years of design qtt

Page 3 of 6

FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT CRUST DESIGN FOR NEW

PAVEMENT:

, ,-^-i)^-^alh6 Frr6.ri Subgrade cBR as 10%' Based


materiar and considered the Effective
for borrow area materiar and embankment
The designer had provided test resurts
following crust composition:
the
proposed
had
proposed design traffic 20 nllsn' *'t designer
on effective cBR (10%) and the
crust thickness
Following is the comparison of Design
by the l'E':
out
worked
that
and
Concessionaire
Pavement Composition for New CarriaqewaYi

Existing carriageway proposed by the


for new carriageway & overlay thickness for

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.

Overlav Thickness for Existine Carriageway:

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

:::::

Note: Concessionaire has considered the Maximum thickness of BC/DBM as per


BBD test data.
Further, there is change in design MSA than that proposed. Hence the
overlay thickness
requirement is changed as shown in above table.
RfGfD PAVEMENT: As per IRC-37-2007 Clause 5.3, "The rigid povements
shall

period

of not less thon j0

yeors,

be

designed

in occordance with the method prescribed in

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'

since the Pavement is designed for effective cBR of t0% (embankment


as well as subgrade),
the same shall be ensured during construction.

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

the overlay on existing

carriageway,

all

distresses have

to

systematically analyzed and corrective action shall be properly assessed and


carried out.

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

Grade of Bitumen VG 40.


1.

Bituminous Concrete (BC) Mix requirements shall be as per Section 507


Specifications (5'h Revision)

of

MoRTH

Grade of Bitumen VG 40

Shall have binder content 0.5

to 0.6% more than Optimum

Binder Content obtained by Marshal method


2

Dense

Macadam (DBM)

Wet Mix

of design

Bituminous Ultimately it should possess:

Macadam

(wMM)

Volume of bitumen = L3%o by volume of the mix with air Voids


(Va) of 3%.
Mix requirements shall be as per Section 505 of MoRTH
Specifications (5'h Revision)
As per Section 406 of MoRTH 5'n Revision
As per Section 401" of MoRTH 5'n Revision

Aggregare Grading shall be Grading conforming


Table 400-1 of MoRTH (5'h Revision)

to V or Vl of

Granular Sub Base {GSB)

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.

Email: ksrinivas@aarvee.net, nivas.kasi@smail.com

Page 5 of 6

\ I ?OY

Anda mungkin juga menyukai