Anda di halaman 1dari 115

ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OF A RIGID PAVEMENT WITH VARYING

TYPES OF SHOULDERS, SUBBASE AND SUBGRADE


A
DissCTtation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements


For the Award of the Degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(Transportation Engineering)

BY
SURENDER SINGH
(Roll No. 3130809)

Under the guidance of

Dr. S.N. SACHDEVA


Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
NIT Kurukshetra

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KURUKSHETRA
(JUNE-2015)
'7>
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
KURUKSHETRA

I iiereby certify tliat Uie work presented in this dissertation entitled "Analysis of Desi^ of a
Rigid Pavement witli Varying Types of Shoulders, Subbase and Subgrade" submitted to
National institute of Technology Kurukshetra in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering (Transportation
Engineering), is an authentic record of my own work carried out during the periodfiromJuly
2014 to June 2015 under the supervision and guidance of Dr. S. N. Sachdeva, Professor, Civil
Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra.

Tlie matter presented in this dissertation has not been submitted by me for the award of any
other degree of this histitute or any other Institute.

Dated; I =] -06-2015 (Surdficfer 'Singh)


Roll Number-3130809

Tliis is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge.

(Dr. S. N. Sachdeva)
Dated: \*S-06-2015 Thesis Supervisor, &
Professor
Civil Engg. Deptt.
NIT, Kurukshetra
v^r

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to Dr. S. N.
Sachdeva, Professor, Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology
Kurukshetra for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throu^out
the course of my thesis work. The blessing, help and guidance given by him shall carry me a
long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I am equally obliged to all the Civil Engineering Department for the valuable guidance
provided by them in their respectivefields.I am gratefiil for their cooperation during the entire
period of my assignment.

I am highly obliged to the various sources of literature without which the successful completion
of the project would not have been possible.

Last but not the least; I am thankful to everyone who supported me, for I have completed my
thesis effectively and moreover on time. fl ^

Surender Singh
(3130809)

III
TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENT PAGE NO.

CEEITIFIJCATE n
ACKNOWLDGEMENT in
TABLE OF CONTENT iv
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES „» xi
1. INTRODUCTION , 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Research Topic and its Importance 4

1.3 Objectives of the Research 5

1.4 Scope of the Research 5

1.5 Presentation of the Thesis Work 6

2. METHODS OF DESIGN 7

2.1 General 7

2.2 Present Trend in Concrete Pavement Design 7


2.2.1 AASHTO Method 7
2.2.2 Indian Rxiads Congress Method 11
2.2J PCA Method 15

3. IRC GUIDELINES 16

3.1 General 16

3.2 Concrete Pavement Types 16

3.3 Factors Governing Design 17


3.3.1 Axle Load Characteristics 17
3.3.2 Wheel Base Characteristics 18
3.33 Design Period 19
3.3.4 Traffic Consideration „ 19

iv
3.3.5 Tonperature Consideration 21
3.3.6 Embankment Soil And Characteristics Of Subgrade And Subbase 23

3.4 Design of Slab Thickness 30


3.4.1 Critical stress condition 30
3.4.2 Calculation of flexural stress 33
3.4.3 Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis 37
3.4.4 Design Criterion of Rigid Pavements 38

3.5 Stq)s Followed in Pavement Design 38

4. PAVEMENT DESICT* ~~.40

4.1 General 40

4.2 Design Data 40

4.3 Pavement Design using IRC: 58-2011 41


4.3.1 Dry Lean Concrete of 100 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength 41
4.3.2 Dry Lean Concrete of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength 57
4.3.3 Granular Subbase of 150 mm Thidmess as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength ..„ „ 59
4.3.4 Granular Subbase of 225 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength 60
4.3.5 Granular Subbase of 300 mm Thidcness as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength 61
4.3.6 Cement Treated Subbase of 100 mm Thidcness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength 62
4.3.7 Cement Treated Subbase of 150 mm Thidmess as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength 63
4.3.8 Cement Treated Subbase of 200 mm Thidcness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength 64
4.3.9 Thickness of Pavement at Varying Traffic Volume of Commercial Vehicles 65

4.4 Pavement Design using IRC: 58-2002 68


4.4.1 Design Data „ 68
4.4.2. Dry Lean Concr^ of 100 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength ~ 68
4.43 Dry Lean Concrete of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength „ 73
4.4.4 Granular Subbase of 150 mm Thidmess as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength „ 74
4.4.5 Granular Subbase of 225 mm Thidowss as Subbase Layer witii Varying Subgrade
Strength 75

V
4.4.6 Granular Subbase of 300 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying Subgrade
Strength 75
4.4.7 Cement Treated SiAbase of 100 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength 76
4.4.8 Cement Treated Subbase of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength 76
4.4.9 Cement Treated Subbase of 200 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength 77
4.4.10 Thickness of Pavement at Varying Traffic Volume of Commercial Vehicles 77

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 80

5.1 General 80

52 Effect of Varying Strength of Subgrade on Thickness of Pavement 80


5.2.1 Dry Lean Concrete of 100 mm as Subbase Layer 80
5.2.2 Granular Subbase of 150 mm as Subbase Layer 81
5.2.3 Cement Treated Subbase of 100 mm as Subbase Layer 82

5.3 Effect of Type of Subbase on Thickness of Pavement 83

5.4 Effect of Thickness of Subbase on Pavement Thickness 84

5.5 Effect of Shoulder Type on Pavement Thickness 86

5.6 Effect of TrafQc Volume on Pavement Thickness 86

5.7 Comparison With Results Obtained By Using IRC: 58-2002 88


5.7.1 Effect of Varying Strength of Subgrade on Thickness of Pavement 88
5.7.2 Effect of type of Subbase on Thickness of Pavement 90
5.7.3 Effect of Thickness of Subbase on Thickness of Pavement 91
5.7.4 Effect of Traffic Volume on the Thickness of Pavement 93

6. CONCLUSIONS 95

6.1 General 95

62 Analysis of Design with IRC: 58-2011 95


6.2.1 Effect of Varying Strength of Subgrade on Thickness of Pavement 95
6.2.2 Effect of Type of Subbase on Thickness of Pavranent 96
6.2.3 Effect of Thickness of Subbase on Pavement Thickness.... 96
6.2.4 Effect of Shoulder Type on Pavement Thickness 96
6.2.5 Effect of Traffic Volume on Pavement Thickness 96

63 Analysis of Design with IRC: 58-2002 97

vi
6.3.1 Effect of Varying Strength of Subgrade on Thickness of Pavement 97
6.3.2 Effect ofTypeofSubbase on Thickness of Pavement 97
6.3 J Effect of Hiickness of Subbase on Pavement Thickness 98
6.3.4 Effect of TrafSc Volume on Pavement Thickness 98

6.4 IRC: 58-2011 v/s IRC: 58-2002 98

6.5 Issues Regarding IRC: 58-2011 99

6.6 Scope for Future Researdi 100

REFERENCES , „„„„, .-,„•„,-,, . 101

VII
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
No. Descriptions No^
2.1 J Factor values for the AASHTO Road test 10

2.2 Bradbury's coefficients 13

3.1 Recommended temperature differentials for concrete slabs 22

3.2 Relationship between K-Value and CBR Value for Homogeneous Soil Subgrade....25

3.3 K-Values for Granular and Cement Treated Subbases 27

3.4 K-Values for Dry Lean Concrete Subbase 28

4.1 Axle load spectrum 41

4.2 Category Wise Axle Load Rq)etitions 43

4.3 Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis for Bottom-up Cracking 45

4.4 Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis for Top-Down Cracking 46

4.5 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness 47

4.6 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness 48

4.7 Cumulativefeliguedamage values for different trial thickness 49

4.8 Cumulativefetiguedamage valuK for different trial thickness 49

4.9 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness 50

4.10 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness 51

4.11 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness 52

4.12 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness 52

4.13 Cumulativefeliguedamage values for different trial thickness 53

4.14 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness.. 54

viii
4.15 Cumulative fatigue damage values for different trial thickness 55

4.16 Cumulative fatigue damage values for different trial thickness 55

4.17 Cumulative fatigue damage values for different trial thickness 56

4.18 Cumulative fatigue damage values for different trial thickness 57

4.19 Pavement thickness with DLC subbase (150 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders.58

4.20 Pavement thickness with DLC subbase (150 mm thick) and earthen shoulders 58

4.21 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (150 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders.59

4.22 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (150 mm thick) and earthen shoulders 59

4.23 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (225 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders.60

4.24 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (225 mm thick) and earthen shoulders 60

4.25 Pavement thickn^s with GSB subbase (300 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders.61

4.26 Pavrancnt thickness with GSB subbase (300 mm thick) and earthen shoulders 61

4.27 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (100 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders..62

4.28 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (100 mm thick) and earthen shoulders.. 62

4.29 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (150 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders..63
4.30 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (150 mm thick) and earthen shoulders 63
4.31 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (200 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders..64
4.32 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (200 mm thick) and earthen shoulders 64
4.33 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (100 mm) at varying traffic volume 65

4.34 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varjong traffic volume 65

4.35 Thickness of pavement with GSB subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume 66

4.36 Thickness of pavemait with DLC subbase (100 mm) at varying traffic volume 66

4.37 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume 67

4.38 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume 67

ix
4.39 Axle Lxiad Spectrum 68

4.40 Cumulative Fatigue Damage for Single Axle 70


4.41 Cumulative Fatigue Damage for Tandem Axle 71

4.42 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil 73


4.43 Thickness ofthe pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil 74
4.44 Thickness ofthe pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil 74

4.45 Thickness ofthe pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil 75


4.46 Thickness ofthe pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil 75
4.47 Thicknessofthepavementat varying CBR of subgrade soil 76
4.48 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil 76
4.49 Thickness ofthe pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil ....77
4.50 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (100 mm) at varying traffic volume .78

4.51 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume 78

4.52 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume 79

5.1 Thickness ofpavemait for different conditions of shoulders 86

5.2 Thickness of pavement at different conditions 87

5.3 Thickness of pavement at different conditions 94


LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. Page
No. Description No.

1.1 Typical layers of arigidpavement 3


3.1 Typical Cross Sections of Concrete Pavements 17
3.2 Chart for Estimation of Effective CBR of Subgrade 26
3.3 Axle load placed in the middle of the slab during mid-day 31
3.4 Placement of Axles for maximum edge flexural stress at bottom of the slab without
tied concrete shoulders 31
3.5 Placement of two axles of a conraiercial vehicle on a slab curled during night hours.32
3.6 Different axle load positions causing tensile stress at the topfiberof the slab with tied
concrete shoulder 32
5.1 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strength for sub base of 100 mm DLXD 80
5.2 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strength for sub base of 150 mm GSB 81
5.3 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strength for sub base of 100 mm CTS 82
5.4 Thickness ofpavement versus different Subbase Material.. 83
5.5 Thickness ofpavement versus thickness of Granular Subbase 84
5.6 Thickness ofpavement versus thickness of Dry Lean Concrete Subbase 85
5.7 Thickness ofpavement versus thickness of Cement Treated Subbase 85
5.8 Thickness of pavement versus TraflBc volume 87
5.9 Thickness ofpavement versus subgrade strength for DLC subbase (100 mm thick)..88
5.10 Thicloiess ofpavement versus subgrade strength for Granular Subbase (150 mm
thick) 89
5.11 Thickness ofpavement versus subgrade strength for Cement Treated Subbase 90
5.12 Thicknessofpavement versus type of Subbase 91
5 13 Thickness of pavement versus thickness of Granular Subbase 92
5.14 Thickness ofpavement versus thickness of DLC Subbase 92

xr
5.15 Thickness of pavement versus thickness of Cement Treated Subbase 93
5.16 Thickness of pavement versus traffic volume 93

XII
CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Transportation infiastructurc is vital for rapid economic growth of a country. Speedy


transportation of natural resources (such as raw materials), fmished goods and perishable
materials to all parts of the country, including the points of export outlets, are basic inputs to
economic growth. In the last two to three decades there has been a major shift in transportation
mode ftom Railways towarfs Road sector. As per MORTH (2008-11), in 2009-10, about
62.9% offreightand 85.2% of passenger transport was met by road transport in India which
demonstrates the need for development of a good road network.
In 2011, India had a road network of 46.9 lakh kilometers making it the second largest in the
world after USA which had a road network of 65.45 lakh km. In India the road network consists
of Expressways, National Hi^ways, State Hi^ways, Major District Roads, Other district
Roads, Village Roads and some Project Roads. The National Highways extending over 70934
km act as the main road network in the country (MORTH, 2008-11). Though the NH accoimt
fiar l^s than 2% of the total roads, they cany about 40% of the total traffic. The National
Highways are intended to facilitate medium and long distance inter-city passenger and Slight
traffic across the country. The State Highways are supposed to carry the traffic along major
centers within state. Otho- District Roads and Village roads provide village accessibility to
meet the social needs and also the means to transport agriculture producefiomvillage to nearby
markets. Major District Roads provides the secondaryftmctionof linkages between main roads
and rural roads.
A highway pavement is a structure which consists of superimposed layers of processed
materials above the natural soil sub-grade, whose mainftmctionis to distribute the applied
vdtiicle loads to the sub-grade. The pavement structure should be able to provide a surface of
acceptable riding quality, adequate skid resistance,fti%«rablelight reflecting characteristics,
and low noise pollution. The ultimate aim is to ensure that the transmitted stresses due to wheel
load are sufficiently reduc^ so that they will not exceed bearing capacity of the subgrade.
Two types of pavements are genoally recognized to this purpose, namelyflexiblepavements
and rigid pavements. In flexible pavements, wheel loads are transferred by grain-to-grain
contact of the aggregate through the gramilar structure. The flexible pavement, having
negligiblefleaoiralstrength, acts like a flexible sheet. On the contrary, in rigid pavements,
wheel loads are transferred to sub-grade soil by flexural strength of the pavement and the
pavement acts like arigidsheet. In addition to these, con^site pavements are also available.
A thin layer offlexiblepavement overrigidpavement is an ideal pavement with most desirable
characteristics. However, such pavements are rarely used in new construction because of their
high cost and complexity in analysis. In India,flexiblepavements (bitumen) are more common
for both national and state highways. Majority of roads are also built with conventional
bitumen pavements considering its lower initial cost, though the life cycle cost of these
pavements are high compared torigidpavements due tofrequentrepairs. Also, there is a need
for complete resurfedng at interval of 4-5 years. Further, fuel consumption of vehicles is
higher on this type of pavement than that on rigid pavement. In advanced countries rigid
pavement is increasingly being used due to a large niraiber of benefits. Considering durability
of concrete pavements, Noida-Agra and Mimibai-Pune expressway have been built with
jointed cement concrete pavement.

Rigid pavements are so named because the pavement structure deflects very little under loading
due to the h i ^ modulus of elasticity of their surfiice course. Rigid pavements have sufficient
flexural strength to transmit the wheel load stresses to a wider area below. Compared to flexible
pavement,rigidpavements are placed either directly on the prepared sub-grade or on a single
layer of granular or stabilized material.

A typical rigid pavement structure consists of the sur&ce course and the underlying base and
sub tese courses (if used). The surfece course which is made of PQC, is the stiffest and
provides the majority of strei^th. The imderiying layers are less stiff, but still make important
contributions to pavemrat strength. Typical layers of arigidpavement are shown in fig 1.1.
Pavemexit Quality Concrete Slab 250-3S0 mm

Base/Siibbase 100-150 mm DLC

Dramage Layer 150 mm GSB

Sabgrade 500 mm

Fig.1.1 Typical layers of arigidpavement


There are many factors that affect the rigid pavement design, which can be classified into four
categories as traffic and loading, structural models, material characterization and enviroimient.
Among tliese; subgrade strength, type of the sub base material and axle load repetitions are the
main factors affecting the thickness of a rigid pavement

The design of the various pavement layers is very much dependent on the strength of the
subgrade soil over which they are going to be laid. Subgrade strength is mostly expressed in
terms of CBR (Cahfomia Bearing Ratio). Weaker subgrade essentially requires thicker layers,
whereas stronger subgrade goes well with thinner pavement layers. The strength of the
subgrade is expressed in terms of modulus of subgrade reaction 'K', which is defined as die
pressure per unit deflection of the foundation as determined by plate load test. Since the plate
load test is time consuming and expensive method, therefore, the design 'K' value is often
estimatedfi-omthe soaked CBR value.

The main purpose of the sub base is to provide a stable, uniform and permanent support to the
concrete slab laid over it. It must have a sufficient strength so that it is not subjected to
disintegration and erosion under h^vy traffic and adverse environmental conditions such as
excessive moisture,fi^eezmgand thawing.

For designing the rigid pavement, effective modulus of subgrade reaction is considered
(subgrade and sub base).

Well designed and maintained shoulders are an unportant part of cement concrete pavement.
Th^' do not only give lateral support to the pavement slab, but also protect the edges of high
volume highway pavements by reducing the edge flexural stress. In case of tied concrete
shoulders / paved shoulders, this widened part can be used by vehicles as an extra lane, thereby
maintaining the Level of service. The shoulders can also be used for paridng in popiilated urban
areas. If rough texture is provided to paved shoulders it will bring in additional safety for
vdtdcles particularly during ni^t hours. The paved / tied concrete shoulders will also add to
the economy of the future project as this widened part itself can be extended to make a new
lane.

1.2 TOPIC OF STUDY AND ITS IMPORTANCE

The study topic entitled "Analysis of Design of a Rigid Pavement with Varymg Types of
Shoulders, Subbase and Subgrade" consists of designing arigidpavement using the latest IRC
recommendations given in IRC: 58-2011.

The rigid pavements due to their longer life, lesser maintenance cost and with almost
comparable cost of construction, especially for heavy traffic roads, have a great scope in the
time to come. Recently, the IRC guidelines have been revised for the design of cement concrete
pavements. The inqjortance of the topic lies in designing the cement concrete pavement using
the latest guidelines and evaluating the effect of variations in the subgrade strength, type of
subbase and its thickness, type of shoulder and traffic volume on thickness of the pavement.
The IRC code recommends a minimum value of CBR of subgrade as 8% without mentioning
any reason for the same. Similarly the code has given the provision of designing the pavement
with different types of subbase such as Dry Lean Concrete, Granular subbase and Cement
Treated Subbase, with varying thicknessfixnn100 mm to 150 mm, 150 mm to 300 mm and
100 mm to 200 mm respectively, without mentioning where a particular subbase / thickness is
to be adopted. Similarly the code provides for designing the pavement with Earthen and Tied
(cement concrete) shoulders.

An attempt has been made in the thesis to evaluate the effect of varying strength of subgrade,
type of subbase and its thickness, type of shoulder and traffic volimie on the thickness of
pavement. It is expected that the outcome of the study will help in knowing the benefits, if any,
by adopting the varying conditions of subgrade, subbase and shoulders in the design of a rigid
pavement.
13 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The stiidy entitled "Analysis of Design of a Rigid Pavement with Varying Types of Shoulders,
Subbase and Subgrade" has the following main objectives:

1) To design therigidpavement with varying subgrade strengths of CBR 2% to 10%.


2) To design the rigid pavement considering different available options in the code for
subbase materials such as Dry Lean Concrete, Granular Subbase and Cement Treated
Subbase.
3) To design therigidpavement with different thickness of Dry Lean Concrete, Grranular
Subbase and Cement Treated Subbase.
4) To design the rigid pavement with different conditions of shoulders such as tied
concrete shouldos and earthen shoulders.
5) To design therigidpavement by varying the traffic volume.
6) To compare the above designs evolved by the latest IRC guidelines given in IRC: 58-
2011 with the design approach given by the previous version of the same IRC code,
that is, IRC: 58-2002.
7) To discuss the issues related to design guidelines given in the latest code, that is, IRC:
58-2011.
8) To discuss the bmefits, if any, by adopting the varying conditions of subgrade, subbase
and shouldos in the design of arigidpavement.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The design in the study is carried out for a 4-lane divided National Highway assimied to be
located in Haryana. The design is done by taking different options of sub base such as DLC,
Granular sub base and Cement treated sub base with differoit values of CBR of subgrade
rangingfiom2% to 10% for both cona^e (tied) and earthen shouldo- conditions.

The design is valid for the design of rigid pavement of new roads. This design is for all
cal^ories of roads such as E)q)ressways, National Hi^ways, Major District Roads and for all
Stre^ Roads carrying commercial vehicles more than 450 per day. Though the given designs
are s^plicable to the given road with given values of subgrade strength, subbase and shoulder
type, the design philosophy being general in nature can be applied to any other road as well
having similar conditions.

1.5 PRESENTATION OF THE THESIS WORK

The thesis work has been presented in six chapters:

• The first chapter deals with Introduction of the Study Topic and its Objectives and
Scope.
• The second chapter (teals with Methods of Design of Rigid Pavements.
• The third chapter d«cribes the relevant IRC Guidelines for the design of Rigid
Pavements.
• The fourth chapter deals with Design of the pavement with varying conditions of
Sd>grade, Subbase, Shoulders and Traffic Volume by using IRC: 58-2011 and IRC:
58-2002.
• Thefifthch^ter deals with the Analysis and Discussion of Results.
• The sixth chapter brings out the Conclusions and Scope forfixtureresearch.
CHAPTER-2

METHODS OF DESIGN

2.1 GENERAL

Although pavement design has gradually evolvedfromart to science,ranpiricismstill plays an


important role. Prior to the 1920's, the thickness of pavements were based purely on
experience. The same thickness was used for a section ofhighway evai though widely different
soils were encountered. As experience was gained throughout the years, various methods were
developed by different agencies for determining the thickness of pavement required. It is
neither feasible nor desirable to document all the methods that have been used so far; however
3 important methods (AASHTO, PCA and IRC) has berai descried briefly.

2.2 PRESENT TREND IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN

Since conaete pavementsfoildue to bending stresses, it is necessary that their design is based
onflexuralstrength of concrete.

2JZ.1 AASHTO Method

The AASHTO design method for design of concrete pavements was evolved from the
AASHTO road test. Pavement performance, sub-grade and sub-base strength, traffic,
propaties of concrete, drainage, and reliability were the aspects considered in the pavement
design. The following is the eqiiation for design of rigid pavements suggested by AASHTO
code.

Log(Wia) =Zii+ So + 7.3S/o5io(D + 1 ) - 0.06 + ^^'^ ~ ^'^^


1 n J. /1:624_*10^\

-l-(4.22 - 032pt)logto ''\,^^,^ i8.42 ,


(21S.63J){P°-7S. p " ' " )
- • (2.1)
0.25'
^
Where,
Wig is the pr^cted numbo- of 18 kip equivalent single axle load applications
So is the combined standard error of the trafBc and performance predictions
ZR is the standard normal deviate
Pt is the terminal pavement serviceability
PSI is the Present SCTviceability Index
D is the thickness of the slab (inches)
Sc is the modulus of rupture (Psi) for the cement concrete
Cd is the drainage coefBcient
Ec is the modulus of elasticity (Psi) of the cement concrete
K is the modulus of sub-grade reaction (Psi)
J is the load transfer coefficient

2^.1.1 Inputs

The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation requires a number of inputs related to loads, pavement
structure and subgiade support. These iiq}Uts are:

• The predicted loading: - The predicted loading is simply the predicted number of 80
kN (18,000 lb.) ESALs that the pavranent will experience over its design lifetime.
• Reliability: - The reliability of the pavement design-performance process is the
probability that a pavement section designed using the process will perform
satis&ctorily over the trafBc and environmental conditions for the design period
(AASHTO, 1993). In otho- words, there must be some assurance that a pavement will
perform as intended given variability in such things as construction, environment and
materials. The ZR and So variables account for reliability.
• FCC elastic modulus:- If no value is known, the PCC elastic modulus (Ec) can be
estimatedfiomrelationships:

Ec=570007f^ ....(2.2)

Where:

Ec = PCC elastic modulus and Fck = PCC compressive strength


Slab depth: - The pavement structure is best characterized by slab depth (D). The
number of ESALs a rigid pavement can carry over its lifetime is very sensitive to slab
deptL As a general rule, beyond about 200 mm (8 inches) the load carrying capacity
of a rigid pavement doubles for each additional 25 mm (1 inch) of slab thickness.
Drainage coefScient: - Rigid pavement is assigned a dramage coefficient (Cd) that
represents the relative loss of strength due to its drainage characteristics and the total
time it is exposed to near-saturation moisture conditions. Generally, quick-draining
layers that almost never become saturated can have coefficients as high as 1.2 while
slow-draining layers that are often saturated can have drainage coefficients as low as
0.80. If subsurface drainage is expected to be a problon, positive drainage measures
should be taken. In general, the use of drainage coefficients to overcome poor drainage
conditions is not recommended (i.e. more slab thickness does not necessarily solve
water-related problems). Because of the peril associated with its use, often times the
drainage coefficient is neglected (i.e., set as Cd = 1.0).
Serviceable life: - The difference in present serviceability index (PSI) between
construction and end-of-life is the serviceability life. The equation compares this to
default values of 4.2 for the immediately-after-construction value and 1.5 for end-of-
life (terminal serviceability). Typical values used now are:
Post-construction: 4.0 - 5.0 depending upon construction quality, smoothness, etc.
End-of-life (called "terminal serviceability" and designated "Ft"): 1.5 - 3.0 depending
upon road use (e.g., interstate highway, urban arterial, residential)
Load transfg- coefficioit (J Factor):- This accounts for load transfer efficiency.
Essentially, the lower the J Fkrtor the better the load transfer. The J Factor for the
AASHTO Road Test was estimated to be 3.2. Typical J factor values are as shown
below in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 J Factor values for the AASHTO Road test

Condition J
Factor
Undoweled PCC on crushed aggregate surfacing 3.8
Doweled ?CC on crushed aggregate surfecing 3.2
Doweled PCC on HMA (without widened outside lane) 2.7
and tied shoulders
CRCP with HMA shoulders 2.9-3.2
CRCP with tied shoulders 2.3-2.9

• Modulus of subgrade reaction: - The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is used to


estimate the "support" of the PCC slab by the layers below. Usually, an "effective" k
Oorff) is calculated which reflects base, subbase and subgrade contributions as well as
the loss of siqjport that occurs over time due to erosion and stripping of the base,
subbase and subgrade.

2.2.12 Outputs

The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation can be solved for any one of the variables as long as all
the others are siqjplied. Typically, the output is either total ESALs or the required slab depih
(D). In design, the rigid pavement equation described in this section is typically solved
simultaneously with therigidpavemrait ESAL equation. The solution is an itCTative process
that solves for ESALs in both equations by varying the slab depih (D). The solution is iterative
because the slab depth (D) has two key influences:

a) The slab depth (D) determines the total number of ESALs that a particular pavement
can stqjpoit. This is evident in the rigid pavement design equation presented in this
section.
b) The slab dq)th also determines what the equivalent 80 kN (18,000 lb.) single axle load
is for a given load.

10
Therefore, the slab depth (D) is required to determine the number of ESALs to design
for before the pavement is ever designed. The iterative design process usually proceeds
as follows:
i. Rigid pavement design ii^uts are gathered and determined (ZR, SO, APSI, Pt, Ec, Sc, J,
Cd and keff).
ii. Rigid pavement ESAL equation i:q)uts are determined,
iii. Slab depth (D) is assumed,
iv. The equivalencyfectorfor each load type is determined by solving the ESAL equation
using the assumed slab depth (D) for each load type.
V. The tiafBc coimt for each load type is estimated for the entire design life of the
pavement and is multiphcd by the calculated ESAL to obtain the total number of
ESALs expected over the design life of the pavement,
vi The assumed slab depth (D) is inserted into the design equation and the total number
of ESALs that the pavement will support ova* its design Ufe is calculated,
vii. The ESAL values in #V and #VI are compared. If they are reasonably close (say within
5 percent) then the assumed slab depth (D) is considered as safe. If they are not
reasonably close, a hi^er slab depth (D) is assumed, and above steps are repeated.

2J2J, Indian Roads Congress Method

2.2.2.1 IRC: 58-2002

The modulus of sub-grade reaction k is the necessary strength parameter used for the design
of concaxte pavements. The k value is derived from the plate load test. The plate load test is
time consuming and expensive and, therefore, the design k-value is often estimated fix>m
soaked CBR value.

The load stress is the highest in the coma- of pavement, less at the edge, and the least in the
interior of the pavement The order in which the temperature stress varies is maximized and
diat die maximum combined stress is considered for design of thickness. The cumulative
&tigue damage is determined for diffo^it axle loads and the value of the damage should be
equal or less than one in orda* to consider the trial thickness to be safe.

11
2.2.2.1.1 Effect due to load

IRC: 58-1988 has adopted the analysis by Westergaard (modified by Teller and Sutherland).
The load stress in the critical edge region is given by:-

^^_.^z9.(i^^«rt ^^l„g^^L^ + l„g^^b - 0.4048) (2.3)

Where;

oie Is the load stress in the edge region (kg/cm^)

P is the design wheel load (1^)

h is the pavement slab thickness (cm)

\L is the Poisson's ratio of concrete

E is the modulus of elasticity of concrete (kg/cm^)

b is the radius of eqmvalent distribution of pressure

= a for ^> 1.724


h

= (1.6a2+h2)0-5 - 0.675h, for J < 1.724 (2.4)

a is the radius of circular contact area (cm)

The stress due to load can be computed by using HIRIGID Software.

2.2.2.12 Edge Stress due to temperature

The edge stress due to toi^jerature considered by IRC: 58-2002 is;

CEaT
S« = - Y - (2-5)

Where;

Set is the temi^iature stress in the edge region (kg/cm^)

C is the Bradbury's coefficient

12
T is the maximum temperature stress in the edge r ^ o n (kg/cm^)

a is the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete

L is the slab length between consecutive joints

W is the slab width

The Bradbury's coefficient for different ratios can be obtainedfix)mTable 2.2.

Table 2.2 Bradbury's Coefficients


ITlorB/l C L/lorB/1 C
1 0 7 1.03
2 0.04 8 1.077
3 0.175 9 1.08
4 0.44 10 1.075
5 0.72 11 1.05
6 0.92 12 1

2.2.2.1.3 Comer stress due to load

S.c=^[l-(^)'*'] (2.5)

Where

Sic is the load stress in the comer region (kg/cm^)

P is wheel load (kg)

A is radius of equivalent circular contact area, (cm)

222.1 A Comer stress due to Temperature

The comer stress due to temperature is negligible as comers arefreeto warp.

2.2.2.1.5 Stress Ratio and Fatigue Damage

Due to r^eated application of flexural stresses by the traffic loads, [H-ogressivefetiguedamage


takes place in the cement concrete slab in the form of gradual development of micro-cracks
13
especially when ratio between the applied flexnral stress and the flexural strength of concrete
is high. This ratio is termed as stress ratio (SR). If the SR is less than 0.45, the concrete is
expected to sustain infinite number of repetitions. As the stress ratio increases, the number of
load rqaetitions required to cause cracking decreases. The relation between fatigue life (N) and
stress ratio is given as:

N = unlimited for SR < 0.45

r 4 2S77 13.268
/V = _ l _ i i l _ For 0.45 <SR< 0.55 (2.6)

0 9718—SR
logioN= -p^^g ForSR>0.55 (2.7)

The cumulative fatigue damage is determined for different axle loads and the value of the
dama^ should be equal or less than one in order to consider the trial thickness to be safe.

2.2.2.1.6 Steps followed in pavement design

The following steps may be followed for design of the concrete slab.

i. Design values for the various parameters are stimulated. The joint spacing and the lane
width are also decided. If there is boxmd base layer put over the sub-grade, a suitable
value of effective k is chosenfiomtheoretical or other considerations.
ii. A trial design thickness of pavement slab is selected.
iii. The repetitions of axle loads of different magnitudes and different categories during
the design life are computed.
iv. The stresses due to single and tandem axle loads is calculated and the cumulative
fatigue damage is determined.
V. If the CFD is more than 1, a higher thickness is selected and the above steps are
repeated.
vi. The temperature stress at tte edge is confuted and if the sum of the temperature stress
and the flexural stress due to the highest wheel load is greater than the modulus of
rupture, a higher thickness is selected and the above stq)s are repeated.
vii. If dowel bars are not provided then the pavement thickness should be determined on
the basis of como' stresses.

14
1222 m C ; 58-2011

IRC has recentlyrevisedthe guidelines for the design ofrigidpavements and are explained in
detail in Chapter 3.

223 PCA Method

The PCA method is developed by the Portland Cements Association, USA. The PCA method
is based on Westergaard, Picket, and Ray's work and further theoretical analysis by the finite
element method (FEM). The PCA design method is based on the following two considerations:

a) Consideration of fatigue damage to the concrete slab due to repetitive application of traffic
bad. Thefetiguecharacteristics of the concrete are used to develop this criterion.

b) Considerations of possibilities of erosion of pavement materials placed below the concrete


slab. The rate at which the slab is deflected due to axle load is used as a criterion for erosion.
The computed comer deflection, pressure, and the radius of relative stiffiiess are used in the
analysis.

The steps involved in the design of concrete pavement by the PCA method are:

i. The stresses developed for a trail thickness of the concrete slab are calculated for
various axle loading configurations and the critical one is chosen,
ii. The ratio between the developed stresses and the modulus of rupture is calculated,
iii. The allowable repetitions fiom fatigue considerations are obtained fiom the &tigue
diaiacteristics of concrete for a given stress ratio. Similarly, the erosion fector is
calculated fixjm the stress ratio where fixjm the allowable repetitions from erosion
considerations are obtained,
iv. The individual damagefractionis calculated by dividing the actual traffic repetitions
by the allowable repetitions of that particular axle load.
V. The process is rq)eated for various axle loads and the cimuilative damage is calculated.
The cumtilative damage should be equal to one for pavement to be just safe, otherwise
the trail thickness is changed and the design process repeated.

15
CHAPTER-3

IRC GUIDELINES

3.1 GENERAL

The guidelines of IRC: 58-2011 recommend that the following aspects should be given
consideration while designing to achieve better paforming pavements:

1. D^ign of pavements considering theflexuralstress under the simultaneous action


of load and temperature gradient for different categories of axles.
2. Design considering bottom up and top-down cumulative fatigue damage caused by
single, tandem and tridem axle load applications.
3. Consideration of in-built permanent curl in the analysis offlexuralstresses.
4. Design guidelines for pavements without concrete shoulders and with tied concrete
shoulders.
5. Consideration of Concrete slabs with imbonded as well as bonded cement bound
subbase.
6. Design of pavements with widened outer lanes.

3.2 CONCRETE PAVEMENT TYPES

Several types of concrete pavements have been used in different coimtries depending upon the
climate, availability of materials, soil typ^, experience and traffic. Typical cross sections of a
few pavements arc shown in Fig 3.1. When PQC is laid over a bituminous surfece during the
hot weather it is inq)ortant to whitewash the surface of BC/DBM-I (Fig 3.1 (b) &(c)) because
black body absorbs heat which may be injurious to concrete.

16
f>QC PQC PCK:
, f H 2 S M>C3RON PVC SHEET
BC OBMI
OVCJ CBS^NT TREATED
CEMENTTREATED
GRANULAR SUBBASE
GRANULARSUBBASE

(SSe as OaAJNAGE lAYER ORAIMAGE LAYER


OR/MNAGE LAYER

GSBas FrLTER/ SEPARAnON HLreR^EPARWiOej LAYER


FIUnEt|^Ei>ARATION LAYER

SU8GRADE SOOmm SUB6ARDE SOOmm SUB6RAOE Smmm

(i4 Vietow^ttim layer o f {b} Debonding layer o f 4 0 m m {«j PQC over ^36mn» o l .
}pdtfSmn<t sheet over Be overcemerrt treated OBIVt I and granular subbase
cement treated subbase subbase layer
layer

Fig. 3.1 Typical Cross Sections of Concrete Pavements

33 FACTORS GOVERNING DESIGN

The main fectors governing design of concrete pavements are :- d^ign period, design
commercial traffic volume, composition of commercial traffic in terms of single, tandem,
tridem and multi-axles, axle load spectrum, tyre pressure, lateral placement characteristics,
directional distribution, strength of foundation and climatic considerations.

33.1 Axle Load Characteristics

Thou^ the legal axle load limits in India are 10.2 tons (lOOkN), 19.0 tons (1861cN) and 24.0
tons (235kN) for single, tandem and tridem axles respectively, a large number of axl^
operating on National Hi^ways carry much heavier loads than the legal limits. Data on axle
load spectrum of the commercial vehicles is required to estimate the repetitions of single,
tandem and tridem axles in each direction expected during the design period. Minimum
percentages of commercial vehicles to be weighed should be 10% for volume of commercial
vehicles per day (CVPD) exceeding 6000,15% for CVPD for 3000 to 6000 and 20% for CVPD
less than 3000. Axle load survey may be conducted for a continuous 48-hour period. The

17
vehicles to be surveyed may be selected randomly to avoid bias. If the spacing of consecutive
axles (wheel base) is more than 2.4 m, each axle shall be considered as a single axle. The
intCTvals at whidi axle load groups shoxild be classified forfetiguedamage analysis are:-

Singleaxle 10 kN

Tandem axle 20 kN

Tridem axle 30 kN

For most of the commercial highway vdiicles, the commonly used tyre inflation pressures
rangefiiomabout 0.7 MPa to 1.0 MPa. It is foimd that stresses in concrete pavements having
thickness of 200 mm or higher are not affected significantly by the variation of tyre pressure.
A tyre pressure of 0.8 MPa is adopted for design in these guidelines.

332 Wheel base characteristics

Infonnation on typical spacing between successive axles of commercial vehicles is necessary


to identify the proportion of axles that should be considered for estimating top-down fetigue
cracking caus«i by axle loads during night period. The slab has the tendency of curling up due
to negative tenqjerature diffCTential. Data on the spacing of axles may be collected during the
traf&c survey. As discussed in subsequent sections of these guidelines, if the spacing between
any pair of consecutive axles is less than the spacing of transverse joints, such axles need to be
considered in the design trafQc for computing top-downfetiguecracking damage. Wheel bases
of trucks of differrat models generally rangefix)m3.6 m to more than 5.0 m whereas the
commonly used spacing of transverse joints is 4.5 m. Thus, axles with spacing of more than
4.5 m will not to contribute to top-down fetigue cracking. However, if the actual spacing of
transverse joints is diSereatfiiom4.5 m, design trafiBc for estimation of top-down cracking
damage may be selected appropriately. The percentage of commercial vehicles with spacing
between thefrontand thefirstrear axle less than the proposed spacing of the transverse joints
in the concrete slab should be establishedfiwmaxle load survey.

18
333 Design Period

Cement concrete pavemaits may be designed to have a life span of 30 years or more.
However, the design engineer should use his/her judgment about the design period taking
into considerationfectorssuch as traffic volume, uncertainty of traffic growth rate, the
capacity of theroadand the possibility of augmentation of capacity by widening.

33.4 Traffic Consideration

3.3.4.1 Design lane


The lane canying the maximum number of heavy commercial vehicles is termed as design
lane. Each lane of a two-way two-lane highway and the outCT lane of multi-lane highways can
be considered as design lanes.

3.3.4.2 Design traffic


Assrasment of average daily traffic should normally be based on seven-day 24-hour count
made in accordance with IRC: 9 "Traffic Census on Non-Urban Roads". The actual value of
annual rate of growth 'r' of commercial vehicles should be determined using appropriate
methods. As per IRC: SP: 84, annual growth rate of commercial vehicles shall be taken to be
a minimum of 5 %. The traffic counts and the corresponding traffic estimates should indicate
the day and night traffic trends as the loading during the day hours is generally responsible for
bottom-iq) cracking whereas the night time traffic may lead to top-down cracking.

The edge flexural stress caxised by axle loads for bottom up cracking is maximimi when the
tyre imprint of the outer wheel touches the longitudinal edge. When the tyre position is away
even by 150 mmfix)mthe longitudinal edge, stress in the edge region is reduced substantially.
The edge flexural stress is small when the wheels are close to the transverse joints. Typical
lateral distribution characteristics of wheel paths of commercial vehicles observed on Indian
highways indicate that very few wheels of vehicles are tangential to the longitudinal edge /
joint on two-lane two-way roads and divided multi-lane highways. Some multi-lane divided
highways have 8.5 m to 9,0 m wide carriageways with a single longitudinal joint in the centre.
The lane markings in these cases do not coincide with the longitudinal joint resulting in a larger

19
proportion of wheel patbs being positioned close to the longitudinal joint compared to the
situation where the lane maridngs match with longitudinal joints.
Taking mto considCTation these issues, it is recommended that 25 per cent of the total two-way
commercial trafBc may be considered as design traffic for two-lane two-way roads for the
analysis offetiguedamage. In the case of four-lane and other multi-lane divided highways, 25
per cent of the total traflSc in the direction of predominant traffic may be considered for design
of pavement.

The design traffic for top-down cracking analysis will be a portion of the design traffic
considered for bottom-up cracking analysis. Only those commercial vehicles with the spacing
between the front axle and the first rear axle less than the spacmg of transverse joints should
be considered for top-down cracking analysis. This percentage should be estabUshedfromaxle
load / traffic survey. A defeult value of fifty percent of the design traffic used for bottom-up
cracking analysis may be considered.
In case of new higjiway links, where no traffic count data is available, data from roads of
similar classification and in^rtance may be used to predict the design traffic intensity.

Expected number of applications of different axle load groups during the design period can be
estimated using the details of commercial traffic volume, expected rate of growth of
conm^rcial traffic, and the information about axle load spectrum and the number of single,
tandem andtiidemaxles obtainedfromaxle load survey. Front axles (steering axle) with single
wheels on either side cause only negligible bottom-up fatigue damage.

The cumulative numbo- of commercial vehicles during the design period may be estimated
fix)m the following expression.

C= ^^^ (3.1)
r
Where

C = Cumulative number of commercial vehicles during the design period

20
A=Initial number of commercial vehicles per day in the year when the road is opened

to traffic

r = Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic volume (expressed as decimal)

n = Design period in years

3 J.5 Temperature Consideration

3.3.5.1 Temperature Differential

Temperature differential between the top and bottomfibersof concrete pavements causes the
concrete slab to curl, giving rise to stresses. The ten^)erature differential is a function of solar
radiation received by the pavement surface, wind velocity, thermal diffusivity of concrete,
latitude, longitude and elevation of the place and is thus affected by geographical features of
the pavement location. Asferas possible, temperature differential values estimated realistically
for the given site usingrelevantgeogrq)hical parameters and material characteristics should
be used for analysis. In the absence of any local data, the maximmn temperature differential
values given in Table 3.1 may be adopted for pavement design. The variation of temperature
with dq}th is non-linear during the day time and nearly linear during night hours. The
maximum temperature differential during the night is nearly half of the day time maximum
temperature differential.
Temperature differentials are positive when the top surface of a pavement slab has the tendency
to have a convex shape during the day hoiu^ and n^ative with a concave shape during the
night. The axle load stresses should be computed for fetigue analysis when the slab is in a
curled state due to the temperature differential during day as well as night hours.

21
Table 3.1. Recommended temperature differentials for concrete slabs
Zone State/Regions Max. Temperature Differential °C in
Slab of Thickness
150mm 200mm 250mm 300m
to
400mm
I Hilly region UttaiBnchal, West Bengal, 12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8
Jammu& Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and
Anmachal Pradesh

n Punjab, UP, Uttaranchal, Gujarat, 12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8


Rajasthan, Haryana and North M.P,
excluding hiUy regions

m Bihar, Jhaikhand, West Bengal, Assam and 15.6 16.4 16.6 16.8
Eastern Orissa, excluding hilly regions and
coastal areas

IV Maharashtra, Kamataka, South M.P., 17.3 19 20.3 21


Chhattisgaih, Andhra Pradesh, Western
Orissa and North Tamil Nadu, excluding
hilly regions and coastal areas

V Kerala and South Tamil Nadu, excluding 15 16.4 17.6 18.1


hilly r ^ o n s and coastal areas

VI Coastal areas boimded by hills 14.6 15.8 16.2 17

vn Coastal areas unbounded by hills 15.5 17 . 19.2

3.3.5.2 Zero stress temperature gradient

Cement concrete slabs laid during day time will have high positive temperature gradients due
to intense solar radiation, high air temperature and chemical reaction in the cemented mass. In
spite of this positive tempoBture differential occurring in concrete laid during day time, the
slab remains flat during ibe hardening process because of its plastic stage. The slab is stress
free in this condition with hightemperatureon the top surface and lower at the bottom fiber
and the corresponding temperature gradient is known as 'zero stress temperature gradient'.

22
Research on in-service concrete pavements indicates that exposure offreshconcrete to sun and
high air tenq)erature during the hardening stage causes building of permanent curl in the
concrete pavements which is nearly equivalent to the curl caused by a negative temperature
differential of about 5 °C. This equivalent negative temperature differential has to be added
algebraically to the actual temperature differential prevailing at any time. Field investigations
on existing pavements located in different regions of the coimtry will be necessary to establish
the zero stress temperature gradient for future guidance.

If the maximiiTn positive temperature differential during the day time is 20 °C, the temperature
differential for stress computation can be taken as 15 °C. However, this 5 °C reduction is
generally not made so that the design for bottom-up cracking will be conservative.

During the night hours, if the temperature differential is 10 °C, the total effective negative
temperature differential can be taken as 15 °C (10 °C + 5 °C). If mist spray of water can be
appUed over the curing compound during the period of intense solar radiation during day time,
the built-in permanent curl will be less. It is safer to consider the effective negative temperature
gradient for checking the slab for top-down cracking caused by the combined effect of traffic
loads and nigjht time negative tenqjerature differential.

It is ideal to carry out hourly cumulative fatigue damage analysis but data for carrying out such
anracerciseis not available. It is suggested that the maximum positive and negative temperature
differentials respectively may be assumed to be constant for the six hour period during the day
between 10 AM and 4 PM and for the six hour period between 0 AM to 6 AM during night
hours. The slab may be assumed to be free of warping stresses for the remaining 12 hours for
the purpose offetiguedamage analysis as the fatigue damage caused by the combined action
of load and tenqierature differential will be insignificant during this period. The timings refer
to Indian Standard time and may be different for diffo-ent geographical locations in India.

33.6 Embankment soil and characteristics of subgrade and subbase

3.3.6.1 Embankment

CBR of onbankment soil placed below the 500 mm select subgrade should be determined for
estimating the effective CBR of subgrade and its 'k' value for design.

23
The nature of embankment foundation strata such as expansive clays, marine clays, soft clays,
black cotton soil, etc. needs to be studied to take special measures like consolidation of the
strata by accelerated pore pressure dissipation, removal of expansive black cotton soil strata
and replacement by non-expansive soil, use of geo synthetics to arrest tension cracks or soil
stabilization etc. Soil swell can be controlled by surcharge loads or by placing the swelling
soils in the lower part of an embankment. Selective grading and soil mixing is also helpfiil. In
deep cut sections, removal of overburden soils causes soils to swell. It is, therefore, advisable
to excavate deep cuts in advance of other grading work to allow expansion to occur and
stabilize. Expansive soils should be compacted at 1-3 percent above Optimum Moisture
Content (OMC) as determined by Standard Proctor. Use of the OMC from the Modified
Proctor will leave the soil too dry and more prone tofiitureexpansion. The soil should not be
allowed to dry out excessively before GSB and other layers are laid. If non-expansive soils are
not available, it may be more economical to modify the existing soil with lime or cement or
both. A thorough study needs to be undertaken on case specific basis and detailed treatment of
foundation strata is beyond the scope of these guidelines.

3.3.62 Subsrade

The subgrade is usually considered as a Winkler foundation, also known as dense liquid
foundation. In Winkler model, it is assumed that the foundation is made up of springs
supporting the concrete slab. The strength of subgrade is expressed in terms of modulus of
subgrade reaction, k, which is defined as the pressure per imit deflection of the foundation as
determined by plate load tests. The k-value is determined from the pressure sustained at a
deflection of 1.25 mm. As k-value is influenced by test plate diameter, the standard test is to
be carried out with a 750 mm diameter plate. IS: 9214, "Method of Determination of Modulus
of Subgrade Reaction of Soil in the Field" may be referred to for guidance in this regard. A
fi-equency of one test per km per lane is reconmiended for assessment of k-value. If the
foundation changes with respect to subgrade soil, type of subbase or the nature of formation
(i.e. cut orfill)then additional tests may be conducted.

Though 750 mm is the standard plate diameter, smalls diameter plate can be used in case of
homogeneous foimdationfrompractical considoiation and the test values obtained with plates
of smaller diameter may be converted to the standard 750 mm plate value using equation 3.2.

24
k750 = k<? (1.21^+ 0.078) .(3.2)

Where;

0 = plate diameter, metre

k0 = modulus of subgrade reaction (MPa/m) with plate diameter 0 metre

k750 = modulus of subgrade reaction (MPa/m) with plate diameter of 750 mm (k)

The estimate obtained from Equation 3.2 is regarded as approximate only. However, in case
of layered construction, the tests conducted with smaller plates give greater weightage to the
stronger top layer, and direct conversion to 750 mm plate values using Equation 3.2 results in
somewhat over-estimation of the foundation strength.

The subgrade soil strength and consequently the strength of the foundation as a whole, is
affected by its moisture content. Since the k-value cannot be determined in thefieldat different
moisture contents and densities, CBR tests may be carried out at field moisture content and
field density both in soaked and im-soaked condition and the measured k-valuefromplate load
test may be corrected in the ratio of CBR values under soaked and un-soaked conditions to
obtain the k-value corresponding to the weakest condition of subgrade. The plate load test is
time-consuming and expaisive and, therefore, the design k-value is often estimated from
soaked CBR value. The relationship between the CBR and k-value illustrated in table 3.2 can
be used for this pinpose.

Table 3.2. Relationship between K-Value and CBR Value for Homogeneous Soil Subgrade
Soaked 2 3 4 5 7 10 15 20 50 100
CBR(%)
k-value 21 28 35 42 48 55 62 69 140 220
(MPa/m)
N<)te: 10() pci=2.77 kg/ain3=27.2 MPa/m

If the CBR of the 500 mm thick compacted subgrade is significantly larger than that of the
embankment below it, the effective CBR of the subgrade can be estimatedfromFigure 3.2. A
minimmn CBR of 8 % is recommended for the 500mm of the select soil used as subgrade.

25
The in-situ CBR of the subgrade soil can also be determined quicklyfiromthe Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (600 cone) tests xising the following relationship (ASTMD6951)

logio CBR = 2.465 - 1.121ogio N (3.3)

Where N = rate of cone penetration (mm'blow)

CBRof emt3ranl«jTi«M»t soU b e l o w SOOmm of s e l e c t s u b g r a d e

10 20 30 40 SO 60
CBR of COMPACTED BORROW MATERIAt SOOIVMWI THICK

F ^ . 3 J, Chart for Estimation of Effective CBR of Subgrade


It is advised to providefilterand drainage layers above the subgrade for drainage of water to
prevent (i) excessive softoiing of subgrade and subbase and (ii) erosion of the subgrade and
subbase particularly under adverse moisture condition and heavy dynamic loads.

3.3.6.3 Subbase

The main purpose of the subbase is to provide a uniform, stable and permanent support to the
concrete slab laid OVCT it. It must have sufficient strength so that it is not subjected to
disintegration and erosion imder heavy traffic and adverse environmental conditions such as
excessive moisture,freezingand thawing. In the light of these requirements, a subbase of Dry
Lean Concrete (DLC) having a 7-day average compressive strength of 10 MPa determined as
per IRC-SP:49 is recommended. Minimum recommended thickness of DLC for major
highways is 150 mm.

26
Availability of good qxiality aggregates has become a big hurdle in the construction of
pavements because of closures of old quarries, restriction on new queries and crushing of
aggregates from environmental considerations. Similar problems are being faced in other
countries also. In the light of international experience, a minimum characteristic 28-day
compressive strength of 7 MPa is recommended for cement treated subbases while ensuring
that the siqjport is pennanent, uniform and non-erodible. Loss of weight of cement treated
subbases shall not exceed 14% after 12 cycles of "Wetting and Drying Test / freezing and
thawing" tests as per BIS : 4332 (Part IV) - 1968. Freezmg and thawing test is relevant for
snow bound regions of Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, etc.

In the case of problematic subgrades such as clayey and expansive soils appropriate provisions
shall be made for blanket course in addition to the subbase as pa* the relevant stipulations of
IRC:15.

Effective k-values of different combinations of subgrade and subbase (imtreated granular and
cement treated granular) can be estimatedfromTable 3.3. For concrete pavements laid over a
bituminous subbase, the k-value can be adopted from IRC: SP: 76. k-value for different
combinations of DLC subbase (with DLC having minimum 7-day compressive strength of 10
MPa) thicknesses laid over granular subbase consisting of filter and drainage layers can be
adoptedfromTable 3.4. The contribution of granular subbase placed below the DLC layer can
be ignored for estimating the effective modulus of subgrade reaction of the foimdation. The
values given in Table 3.4 are based on theoretical analysis and an upper lunit of 300 MPa/m is
recommended considering the loss of subgrade support expected to be caused by heavy trafGc.

Table 33. K-Values for Granular and Cement Treated Subbases


k-value of Effective k (MPa/m) of untreated Effective k (MPa/m) of cement treated
subgrade granular subbase of thickness (mm) subbase of thickness (mm)
(MPa/m)

150 225 300 100 150 200

28 39 44 53 76 108 141
56 63 75 88 127 173 225
84 92 102 119 - - -

27
Table 3.4. K-Values for Dry Lean Concrete Subbase
k-value of Subgrade 21 28 42 48 55 62
(MPa/m)
Effective k for 100 mm 56 97 166 208 278 389*
DLC, (MPa/m) (300)
Effective k for 150 mm 97 138 208 277 412* 300
DLC, (MPa/m) (300)
*Note: The maximum recommended value may be taken as 300 MPa/m in place of the k-
values of 389 MPa/m and 412 MPa/m given in table 3.4.

3.3.6.4 Separation layer between DLC and concrete slab

The interfece layer between the concrete slab and the DLC layer can be made smooth to reduce
the kiss layer Mction thereby allowing relative movement between the slab and DLC layer. A
de-bonding interlayer of polythene sheet having a minimum thickness of 125 micron is
recommended as per the current practice in India. Wax based compound in place of plastic
sheet has popularly been used with success in most coimtries including India in one of the
National Hi^way projects.

3.3.6.5 Concrete Strength

Flexural strength of concrete is required for the purpose of design of concrete slab. Flexural
strength can be obtained after testing the concrete beam as per procedures given in 18:516.
Alternatively, it can be derivedfromthe characteristic conpressive strength of concrete as per
IS 456-2000 using the following relationship:

Fcr = 0.7xVfck (3.4)

Where Fcr =flexuralstrength (modulus of rupture), MPa

fck = characteristic compressive cube strength of concrete, MPa

Usually, concrete design is based on 28 days strengtL In the case of concrete pavement, 90
days strength can be permitted in view of the feet that during initial period of 90 days, the
number of rep^tions of load is very small and has n ^ g i b l e effect on cumulative fetigue
damage of concrete. Increasing the 28 days flexural strength by a factor of 1.10 is

28
recommended to get 90 days strei^th. In no case 28 days flexural strength of pavement quality
concrete should be less than 4.5 MPa.

3.3.6.6 Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio of Concrete

The modulus of elasticity (E) and Poisson's ratio (n) of cement concrete are known to vary
with concrete materials and strength. The elastic modiilus increases with increase in strength,
and Poisson's ratio decreases with increase in the modulus of elasticity. While it is desirable
that the values of these parameters are ascertained experimentally for the concrete mix and for
the materials actually to be used in the construction, this information may not always be
available at tiie design stage. A 25 % variation in E and ]i values will have only a marginal
efGxt on the flexural stresses in the pavement concrete. Following values were adopted for
stress analysis for the concrete with 28-dayflexuralstrength of 4.5 MPa (4.95 MPa for 90-day
strength).

Modulus of elasticity of concrete, E = 30,000 MPa

Poisson's ratio, }i = 0.15

3.3.6.7 CoeflScient of thermal expansion

The coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete (a) is dependent to a great extent on the type
of aggregates used in concrete. Howevo", for design purpose, a value of a = 10 x 10-6 / "C is
adopts.

3.3.6.8 Fatigue bdiavior of cement conCTete

Due to repeated application offlexuralstresses by the traffic loads, progressivefetiguedamage


takes place in the cement concrete slab in the form of gradual development of micro-cracks
espa:ially when ratio between the appUedflexuralstress and thefl^curalstrength of concrete
is high. This ratio is termed as stress ratio (SR). If the SR is less than 0.45, the concrete is
expected to sustam infinite number of rq)ctitions. As the stress ratio increases, the nvmiber of
load rqjetitions required to cause cracking decreases. Therelationbetween fatigue life (N) and
stress ratio is given as:

29
N = unlimited for SR < 0.45

-^-^— When 0.45 < 5/? < 0.55 (3.5)


R-0.4325J '

logioN = °'^^3^g^^ ForSR>0.55 (3.6)

Thesefetiguecriteria are used for checking the adequacy of the pavement slab on the basis of
Miner's hypothesis. It is assumed that the fatigue resistance not consumed by repetitions of
one load is available for repetitions of other loads. The fatigue criteria developed by Portland
Cement Association (PCA, 1980) are conservative and these can be used for the analysis of
bottom-up and top-down cracking.

3.4 DESIGN OF SLAB THICKNESS

3.4.1 Critical stress condition

In-service cement concrete pavements are subjected to stresses due to a variety of factors acting
simultaneously. The severest combination of different factors that induce the maximum stress
in the pavement will give the critical stress condition. Theflexuralstress due to the combined
action of traffic loads and tempo-ature differential between the top and bottom fibres of the
concrete slab is consid^ed for design of pavement thickness. The effect of moisture change is
opposite to that of tenq)erature change and is not normally considered critical to thickness
desigiL Theflexuralstress at the bottom layer of the concrete slab is the maximum during the
day hours whm the axle loads act midway on the pavement slab while there is a positive
temperature gradicxtt as illustrated in Fig 3.3 and 3.4. This condition is likely to produce
bottom-up cracking (BUC).

30
Location of
tnasimutaXeosik
Stmigth

FoBoiaion.

Fig. 33 Axle load placed in the middle of the slab during mid-day
Locations of points of maximum flexural stress at the bottom of the pavement slab without tied
concrete shoulder for single, tandem and tridem axles are shown in Figure 3.4. The tyre
imprints are tangential to the longitudinal edge. For tied concrete shoulders also, the maximum
stress occurs at the same locations. Single axles cause highest stress followed by tandem and
tridem axles respectively. Spacing between individual axles for tandem and tridem axles varies
from 1.30 m to about 1.40 m. There is practically no difference in stresses for axle spacing
bdween 1.30 m and 1,40 m. A spacing of 1.30 m has been used in the guidelines for stress
computation.

^
4-
Transverse Joint Transverse Joint

DO DO
DD DD DD
DD DD DD DD
Tandem Axle
Tridem ^ l e

tixatton of Maximum "BmsRe Stress at Bottom of stab without concrete shouMers

Fig. 3.4 Placemait of Axlesformaximum edge flexural stress at bottom of the slab without
tied concrete shoulders
During the night hours, the top surface is cooler than the bottom surface and the ends of the
slab curl up resulting in loss of siq}port for the slab as shown in fig. 3.S. Due to the restraint

31
provided by the self-weight of concrete and by the dowel connections, temperature tensile
stresses are caused at the top. Fig. 3.6 shows the placement of axle loads close to transverse
joints when there is negative temperature gradient during night period causing high flexural
stresses in the top layer leading to top-down cracking. Positioning of axles of different
configurations on the slab with successive axles placed close to the transverse joints is shown
in fig. 3.6. These axle positions can initiate top-down cracking (TDC) during the night hours
whai the pavement has the tendency to curl up. Built-in permanent curl induced during the
curing of the concrete slabfiirtheraggravates the problem.

Fig. 3.5 Placement of two axles of a commercial vehicle on a slab curled during night hours

^r & -f A- 4.
Transverse Jci 11
7 Transverse joint
7
Transverse Joint
7
D 0 D D D D

DD DD DD DD DD DD
DD DD DD DD
DD DD
L^
Lf -f L| — ^ - f—

Fig. 3.6 Different axle load positions causing tensile stress at the top fibre of the slab with
tied concrete shoulder
32
3A2 Calculation of flexural stress

Since the loads causing failure of pavements are mostly applied by single, tandem, tridem and
other multiple axles, stresses should be detemiined for the conditions illustrated in fig. 3.3 to
3.6. The nTRIGID software used for the preparation of IRC:58-2002 for computation of
flexural stress in the edge region due to single and tandem axle loads was based on Picket and
Ray (1951)'s work on computation of stresses in infinite slabs. The software is still valid for
a>mputation of load stress in the edgeregionof pavements without tied concrete shoulders if
there is no tenq)erature gradient in the slab. Finite Element Method (FEM) is more appropriate
for stress computation for a wide variety of load, temperature, geometry and boundary
conditions. Finite element analysis has been carried out using nTSLAB-II, a software
developed at HI Khaiagpur, to compute flexural stress due to the combined action of load
(single, tandem and tridem axles) and different temperature differentials (positive and
n^ative).

The finite element analysis results have also been used to develop regression equations for
estimation of theflexuraltensile stress for bottom-up as well as top-down cracking cases.

For the conq)utation of stress for bottom-up cracking analysis, only the rear axles (single as
well as tandan) with two wheels (dual wheel sets) on eUher side of each axle have been
considered as thefixmtaxles do not contribute to any significant fatigue damage. For top-down
cracking, rear axle is comidered at one end and thefix)ntaxle at the other end. As shown in
fig. 3.6, only one axle of the tandem and tridem axles is assumed to be placed on the slab under
consideration. Thus, for a tandem axle, 50 % of the tandem axle weight is considered for
analysis. For a tiidem axle, 33 % of the tridem axle weight may be taken for analysis. The
correspondingfixrataxle is taken as 5G % of the rear axle, (25 % of rear tandem axle or one
sixth of rear tridem axle loads).

3.4^1 E3q}ressioiis for maxiinam tensUe stress at the bottom of the slab (for bottom-up
cracking case)

33
Single axle - Pavement with tied concrete shoulders

a) k<80MPa/m

S = 0.008 - 6.12 7 ~ + 2.36 7 ^ + 0.0266 AT (3.7)


k*12 k*l'*

b) k>80MPa/m,k<150MPa/m

Y*h^ P*h
S = 0.08 - 9.69 7::^ + 2.09 ^—j + 0.0409 AT (3.8)
k*l2 k*l^

c) k>150MPa/m

Y*h^ P*h
S = 0.042 + 3.26 T-r^ + 1.62 7-77 + 0.0522 AT (3.9)
k*F k*!*
Single axle - Pavement without concrete shoulders

a) k <80MPa/m

Y*h^ p*h
S =_ 0.149-2.60-r-;7 + 3.13 —r + 0.0297 AT (3.10)
k*12 k*r

b) k>80MPa/m,kSlS0MPa/m

S=-0.119-2.99 7 ^ + 2.78-^+0.0456 AT (3.11)


k*12 k*l

c) k>150MPa/m

S =-0238 + 7.02—77 + 2.41 - ^ +0.0585 AT (3.12)


k*12 k*r

34
Tandem axle - Pavement with tied concrete shoulders

a) k < 80 MPa/m

S=-0.188+ 0 . 9 3 7 ^ + 1.025 ^ + 0.0207AT (3.13)

b) k>80MPa/m,k<lS0MPa/m

S =-0.174+1.21 7 ^ + 0.87 • ^ + 0.0364AT (3.14)


k*P k*r

c) k>150MPa/m

S=-0.210+ 3 . 8 8 7 ^ + 0.73 ^ + 0.0506AT (3.15)

Tandem axle - Pavement without concrete shoulders

a) k < 80 MPa/m

S = - 0.223 + 2.73~Tr + 1.335 - ^ + 0.0229 AT (3.16)


k*12 k*r '

b) k> 80 MPa/m, k£lSO MPa/m

S =-0.276+ 5 . 7 8 7 ^ + 1 . 1 4 ^ + 0.0404AT (3.17)


k*I2 k*i*

35
c) k>150MPa/m

Y*h^ P*h
S =-0.3 +9.88•|-;7 +0.965 — r + 0.0543 AT (3.18)
k*F k*l

3.4^2 Expression for maximum tensfle stress at the top of the slab (for top-down
cracking case)

For the analysis of top-down cracking, only rear axle load is the input. Front axle load is
assumed to be 50% of the rear axle load (tandem/tridem).

S =-0.219+ 1.686 • ^ +168.48 r - ; r +0.1089 AT (3.19)


k*l k*12

The symbols in the equations have the following meaning:

S is flexural stress in slab, MPa


AT is Maximum temperature dififerential in °C during day tune for bottom-up cracking is sxim
of the maximum night time negative tanperature differential and built-in negative temperature
differential in °C for top-down cracking
h is thickness of slab, m
k is effective modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation, MPa/m

1 is radius of relative stif&iess = = (7—rr —r J (3.20)


V(i2k(i-ii2))y
E is elastic modulus of concrete, MPa
ji is Poisson's ratio of concrete
y is Unit weight of concrete (24 kN/m3)
P is axle load; For Bottom Up Craddng Analysis'. - single/tandem rear axle load (kN). No
&tigue damag estimated forfront{steering) axles for bottom-up cracking case

For Top Down Craddng Analysis: - 100% of rear single axle, 50 % of rear tandem axle, 33%
of rear tridem axle. Nofrontaxle weight is required to be given as input for top down cracking
36
case 50% of rear single axle, 25 % of rear tandem axle, 16.5 % of rear tridem, axle have been
considered in thefiniteelement analysis as thefirontaxle weights for single, tandem and tridem
rear axles respectively.

3.43 Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis

For a given slab thickness and other design parameters, the pavement shall be checked for
cumulative bottom-up and top-down fetigue damages. For bottom-up cracking, the flexural
stress at the edge due to the combined action of single or tandem rear axle load and positive
temperature differential is considered. This stress can either be selectedfromthe stress charts
givai in appendix IV of IRC: 58-201 lor by using the regression equations given in 3.4.2.

Theflexuralstress is divided by the designflexuralstrength (modulus of rupture) of the cement


concrete to obtain stress ratio (SR). If the stress ratio (SR) is less than 0.45, the allowable
numbo- of cycles of axle load is infinity. For stress ratio values greater than 0.45, allowable
repetitions of different axle load groups can be estimated using equations 3.5 and 3.6. The
concrete slab imdergoes fatigue damage through crack growth induced by repeated cycles of
loading. The cumulative fatigue damage caused to the slab during its service Ufe should be
equal to or less than one.

Analysis indicates that contribution to CFD for bottom-up cracking is significant only during
10 AM to 4 PM because of higher stresses due to simultaneous action of wheel load and
positive temperature gradient. Thus, the day hour traffic during the six hour is to be considered
for bottom-up craddng analysis. For the top-down cracking analysis, only the CFD caused
during the period betweai 0 AM and 6 AM is significant. Hence, the six hour night time traffic
only is to be talKn for con:q)uting CFD for top-down cracking analysis. If the exact proportions
of traffic expected during the specified six-hour periods are not available, it may be assumed
that the total night time traffic is equally distributed among the twelve night hours. Similarly,
the total day time traffic may be assumed to be distributed uniformly among the twelve day
hours. The Cumulative fetigue damage (CFD) expressions for bottom-up and top-down
cracking cases are given by equations 3.21 and 3.22 respectively. The times indicated in the
equations will vary depending on the geographical location of the project site but the duration
of each period may practically remain the same.

37
CFD (BUC) = Xl ^ (10 AM to 4 PM) (3.21)

CFD (TDC) = S i ^ (0 AM to 6 PM) (3.22)

Where,

N[ = allowable ninnber of load repetitions for the i* load group during the specified six-hoiu-
period

Dj = predicted number of load rq)etitions for the i* load group during the specified six-hour
period

J = total number of load groi^

3.4.4 Design Criterion of Rigid Pavements

If the sum of cumulative &tigue damages (i) due to tensile wheel load stresses at the bottom
and (ii) tensile wheel load stresses at the top is less than 1, the pavement is safe. In other words,
a pavanojt is deemed to havefoiledif sum of cumulative damages is greater than one.

Thus if CFD (BUC) +CFD (TDC) < 1, the pavement is safefiiomlarge scale cracking.

3.5 STEPS FOLLOWED IN PAVEMENT DESIGN


The following stqjs may be followed for design of the concrete slab.

i. D^ign values for the various parameters are stimulated,


ii. A trial design thickness of pavement slab is selected,
iii. The repetitions of axle loads of different magnitudes and different categories during
the design life are computed,
rv. The proportion of axle load repetitions operating during the day and night periods are
found out.
V. The axle load rq)etitions in the six-hour-period during the day time is estimated. The
maximum temperature differraitial is assumed to remain constant during the 6 hours for
analysis of bottom-up cracking

38
vi. The axle load repetitions in the six-hour period during the night time is estimated. The
maximxim negative tenqjoature differential during night is taken as half of day-time
maximum temperature diffaential. Built in negative temperature differential of 5 °C
developed during the setting of the concrete is to added to the tonperature differential
for the analysis of top-down cracking. Only those vehicles with spacing between the
ftont (steering) axle and the first rear axle less than the transverse joint spacing is
considered for top-down cracking analysis.
vii. The flexural stresses at the edge due to the single and tandem axle loads for the
combined effect of axle loads and positive tranperature differential during the day time
is estimated. The stress ratio (Flexural stress/ Modulus of Rupture) is calculated and
the cumulativefetiguedam;^e (CFD) for single and tandem axle loads is evaluated,
viii. The maximumflexuralstress in the top surfece of the pavement slab with thefiontaxle
near the approaching transverse joint and the rear axle close to the following joint in
the same panel under negative temperature differential is computed. The stress ratio
and the CED for different axle loads is evaluated for the analysis of top-down cracking.
ix. Sirai of CFD for tiie BUG and TDC is calculated. If the sum is less than 1.0, the
pavement slab is safe against &tigue cracking.

39
CHAPTER-4

PAVEMENT DESIGN

4.1 GENERAL

In this chapter arigidpavement has been designed for varying conditions of subgrade, subbase,
shoulders and traffic. The CBR vahie of subgrade soil is variedfrom2% to 10%. Three types
of subbase namely Dry Lean Concrete (DLC), Granular Subbase (GSB) and Cement Treated
Subbase (CTS) have been considered m the design. The thickness of DLC, GSB and CTS is
varied from 100 mm to 150 mm, 150 mm to 300 mm and 100 mm to 200 mm respectively.
The design has been carried out for both type of shoulders, Earthen and Tied (Cement
Concrete) shoulders. The traffic volume is varied from 450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD hi both
directions.

For the sake of comparison, the same road has been designed with previous IRC guidelines
(IRC: 58-2002) as well.

4.2 DESIGN DATA

A cement concrete pavement has been designed for a four lane divided national highway with
two lanes in each direction (7.0 m x 2). It is assumed that the highway is to be constructed in
the state of Haryana The details of the axle spectrum of rear single, tandem and tridem axles
are given m table 4.1. A design life of 30 years is considered in this study. The total traffic in
the year of completion of construction is taken as 3000 commercial vehicles per day in both
the directions. The traffic growth rate is taken as 7.5 percent. The percentage of front single
axle, rear single axle, rear tandem axle and rear tridan axle are taken as 45%, 15%, 25% and
15% respectively. The percentage of commercial vehicles with spacing between thefrontaxle
and thefirstrear axle less than 4.5m is taken as 55% and it is assumed that 60% of the vehicles
travel during the n i ^ hours. Designflexuralstrength of concrete is taken as 4.95 MPa with a
unit weight of concrete as 24kN/m-' and elastic modulus as 30000 MPa. The average number
of axles per commercial vdiicles is assumed as 2.35 (due to the presence of multi-axle
vehicles).

40
Table 4.1 Axle load spectrum
Single Axle Tandem Axle Tridem Axle
Axle Load Frequency Axle Load Frequency Axle Load Frequency
Class Class Class
(% of single (%of (%of Tridem
kN axles) kN Tandem kN axles)
axles)
185-195 18.15 380-400 14.5 530-560 5.23
175-185 17.43 360-380 10.5 500-530 4.85
165-175 18.27 340-360 3.63 470-500 3.44
155-165 12.98 320-340 2.5 440-470 7.12
145-155 2.98 300-320 2.69 410-440 10.11
135-145 1.62 280-300 1.26 380-410 12.01
125-135 2.62 260-280 3.9 350-380 15.57
115-125 2.65 240-260 5.19 320-350 13.28
105-115 2.65 220-240 6.3 290-320 4.55
95-105 3.25 200-220 6.4 260-290 3.16
85-95 3.25 180-200 8.9 230-260 3.1
<85 14.15 <180 34.23 <230 17.58
100 100 100

43 PAVEMENT DESIGN USING IRC: 58-2011

The required slab thickness with diffo'ent subbase materials and varying subgrade strengths
are covered in section 4.3.1 to 4.3.8.

43.1 Dry Lean Concrete of 100 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

43.L1 Subgrade Soil having 2% CBR Value

41
• Considering CBR of compacted subgrade as 2%. Modulus of subgrade reaction =
21MPa/m (from table 32)
• Providiag 150 mm thick granular subbase as filter or separation layer above
subgrade.
• Providing a DLC subbase of thickness 100 mm with a minimum 7 days
compressive strength of 10 MPa.
• Providing a ddjonding l^rer of polythene sheet of 125 micron thickness between
DLC and concrete slab.

Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade + granular


subbase and DLC subbase (from table 3.4 by interpolation) = 56 MPa/m

a) Selection offlexuralstrength of concrete


• 28- day compressive strength of cement concrete = 40 MPa
• 90- day conqjressive strengfli of cement concrete = 48 MPa
• 28- dayflexuralstrength of cemait concrete = 4.5 MPa
• 90- dayflexuralstrength of c«nent concrete = 405 * 1.1 =4.95 MPa

b) Selection of Design traffic for Fatigue Analysis


• Design period = 30 years

• Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic (expressed in decimal) = 0.075

• Two-way commCTcial traffic volume per day = 6000 commercial vehicles / day '

• % of traffic in predominant direction = 50 % (3000 CVs in each direction)

• Total two-way commercial vehicles during design period:-


„ 36S*6000{Il+OJ)75p°-l} ^^^.., ^,,
C= = 226444692 CVs
0.075
• Average number of axles(steering/single/tandem/tridem) per conmiercial vehicle =
2.35
• Total two-way axle load rq)etitions during the design period = 226,444,692 * 2.35
= 532,145,025 axles
• Number of axles in predominant direction = 532,145,025 * 0.5 = 266,072,513
42
Design traffic after adjusting for lateral placement of axles (25 % of predominant
direction traffic for multi-lane highways) = 266,072,513 * 0.25 = 66,518,128
Night time (12-hour) design axle repetitions = 66,518,128 * 0.6 (60 % traffic
during nighttime)= 39,910,877
Daytime(12-hour) design axle repetitions = 66,518,128 * (1-0.6) = 26,607,251
Day-time Six-Hour axle load repetitions = 26,607,251 / 2 = 13,303,626
Hence, design number of axle load repetitions for bottom-up cracking analysis =
13,303,626
Night-time Six-Hour axle load repetitions = 39,910,877/ 2 = 19,955,439
% of commercial vehicles having the spacing between thefront(steering) axle and
thefirstaxle of the rear axle unit less than 4.50m = 55 %
Hence, the Six-hour night-time design axle load repetitions for Top-down cracking
analysis(wheel base < 4.5m) = 19,955,439 X 0.55 = 10,975,492
The axle load category-wise design axle load repetitions for bottom-up and top-
downfetiguecracking analysis are given in the table 4.2

Table 4 ^ Category Wise Axle Load Repetitions

Axle Category Proportion of the Category-wise axle Category-wise axle


axle-category repetitions for Bottom- repetitions for top-down
up cracking analysis cracking analysis
Front (steering) 0.45 5986632 4938972
single
Rear single 0.15 1995544 1646324
Tandem 0.25 3325907 2743873
Tridem 0.15 1995544 1646324

c) Cumulative Fatigue Damage (CFD) analysis for Bottom-up Cracking (BUC) and Top
Down Craddng (TDC) and selection of Slab Thickness
• Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation, k = 56 MPa/m

• Elastic Modulus of concrete, E = 30,000 MPa

• Poisson's ratio of concrete,;/ =0.15

43
• Unit weight of concrete, x = 24kN/m3

• Design flexural strength of concrete = 4.95 MPa

• Max. day-time Temperature Differential in slab (for bottom-up cracking) = 15.8 "C
(for Haryana)

• Night-time Temperature Differential in slab (for top-down cracking) =


Day-time differential , , ,« „ „^
—^ — + 5 = 12.9 °C
2

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with tied concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

• Trial Thickness of slab, h = 0.29 m


3 \0.25
(T—— ~r J
(izfed-M^))/
=1.027323 m

The fatigue damage for each axle load for Bottom up and Top down cracking for a trial
thickness of 29 cm is shown in tables 4.3 and 4.4.

44
Table 4 J Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis for Bottom-up Cracking (Midpoint
of the axle load classfix>mtable 4.1 is adopted for stress conq)utation)
Cumulative Fatigue Damiage For Bottom Up Cracking (For Rear Single Axle)
Axle Axle Freque Expected Flex. Stress Allowable Fatigue
Load Load ncy Repetition Stress Ratio Repetition Damag
Cass (KN) (%) MPa e
(KN)
185-195 190 18.15 362191 2.296 0.464 9197403 0.039
175-185 180 17.43 347823 2.186 0.442 Infinite 0
165-175 170 18.27 364586 2.077 0.420 Infinite 0
155-165 160 12.98 259022 1.967 0.397 Infinite 0
145-155 150 2.98 59467 1.857 0.375 Infinite 0
135-145 140 1.62 32328 1.747 0.353 Infinite 0
125-135 130 2.62 52283 1.638 0.331 Infinite 0
115-125 120 2.65 52882 1.528 0.309 Infinite 0
105-115 110 2.65 52882 1.418 0.286 Infinite 0
95-105 100 3.25 64855 1.309 0.264 Infinite 0
85-95 90 3.25 64855 1.199 0.242 Infinite 0
<85 80 14.15 282369 1.089 0.22 Infinite 0
Total 100 1995543 0.039
Cumulative Fatigue Damage For Bottom Up Cracking (For Rear Tandem Axle)
380-400 390 14.5 482257 2.023 0.409 Infinite 0
360-380 370 10.5 349220 1.928 0.389 fiifinite 0
340-360 350 3.63 120730 1.833 0.370 Infinite 0
320-340 330 2.5 83148 1.737 0.351 Infinite 0
300-320 310 2.69 89467 1.642 0.332 Infinite 0
280-300 290 1.26 41906 1.547 0.313 Infinite 0
260-280 270 3.9 129710 1.451 0.293 Infinite 0
240-260 250 5.19 172615 1.356 0.274 Infinite 0
220-240 230 6.3 209532 1.261 0.255 Infinite 0
200-220 210 6.4 212858 1.165 0.235 Infinite 0
180-200 190 8.9 296006 1.07 0.216 Infinite 0
<180 170 34Jt3 1138458 0.975 0.197 Infinite 0
Total 100 3325907 0

45
Table 4.4 (a) Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis for Top-Down Cracking (For Rear
Single Axle)
Axle Axle Frequ Expected Flexural Stress Allowable Fatigue
Load Load ency Repetition Stress Ratio Repetition Damage
Cass (KN) (%) (MPa)
(KN)
185-195 190 18.15 298808 2.392 0.483 1966925 0.152
175-185 180 17.43 286954 2.34 0.473 4045583 0.071
165-175 170 18.27 300783 2.289 0.462 11396349 0.026
155-165 160 12.98 213693 2.237 0.452 44087044 0.005
145-155 150 2.98 49060 2.185 0.441 Infinite 0
135-145 140 1.62 26670 2.134 0.431 Infinite 0
125-135 130 2.62 43134 2.082 0.421 Infinite 0
115-125 120 2.65 43628 2.03 0.41 Infinite 0
105-115 110 2.65 43628 1.978 0.4 Infimte 0
95-105 100 3.25 53506 1.927 0.389 Infinite 0
85-95 90 3.25 53506 1.875 0.379 Infinite . 0
<85 80 14.15 232955 1.823 0.368 Infinite 0
Total 100 1646325 0.254

Table 4.4 (b) Cumulative Fatigue Damage For Top Down Cracking (For Rear Tandem
Axle)

Axle Axle Frequ Expected Flexural Stress Allowable Fatigue


Load Load ency Repetition Stress Ratio Repetition Damage
Cass (KN) (%) (MPa)
(KN)
380^00 390 14.5 397862 2.418 0.488 1444756 0.275
360-380 370 10.5 288107 2.366 0.478 2765431 0.104
340-360 350 3.63 99603 2.315 0.468 6222972 0.016
320-340 330 2.5 68597 2.263 0.457 20909773 0.003
300-320 310 2.69 73811 2.211 0.447 Infinite 0.000
280-300 290 1.26 34573 2.159 0.436 Infinite 0.000
260-280 270 3.9 107012 2.108 0.426 Infinite 0.000
240-260 250 5.19 142408 2.056 0.415 Minite 0.000
220-240 230 6.3 172864 2.004 0.405 Infinite 0.000
200-220 210 6.4 175608 1.952 0.394 Infinite 0.000
180-200 190 8.9 244205 1.901 0.384 Infinite 0.000
<180 170 34.23 939228 1.849 0.374 Infinite 0.000
Total 100 2743878 0.398

46
Table 4.4 (c) Cumxilative Fatigye Damage For Top Down Cracking (For Rear Tridem
Axle)

Axle Axle Frequ Expected Flexural Stress Allowable Fatigue


Load Load ency Repetition Stress Ratio Repetition Damage
Cass (KN) (%) (MPa)
(KN)
530-560 545 5.23 86103 2.349 0.475 3455963 0.025
500-530 515 4.85 79847 2.297 0.464 9197403 0.009
470-500 485 3.44 56634 2.246 0.454 32043150 0.002
440-470 455 7.12 117219 2.194 0.443 Infinite 0
410-440 425 10.11 166444 2.142 0.433 Infinite 0
380^10 395 12.01 197724 2.090 0.422 Infinite 0
350-380 365 15.57 256333 2.039 0.412 Infimite 0
320-350 335 13.28 218632 1.987 0.401 Infinite 0
290-320 305 4.55 74908 1.935 0.391 Infinite 0
260-290 275 3.16 52024 1.883 0.38 Infinite 0
230-260 245 3.1 51037 1.832 0.37 Infinite 0
<230 215 17.58 289424 1.780 0.36 Infinite 0
Total 100 1646329 0.036

The cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness (25 cm, 26 cm, 27 cm, 28
cm and 29 cm) for Bottom Up and Top Down Cracking are shown in table 4.5.

Table 4 3 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness


Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum of Remark
Thick BUC s
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total and
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD TDC
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem CFD
Axles Axles Axles

0.25 22.971 3.014 25.985 3.213 4.103 0.592 7.908 33.893 NOT
OK
0.26 7.044 0.598 7.642 1.752 2.385 0.299 4.436 12.078 NOT
OK
0.27 2.024 0.052 2.076 0.932 1.344 0.148 2.424 4.50 NOT
OK
0.28 0.418 0 0.418 0.504 0.739 0.074 1.317 1.735 NOT
OK
0J9 0.039 0 0.039 0.254 0.398 0.036 0.688 0.727 OK

47
Pavement Option 11: Concrete pavement with earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints

The cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness (28 cm, 29 cm, 30 cm,
31cm and 32 cm) with earthen shoulders are shown in table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Cumulative fatigue damage values for different trial thickness
Slab CFD for BUC case Simiof Remark
CFD for TDC case
Thick BUC s
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total and
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD TDC
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem CFD
Axles Axles Axles

0.28 62.901 8.935 71.836 0.504 0.739 0.074 1.317 73.153 NOT
OK
0.29 21.422 3.238 24.66 0.254 0.398 0.036 0.688 25.348 NOT
OK
0.30 8.012 0.926 8.938 0.126 0.213 0.014 0.353 9.291 NOT
OK
0.31 2.747 0.162 2.909 0.038 0.084 0.004 0.126 3.035 NOT
OK
032 0.760 0 0.760 0 0.022 0 0.031 0.791 OK

43.12 Subgrade Soil having 3% CBR Value

Considering CBR of compacted subgrade as 3%. Modulus of subgrade reaction = 28MPa/m


(from table 3.2). Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade
+ granular subbase and DLC subbase (from table 3.4 by interpolation) = 97 MPa/m. The
cumulative fetigue damage values for different trial thickness for both Bottom up and Top
down cracking are shown in table 4.7 and 4.8.

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with tied concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

It ran be seen in table 4.7 that with the increase in the trial thickness of the slab cumulative
fetigue damage is decreasing for both bottom up and top down cracking and at 29 cm, the sum
of CFD (BUC+TDC) is less than 1. Tho-efore this trial thickness is considered to be safe for
the pavement.

48
Table 4.7 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness

Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Simi Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

025 15.144 0.986 16.13 2.085 2.869 0.366 5.320 21.450 NOT
OK
0.26 5.268 0.151 5.419 1.041 1.524 0.158 2.723 8.142 NOT
OK
0.27 1.678 0 1.678 0.496 0.761 0.069 1.326 3.004 NOT
OK
0.28 0.394 0 0.394 0.223 0.386 0.029 0.638 1.032 NOT
OK
0J9 0.048 0 0.048 0.096 0.176 0.01 0.282 0.330 OK

Pavement Option 11: - Concrete pavement with earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints

Table 4.8 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness


Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum of Remarks
Thick BUC
ness, Dxieto Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total and
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD TDC
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem CFD
Axles Axles Axles

0.29 20.279 1.859 22.138 0.096 0.176 0.01 0.282 22.420 NOT
OK
0.30 8.777 0.564 9.341 0.037 0.074 0.003 0.114 9.455 NOT
OK
0.31 3.467 0.10 3.567 0.006 0.017 0 0.023 3.590 NOT
OK
0.32 1201 0 1.201 0 0 0 0 1.201 NOT
OK
033 0.307 0 0.307 0 0 0 0 0.307 OK

It can be seen in table 4.8 that with the increase in the trial thickness of the slab cumulative
fetigue damage is decreasing for both bottom up and top down cracking and at 33 cm, the sum

49
of CFD (BUC+TDC) is less than 1. Therefore this trial thickness is considered to be safe for
the pavement.

43.13 Subgrade Soil having 4% CBR Value

Considering CBR of compacted subgrade as 4%. Modulus of subgrade reaction = 35MPa/m


(from table 3.2)

Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade + granular


subbase and DLC subbase (from table 3.4 by interpolation) = 131.5 MPa/m

The cumulative fatigue damage values for different trial thickness for both Bottom up and Top
down cracking are shown in table 4.9 and 4.10.

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with tied concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

Table 4.9 Cumulative fiatigue damage values for different trial thickness
Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum Remar
Thick of ks
ness, EHieto Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

0.25 18.353 0.938 19.291 1.730 2.416 0.284 4.480 23.721 NOT
OK
0.26 6.481 0.140 6.621 0.800 1.2180 0.122 2.140 8.761 NOT
OK
0.27 2.195 0 2.195 0.357 0.577 0.047 0.981 3.176 NOT
OK
0.28 0.596 0 0.596 0.149 0.275 0.017 0.441 1.037 NOT
OK
0^9 0.108 0 0.108 0.052 0.116 0.005 0.173 0.281 OK

The sum of CFD (BUC+TDC) is less than 1 for 29 cm thick slab, therefore this trial thickness
is considaed to be safe for the pavement.
Pavement Option 11: Concrete pavement with earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints

50
Table 4.10 Cumiilativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness
Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Simi Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

0.29 21.460 1.521 22.981 0.052 0.116 0.005 0.173 23.154 NOT
OK
0.30 9.366 0.444 9.810 0.014 0.042 0 0.056 9.866 NOT
OK
0.31 3.794 0.058 3.852 0 0.008 0 0.008 3.860 NOT
OK
0.32 1.323 0 1.323 0 0 0 0 1.323 NOT
OK
033 0.354 0 0.354 0 0 0 0 0.354 OK

The sum of CFD (BUC+TDC) is less than 1 for 33 cm thick slab, thaefore this trial thickness
is considered to be safe for the pavement.

4 J.1.4 Subgrade Sofl having 5% CBR Value

Considering CBR of con^jacted subgrade as 5%. Modulus of subgrade reaction = 42MPa/m


(from table 32)

EfiBxtive modulus of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade + granular


subbase and DLC subbase (from table 3.4 by interpolation) =166 MPa/m

The cumulativefetiguedanaage values fcff different trial thickness for both Bottom up and Top
down cracking are shown in table 4.11 and 4.12.

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with tied concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

51
Table 4.11 Cumulativefiitiguedamage values for different trial thickness

Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Siun Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

024 17372 1.066 18.438 3.179 4.226 0.552 7.957 26.395 NOT
OK
025 7.364 0.198 7.562 1.468 2.075 0.238 3.781 11.348 NOT
OK
026 3286 0.015 3.301 0.677 1.026 0.096 1.799 5.100 NOT
OK
027 1.287 0 1.287 0.289 0.485 0.037 0.811 2.098 NOT
OK
0.28 0.439 0 0.439 0.111 0.205 0.011 0.327 0.766 OK

Pavement Option U: Concrete pavement with earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints

Table 4.12 Cumulative &tigue damage values for different trail thickness
Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum Remarks
Thick of
n^s, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

0.29 18.497 0.901 19.388 0.037 0.080 0.003 0.120 19.508 NOT
OK
0.30 9.507 0291 9.798 0.009 0.025 0 0.034 9.832 NOT
OK
0.31 4.418 0.047 4.465 0 0 0 0 4.465 NOT
OK
0.32 1.910 0 1.910 0 0 0 0 1.910 NOT
OK
0J3 0.724 0 0.724 0 0 0 0 0.724 OK

52
4J.1.5 Subgrade Soil having 7% CBR Value

Considering CBR of compacted subgrade as 7%. Modulus of subgrade reaction = 42MPa/m


(from table 3.2). Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade
+ granular subbase and DLC subbase (fix)m table 3.4 by interpolation) = 208 MPa/m. The
cumulative fetigue damage values for different trial thickness for both Bottom up and Top
down cracking are shown in table 4,13 and 4.14.

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with tied concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

Table 4.13 Cumxilativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness

Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

0.24 16.639 0.966 17.605 2.861 3.869 0.484 7.214 24.819 NOT
OK
0.25 7.137 0.17 7.307 1.324 1.889 0.202 3.415 10.722 NOT
OK
0.26 3.046 0.013 3.059 0.569 0.913 0.077 1.559 4.618 NOT
OK
027 1.185 0 1.185 0.231 0.403 0.027 0.661 1.846 NOT
OK
028 0.394 0 0.394 0.081 0.162 0.008 0.251 0.645 OK

53
Pavement Option 11: Concrete pavement with earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints

Table 4.14 Cumulativefiitiguedamage values for different trial thickness

Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

029 16.973 0.73 17.703 0.021 0.058 0.002 0.081 17.784 NOT
OK
0.30 8.686 0.218 8.904 0.006 0.017 0 0.023 8.927 NOT
OK
0.31 3.978 0.030 4.008 0 0 0 0 4.008 NOT
OK
0.32 1.670 0 1.670 0 0 0 0 1.670 NOT
OK
033 0.612 0 0.612 0 0 0 0 0.612 OK

43.1.6 Sabgrade Soil having 8% CBR Value

Considering CBR of contacted subgrade as 8%. Modulus of subgrade reaction =


50.333MPa/m (fiom table 3.2)

Effective modulxis of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade + granular


subbase and DLC subbase (fiom table 3.4 by interpolation) = 231.33 MPa/m

The cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness for both Bottom up and Top
down cracking are shown in table 4.15 and 4.16.

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with tied concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

54
Table 4.15 Cumulative Mgue damage values for different trial thickness

Slab CFD for BUG case CFD for TDC case Sum Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

0.24 16.531 0.966 17.497 2.735 3.706 0.462 6.903 24.400 NOT
OK
0.25 7.059 0.168 7.227 1.216 1.764 0.191 3.171 10.398 NOT
OK
0.26 3.046 0.011 3.057 0.535 0.824 0.072 1.431 4.488 NOT
OK
0.27 1.166 0 1.166 0.213 0.378 0.026 0.617 1.783 NOT
OK
0.28 0.391 0 0.391 0.069 0.149 0.006 0.224 0.615 OK

The sum of CFD for bottom up and top down cracking is less than 1 for 28 cm thick slab,
therefore this thickness is considered to be safe.

Pavement Option 11: Concrete pavement with earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints

Table 4.16 Ciraiulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness

Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

0.29 16.367 0.652 17.019 0.018 0.052 0.001 0.071 17.09 NOT
OK
0.30 8.365 0.186 8.551 0 0.012 0 0.012 8.563 NOT
OK
0.31 3.831 0.023 3.854 0 0 0 0 3.854 NOT
OK
0.32 1.576 0 1.576 0 0 0 0 1.576 NOT
OK
033 0.553 0 0.553 0 0 0 0 0.553 OK

55
The safe thickness for earthen shoulder condition comes out to be 33 cm

4J.1.7 Subgrade SoO having 10% CBR Value

Considering CBR of compacted subgrade as 10%. Modulus of subgrade reaction = 55 MPa/m


(from table 3.2)

Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade + granular


subbase and DLC subbase (from table 3.4 by interpolation) = 278 MPa/m

The cumulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness for both Bottom up and
Top down cracking are shown in table 4.17 and 4.18.

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with tied concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

Table 4.17 Ciraiulativefetiguedamage values for different trial thickness


Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

0.24 16.135 0.919 17.054 2.551 3.466 0.421 6.438 23.492 NOT
OK
0.25 6.841 0.155 6.996 1.129 1.665 0.172 2.966 9.962 NOT
OK
0.26 2.931 0.009 2.940 0.473 0.744 0.062 1.279 4.219 NOT
OK
0.27 1.110 0 1.110 0.183 0.330 0.021 0.534 1.644 NOT
OK
0.28 0.367 0 0.367 0.056 0.125 0.005 0.186 0.553 OK

The sum of CFD for bottom up and top down cracking is less than 1 for 28 cm thick slab,
tho^efore this thickness is considered to be safe.

56
Pavement Option II: Concrete pavement with earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints

Table 4.18 Cumulativefetiguedamage values for difFerent trial thickness


Slab CFD for BUC case CFD for TDC case Sum Remarks
Thick of
ness, Due to Due to Total Due to Due to Due to Total BUC
(m) Rear Tandem CFD Rear Tandem Rear CFD and
Single Axles Single Axles Tridem TDC
Axles Axles Axles CFD

029 15.454 0.574 16.028 0.014 0.041 0 0.055 16.083 NOT


OK
0.30 7.803 0.146 7.949 0 0.009 0 0.009 7.958 NOT
OK
0.31 3.564 0.015 3.579 0 0 0 0 3.579 NOT
OK
0.32 1.48 0 1.438 0 0 0 0 1.438 NOT
OK
0J3 0.491 0 0.491 0 0 0 0 0.491 OK

The sum of CFD for bottom up and top down cracking is less than 1 for 33 cm thick slab,
therefore this thickness is considered to be safe.

43 J Dry Lean Concrete of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying


Subgrade Strength

Providing DJJ2 of 150 mm thickness as subbase layer, design thickn^s of concrete slab at
difFerent subgrade conditions (CBR varyingfiiom2% to 10%) is presented in table 4.19 and
4.20.

57
Table 4.19 Pavement thickness with DLC subbase (150 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders

CBRof Modulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulxis BUG at safe TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade of thickness safe Thickness
Reaction Subgrade Mckness of
(K'), Reaction Concrete
(MPa/m) (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (cm)
2 21 97 0.048 0.282 0.330 29
3 28 138 0.118 0.159 0.277 29
4 35 173 0.439 0.316 0.755 28
5 42 208 0.394 0.251 0.645 28
7 48 277 0.367 0.186 0.553 28
8 50.33 284.67 0.360 0.184 0.544 28
10 55 300 0.345 0.170 0.515 28

Table 4 JO Pavement thickness with DLC subbase (150 mm thick) and earthen shoulders

CBRof Modulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus BUCat TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade of safe safe Thickness
Reaction Subgrade thickness thickness of
(K'), Reaction Concrete
(MPa/m) on, Slab
(MPa/m) (cm)
2 21 97 0.307 0 0.307 33
3 28 138 0.377 0 0.377 33
4 35 173 0.696 0 0.696 33
5 42 208 0.612 0 0.612 33
7 48 277 0.491 0 0.491 33
8 50.33 284.67 0.483 0 0.483 33
10 55 300 0.461 0 0.461 33

58
433 Granular Subbase of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Providing GSB of 150 mm thickness as subbase layer, design thickness of concrete slab at
different subgrade conditions (CBR varying from 3% to 10%) is presented in table 4.21 and
4.22.

Table 4^1 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (150 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFD For CFD For Total CFD Required
Subgrade of Modulus of BUG at TDGat (BUC+TDC) Safe
SoU, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness of Concrete
(K'), (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 39 0 0.751 0.751 30
4 35 45 0 0.563 0.563 30
5 42 51 0.032 0.821 0.853 29
7 48 56.14 0.039 0.687 0.726 29
8 50.33 58.14 0.044 0.658 0.702 29
10 55 62.14 0.048 0.585 0.633 29

Table 4Ji2 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (150 mm thick) and earthen shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFD For CFD For Total CFD Required
Subgrade of Modulus BUG at TDGat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade of safe safe Thickness
Reaction Subgrade thickness thickness of Concrete
(K'X Reaction Slab
(MPa/m) (K"), (cm)
(MPa/m)
3 28 39 0.639 0.130 0.769 32
4 35 45 0.671 0.078 0.749 32
5 42 51 0.740 0.047 0.787 32
7 48 56.14 0.760 0.031 0.791 32
8 50.33 58.14 0.772 0.027 0.799 32
10 55 62.14 0.772 0.020 0.792 32

59
43.4 Granular Subbase of 225 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Providing GSB of 225 mm thickness as subbase layer, design thickness of concrete slab at
different subgrade conditions (CBR varyingfix)m3% to 10%) is presented in table 4.23 and
4.24.

Table 4J3 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (225 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders
CBR of Modulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required
Subgrade of Modulus of BUG at TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness of Concrete
(K'), (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 44 0 0.602 0.602 30
4 35 51.75 0.032 0.806 0.838 29
5 42 59.5 0.044 0.632 0.676 29
7 48 66.14 0.053 0.530 0.583 29
8 50.33 68.73 0.058 0.499 0.557 29
10 55 73.89 0.064 0.433 0.497 29

Table 4.24 Pavemsnttiridcnesswith GSB subbase (225 mm thick) and earthen shoulders

CBR of McKiulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus of BUCat TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness of Concrete
(K'X (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 44 0.671 0.085 0.756 32
4 35 51.75 0.742 0.046 0.788 32
5 42 59.5 0.772 0.024 0.796 32
7 48 66.14 0.814 0.012 0.826 32
8 50J3 68.73 0.814 0.011 0.825 32
10 55 73.89 0.856 0.008 0.864 32

60
4J^ Granular Subbase of 300 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Providing GSB of 300 mm thickness as subbase layer, design thickness of concrete slab at
different subgrade conditions (CBR varying from 3% to 10%) is presented in table 4.25 and
4.26.

Table 4^5 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (300 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders

CBR of Modulus of Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrad Subgrade Modulus of BUG at TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
eSoil, Reaction Subgrade safe safe Thickness of
(%) (K'), Reaction thickness thickness Concrete
(MPa/m) (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 53 0.035 0.770 0.805 29
4 35 61.75 0.048 0.593 0.641 29
5 42 70.5 0.058 0.468 0.526 29
7 48 78 0.070 0.401 0.471 29
8 50.33 80.92 0.032 0.371 0.40 29
10 55 86.75 0.035 0.334 0.363 29

Table 4^6 Pavement thickness with GSB subbase (300 mm thick) and earthen shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus of BUCat TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness of
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness Concrete
(K'), on, Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 53 0.742 0.042 0.784 32
4 35 61.75 0.772 0.020 0.792 32
5 42 70.5 0.842 0.009 0.851 32
7 48 78 0.856 0.006 0.862 32
8 50J3 80.92 0268 0 0.268 33
10 55 86.75 0.287 0 0.287 33

61
4J.6 Cement Treated Subbase of 100 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Providing CTS of 100 mm thickness as subbase layer, design thickness of concrete slab at
difierent subgrade conditions (CBR varying from 3% to 10%) is presented in table 4.27 and
428

Table 4.27 Pavement thicdmess with CTS subbase (100 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFDFor CFD For Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus of BUCat TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness of
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness Concrete
(K'), (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 76 0.070 0.420 0.490 29
4 35 88.75 0.039 0.326 0.365 29
5 42 101.5 0.053 0.264 0.317 29
7 48 112.43 0.076 0.219 0.295 29
8 50.33 116.68 0.083 0.208 0.291 29
10 55 125.18 0.099 0.188 0.287 29

Table 4.28 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (100 mm thick) and earthen shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor R.equired


Subgrade of Modxilxis of BUCat TDCat Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade
Reaction
(K'),
Subgrade
Reaction
(K-X
safe
thickness
safe /
thickness c
1' nj
ckness of
Concrete
Slab
i
3
(MPa/m)
28
(MPa/m)
76 0.856
la
0.008 \ ic>Nv0.864^' /
(cm)
32
./Of,7. -. ••
4 35 88.75 0.287 0 ' • ^ ^ . ^ ^ - > ' 33
5 42 lOlJ 0.307 0 0.307 33
7 48 112.43 0.327 0 0.327 , 33
8 50.33 116.68 0.327 0 0.327 33
10 55 125.18 0.348 0 0.348 33

62
43.7 Cement Treated Subbase of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Providing CTS of 150 mm thickness as subbase layer, design thickness of concrete slab at
different subgrade conditions (CBR varying from 3% to 10%) is presented in table 4.29 and
4.30.

Table 4^9 Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (150 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus of BUG at TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness of
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness Concrete
(K'), (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 108 0.064 0.233 0.297 29
4 35 124.25 0.092 0.188 0.280 29
5 42 140.5 0.118 0.155 0.273 29
7 48 154.43 0.126 0.132 0.258 28
8 50.33 159.84 0.118 0.126 0.244 28
10 55 170.68 0.118 0.117 0.235 28

Table 4JO Pavement thickness with CTS subbase (150 mm thick) and earthen shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFDFor CFD For Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus of BUCat TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness of Concrete
(K'), (K"), Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 108 0.327 0 0.327 33
4 35 12425 0.348 0 0.348 33
5 42 140.5 0.378 0 0.378 33
7 48 154.43 0.765 0 0.765 33
8 50.33 159.84 0.736 0 0.736 33
10 55 170.68 0.696 0 0.6% 33

63
43^ Cement Treated Subbase of 200 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Providing CTS of 200 mm thickness as subbase layer, design thickness of concrete slab at
different subgrade conditions (CBR varying from 3% to 10%) is presented in table 4.31 and
4.32.

Table 431 Pavement thickness wilhCTS subbase (200 mm thick) and tied concrete shoulders

CBR of Modulus Eiffective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus of BUCat TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness of Concrete
(K'), on, Slab
(MPa/m) (MPa/m) (cm)

3 28 141 0.118 0.155 0.273 29


4 35 162 0.447 0.344 0.791 28
5 42 183 0.419 0.295 0.714 28
7 48 201 0.411 0.265 0.676 28
8 50J3 208 0.394 0.251 0.645 28
10 55 222 0.391 0.240 0.631 28

Table 432 PavemCTt thickness with CTS subbase (200 mm thick) and earthen shoulders

CBR of Modulus Effective CFDFor CFDFor Total CFD Required


Subgrade of Modulus of BUCat TDCat (BUC+TDC) Safe
Soil, (%) Subgrade Subgrade safe safe Thickness
Reaction Reaction thickness thickness of Concrete
(K'X Slab
(MPs/m) (MPa/m) (cm)
3 28 141 0.378 0 0.378 33
4 35 162 0.736 0 0.736 33
5 42 183 0.659 0 0.659 33
7 48 201 0.622 0 0.622 33
8 50J3 208 0.612 0 0.612 33
10 55 222 0.577 0 0.577 33

64
43.9 Thickness of Pavement at Varying Traffic Volume of Commercial Vehicles

The thickness of pavement (in centhneters) at varying traffic volumefrom450 CVPD to 8000
CYPD (both directions) is presented m table 4.33 to table 4.38.

Pavement Option I: Concrete pavement with Earthen shoulders and dowel bars across
transverse joints
4.3.9.1 PLC Subbase of 100 mm Thickness

The thickness of pavement with DLC subbase of 100 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (2% to 10%) and traffic volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown in table
4.33.

Table 433 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (100 mm) at varying traffic volume
CVPD—4 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR%|
2 33 32 32 32 32 32 31 31 30
3 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 30
5 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 31 30
7 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 31 30
8 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 31 30
10 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 30

4.3.9.2 DLC Subbase of 150 mm Thickness

The thickness of pavement with DLC subbase of 150 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (2% to 10%) and traffic volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown m table
4.34.

Table 434 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volxmie
CVPD—* 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR%I

2 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 30
3 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 30
5 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 31 30

65
7 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 30
8 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 30
10 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 30

4.3.9 J GSB Subbase of 150 mm Thickness

The thickness of pavranent with GSB subbase of 150 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (3% to 10%) and traffic volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown in table
4.35.

Table 435 Thickness of pavement with GSB subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume
CVPD—* 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR%I
3 33 32 32 32 32 32 31 31 30
4 33 32 32 32 32 32 31 31 30
5 33 32 32 32 32 32 31 31 30
7 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 30
8 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 30
10 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 30

Pavement Option 11: Concrete pavement with Tied Concrete shoulders and dowel bars
across transverse joints

4.3.9.4 PLC Subbase of 100 mm Thickness

The thickness of pavaneat with DLC subbase of 100 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (2% to 10%) and traffic volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown in table
4.36.

Table 436 Thickness of pavemait with DLC subbase (100 mm) at varying traffic voliraie

C V P D — * 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450


CBR%|
2 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 27 26
3 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 27 26
5 29 28 28 28 28 28 27 26 25
7 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 25

66
8 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 25
10 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 25

4.3.9.5 PLC Subbase of 150 nun Thickness

The thickness of pavement with DLC subbase of 150 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (2% to 10%) and trafBc volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown in table
4.37.

Table 4J7 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume
CVPD—• 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR%|
2 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 27 26
3 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 27 26
5 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 25
7 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 25
8 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 25
10 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 25

4.3.9.6 GSB Subbase of 150 mm Thickness

The thickness of pavanent with GSB subbase of 150 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (3% to 10%) and traffic volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown in table
4.38.

Table 43S Thickrsss of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volimie
CVPD"-* 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR % 1
3 30 30 30 30 29 28 28 27 26
4 30 30 30 30 29 28 28 27 26
5 30 29 29 29 29 28 28 27 26
7 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 27 26
8 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 27 26
10 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 27 26

67
4.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN USING IRC: 58-2002

4.4.1 Design Data

During 2002, there were very few or no vehicles with tridem axles as compared to 2011, so
they were neglected while designing the pavement. But in IRC: 58-2011 vehicles with tridem
axles are considered for diesign purpose. Therefore the data (axle load spectrum) presented in
table 4.1 is converted by adding tridem axles to tandem axle by using unit method. The
converted Axle Load Spectrum is presented below in table 4.39. All other data remams same
as used in section 4.3.

Table 439 Axle Load Spectrum

Sii^e Single Axle Frequency (%) Tandan Tandem Frequency


Axle(Axle Load Axle (Axle Axle Load (%)
Load Class) Load Class)
Tons Tons
18.5-19.5 19 4.950 38-40 39 10.546
17.5-18.5 18 4.753 36-38 37 7.637
16.5-17.5 17 4.982 34-36 35 2.640
I5.5-16J 16 3.540 32-34 33 1.818
14.5-15.5 15 0.813 30-32 31 1.956
133-14.5 14 0.442 28-30 29 0.916
12.5-13.5 13 0.714 26-28 27 2.836
11.5-12.5 12 0.723 24-26 25 3.775
10.5-11.5 11 0.723 22-24 23 4.582
9.5-10.5 10 0.886 20-22 21 4.655
8.5-9.5 9 0.886 18-20 19 6.473
<8.5 8 3.859 <18 17 24.895
27.27 72.73

4.4.2. Dry Lean Concrete cf 100 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strei^h

a) Selection ofmodulus of sul^rade reaction

68
• Considering CBR of compacted subgrade as 2%. Modulus of subgrade reaction =
2.1 kg/cmVcm
• Providing a DLC subbase of thickness 100 mm with a minimum 7 days
compressive strength of 7 MPa.
• Providing a debonding layer of polythene sheet of 125 micron thickness between
DLC and concrete slab.

Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of combined foundation of subgrade + granular


subbase and DLC subbase = 5.6 kg/cm^/cm

b) Selection of Design traffic for Fatigue Analysis


• Design period = 30 years

• Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic (expressed in decimal) = 0.075

• Two-way commercial traffic volume per day = 6000 commercial vehicles / day

• % of traffic in predominant direction = 50 % (3000 CVs in each direction)

• Total two-v/ay commercial vehicles during design period:-


^ 36S*6000{[1+0.075P-1} ^^^...^^^ „,r
C= i^^ = 226444692 CVs
0.075
• Number of axles in predominant dkection = 226444692 * 0.5 = 113222346
• Design traffic after adjusting for lateral placement of axles (25 % of predominant
direction traffic for multi-lane highways) = 113222346* 0.25 = 28305587
• Hence, design number of axle load rq)etitions = 28305587

c) Cumulative Fatigue Damage (CFD) for rear single and tandem axle and selection of Slab
Thickness
• Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation, k == 5.6 kg/cm^/cm

• Elastic Modulus of concrete, E = 30,0000 kg/cm-^

• Poisson's ratio of concrete, p. =0.15

• Coefficient of thermal expansion =10*10"^/°C

• Unit weight of concrete, y = 24kN/m3

69
• Designflexuralstrength of concrete = 45 kg/cm^

• Max. day-time Temperature Dififerential in slab = 15.8 °C (for Haryana)

• Trail Thickness of slab, h = 37 cm

• Radhis ofrelativestififiiess, 1 = 120.327 cm


For a given slab thickness and other design parameters, theflexuralstress at edge region
due to the application of a single or tandem axle loads is calculated using UlRIGID
Software. For this, the magnitude of axle loads is multiplied by 1.2 (Load Safety
Factor). The cumulativefetiguedamage for both single and tandem axle are presented
in table 4.40 and 4.41 respectively.

Table 4.40 Cimiulative Fatigue Damage for Single Axle


Axle AL* Stress Stress Expected Fatigue Life Fatigue
Load 1.2 (kg/cm^) Ratio Repetitions Life
(AL) Consimied

19 22.8 20.828 0.463 1400986 10392243 0.135


18 21.6 19.853 0.441 1345410 Infinite 0.000
17 20.4 18.872 0.419 1410249 Infinite 0.000
16 19.2 17.885 0.397 1001918 Infinite 0.000
15 18 16.891 0.375 230024 Infinite 0.000
14 16.8 15.891 0.353 125047 Infinite 0.000
13 15.6 14.883 0.331 202236 Infinite 0.000
12 14.4 13.866 0.308 204552 Infinite 0.000
11 132 12.84 0.285 204552 Infmite 0.000
10 12 11.803 0.262 250865 Infinite 0.000
9 10.8 10.754 0.239 250865 Infinite 0.000
8 9.6 9.691 0.215 1092229 Infinite 0.000
TC)TAL 7718933 (CFD) 0.135

70
Table 4.41 Cumulative Fatigue Damage for Tandem Axle
Axle AL* Stress Stress Expected Fatigue Life Fatigue
Load 1.2 (kg/cm^) Ratio Repetitions Life
(AL) Consumed
39 46.8 20.266 0.450 2985065 58796128 0.051
37 44.4 19.345 0.430 2161599 Infinite 0.000
35 42 18.418 0.409 747296 Infinite 0.000
33 39.6 17.486 0.389 514666 Infinite 0.000
31 37.2 16.547 0.368 553781 Infinite 0.000
29 34.8 15.602 0.347 259392 Infinite 0.000
27 32.4 14.650 0.326 802879 Infinite 0.000
25 30 13.691 0.304 1068447 Infinite 0.000
23 27.6 12.722 0.283 1296959 Infinite 0.000
21 252 11.744 0.261 1317546 Infinite 0.000
19 22.8 10.755 0.239 1832212 Infinite 0.000
17 20.4 9.754 0.217 7046811 Infinite 0.000
TOTAL 20586653 0.051

The Curaolative Fatigue life Consumed being less than 1, the design is safefi-omfatigue
considerations.
d) Check for Temperature Stresses
CEaT
• Edge Warping Stress =
• Length of the Slab, L = 450 cm
• Breadth of Slab, B = 350 cm
• Radius Of Relative StifiBiess, 1 = 120.327 cm

• Y = 3.649

• Bradbury's Coefficient, C = 0.34693 ( ascertained from Bradbury's chart against


L Bv
value of - and •- )

71
^, „, . 0.34693*300000*10"S*15£
• Edge Warping Stress =
= 8.222 kg/cm^
• Total of tempsrature warping stress and the highest axle load stress
= (8.222 +20.828) kg/cm^
= 29.05 kg/'cm^ which is less than 45 kg/an^, theflexuralstrength of concrete.
• So the pavement thickness of 37 cm is safe under the combined action of wheel load
and temperature

e) Check for Comer Stress


Since Dov/el Bars are provided across the transverse joint, comer stress is not critical.

f) Safe thickness at Varying Subgrade Stret^ths


Similar analysis is done by increasing the CBR of the subgrade soilfix)m2% to 10%. Table
4.42 shows the safe thickness of the pavemait at differait CBR of the subgrade soil.

72
Table 4.42 Thickness of the pavranent at varying CBR of subgrade soil
CBR Effective Combined Highest Edge Sum Of Highest Required
(%) Modulus Fatigue Axle Load Warpii^ Axle Load Safe
Of Damage Stress Stress Stress + Edge Thickness
Subgrade (Sii^e (kg/cm2) (kg/cm^) Warping Stress Of
Reaction Axle + (kg/cm^) Concrete
Tandem Slab (cm)
(kg/cm3) Axle)
2 5.6 0.186 20.828 8.222 29.05 37
3 9.7 0.378 21.292 13.481 34.72 34
4 13.15 0.194 20.988 16.543 37.53 33
5 16.6 0.187 20.972 18.669 39.64 32

7 20.8 0.195 20.992 20.7820 41.773 31


8 23.13 0.857 21.526 22.033 43.559 30
10 27.8 0.586 21.756 23.208 44.963 29

Similarly design thickness of pavement is calculated by varying the subbase materialfromDry


Lean Concrete to Granular Subbase and Cement Treated Subbase and by altering their
thickness. The pavonent is checked at different trail thickness and the thickness at which
combined CFD (sin^e + tandem axle) is equal or less than 1 with sum of highest axle load
stress and edge warping stress less than modulus of rupture is considered as safe thickness.
The safe thickness at these variations are shownfromtable 4.43 to 4.49.

4.4-3 Dry Lean Concrete of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

73
Table 4.43 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil
CBR Effective Combined Highest Edge Sum Of Required
(%) Modulus Of Fatigue Axle Warping Highest Axle Safe
Subgrade Dami^e Load Stress Load Stress + Thickness
Reaction (Single Axle Stress (kg/cm^) Edge Warping Of
+ Tandem (kg/cm^) Stress Concrete
(kg/cm^) Axle) (kg/cm^) Slab (cm)
2 9.7 0.378 21.22 13.481 34.772 34
3 13.8 0.813 21.730 17.527 39.256 32
4 17.3 0.858 21.762 19.547 41.30 31
5 20.8 0.195 20.992 20.782 41.773 31
7 27.7 0.878 21.772 23.192 44.96 29
8 28.46 0.728 21.653 23.309 44.961 29
10 41.7 0.212 20.031 24.674 44.705 29

4.4.4 Granular Snbbase of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer nvith Varying


Subgrade Strength

Table 4,44 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil


CBR Effective Combined nicest Edge Sum Of Required
(%) Modulus Of Fatigue Axle Warping Highest Axle Safe
Subgrade Damage Load Stress Load Stress + Thickness
Reaction (Sii^eAxle Stress (kg/cm2) Edge Warping Of
(K'O, + TandOTi (kg/cm^) Stress Concrete
(kg/cm^) Axle) (kg/cm^) Slab (cm)

3 3.9 0.681 20.565 5.430 25.995 39


4 4.5 0.516 20.831 6.573 27.404 38
5 5.1 0.572 21.181 7.693 28.874 37
7 5.614 0.18 20.819 8.23 29.049 37

8 5.814 0.717 21.531 8.918 30.449 36


10 6J214 0.415 21.273 9.315 30.588 36

74
4.4^ Granular Subbase of 225 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade strength

Table 4.45 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil


CBR Effective Combined Hi^est Edge Sum Of Required
(%) Modulus Of Fatigue Axle Load Warpmg Highest Axle Safe
Subgrade Damage Stress Stress Load Stress + Thicki^ss
Reaction (Single Axle (kg/cm2) (kg/cm^) Edge Warping Of
+ Tandem Stress Concrete
on, Axle) Slab (cm)
(kg/cm^) (kg/cm^)
3 4.4 0.671 20.914 6.454 27.368 38
4 5.17 0.487 21.126 7.775 28.901 37
5 5.95 0.582 21.441 9.055 30.496 36
7 6.61 0.213 21.033 9.692 30.725 36
8 6.87 0.799 21.759 10.454 32.213 35
10 7.39 0.526 21.472 10.940 32.412 35

4.4.6 Granular Subbase of 300 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying


Subgrade Strmgth

Table 4.46 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil


CBR Effective Combined Highest Edge Sum Of Highest Required
(%) Modulus Of Fatigue Axle Warpmg Axle Load Safe
Subgrade Damage Load Stress Stress + Edge Thickness
Reaction (Single Stress (kg/cm2) Waipii^ Stress Of
(kg/cm^)
on, Axle +
Tandem
(kg/cm^) Concrete
Slab (cm)
(kg/cm^)
Axle)
3 5.3 0.369 21.035 7.909 28.944 37
4 6.175 0.381 21.297 9.277 30.574 36
5 7.05 0.718 21.658 10.624 32.282 35
7 7.8 0.355 21.260 11.308 32.568 35
g 8.09 0.252 21.116 11.561 32.677 35
10 8.67 0.819 21.739 12.666 34.405 34

75
4.4.7 Cement Treated Snbbase of 100 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Table 4.47 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil


CBR Effective Combined Highest Edge Sum Of Required
(%) Modulus Of Fatigue Axle Warping Highest Axle Safe
Subgrade Damage Load Stress Load Stress + Thickness
Reaction (Single Stress (kg/cm^) Edge Warping Of
(K1, Axle + (kg/cm^) Stress Concrete
(kg/cm^) Tandem (kg/cm2) Slab (cm)
Axle)
3 IJS 0.431 21.361 11.131 32.492 35
4 8.87 0.709 21.640 12.830 34.47 34
5 10.15 0.250 21.113 13.818 34.931 34
7 11.24 0.679 21.620 15.289 36.909 33
S 11.66 0.525 21.469 15.582 37.051 33
10 12.51 0.289 21.186 16.144 37.33 33

4.4.S Cement Treated Subbase of 150 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength
Table 4.48 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil
CBR Effective Combined Highest Edge Sum Of Required
(%) Modulus Of Fatigue Axle Warping Highest Axle Safe
Subgrade Damage Load Stress Load Stress + Thickness
Reaction (Sin^e Stress (kg/cm^) Edge Of Concrete
Axle + (kg/cm2) Warping Slab (cm)
(K"),
(kg/cm^) Tandan Stress
Axle) (kg/cm^)
3 10.8 0.882 21.785 14.975 36.76 33
4 12.42 0.305 21216 16.084 37.3 33
5 14.05 0.722 21.656 17.635 39.291 32
7 15.44 0.362 21.266 18.216 39.482 32
8 15.98 0256 21.125 18.431 39.556 32
10 17.07 0.937 21.820 19.459 41.279 31

76
4.4.9 Cement Treated Subbssc of 200 mm Thickness as Subbase Layer with Varying
Subgrade Strength

Table 4.49 Thickness of the pavement at varying CBR of subgrade soil


CBR Effective Combined Highest Edge Sum Of Required
(%) Modulus Fatigue Axle Load Warping Highest Axle Safe
Of Damage Stress Stress Load Stress + Thickness
Subgrade (Single (kg/cm^) (kg/cm^) Edge Of
Reaction Axle + Warping Concrete
(K"), Tandem Stress Slab (cm)
(kg/cm^) Axle) (kg/cm^)
3 14.1 0.705 21.641 17.657 39.298 32
4 16.2 0.230 21.071 18.515 39.586 32
5 183 0.583 21.525 19.918 41.443 31
7 20.1 0261 21.133 .20.548 41.681 31
8 20.8 0.195 20.992 20.782 41.774 31
10 22.2 0.784 21.702 21.871 43.573 30

4.4.10 Thickness of Pavement at Varying Traffic Volume of Commercial Vehicles

The thickness of pavement (in centimeters) at varying traffic volxmiefrom450 CVPD to 8000
CVPD (both directions) is presented in table 4.50 to table 4.52.

4.4.10.1 PLC Subbase of 100 mm Thictaiess

The thickness of pavement with DLC subbase of 100 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (2% to 10%) and traffic volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown m table
4.50.

77
Table 4^0 Thickness of pavement with DLC subbase (100 nun) at varying traffic volume
CVPD-i* 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR %l
2 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 35 34
3 34 34 34 34 34 33 33 32 31
4 33 33 33 32 32 32 32 31 30
5 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 30 30
7 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 30
8 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
10 30 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

4.4.10.2 DLC Subbase of ISO mm Thickness

The thickness of pavanent with DLC subbase of 150 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (2% to 10%) and trafBc volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown in table
4.51.

Table 4.51 Thickness of pavemait with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volume
C V P D — ^ 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR % 1

2 34 34 34 34 34 33 33 32 31
3 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 30
4 32 32 31 31 31 31 31 30 29
5 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 29
7 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
8 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
10 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

4.4.10.3 GSB Subbase of 150 mm Thickness

The thickness of pavea^aat with GSB subbase of 150 mm thickness, at varying CBR of
subgrade soil (3% to 10%) and traffic volume (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is shown in table
4J2.

78
Table 4^2 Thicknsss of pavement with DLC subbase (150 mm) at varying traffic volimie
CVPD—» 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 450
CBR%|
3 39 39 39 39 39 39 38 38 37
4 38 38 38 38 38 38 37 37 36
5 37 37 37 37 37 37 36 36 35
7 37 37 37 37 37 37 36 35 34
8 37 37 37 37 37 37 35 35 34
10 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 34 33

79
CHAPTER-5

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 GENERAL

The design thickness for varying conditions of subgrade, subbase, shoulder and traffic have
been worked out and given in chapter 4. This chapter deals with the analysis of results and
their discussion regarding effect of change in the strength of subgrade, subbase, shoulders and
traffic on the design thickness of the pavement. The results obtained by using both the
guidelines (IRC: 58-2002 and IRC: 58-2011) are also compared in this chapter.

5.2 EFFECT OF VARYING STRENGTH OF SUBGRADE ON


THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT

5.2.1 Dry Lean Concrete of 100 mm as Subbase Layer

The required pavement thickness at varying subgrade strengths for DLC subbase of 100 mm
is shown in Fig.5.1.

34

'i
u
r 33
0)
r -*^-~—«- -*——*-

/
I 32

I 31

30
3 4 5 6 7 10 11
CBR of Subgrade Soil {%)

Fig. 5.1 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strengtli for sub base of 100 mm DLC

80
It is observed from fig. 5.1 that the thickness of pavement increases from 32 cm to 33 cm when
CBR of subgrade soil is increased from 2% to 3%. Thereafter with increase in CBR from 3%
to 10% the thickness of pavement remains the same.

The increase in the pavement thickness with increase in CBR value from 2% to 3% is caused
as stiffer subgrade leads to more warping (curling) stresses whereas load stresses due to stilTer
subgrade are not decreased to that extent. It is observed that the pavement thickness remains
the same for further increase in the subgrade soil strength after 3% CBR. This trend is in
conformity with IRC: 58-2011 which states that "for each axle load and zero temperature
differential, the flexural stresses decrease with increase in effective modulus of subgrade
reaction (k-value) for all the thicknesses. But for almost all the positive temperature
differential, the warping sfresses are high for thicker slabs and it resuUs in higher flexural
stresses in slabs for higher 'K' value whileflexuralstresses aie lower for higher 'K' values for
thinner slabs. There exists a region in each graph (graph for each load and temperature
differential) beyond wliich, tliere is practically no effect of 'K' value on the flexural stresses
and if we increase the 'K' value then there will be no effect on the design thickness because of
high curling stresses offered by stiff support".

5.2.2 Granular Subbase of 150 mm as Subbase Layer

The required pavement thickness at varying subgrade sfrengths for GSB subbase of 150 mm
is shown in Fig.5.2.

33

:;r 32 -^4»-__™4«- • *

c
<u
0)
> 31
a.
"o 30

^ 29

28
5 6 7 8 10 11
CBR of Subgrade Soil (%)

Fig. 5.2 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strength for sub base of 150 mm GSB

81
It is observed from fig. 5.2 that the thickness of pavement remains the same tliat is 32 cm for
all variations in CBR of subgrade soil (3% to 10%). The increase in CBR value of subgrade
does not cause any decrease in the thickness of pavement due to the same reason as explained
in section 5.2.1.

It is also observed from fig. 5.1 and 5.2 that GSB subbase results in lesser thickness of
pavement (32 cm) as compared to DLC subbase (33 cm) for all values of CBR of subgrade
varying from 3% to 10%. It may be attributed to less stiff subgrade support provided by GSB
as compared to DLC which results in lesser curling stresses whereas load stresses are not
increased to that extent.

5.2.3 Cement Treated Subbase of 100 mm as Subbase Layer

The required pavement thickness at varying subgrade sfrengths for CTS subbase of 100 mm is
shown in Fig.5.3.

34

-£33

5 32
E

I 31 L J
o
1 \

I
S 30 i
c 1
u
j£ 29
i

28
1
1
M
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11
CBR of Subgrade Soil (%)

Fig. 5.3 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strength for sub base of 100 mm CTS
It is observed from fig. 5.3 that the thickness of pavement increases from 32 cm to 33 cm when
CBR of subgrade soil is increased from 3% to 4%. Thereafter with increase in CBR from 4%
to 10%, the thickness of pavement remains the same.

82
The effect of varying strength of subgrade on thickness of pavement is similar to the case with
100 mm DLC as discussed in section 5.2.1 except that the thickness increases from 32 cm to
33 cm when CBR changes from 3% to 4% whereas in case of DLC subbase this change in
pavement thickness was from CBR 2% to 3%.

The effect of varying strength of subgrade for various types of subbase on thickness of
pavement is shown in fig. 5,4, It is seen that GSB subbase resuhs in least thickness of 32 cm
for all values of CBR of subgrade from 3% to 10%. The DLC and CTS subbase result in same
thickness beyond 4% CBR of subgrade whereas at CBR 3% CTS subbase results in lesser
thickness of 32 cm compared to 33 cm thickness with DLC subbase.

5.3 EFFECT OF TYPE OF SUBBASE ON THICKNESS OF


PAVEMENT'

33.5 '""i

33

E
32.5 DLC

GSB

CTS
32 '8" "B -•—m-

31.5
5 6 7 10 11
CBR (%)

Fig 5.4 Thickness of pavement versus different Subbase Material


The effect of varying types of subbase for various strengths of subgrade on thickness of
pavement is shown in fig, 5.4. It is seen that GSB subbase results in least thickness of 32 cm
for all values of CBR of subgrade from 3% to 10%. The DLC and CTS subbase result in same
thickness of 33 cm beyond 4% CBR of subgrade whereas at CBR 3%, CTS subbase results in
lesser thickness of 32 cm compared to 33 cm thickness with DLC subbase. The reason for this
trend is related to combined stiffiiess of subbase and subgrade, ciirlmg sfresses and wheel load
stresses as already explained in section 5.2.1.

83
5.4 EFFECT OF THICKNESS OF SUBBASE ON PAVEMENT
THICKNESS
The effect of tliickness of subbase on pavement thickness for all three types of subbase of GSB,
DLC and CTS has been shown infigures5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 respectively. GSB subbase thickness
has been varied fi'om 150 mm to 300 mm, DLC subbase from 100 mm to 150 mm and CTS
subbase from 100 mm to 200 mm. It is seen that increase in thickness of the subbase does not
cause any decrease in the thickness of the pavement. Rather in case of GSB subbase for higher
values of CBR of subgrade (8% or more), increase in tliickness of GSB layer to 300 mm causes
an increase in the thickness of the pavement and in case of CTS and DLC subbase for lower
values of CBR (3% and 2%), lesser thickness of subbase results in lesser thickness of
pavement. It indicates that unnecessarily increasing tlie thickness of subbase does not serve
any purpose other tiian increasing the cost of the project.

40
!3% m5% HSyo 10%

£
o
- 3 0
c
«u
e 25

I 20
O
« 1";
I/, J - ^
0)
c 10

GSB 150 mm GSB 225 mm GSB 300 mm


Granular Subbase Thickness (mm)

Fig 5.5 Thickness of pavement versus thickness of Granular Subbase

84
40
«3% »:5% a 8% 10%
_ 35
E

c
a)
E 25

I 20
O
(Li

10

DLC 100 mm DLC 150 mm


Dry Lean Concrete Subbase Thickness (mm)

Fig 5.6 Tliickness of pavement versus thickness of Di"y Lean Concrete Subbase

40
S3% -5% B8% 10%;
35

- 3 0
c
<u
£ 25
ii
I 20
4-

I 1°
CTS 100 mm CTS 150 mm CTS 200 mm
Cement Treated Subbase Thickness (mm)

Fig 5.7 Thickness of pavement versus thickness of Cement Treated Subbase

85
5.5 EFFECT OF SHOULDER TYPE ON PAVEMENT THICKNESS

The effect of shoulder type on pavement thickness for all three types of subbase of GSB (225
mm), DLC (150 mm) and CIS (150 mm) has been shown in table 5.1. It can be seen that tied
concrete shoulders need lesser pavement tliickness as compared to earthen shoulders for all
type of subbases considered in this study. Decrease in tliickness of pavement with tied concrete
shoulders is found to be more for DLC and CTS subbase (4 cm to 5 cm) as compared to GSB
subbase (2 cm to 3 cm). The tied concrete shoulders need lesser pavement thickness as they
cause lesser combined stress due to wheel load and warping of slab.

Table 5.1 Tliickness of pavement for different conditions of shoulders


CBR of Thickness of PQC Tliickness of PQC Thickness of PQC
Subgrade Soil (cm) for (cm) for (cm) for
(%) DLC 150 mm GSB 225 mm CTS 150 mm
Earthen Tied Earthen Tied Earthen Tied
Shoulders Shoulders Shoulders Shoulders Shoulders Shoulders
3 33 29 32 30 33 29
4 33 28 32 29 33 29
5 33 28 32 29 33 29
7 33 28 32 29 33 28
8 33 28 32 29 33 28
10 33 28 32 29 33 28

5.6 EFFECT OF TRAFFIC VOLUME ON PAVEMENT THICKNESS

The effect of varying traffic volume on pavement thickness for DLC subbase (100 mm) at 5%
CBR of subgrade soil is shown in fig. 5.8. The traffic volume is varied from 450 CVPD to
8000 CVPD. It can be seen that, for a given subgrade (CBR=5%), subbase (DLC, 100 mm
thick) and shoulder type (eartlien), the thickness of the pavement increasesfirom30 cm to 33
cm with the increase in traffic volume of commercial vehiclesfirom450 to 4000 CVPD after
which it remains constant (33 cm) for all increments in traffic volume upto 8000 CVPD.
86
It can be seenfromtable 5.2 that for any combination of strength of subgrade, type of subbase,
shoulder type and traffic volume, the minimum and maximum values of the design tliickness
of the pavement are found to be 25 cm and 33 cm respectively.

34

E 33

(1)
E 32
> «™- DLC 100
a.
31

30 y _-_}_

29
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Traffic Volume (CVPD)

Fig 5.8 Thickness of pavement versus Traffic volume

Table 5.2 Thickness of pavement at different conditions


CVPD GSB 150 mm (Earthen DLC 150 mm (Tied
Shoulders) Shoulders)
3%CBR 10%CBR 2%CBR 10% CBR
450 30 30 26 25
8000 33 33 29 28

87
5.7 COMPARISON WITH RESULTS OBTAINED BY USING IRC: 58-
2002
5.7.1 Effect of Varying Strength of Subgrade on Thickness of Pavement

5.7.1.1 Dry Lean Concrete (100 mm)

The required pavement thickness at varying subgrade strengths by using both the guidelines,
isshowninFig.5.9.

38
Earthen Shoulders
37
Tied Shoulders
•g" 36
u A IRC:58-2002
^ 35
I 34
> 33
(D
CL
s- 32
o
iS 31
m
J 30
»~™«~«l, ^"4
28 m~ '• • • — • — - — — m -+—»-
27
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CBR {%)

Fig. 5.9 Tliickness of pavement versus subgrade strengtli for DLC subbase (100 mm thick)
It is observed from fig. 5.9 that the thickness of pavement with earthen shoulders increases
from 32 to 33 cm when CBR of subgrade soil is increased from 2% to 3%. Thereafter with
increase in CBR from 3% to 10% the thickness of pavement remains the same. The thickness
of pavement with cement concrete shoulders remains 29 cm for 2%, 3% and 4% CBR of
subgrade soil. The thickness of pavement decreases to 28 cm when the CBR of subgrade is
increased to 5% and thereafter it remains same for all increments in the CBR of subgrade soil.

Analysis of the pavement with IRC: 58-2002 shows completely different result. The thickness
of pavement decreases with increase in the strength of subgrade. The thickness of pavement
decreases from 37 cm to 29 cm on increasing the CBR value of subgradefi-om2% to 10%.
This decrease in the pavement thickness with increase in CBR value is caused as load stresses
are decreased with increase in the strength of subgrade whereas the warping sfresses due to
stiffer subgrade are not increased to that extent. Whereas in case of analysis with IRC: 58-

88
2011, the warping stresses are increased with increase in tlie strength of subgrade but the load
stresses are not increased to that extent.

5.7.1.2 Granular Subbase (150 mm)

The required pavement thickness at varying subgrade strengths by using both tlie guidelines,
isshowninFig.5.10.

« • Earthen
^^ ^-,. Shoulders
38 • -HW" Tied Shoulders
J. 3''
•g 36 " -.>sjfc__™J_-~~4
- ^ A mC:58-2002
0)
£ 35

^ 33 '. \~~
w 32 »—-"'» • » " '» ! "' 4—-;—.—~~j—
2 31 •-~i—k-
ij . i 1
- 230
9 a——a,.^ ' ^•. , „ „ . „ „ ™ ™ , * ™ „ . . . „ ^ , „ . , .,„,- „...,.,-» i[ rr— ;—~|
! • i !

28 ;- \.—f ^
27
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CBR (%)

Fig. 5.10 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strength for Granular Subbase (150 mm
thick)
It is observed from fig. 5.10 that the thickness of pavement with earthen shoulders remains the
same (32 cm) for all variations in the CBR of subgrade soil (3% to 10%). The thickness of
pavement with cement concrete shoulders comes out to be 30 cm for 2% and 3% CBR of
subgrade soil. When CBR of subgrade is increased to 5%, the thickness of pavement decreases
to 29 cm and thereafter it remains the same for all increments in the CBR of subgrade soil.

Analysis of the pavement with IRC: 58-2002 shows that the thickness of pavement decreases
from 39 cm to 36 cm with the increase in the CBR value of subgrade from 3% to 10%. This
decrease in the thickness of pavement with increase in the CBR of subgrade soil is due to the
same reason as explained in section 5.7.1.1.

89
5.7.1.3 Cement Treated Subbase (100 mm)

The same trend can be seen in fig.5.11 for the pavement with CTS subbase of 100 mm
thickness.

36
Sarthen
35 Shoulders
—®' Tied shoulders
|_34
A !RC:58-2002
I 33
£
§32
m
a.
"S 31
X t

1 _ i
i
^ 30 J.. _H
i
j

h-
29 •i
i
28 1 1
T-
27 i
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CBR (%)

Fig. 5.11 Thickness of pavement versus subgrade strength for Cement Treated Subbase

5.7.2 Effect of type of Subbase on Thickness of Pavement

The required thickness of pavement with DLC 100 ram, GSB 150 mm and CTS 100 mm is
shown in fig 5.12. The strength of subgrade is considered as 5% CBR with both the conditions
of shoulder (Earthen and Tied Concrete Shoulders). For die pavement with earthen shoulders,
it is seen that GSB subbase results in least thickness of 32 cm whereas DLC and CTS subbase
result in same thickness (33 cm). And, for the pavement with cement concrete shoulders, it can
be seen that DLC subbase results in least thickness of 28 cm whereas GSB and CTS subbase
result in same thickness (29 cm).

Analysis with IRC; 58-2002 shows that stronger the subbase lesser would be the thickness
required for the pavement. The required thickness of pavement for GSB, CTS and DLC are 37
cm, 34 cm and 32 cm respectively. The reason for this trend is related to combined stiffiiess of
subbase and subgrade, curling stresses and wheel load stresses as already explained in section
5.7.1.1.

90
40
DLC . GSB -a CTS
35

30
Si
E 25
u
I 20
o

^ 10

Earthen Shoulders Tied Shoulders IRC:58-2002


Type Of Subbase Material

Fig. 5.12 Thickness of pavement versus type of Subbase

5.7.3 Effect of Thickness of Subbase on Thickness of Pavement

The effect of thickness of subbase on pavement thickness for all three types of subbase of GSB,
DLC and CTS has been shown infigures5.13,5.14 and 5.15 respectively. The design has been
carried out at 5% CBR of subgrade soil. GSB subbase thickness has been varied from 150 mm
to 300 mm, DLC subbase from 100 mm to 150 mm and CTS subbase from 100 mm to 200
mm. It is seen that increase in thickness of the subbase does not cause any decrease in the
thickness of the pavement except for CTS 300 mm where the thickness of pavement with tied
shoulders decreased by 1 cm. It indicates that unnecessarily increasing the tliickness of
subbase does not serve any purpose other than increasing die cost of the project.

Analysis of the pavement with IRC: 58-2002 shows that the thickness of the pavement
decreases with the increase in the thickness of the subbase layer. The thickness of pavement
decreases by 1 cm, 2 cm and 3 cm on increasing the diickness of DLC, GSB and CTS subbases
respectively.

91
50
! 150 m m =. 225 mm m 300 m m
45

c 35
I 30
>
a. 25

(n
c 15
-:^
u
'Z 10
I-

5
0 Earthen Shoulders Tied Shoulders IRC:58-2002
Granular Subbase

Fig. 5.13 Thickness of pavement versus thickness of Granular Subbase

40
» 1 0 0 mm 150 mm
1 ^5
c 30
i 25
>
a. 20
o 15
10

I-

Earthen Shoulders Tied Shoulders IRC:58-2002


Dry Lean Concrete Subbase

Fig. 5.14 Thickness of pavement versus thickness of DLC Subbase

92
40
S100 mm lilSOmm .200 mm
35
E
u
-30

E 25

I 20
O
« 15
cu
c
10

Earthen Shoulders Tied Shoulders mC:58-2002


Cement Treated Subbase

Fig. 5.15 Thickness of pavement versus thickness of Cement Treated Subbase

5.7.4 Effect of Traffic Volume on the Thickness of Pavement

The required thickness of pavement at varying traffic vohime (450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD) is
shown in fig 5,16. The design is carried out for 5% CBR with DLC of 100 mm tliickness as
subbase layer.

34

£ 33

£ 32
>
re
y
" 31 « ^r -DLC 100
c
u lRC:58-2002
x: 30

29
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Traffic Volume (CVPD)

Fig. 5.16 Thickness of pavement versus traffic vokmie

93
It is observedfromfig.5.16,for a given subgrade (CBR=5%), subbase (DLC, 100 mm thick)
and shoulder type (earthen), the thickness of the pavement increasesfrom30 cm to 33 cm with
the mcrease in traffic volume of commercial vehicles from 450 to 4000 CVPD after which it
remains constant (33 cm) for all increments in traffic volume upto 8000 CVPD.

Analyzing the pavement with IRC: 58-2002 shows the same trend in the thickness of pavement
with increase in the traflSc volume. The thickness of the pavement increasesfrom30 cm to 31
cm with the increase in traffic volume of commercial vehicles from 450 to 5000 CVPD after
which it remains constant (32 cm) fOT all increments in traffic volume upto 8000 CVPD. It is
seenfromtable 5.3 that for any combination of strength of subgrade, type of subbase and traffic
volume, the Tnitiimum and maximum values of the design thickness of the pavement are foxmd
to be 29 cm and 39 cm respectively.

Table S3 Thickness of pavement at different conditions


CVPD GSB 150 mm DLC 150 mm
3%CBR 10%CBR 2% CBR 10% CBR

450 37 33 34 29
8000 39 36 37 30

94
CHAPTER-6

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 GENERAL

In this study arigidpavement has heea designed for varying conditions of subgrade, subbase,
shouldCTs and trafBc. The CBR vakie of subgrade soil is variedfrom2% to 10%. Three types
of subbase namely Dry Lean Concrete (DLC), Granular Subbase (GSB) and Cement Treated
Subbase (CTS) have been considered in the design. The thickness of DLC, GSB and CTS is
varied from 100 mm to 150 mm, 150 mm to 300 mm and 100 mm to 200 mm respectively.
The design has been carried out for both type of shoulders. Earthen and Tied (Cement
Concrete) shoulders. The traffic volume is varied from 450 CVPD to 8000 CVPD in both
directions.

The design of pavement has been carried out using the latest IRC guidelines (IRC: 58-2011)
assuming the road to be a 4-lane divided carriageway road (7.0 m x 2) located in Haryana. For
the sake of comparison, the same road has been designed with previous IRC guidelines (IRC:
58-2002). The main conclusions drawnfromthe study are given the following sections.

6.2 ANALYSIS OF DESIGN WITH IRC: 58-2011

6X1 Effect of Varying Strength of Subgrade on Thickness of Pavement

1. Increase in strength of subgrade does not cause any decrease in the thickness of
pavement. The thickness remains more or less the same for all strengths of subgrade.
In some cases the thickness of pavement even increases with increase in the strength of
subgrade.
2. The thickness of pavement with 100 mm DLC subbase increasesfrom32 cm to 33 cm
when CBR of subgrade soil is increased from 2% to 3%. Thereafter, with increase in
CBRfrom3% to 10%, the thickness of pavanent ranains the same.
3. The thickness of pavement with 150 mm granular subbase remains the same that is 32
cm for all variations in CBR of subgnde soil (3% to 10%).

95
4. The thickness of pavement with 100 mm cement treated subbase increasesfrom32 cm
to 33 cm when CBR of subgrade soil is increased from 3% to 4%. Thereafter, with
increase in CBRfrom4 to 10%, the thickness of pavement remains the same.

6.2.2 Effect of Type of Subbase on Thickness of Pavement

5. Type of subbase has insignificant effect on the thickness of pavement. The thickness
of pavement remains more or less the same for all types of subbase.
6. The GSB subbase results in least thickness of 32 cm for all values of CBR of subgrade
from 3% to 10%. The DLC and CTS subbase result in same thickness of 33 cm beyond
4% CBR of subgrade whereas at CBR 3%, CTS subbase results in lesser thickness of
32 cm con5)ared to 33 cm thickness with DLC subbase.

6.23 Effect of Thickness of Subbase on Pavement Thickness

7. hicrease in thickness of the subbase does not cause any decrease in the thickness of the
pavement. Rather in case of GSB subbase for higher values of CBR of subgrade (8%
or more), increase in thickness of GSB layer to 300 nmi causes an increase in the
thickness of the pavement and in case of CTS and DLC subbase for lower values of
CBR (3% and 2%), lesser thickness of subbase results in lesser thickness of pavement.

6.2.4 Effect of Shoulder Type on Pavement Thickness

8. For a given strength of subgrade, the pavement with tied concrete shoulders needs
lesser pavement thickness as compared to earthen shoulders for all types of subbase
considered in this study.
9. Decrease in thickness of pavanent with tied concrete shoulders is found to be more for
DLC and CTS subbase (4 cm to 5 cm) as compared to GSB subbase (2 cm to 3 cm).

6.2.S Effect of TrafBc Volume on Pavement Thickness

10. For a givai sub^^e (CBR=5%), subbase (DLC, 100 mm thick) and shoulder type
(earthen), the thickness of the pavement increases from 30 cm to 33 cm with the

96
increase in traffic volvime of commercial vehiclesfrom450 to 4000 CVPD after which
it remains constant (33 cm) for all increments in traffic volume up to 8000 CVPD.
11. For any combination of strength of subgrade, type of subbase, shoulder type and traffic
voliraie, the minimirai and maximum values of the design thickness of the pavement
are found to be 25 on and 33 cm respectively.

6.3 ANALYSIS OF DESIGN WITH IRC: 58-2002

63.1 Effect of Varying Strength of Subgrade on Thickness of Pavement

12. The thickness of pavemait decreases with increase in the strength of subgrade for all
types of subbase for earthen shoulders (the provision of tied concrete shoulders is not
thCTe in IRC: 58-2002) for a given traffic.
13. The thickness of pavement with 100 mm DLC subbase decreasesfrom37 cm to 29 cm
with the increase in the CBR value of subgradefrom2% to 10%.
14. The thickness of pavement with 150 mm GSB subbase decreasesfrom39 cm to 36 cm
with the increase in the CBR value of subgradefrom3% to 10%.
15. The thickness of pavement with 100 mm CTS subbase decreasesfrom35 cm to 33 cm
with the increase in the CBR value of subgradefrom3% to 10%.

63.2 Effect of Type of Subbase on Thickness of Pavement

16. There is a significant effect of type of subbase on the thickness of the pavement. The
required thickness of pavement for GSB (150mm), CTS (100mm) and DLC (100mm)
subbase comes out to be 37cm, 34 cm and 32 cm respectively for a given subgrade
(CBR=5%), traffic (6000 CVPD, both directions of 4-lane divided road) and pavement
provided with earthen shouldws. DLC subbase results in least thickness.

97
633 Effect of Thickness of Subbase on Pavement Thickness

17. The thickness of pavement decreases with the increase in the thickness of the subbase
layer for a given subgrade and type of shoulder.
18. The thickness of pavement decreases by 1 cm on increasing the thickness of DLC
subbase from 100 mm to 150 mm for a subgrade of CBR 5%,
19. The thickness of pavement decreases by 2 cm on increasing the thickness of GSB
subbasefrom150 mm to 300 mm for a subgrade of CBR 5%.
20. The thickness of pavement decreases by 3 cm on increasing the thickness of CTS
subbase from 100 mm to 200 mm for a subgrade of CBR 5%.

63.4 Effect of Traffic Volume on Pavement Thickness

21. For a given subgrade (CBR=^%), subbase (DLC, 100 mm thick) and shoulder type
(earthen), the thickness of the pavement increases from 30 cm to 31 cm with the
increase in traffic volume of commercial vehiclesfrom450 to 5000 CVPD after which
it remains constant (32 cm) for all increments in traffic voliraie up to 8000 CVPD.
22. For any combination of strength of subgrade, type of subbase and trafBc volume, the
minimum and maximimi values of the design thickness of the pavement are foimd to
be 29 cm and 39 cm respectively.

6.4 IRC: 58-2011 v/s IRC: 58-2002

23. IRC: 58-2002 does not have the provision of designing the pavement with tied concrete
shoulders whereas IRC: 58-2011 has this provision.

For GSB subbase (150 mm), for all values of strength of subgrade, 2011 code gives
lesser thickness of pavement for a given value of traffic (6000 CVPD).
For DLC subbase (100 mm thick), up to 4% CBR of subgrade 2011 code gives lesser
pavement thickness whereas for higher CBR values it gives more pavement thickness
for a given value of traffic. For DLC subbase (150 mm thick), only at 2% CBR of

98
subgrade 2011 code gives lesser thickness whereas for higher values of CBR it gives
more thickness for a given value of traffic.

For CTS subbase (100 mm thick), up to 5% CBR of subgrade 2011 code gives lesser
pavement thickness and for higher CBR of subgrade both codes give same thickness
for a given value of traffic. For CTS subbase (150 mm thick), at 3% and 4% CBR of
subgrade both codes give same thickness whereas for higher values of CBR 2011 code
gives higher values of thickness for a given value of traffic. For CTS subbase (200 mm
thick), 2011 code gives higher pavement thickness for all CBR values of subgrade.

6^ ISSUES REGARDING IRC: 58-2011

a. A miTiirffliTn value of 8 % of CBR of subgrade is recommended in the code without


giving any reason for the same. A higher value of CBR not necessarily results into
lessCT thickness of the pavement as shown in this study. The study shows that replacing
the weak subgrade soil with hi^er strength subgrade soil may not resuh into any
benefits andratherit may increase the cost of the project.
b. Various types of subbases with different thicknesses are provide intiiecode. However,
which type and thickness of the subbase is to be used xmder what conditions is not
mentioned in the code. Stronger subbase and higher thickness of the subbase do not
always result in lesser pavement thickness as found in the study. A stronger subbase
with hi^er thickness, therefore, need to be used carefixUy after properly judging its
requirements and benefits.
c. The regression equations for CFD analysis are based upon Finite Element Analysis of
the slab of size 3.5m x 4.5m (width x length). Hiis fact about the slab size is nowhere
clearly specified in the code. Thecc is no provision for designing the thickness of the
pavement when the slab size is differentfi-omthis mentioned size.
d. The CFD analysis given in the code considers CFD for Bottom Up Cracking (BUC)
and CFD for Top Down Cracking (TDC) to be separately less than one. Actually, CFD
for both BUC and TDC cases should be collectively less than one. This point has,
however, been taken care of while doing design of pavanent in the thesis.

99
From the above mentioned points it is clear that the latest code of IRC: 58-2011 needs to make
some amendments for its application to become more rational and more acceptable.

6.6 SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The present study "Analysis of Design of a Rigid Pavement with Varying Types of Shoulders,
Subbase and Subgrade" has been carried out using the latest IRC guideluies (IRC: 58-2011)
assiraiing the road to be a 4-lane divided carriageway road (7.0 m x 2) located in Haryana. The
present study has taken into consideration the effect of variation in the strength of subgrade,
type of subbase and its thickness, type of shoulder and traffic on thickness of pavement in a
comprdiensive manner. However, there is scope for further study that may include:

• The thickness design in the present study to exhibit the effect of traffic volume on the
thickness of pavement has been done for DLC subbase of 100 mm and 150 mm and for
GSB subbase of 150 mm only. Similar analysis can be done for GSB subbase of 225
nam and 300 mm and for CTS subbase of 100 mm, 150 mm and 200 mm.
• Thou^ the effect of variation in the strength of subgrade, type of subbase and its
thickness, type of shoulder and traffic on the design of dowel bars and tie bars would
be negligible, but may be carried out.
• The thickness design in the present study has been compared with the previous IRC
guidelines, that is, IRC: 58-2002. Similarly, it can be compared with other design codes
which are being used by other countries such as AASHTO, PCA and Austroad etc.
• The CFD regression equations of IRC: 58-201 lare based upon Finite Element Anal>^is
of 3.5 m X 4.5 m slab. Similar analysis may be takai up for other slab sizes to have
wider and more accq)table application of the guidelines.

100
REFERENCES

1. MORTH (2008-2011), "Basic Road Statistics of India", New Delhi, August 2012.

2. IRC: 58-2011, "Guidelines for the Design of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavement for
Highways", Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.

3. IRC: 58-2002, "Guidelmes for the Design of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavement for
Hi^ways", Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.

4. AASHTO (1993), "AASHTO guide for Design of Pavement Structures", American


Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

5. PCA (1984), "Thickness Design for Concrete Highways and Street Pavements",
Portland Cement Association, USA.

101
PUBLICATIONS
1. Sureader Singh, S.N. Sachdeva (2014), "Analysis of Design of a Rigid Pavement with
Subgrades of Varying Strength" Proc. "International Conference on Emerging
Paradigms and Practices in Global Technology, Management & Business Issues", NTT
Hamirpur, December 22-24,2014.
2. Surender Singh, S.N. Sachdeva (2015), "Design of a Rigid Pavement with Different
Conditions of Subgrade and Subbase" Proc. "National Conference on Technological
Innovations for Sustainable Infrastructure", NTT Calicut, March 13-14,2015.
3. Surender Singh, S.N. Sachdeva (2015), "Thickness Requirement of a Rigid Pavement
with Varying Conditions of Subgrade, Subbase and Shoulders", Proc. "National
Conference on Advances in Engineering, Technology & Management", MMU,
Sadopur (Ambala), April 4,2015.
4. Surender Singh, S.N. Sachdeva (2015), "Thickness Requirement of a Rigid Pavement
with Varying Conditions of Subgrade, Subbase and Shoulders", Proc. "International
Organization of Scientific Researchj^j^^^at;^ Mechanical and Civil Engineering
aOSR - JMCE)", April, 2015.

102