1 Introduction

The Public Works Department, Uttar Pradesh has invited separate bids for road work in the
state. The work will be implemented on EPC basis on different sections with a completion
period of 24 months. The upgradation and maintenance works will be taken up in the section,
Hamirpur-Rath section of SH-42 from 2.065 km to 74.255 km.

The Client has appointed “Hindia Engineers Private Limited.” as the “Design consultant”
to carry out the Detailed Engineering Design Services for the project corridor. This report
provides the description and analysis of the pavement design both rigid and flexible for the
existing project corridor.

1.1 Project Road

The project road section from Hamirpur to Rath is located on south-western side of UP state
and located in Hamirpur district. The project road start near Hamirpur (Ch. 2+065 of SH-42)
at the intersection (‘Y’ intersection) with NH-34 (Ch. 67+000) and ends at Ch. 74+255 before
the start of Rath town. The existing carriageway of the Project Highway is
single/Intermediate/ Two Lane. The type of the existing pavement is flexible. The existing
project corridor passes through built-up areas of Pothiya, Chani, Biwar and Muskara. The
project corridor is marked below in the Figure 1-1

Figure 1-1: Project Corridor Map

Page-1
1.2 Scope of the design
The project corridor passes through Plan. The basic components dealt within this report are,

The traffic analysis with the available raw data further showing the details of

ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and the Annual Average Daily Traffic for both the
directions

Reporting the number of Commercial Vehicles per day (CVPD) in terms of Vehicles
and elaborating the results in terms of PCU’s further, Showing directional split of the
total traffic day wise.

Using the Axle load data provided by the Client the VDF (Vehicle Damage Factor) is
established for each category of vehicles

Using the calculated CVPD the design traffic for the design period as per the IRC
guidelines to get the msa (million standard axles)

Using the documental reference the msa is verified whether it has exceeded the
values given as per the Client ,if the values are lower from the data the pavement
crust composition is designed for the minimum msa provided by the Client, and hence
the Flexible pavement designed for these conditions .The existing road is 2-lane road
the directional traffic is significant in order to adopt the highest values which influence
the design

The axle load data and calculated Traffic results are utilised for the rigid pavement
crust composition. The crust composition is considered for both directions. Although it
is a 2-Lane with the paved Shoulder carriageway the axle load data for directional
wise is considered and the PQC thickness coming higher is adopted for the design

Page-2
2 Pavement Design
Pavement structure/crust consists of sub-base, base and surface layers placed on a sub
grade to support the traffic load and distribute it to the sub-grade. The operation, functionality
and safety of road depend upon pavement condition; therefore, its design strength must be
ensured to support the projected traffic loading throughout the design period. The basic aim
of the pavement design is to determine the total thickness of the pavement structure and
individual structural layers.

2.1 Methodology of Pavement Design

Design methodology for the pavement design is briefed out in the following sections:

2.1.1 Design Procedure

It is proposed to provide flexible pavement for the main carriageway with paved shoulders on
widening side and overlay for the existing pavement.

The following IRC codes have been followed for the pavement design:

 IRC:9-1972, “Traffic Census for Non-Urban Roads”

 IRC:64-1990, “Guidelines for Capacity of Roads in Rural Areas”

 IRC: 37- 2012, “Tentative Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements”

 IRC: 58 – 2015, “Guidelines for the Design of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements”

 IRC:SP:73-2015, “Manual of Standards and Specifications for Two laning of State

Highways on BOT basis”

2.1.2 Flexible Pavement Design

Main carriageway at widening side is designed according to IRC: 37- 2012 “Guidelines for
the Design of Flexible Pavements”. It is proposed that the pavement for the paved
shoulders to be constructed with the same specifications as applicable for the pavement of
the main carriageway.

Page-3
2.1.3 Design Traffic
The design traffic for the project corridor in terms of cumulative number of standard axles has
been computed for a design life of 15 years and no stage construction is allowed, for the
design of base and sub-base layers they are designed to run for a minimum period of 25
years as per IRC: SP-73-2015
𝑁𝐷𝑒𝑠 = 365×[(1+𝑟) 𝑛−1] × A × D × F

Where,
N: The cumulative number of standard axles in the design period in terms of msa.
r: Annual Growth Rate of commercial vehicles.
n: Design Life in years

A: Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction in terms of the number of

commercial vehicles/day
D: Lane Distribution Factor, LDF
F: Vehicle Damage Factor

2.1.4 Base Year Commercial Traffic

Traffic surveys were conducted during 2018.The Seasonal correction factors are assumed as
0.95 and 0.85 for Petrol and Diesel respectively for the PCU calculation. The PCU values
adopted from the IRC standards are presented in the Table 1. The Average daily traffic
(ADT) for each day is presented in the Annexure-I for each direction and also the combined
direction of Hamirpur and Rath.

Table 1: PCU’s for Rural Roads (IRC: 64)

Vehicle Type PCUs
Cycle 0.5
Cycle Rickshaw 2
Two-Wheeler 0.5
Auto Rickshaw 1
Bullock Cart 8
Tractor with Trolley 4.5
Tractor without Trolley 1.5
Car/ Jeep/ Van(white board) 1
Mini Bus 1.5
Bus 3
LCV 1.5
2 Axle Truck 3
3 Axle Truck 3
MAV 4.5
HAC 4.5

Page-4
Base year commercial traffic (AADT) – Both Directions - Total (all categories of vehicles) is
presented in the Table 2

Table 2: Summary of ADT and AADT for both the directions for 2-Lane
Vehicle Type ADT AADT
Cycle 158 151
Cycle Rickshaw 4 3
Two-Wheeler 779 694
Auto Rickshaw 6 5
Bullock Cart 21 18
Tractor with Trolley 57 57
Tractor without Trolley 14 12
Car/ Jeep/ Van (white board) 552 469
Mini Bus 2 2
Bus 25 21
LCV 224 191
2 Axle Truck 57 48
3 Axle Truck 303 257
MAV 166 166
HAC 4 4
Total Vehicles 2,372 2,098
Total PCUs 3,738 3,354
Total Passenger Traffic 1,527 1,345
Total Goods Traffic 753 666
Other (NMV, Agri etc.) Traffic 92 87

Base year commercial traffic (AADT) – Direction wise (all categories of vehicles with sub
categories summed as single category as in the MSA calculations) presented in the

Table 3: Summary of Commercial Vehicles for both directions

Bus LCV 2A 3A MAV

23 191 48 257 166

2.1.5 Growth Rate

Based on the traffic data available a minimum growth rate of 5% is considered for the
pavement design purpose. The traffic survey is conducted in the year 2018, while
considering 2.5 years of nearly the construction period the year of traffic opening is 2020.
The design traffic is growth rate is assumed to be 5% for all the category of vehicles from
2020 to the 2034 for a period of 15 years. As the no stage construction is allowed

Page-5
2.1.6 Graphical Presentation of Traffic results,
The variation of traffic for each day of the 7-day traffic count is presented below in the

Figure 2: The graphical presentation of ADT for both the directions

2.1.7 Vehicle Damage factor

The Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) is a multiplier to convert the number of commercial
vehicles of different axle loads and axle configuration to the number of standard axle load
repetitions. It is defined as equivalent number of standard axles per commercial vehicle.

Vehicle Damage Factors (VDFs) were assessed using the axle load data mainly for the
commercial vehicles that contributes significantly to pavement distress for the project road
collected during axle load survey conducted in the project stretch for both directions.
Commercial vehicles recorded were Bus (Minibus, 2-Axle), Light Commercial Vehicle (Goods
& Passenger), Two-axle Single Unit Commercial Vehicle (2-axle), Three-axle Trucks
(Tandem Axle), 4- Axle Tandem and Tridem vehicles, Semi Truck Trailers of Tandem type,
Tridem type, Tandem-Tandem type, Tandem-Tridem combination.

Calculation of VDF for different type of axles is shown below:

VDF = ((Axle load in Kg) / 6626) 4.0 For Front axle

4.0
VDF = ((Axle load in Kg) / 8155) For Dual wheel axle
4.0
VDF = ((Axle load in Kg) / 15087) For Tandem axle
4.0
VDF = ((Axle load in Kg) / 22834) For Tridem axle

Page-6
The summary of the VDF results from the axle load survey is presented in the Table 4

Table 4: VDF summary for each direction

Hamirpur - Rath Rath - Hamirpur

Vehicle
Description
Type Vehicles Vehicles
VDF VDF
Weighed Weighed

1-1 LCV 0.06 5 0.12 6

1-2 Bus 0.73 23 0.50 27
1-2 2 - Axle 3.98 17 3.89 25
1-2.2 3 - Axle 5.09 17 2.95 26

1-1-2.2 and
MAV 0.18 7 5.78 11
1-1-2.2.2

Total Vehicles 69 95

2.1.8 Lane Distribution Factor

The lane distribution factor (D) is necessary as it directly affects the total equivalent standard
axle load applications used in the design. The specification mentioned in the IRC: 37:2012, is
50 percent is adopted for two lane single carriageways, but being safer side both directions
the msa is calculated with the different VDF’s and the same has been followed in the
evaluation of million standard axles.

2.1.9 Design Period

Pavement design life is the period for which the initial design of pavement crust layers shall
be designed. Design life should not be used to refer to the terminal stage of crust beyond
which crust becomes unusable. The design period would be different for different
components of the highway. Appropriate design periods have been considered as per the
“Two laning Manual guidelines of IRC: SP: 73-2015” The details are elaborated below,

Flexible Pavement - Design Period and Strategy

(i) Pavement shall be designed for a minimum design period of 15 years. Stage construction
shall be permissible subject to the requirement specified in para (ii) below

(ii) Alternative strategies or combination of initial design, strengthening and maintenance can
be developed by the Contractor to provide the specified level of pavement performance over
the operation period, subject to satisfying the following minimum design requirements;

Page-7
 (a) The thickness of sub-base and base of pavement section is designed for a minimum
design period of 15 years and the initial bituminous surfacing for a minimum design
period of 8 years.

(b) The pavement shall be strengthened by bituminous overlay, as and when required, to
extend the pavement life to full operation period. Strengthening in stages for not less
than 5 years at a time can be done. The thickness of bituminous overlay shall be
determined by the basis of IRC:81

2.1.10 Design Traffic

The detailed calculation of cumulative number of standard axles design traffic calculation for
the pavement to run for 15 years is presented in the Annexure –II, as the calculated traffic is
much lower than the design traffic given by the Client, the flexible pavement crust
composition is designed for the minimum traffic details mentioned below Table 5

Table 5: Hamirpur to Rath Design traffic

Design Chainage Minimum
(Km) Design
(msa)
From To Length (Km)

2+065 36+000 33.935 108

36+000 74+850 38.850 30

2.1.11 Design CBR

For new pavement the natural ground soil will be used as subgrade. If the natural soil is not
suitable for subgrade, then the borrow area soil will be used as subgrade. As per test results
design effective CBR 10% result attached.

3 Flexible Pavement Design for Main Carriageway (Reconstruction

and Widening)
Flexible pavement thicknesses generated using IRC templates are revisited by the analytical
approach (IITPAVE) using the material properties provided in the IRC: 37-2012 and
subsequent analysis and layer thicknesses are presented in this report. The flexible
pavement has been modeled as a three layer structure and stresses and strains at critical
locations have been computed using the linear elastic model IITPAVE. The pavement crust
was deemed to be safe for the design loads if the allowable traffic obtained from the
equations 2.1 to 2.4 is greater than the design traffic. The critical locations responsible for
failure of pavement due to fatigue and rutting are shown in Figure 3

Page-8
 Point A & B

Point C

Figure 3: Critical locations in Pavement Design

A, B are the critical locations for tensile strains (Єt). Maximum value of the strain is
considered for failure analysis, while C is the critical location for the vertical sub-grade strain
(Єz) since the maximum value of Єz occurs mostly at C.

The distress of fatigue cracking is more critical at the bottom of the bituminous layer. This
type of cracking is usually initiated at the bottom of the bituminous layer after repeated
application of the axle loads. This initiation means that the actual tensile strain at the bottom
of the bituminous layer has exceeded a certain limit, which is the allowable strain. The
allowable tensile strains were calculated using the fatigue criteria equation as outlined in the
IRC: 37-2012 for 90% reliability equation 6.2.

The equations are as follows:

Where,
Nf = Fatigue life in number of standard axles

C =

t = Maximum tensile strain at the bottom of bituminous

MR = layer Resilient modulus of bituminous layer

Va = Volume of Air Voids, %

Vb = Volume of Bitumen, %

Page-9
The distress of rutting is more critical at the top of the subgrade. This type of permanent
deformation is initiated at the top of the subgrade layer after repeated application of the axle
loads. This initiation means that the actual compressive strain at the top of the subgrade
layer has exceeded a certain limit, which is the allowable strain. The allowable compressive
strains were calculated using the rutting criteria equation as outlined in the IRC: 37-2012.

Equations 6.5 of IRC:37-2012 are used for stiff binders like VG-40, the tyre pressure used in
the analysis was 0.56 MPa. Standard axle used was dual type wheel, having a mass of 80
KN. This results in a single wheel load of 20,000 N.

IITPAVE Software outputs and calculations for arriving pavement composition as per the
design traffic mentioned in the Table 5 are presented for Annexure-III

3.1 Pavement Crust recommendations

Flexible pavement shall consist of the following pavement layers

a) Bituminous layers:
The Bituminous layer conforming to MORT&H specifications shall be provided as a
wearing course. The bitumen with grade VG40 is used as binder.
b) Base course:
Wet mix macadam (WMM), conforming to the MORT&H specifications shall be
provided as a base course. According to MoRT&H 5th revision, the gradation for the
Base layer is adopted.

c) Sub-base course:
Granular Sub-base (GSB) material conforming to MoRT&H / IRC specification shall
be provided as a sub-base course as a drainage and separation layer.
d) Subgrade:
Subgrade material conforming to the requirements established by the MORT&H shall
be provided. The subgrade material shall have a minimum CBR of 10% for the
construction of flexible pavements.

Page-10
The crust composition can be adopted for the Main carriage-way section is shown in the Table
21 & 22, the detailed analysis with IITPAVE is presented in Annexure-V
Table 6: Material properties for Main Carriageway
Poisson’s Elastic moduli
Pavement layer
ratio (µ) (MPa)
Bituminous concrete 0.35 3000

Dense bituminous macadam 0.35 3000

Granular bases(GSB and WMM) 0.35 240.15

Subgrade (10% CBR) 0.35 76.83

Table 7: Pavement Layer Description – Conventional Layer Structure From CH.36+000 to

CH.74+850

Design
Effective BC DBM WMM GSB Subgrade
Traffic
CBR (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(MSA)

10 40 75 250 200 500 30

The volumetric parameters used in design are Va = 3.0% & Vb = 11.25%

Page-11
4 Rigid Pavement Design
The rigid pavement design will apply for the construction of lanes for location Ch.2+065 to
Ch.19+000. For the design, “IRC:58-2015 – Guidelines for the Design of Plain Jointed
Rigid Pavements for Highways” is followed. The design procedure and input parameters
are discussed below. In accordance with the IRC:58-2015 postulates, the pavement has
been designed for a life of 30 years. The load spectrum considered for the design purposes is
calculated from the axle load survey data.

The design involved computation of combined flexural stress under simultaneous action of
load and temperature gradient, bottom-up fatigue cracking by single and tandem axle load
repetitions, top-down fatigue cracking by single, tandem and Tridem axle load repetitions and
also the design of dowel bars and tie bars for contraction joints and longitudinal joints.

The Rigid pavement composition from bottom comprises of,

Compacted Sub-grade;
Granular Sub Base course (GSB);
Dry Lean Concrete (DLC);
Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC).

4.1 Material properties of pavement layers

4.1.1 Sub-grade CBR

The subgrade soil with design CBR of 8% is adopted for the rigid pavement design

4.1.2 Granular Base and DLC

Granular sub-base conforming to MORTH / IRC specification shall be provided as sub-base

layer. GSB shall have a thickness of 150mm to act as drainage and separation layer
satisfying the minimum permeability characteristics

Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) conforming to MORTH / IRC specifications shall be provided as
base course. The DLC shall have average 7-day strength of 7 MPa as per the Clause 5.7.4.1
of IRC: 58-2015. DLC shall have thickness of 150mm.

4.1.3 Pavement Quality Concrete, PQC

The Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) shall conform to MORTH specifications and shall
have 28 day flexural strength of 4.5 MPa, where the design is made considering for 90 day
strength of concrete as per Clause 5.8.2, IRC: 58-2015, the material properties according to
IRC: 58-2015 of PQC considered in design is shown in Table 8

Page-12
 Table 8: Properties of Concrete slab

Modulus of elasticity of Concrete, MPa 30,000

Poisson’s ratio, µ 0.15

Unit weight of concrete, kN/m3 24.0

4.1.4 Separation membrane

A separation membrane of 125µ polythene sheet, as per Clause 5.7.5, IRC: 58-2015 is
placed between concrete slab and DLC to reduce the inter layer friction and control
reflective cracking.

4.2 Design Inputs

4.2.1 Design period

The design life for the rigid pavement has been considered as 30 years in accordance with
Clause 5.4.2 of IRC: SP: 73-2015 and Clause 5.4 of IRC: 58-2015.

4.2.2 Design Traffic

The expected number of repetitions of different axle load groups during the design period is
estimated from the axle load spectrum obtained from the axle load survey.

As per Clause 6.3.3, IRC: 58-2015, the traffic during the 6 hour of the day (10 am to 4 pm)
and 6 hour of the night (0 am to 6 am) are significant for bottom up cracking (BUC) and top
down cracking (TDC), which shall be considered as the critical duration for fatigue analysis.
From the traffic survey data, the proportion of commercial vehicular traffic for the day time
six hours and the night time six hours have been determined and presented in Table 9

Table 9: Proportion of Commercial Vehicles

Proportion of Commercial Vehicles (%)
Significant duration for
Design Chainage, Km LHS (Hamirpur – RHS (Rath to
fatigue analysis
Rath) Hamirpur)
Day Time Traffic for BUC
27.96 26.74
analysis, % (10 AM to 4 PM)
Ch.2+065 to Ch.19+000
Night Time traffic for TDC
20.10 26.29
analysis, % (0 AM to 6 AM)

Page-13
 4.2.3 Axle Characteristics
Axle load spectrum, for both directions, has been derived for the axle load survey conducted
at Km 18+000. The axle load spectrum adopted for rigid pavement design is presented in the
Annexure-IV. Analyzing the axle load data, the maximum wheel load used in the Dowel bar
design is shown in Table 10

Table 10: Maximum Wheel Load, kN

Maximum Single wheel in spectrum,
Existing Chainage, Km.348+450
kN
Hamirpur to Rath 140
Rath to Hamirpur 140

Proportions of different axle categories, for both directions, are calculated from axle load
survey and the same is presented in Table 11

Table 11: Proportion of Different Axles at Km.18+000

LHS (Hamirpur to Rath) RHS (Rath to Hamirpur)

Axle Type
Number of Number of
% axles % axles
axles axles
Front Single 69 47.6 95 47.3

Rear Single 52 35.9 69 34.3

Tandem 22 15.2 34 16.9

Tridem 2 1.4 3 1.5

Total Axles 145 100 201 100

Total no. of Commercial vehicles 69 95

Average no. of axles per commercial

2.10 2.12
vehcile

Page-14
The proportion of vehicles with spacing between front and the first rear axle less than the
spacing of transverse joints in the concrete slab of 4.5m for computing the top down fatigue
cracking damage is given in Table 12

Table 12: Wheel Base Characteristics

% ,of Vehicles having spacing

Chainage,Km Direction between the front(steering) axle
and first rear axle less than 4.5 m

LHS (Hamirpur - Rath) 21.05

Des.Ch.2+065 to
Ch.19+000
RHS (Rath- Hamirpur) 21.79

4.2.4 Temperature Differential

The stretch Hamirpur - Rath lies in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The temperature differential as
per Table-1 of IRC: 58-2015 for these places under Zone-II, considered for concrete
pavement design is presented in Table 13

Table 13: Recommended temperature differentials for Concrete Slab

Max. temperature differential, for a slab thickness of (°C)
Zone State/Region
150mm 200mm 250mm 300mm to 400mm

II Uttar Pradesh 12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8

4.2.5 Sub-grade Strength

Design CBR of 8% is considered for the pavement design. For the design of rigid pavement,
the strength of the sub-grade is expressed in terms of modulus of sub-grade reaction k,
which is defined as the pressure per unit deflection of the foundations determined by the
plate load test. The k-value of a homogeneous soil subgrade can be obtained from its soaked
CBR value using the Table 2 of IRC: 58-2015

As per Table 2 of IRC: 58-2015, the modulus of subgrade reaction for effective subgrade
CBR of 8% is 50.33 MPa/m. The support below the concrete slab is represented by the
effective modulus of subgrade reaction offered by combined influence of the subgrade and
sub-base. A DLC sub base of minimum 150 mm thickness is recommended. Hence as per
Table 4 of IRC: 58-2015, effective k-value for 150 mm DLC is 285 MPa/m

Page-15
4.3 Rigid Pavement Crust design
The pavement crust required for the design traffic and other design inputs mentioned above
in accordance with IRC: 58-2015, is shown in the Table 14

The Concrete panel size of 4.5m x 3.5m has been adopted in the design by considering the
option of tied concrete shoulder, the detailed design steps are shown in the
Annexure-IV

Table 14: Rigid pavement thicknesses at Design Chainage Ch.2+065 to Ch.19+000

Summary of Rigid Pavement Design

Design CBR PQC (mm) DLC (mm) Subgrade

Location GSB (mm)
(%) (M-40) (M-10) (mm)

Hamirpur to Rath
Hamirpur -
8 210 150 150 500
Rath
Rath to Hamirpur
Rath to
8 210 150 150 500
Hamirpur

The dowel bar and tie bar material properties considered in design according to
specifications of IRC: 58-2015 are mentioned in Table 15 and Table 16

Table 15: Dowel bar properties

E for Dowel Bar (MPa) 200000

Modulus of Dowel Support (MPa/m) 415000

Table 16: Tie bar properties

Allowable tensile stress, MPa 125

Plain bars
Allowable bond stress, MPa 1.75

Allowable tensile stress, MPa 200

Deformed bars
Allowable bond stress, MPa 2.46

Page-16
 The summary of the Dowel bar design and Tie Bar design are presented in the
following tables Table 17 and Table 18
Table 17: Dowel bar design for Contraction joints

Description Hamirpur to Rath Rath to Hamirpur

Diameter of bar,(mm) 36 36

Spacing c/c, (mm) 200 200

Length of bar, mm 450 500

Table 18: Tie bar design for deformed bars

Description Hamirpur to Rath Rath to Hamirpur

Diameter of bar,(mm) 12 12

Spacing c/c ,(mm) 900 900

Length of bar, (mm) 640 640

Table 19: Design summary for Rigid Pavement (with Tied Paved Shoulder)
Deformed Tie
Des. PQC DLC Dowel Bar
Design Subgrade Bar
Ch.2+065 to (mm) (mm) GSB(mm) (Contraction
CBR (%) (mm) (Longitudinal
Ch.19+000 (M-40) (M-10) Joints)
Joints)
36mm
12mm
dia,450mm
Hamirpur to dia,640mm
8 210 150 150 500 Length,
Rath Length, &
&200mm
900mm spacing
spacing
36mm
12mm
dia,500mm
Rath to dia,640mm
8 210 150 150 500 Length,
Hamirpur Length, &
&200mm
900mm spacing
spacing
Note: Slab Size = 4.5 x 3.50 m and CBR is taken as 8%.
The designs have been verified using the guidelines of IRC: 58-2015, it showed that a
thickness of 210mm PQC for LHS and RHS side will be sufficient at the design Ch.2+065 to
Ch.19+000. However, a slab thickness of 280mm is recommended on a safer side in interest
of project and good industry practice given as per table below.
Table 20: Final Summary for Proposed Rigid Pavement (with Tied Paved Shoulder)
Final Proposed Rigid Pavement Design
Location Design PQC DLC GSB / Subgrade Dowel Bar Deformed Tie Bar
CBR (mm) (mm) DL (mm) (mm) (Contraction Joint) (Longitudinal
(%age) (M-40) (M-10) Joints)
CH.2+065 to 8 280 150 150 500 36mm DIA, 12mm DIA, 640mm
CH.19+000 450mm Length & Length & 600mm
300mm Spacing Spacing

*The details of Dowel Bar and Tie Bar as per IRC:58-2015 Table 5 and 6.
The detailed analysis is presented for both the directions with the different axle load
spectrum is presented in the Annexure-IV

Page-17
 Annexure-I
Average Daily Traffic Summary
 Annexure-I
Average Daily Traffic Summary

TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT STUDY

Name of the Location: Hamirpur-Rath SH-42 Chainage: Km.18+000 Direction: Hamirpur to Rath

PCU Value 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 8.0 4.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 Total
Car/
Tractor Tractor
Cycle Two Auto Bullock Jeep/ 2 Axle 3 Axle
Day Cycle Rickshaw Wheeler Rikshaw Cart with without Van(whit Mini Bus Bus LCV Truck Truck MAV HAC Vehicles PCUs
Trolly Trolly e board)
16-10-2018 (Tuesday) 83 15 465 11 20 36 10 346 3 16 99 38 127 65 2 1,336 1,996
17-10-2018 (Wednesday) 96 - 472 2 15 38 31 385 3 14 131 46 131 91 3 1,458 2,206
18-10-2018 (Thursday) 89 2 447 - 22 48 20 360 - 19 97 31 135 84 5 1,359 2,155
19-10-2018 (Friday) 89 1 479 2 16 58 5 355 - 17 91 33 109 77 1 1,333 2,004
20-10-2018 (Saturday) 65 3 307 1 8 29 6 233 - 16 139 41 143 131 4 1,126 2,046
21-10-2018 (Sunday) 59 3 219 1 10 21 12 175 2 11 128 34 278 167 3 1,123 2,443
22-10-2018 (Monday) 101 3 429 1 15 33 8 286 - 9 74 35 263 162 2 1,421 2,609
Average 83 4 403 3 15 38 13 306 1 15 108 37 169 111 3 1,308 2,208

Name of the Location: Hamirpur-Rath SH-42 Chainage: Km.18+000 Direction: Rath to Hamirpur

PCU Value 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 8.0 4.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 Total
Car/
Tractor Tractor
Cycle Two Auto Bullock Jeep/ 2 Axle 3 Axle
Day Cycle Rickshaw Wheeler Rikshaw Cart with without Van(whit Mini Bus Bus LCV Truck Truck MAV HAC Vehicles PCUs
Trolly Trolly e board)
16-10-2018 (Tuesday) 78 - 409 5 7 19 1 254 1 13 116 20 135 54 - 1,112 1,568
17-10-2018 (Wednesday) 83 - 398 4 6 22 1 265 1 12 118 19 137 54 1 1,121 1,588
18-10-2018 (Thursday) 84 - 423 3 8 18 1 276 1 11 115 21 136 62 2 1,161 1,645
19-10-2018 (Friday) 75 - 413 6 6 20 2 245 1 10 122 22 142 60 1 1,125 1,617
20-10-2018 (Saturday) 70 - 344 2 5 17 1 240 1 8 112 18 127 54 - 999 1,439
21-10-2018 (Sunday) 61 - 257 1 4 16 1 190 - 7 106 16 120 48 - 827 1,260
22-10-2018 (Monday) 76 - 393 5 7 21 1 253 1 14 121 23 137 53 1 1,106 1,593
Average 75 - 377 4 6 19 1 246 1 11 116 1 133 55 1 1,064 1,530

Name of the Location: Hamirpur-Rath SH-42 Chainage: Km.18+000 Direction: Both

PCU Value 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 8.0 4.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 Total
Car/
Tractor Tractor
Cycle Two Auto Bullock Jeep/ 2 Axle 3 Axle
Day Cycle Rickshaw Wheeler Rikshaw Cart with without Van(whit Mini Bus Bus LCV Truck Truck MAV HAC Vehicles PCUs
Trolly Trolly e board)
16-10-2018 (Tuesday) 161 15 874 16 27 55 11 600 4 29 215 58 262 119 2 2,448 3,564
17-10-2018 (Wednesday) 179 - 870 6 21 60 32 650 4 26 249 65 268 145 4 2,579 3,794
18-10-2018 (Thursday) 173 2 870 3 30 66 21 636 1 30 212 52 271 146 7 2,520 3,800
19-10-2018 (Friday) 164 1 892 8 22 78 7 600 1 27 213 55 251 137 2 2,458 3,621
20-10-2018 (Saturday) 135 3 651 3 13 46 7 473 1 24 251 59 270 185 4 2,125 3,484
21-10-2018 (Sunday) 120 3 476 2 14 37 13 365 2 18 234 50 398 215 3 1,950 3,702
22-10-2018 (Monday) 177 3 822 6 22 54 9 539 1 23 195 58 400 215 3 2,527 4,201
Average 158 4 779 6 21 57 14 552 2 25 224 57 303 166 4 2,372 3,738

Page-18
 Annexure-II
MSA calculation from Hamirpur- Rath direction
 Annexure-II
MSA calculation sheet

Hamirpur to Rath Direction

VDF Factors 2-Lane 2-way
Bus LCV 4 Tyre 2A Truck 3A Truck MAV
Lane Distribution factor 0.50
0.73 0.06 3.98 5.09 0.18

MSA Calculation when the VDF for Hamirpur to Rath direction is considered
MSA CALCULATION
AADT
Year 365*AADT*VDF*LDF/1000000
Bus LCV 4 tyre 2A Truck 3A Truck MAV Bus LCV 4 Tyre 2A Truck 3A Truck MAV TOTAL Cumulative
2018 23 191 48 257 166 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.24 0.01 0.28
2019 24 200 51 270 174 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.25 0.01 0.30
2020 26 210 53 284 183 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.26 0.01 0.31 0
2021 27 221 56 298 192 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.28 0.01 0.33 1
2022 28 232 59 313 202 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.29 0.01 0.35 1
2023 30 243 62 329 212 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.36 1
2024 31 255 65 345 222 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.32 0.01 0.38 2
2025 33 268 68 362 234 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.34 0.01 0.40 2
2026 34 281 71 380 245 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.35 0.01 0.42 3
2027 36 296 75 399 258 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.37 0.01 0.44 3
2028 38 310 79 419 270 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.39 0.01 0.46 3
2029 40 326 82 440 284 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.41 0.01 0.49 4
2030 42 342 87 462 298 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.43 0.01 0.51 4
2031 44 359 91 485 313 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.45 0.01 0.54 5
2032 46 377 95 510 329 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.47 0.01 0.56 6
2033 48 396 100 535 345 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.50 0.01 0.59 6
2034 51 416 105 562 362 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.52 0.01 0.62 7
2035 53 437 110 590 380 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.55 0.01 0.65 7

Page-19
 Annexure-III
MSA calculation from Rath - Hamirpur direction
 Annexure-III
MSA Calculation sheet

Rath to Hamirpur Direction

VDF Factors
Bus LCV 4 Tyre 2A Truck 3A Truck MAV
Lane Distribution factor 0.50
0.50 0.12 3.89 2.95 5.78

MSA Calculation when the VDF for Rath to Hamirpur direction is considered
MSA CALCULATION
AADT
Year 365*AADT*VDF*LDF/1000000
Bus LCV 4 tyre 2A Truck 3A Truck MAV Bus LCV 4 Tyre 2A Truck 3A Truck MAV TOTAL Cummulative
2018 23 191 48 257 166 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.18 0.35
2019 24 200 51 270 174 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.18 0.37
2020 26 210 53 284 183 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.19 0.39 0
2021 27 221 56 298 192 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.20 0.41 1
2022 28 232 59 313 202 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.17 0.21 0.43 1
2023 30 243 62 329 212 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.18 0.22 0.45 2
2024 31 255 65 345 222 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.19 0.23 0.47 2
2025 33 268 68 362 234 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.19 0.25 0.50 3
2026 34 281 71 380 245 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.20 0.26 0.52 3
2027 36 296 75 399 258 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.21 0.27 0.55 4
2028 38 310 79 419 270 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.29 0.58 4
2029 40 326 82 440 284 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.24 0.30 0.61 5
2030 42 342 87 462 298 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.31 0.64 6
2031 44 359 91 485 313 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.26 0.33 0.67 6
2032 46 377 95 510 329 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.27 0.35 0.70 7
2033 48 396 100 535 345 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.29 0.36 0.74 8
2034 51 416 105 562 362 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.30 0.38 0.77 8
2035 53 437 110 590 380 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.32 0.40 0.81 9

Page-20
 Annexure-IV
Flexible Pavement from Ch.36+000 to
Ch.74+850
Page-21
 Annexure-V
Hamirpur –Rath direction RIGID pavement
Hamirpur-Rath section of SH-42 IRC:58-2015 Guidelines for Design of HPD-01,R-01
Fatigue Damage Analysis
Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements for Highways
Design of Slab Thickness for Pavement SH-42 (Ch.2+065 to Ch.19+000)-Hamirpur to Rath
(with and without doweled transverse joints. Beta value will be 0.66 for doweled joint and 0.90 for without dowels case) Axle Load Spectrum Data for Hamirpur to Rath direction

Type of pavement considered Pavement Structural Details Bottom-up Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Day-time (6 hour) traffic and Positive Temperature Differential Top-Down Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Night-time (6 hour) traffic and Negative Temperature Differential
Modulus of subgrade reaction of subgrade,
50.33
Carriageway 2-Lane MPa/m
Rear Tandem Axles Rear Tridem Axles
Thickness of Granular Subbase, mm 150 Rear Single Axle Rear Tandem Axle Rear Tridem Axle Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles Rear Single Axles
(Stess computed for 50% of axle load) (Stress computed for 33% of axle load)
Mid-Point of Mid-Point of Mid-Point Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue
Load Group Frequency Load Frequency
Shoulders :- Tied concrete shoulders ? (yes/no) yes Thickness of Dry Lean Concrete subbase, mm 150 (kN) Load Group (%) Load Group (kN) Load Group Frequency (%) Group (kN) of Load (%) Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage
(kN) (kN) Group (kN) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni)
Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of
Transverse joint spacing (m) 4.5 285 265-275 270 0.00 540-560 550 0.00 770-800 785 0.00 0 4.658 0.956 2 0.000 0 4.075 0.836 43 0.000 0 3.806 0.781 201 0.000 0 3.855 0.791 152 0.000 0 3.724 0.764 322 0.000
foundation, MPa/m
3
Lane width (m) 3.5 Unit weight of Concrete, kN/m 24 255-265 260 0.00 520-540 530 0.00 740-770 755 0.00 0 4.515 0.926 4 0.000 0 3.945 0.810 91 0.000 0 3.707 0.761 353 0.000 0 3.757 0.771 267 0.000 0 3.625 0.744 565 0.000
28-day Flexural strength of cement concrete,
Transverse Joints have dowel bars? (yes/no) yes MPa 4.43 M40 245-255 250 0.00 500-520 510 0.00 710-740 725 0.00 0 4.371 0.897 8 0.000 0 3.816 0.783 190 0.000 0 3.609 0.741 620 0.000 0 3.658 0.751 468 0.000 0 3.527 0.724 992 0.000
Max. day-time Temperature Differential in slab,
0
Design Traffic Estimation C (for bottom-up cracking) 13.34 235-245 240 0.00 480-500 490 0.00 680-710 695 0.00 0 4.228 0.868 18 0.000 0 3.686 0.757 398 0.000 0 3.510 0.720 1089 0.000 0 3.560 0.730 822 0.000 0 3.428 0.703 1741 0.000
0
Design Period (years) 30 Night-time Temperature Differential in slab, C 11.67 225-235 230 0.00 460-480 470 0.00 650-680 665 0.00 0 4.084 0.838 41 0.000 0 3.557 0.730 834 0.000 0 3.412 0.700 1912 0.000 0 3.461 0.710 1443 0.000 0 3.329 0.683 3057 0.000
(for top-down cracking) = day-time diff/2 + 5
Total Two-way Commercial Traffic (cvpd) in the
year of completion of construction 756 Trial Thickness of Concrete Slab, m 0.210 215-225 220 0.00 440-460 450 0.00 620-650 635 0.00 0 3.940 0.809 94 0.000 0 3.428 0.703 1745 0.000 0 3.313 0.680 3358 0.000 0 3.362 0.690 2534 0.000 0 3.231 0.663 5368 0.000
Load Transfer Efficiency Factor for TDC
Av. Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic Varies for diff
analysis, Beta = 0.66 for dowel Joints, 0.90 for 0.66 205-215 210 0.00 420-440 430 0.00 590-620 605 0.00 0 3.797 0.779 212 0.000 0 3.298 0.677 3653 0.000 0 3.214 0.660 5897 0.000 0 3.264 0.670 4450 0.000 0 3.132 0.643 9427 0.000
(expressed as decimal) modes joints without dowels
Cumulative No of Commercial vehicles during
18047603 Elastic Modulus of Concrete, Ec (MPa) 30000 195-205 200 0.00 400-420 410 0.00 560-590 575 0.00 0 3.653 0.750 482 0.000 0 3.169 0.650 7646 0.000 0 3.116 0.639 10354 0.000 0 3.165 0.649 7814 0.000 0 3.033 0.622 16553 0.000
design period (two-way), A

Average No of axles per commercial vehicle, B 2.10 Poisson's Ratio of Concrete, Mu 0.15 185-195 190 0.00 380 - 400 390 0.00 530-560 545 0.00 0 3.509 0.720 1094 0.000 0 3.039 0.624 16005 0.000 0 3.017 0.619 18182 0.000 0 3.066 0.629 13721 0.000 0 2.935 0.602 29068 0.000

Cumulative No of Commercial Axles during design 37926122 Radius of relative stiffness, m 0.54 175-185 180 0.00 360 - 380 370 0.00 500-530 515 0.00 0 3.366 0.691 2483 0.000 0 2.910 0.597 33503 0.000 0 2.918 0.599 31927 0.000 0 2.968 0.609 24094 0.000 0 2.836 0.582 51042 0.000
period (two-way), C = A*B

Proportion of traffic in predominant direction (For

1.00 Design Axle Load Repetitions for Fatigue Analysis 165-175 170 0.00 340 - 360 350 0.00 470-500 485 0.00 0 3.222 0.661 5636 0.000 0 2.780 0.571 70131 0.000 0 2.820 0.579 56064 0.000 0 2.869 0.589 42308 0.000 0 2.737 0.562 89629 0.000
2-lane 2-way highways use a value of 1.0), D
Lateral Placement factor (0.25 for 2-lane 2-way.
0.25 For Bottom-up Cracking Analysis 155-165 160 0.00 320 - 340 330 0.00 440-470 455 0.00 0 3.078 0.632 12792 0.000 0 2.651 0.544 147814 0.000 0 2.721 0.558 98446 0.000 0 2.770 0.568 74292 0.000 0 2.639 0.541 159202 0.000
For multilane highways the value is 0.25 X C), E
Factor for selection of traffic for BUC analysis (for
0.28 Front single (steering) Axles = H * K1 1261729 145-155 150 0.00 300 - 320 310 0.00 410-440 425 0.00 0 2.935 0.602 29036 0.000 0 2.521 0.517 359717 0.000 0 2.622 0.538 176435 0.000 0 2.672 0.548 130822 0.000 0 2.540 0.521 311609 0.000
six-hour period during day), F
Factor for selection of traffic for TDC analysis (for
0.20 Rear single Axles = H * K2 950868 135-145 140 1.92 280 - 300 290 4.55 380-410 395 0.00 18286 2.791 0.573 65904 0.277 18286 2.392 0.491 1225513 0.015 2767 2.524 0.518 353694 0.008 2767 2.573 0.528 245237 0.011 0 2.441 0.501 726326 0.000
six-hour period during night), G
Design axle repetitions for BUC analysis (for 6
2651459 Tandem Axles = H * K3 402290 125-135 130 1.92 260 - 280 270 4.55 350-380 365 0.00 18286 2.648 0.543 150781 0.121 18286 2.263 0.464 8914510 0.002 2767 2.425 0.498 856698 0.003 2767 2.474 0.508 534277 0.005 0 2.343 0.481 2282427 0.000
hour day time traffic), H = B*E*F
Proportion of vehicles with spacing between front
and the first rear axle less than the spacing of 0.2105 Tridem Axles = H * K4 36572 115-125 120 11.54 240 - 260 250 0.00 320-350 335 0.00 109716 2.504 0.514 414197 0.265 0 2.133 0.438 infinite 0.000 16600 2.326 0.477 2892608 0.006 0 2.376 0.488 1488001 0.000 0 2.244 0.461 13505295 0.000
transverse joints, I
Design axle repetitions for TDC analysis (for 6-
hour night time traffic), J = B*E*G*I 401157 For Top-Down Cracking Analysis 105-115 110 0.00 220 - 240 230 13.64 290-320 305 0.00 0 2.360 0.484 1802355 0.000 54858 2.004 0.411 infinite 0.000 0 2.228 0.457 20545535 0.000 8300 2.277 0.467 6669476 0.001 0 2.145 0.440 infinite 0.000
Proportion of Front single (steering) Axles, K1 0.476 Front single (steering) Axles = J * K1 190895 95-105 100 7.69 200 - 220 210 18.18 260-290 275 0.00 73144 2.217 0.455 28051866 0.003 73144 1.874 0.385 infinite 0.000 11066 2.129 0.437 infinite 0.000 11066 2.178 0.447 infinite 0.000 0 2.047 0.420 infinite 0.000

Proportion of Rear single Axles,K2 0.359 Rear single Axles = J * K2 143863 85-95 90 3.85 180 - 200 190 0.00 230-260 245 0.00 36572 2.073 0.425 infinite 0.000 0 1.745 0.358 infinite 0.000 5533 2.030 0.417 infinite 0.000 0 2.080 0.427 infinite 0.000 0 1.948 0.400 infinite 0.000

Proportion of tandem Axles, K3 0.152 Tandem Axles = J * K3 60865 < 85 80 73.08 < 180 170 59.09 < 230 215 100.00 694865 1.929 0.396 infinite 0.000 237717 1.615 0.331 infinite 0.000 105131 1.932 0.396 infinite 0.000 35966 1.981 0.407 infinite 0.000 5533 1.849 0.380 infinite 0.000

Proportion of Tridem Axles, K4 = (1-K1-K2-K3) 0.014 Tridem Axles = J * K4 5533 100 100 100 950868 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.666 402290 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.017 143863 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.017 60865 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.018 5533 Fat Dam from Tridem Axles = 0.000
Total Bottom-up Fatigue Damage due to single and
* Av. Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic given is for representation only and it has not used in calculating the design traffic. tandem axle loads = 0.666 + 0.017 = 0.683 Total Top-Down Fatigue Damage = 0.017 + 0.018 + 0.000 = 0.034
Front Single Axles and Rear Tridem axles not considered for bottom-up analysis

Cumulative no of commercial traffic for design period is considered from traffic projection table as given in Traffic Report Sum of CFD for BUC & TDC= 0.718 DESIGN IS SAFE SINCE SUM OF CFD FOR BUC AND TDC< OR EQ.1

CBR of Subgrade Soil, % 8

Design of Dowel Bars Design of Tie Bars

Slab Thickness, h (m) 0.220 Slab Thickness, h (m) 0.220

Lane Width, b (m) 3.5
Expansion Joint Width, z1 (mm) 20
Coefficient of friction, f 1.5
Contraction Joint Width, z2 (mm) 5
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (MPa/m) 50.33 3
Density of Concrete, (kN/m ) 24
Radius of Relative Stiffness,l (m) 0.54 Allowable tensile stress in plain bars, MPa 125

Allowable tensile stress in deformed bars, MPa 200

E for Dowel Bar (MPa) 200000
Allowable bond stress in plain bars, MPa 1.75
Modulus of Dowel Support (MPa/m) 415000
Maximum Single Axle Load (kN) 140 Allowable bond stress in deformed bars, MPa 2.46

Maximum Single Wheel Load (kN) 70

Design for Plain Bars

% of Load transfer across the joint through Dowel Bar 40 Diameter of Tie Bar (m) 0.012
2
% of Load Transfer at Terminal Stage to Tied Shoulders 30 Area of steel required per meter width (mm /m) 221.76
Wheel Load to be considered for Dowel bar design (kN) 49 2
C/S area of tie bar, A (mm ) 113.04
Perimeter of tie bar, P (mm) 37.68
Factor of Safety 1
Safety of Dowel Bar can be examined for a load of 80
Spacing of tie bar (mm) 509.740 Say 510 mm c/c
Length of tie bar, L (mm) 428.57
Grade of Concrete (MPa) 40

Diameter of Dowel Bar (m) 0.036 Required length of tie bar is (mm) 578.57 Say 580 mm

Allowable Bearing Stress in Concrete, Fb (MPa) 27.549 Design for Deformed Bars

Spacing between Dowel bars (m) 0.200 Diameter of Tie Bar (m) 0.012
2
Length of Dowel Bars (m) 0.450 Area of steel required per meter width (mm /m) 138.6
No.of Dowel Bars participating in load transfer 3 2
C/S area of tie bar, A (mm ) 113.04
No.of spacings 2 Perimeter of tie bar, P (mm) 37.68

Total Load Transfer by Dowel bar system 1.883

Spacing of tie bar (mm) 900 Say 900 mm c/c
Load transferred by outer dowel bar, Pt (kN) 16.996 Length of tie bar, L (mm) 487.80

Required length of tie bar is (mm) 637.80 Say 640 mm

Check for Bearing Stress

Moment of Inertia of Dowel bar, I (mm4) 82406.16

Relative Stiffness of Dowel bar, Beta 0.022

Bearing stress between Concrete and Dowel bar, Fbmax 25.096

Safe

Page-22
 Annexure-VI
Rath - Hamirpur direction RIGID pavement
Hamirpur-Rath section of SH-42 IRC:58-2015 Guidelines for Design of HPD-01,R-01
Fatigue Damage Analysis
Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements for Highways
Design of Slab Thickness for Pavement SH-42 (Ch.2+065 to Ch.19+000) Rath to Hamirpur
(with and without doweled transverse joints. Beta value will be 0.66 for doweled joint and 0.90 for without dowels case) Axle Load Spectrum Data for Rath to Hamirpur direction

Type of pavement considered Pavement Structural Details Bottom-up Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Day-time (6 hour) traffic and Positive Temperature Differential Top-Down Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Night-time (6 hour) traffic and Negative Temperature Differential
Modulus of subgrade reaction of subgrade,
50.33
Carriageway 2-Lane MPa/m
Rear Tandem Axles Rear Tridem Axles
Thickness of Granular Subbase, mm 150 Rear Single Axle Rear Tandem Axle Rear Tridem Axle Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles Rear Single Axles
(Stess computed for 50% of axle load) (Stress computed for 33% of axle load)
Mid-Point of Mid-Point of Mid-Point Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue
Load Frequency Load Frequency
Shoulders :- Tied concrete shoulders ? (yes/no) yes Thickness of Dry Lean Concrete subbase, mm 150 Group (kN) Load Group (%) Load Group (kN) Load Group Frequency (%) Group (kN) of Load (%) Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage
(kN) (kN) Group (kN) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni)
Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of
Transverse joint spacing (m) 4.5 285 265-275 270 0.00 540-560 550 0.00 770-800 785 0.00 0 4.658 0.956 2 0.000 0 4.075 0.836 43 0.000 0 3.806 0.781 201 0.000 0 3.855 0.791 152 0.000 0 3.724 0.764 322 0.000
foundation, MPa/m
3
Lane width (m) 3.5 Unit weight of Concrete, kN/m 24 255-265 260 0.00 520-540 530 0.00 740-770 755 0.00 0 4.515 0.926 4 0.000 0 3.945 0.810 91 0.000 0 3.707 0.761 353 0.000 0 3.757 0.771 267 0.000 0 3.625 0.744 565 0.000
28-day Flexural strength of cement concrete,
Transverse Joints have dowel bars? (yes/no) yes MPa 4.43 M40 245-255 250 0.00 500-520 510 0.00 710-740 725 0.00 0 4.371 0.897 8 0.000 0 3.816 0.783 190 0.000 0 3.609 0.741 620 0.000 0 3.658 0.751 468 0.000 0 3.527 0.724 992 0.000
Max. day-time Temperature Differential in slab,
0
Design Traffic Estimation C (for bottom-up cracking) 13.34 235-245 240 0.00 480-500 490 0.00 680-710 695 0.00 0 4.228 0.868 18 0.000 0 3.686 0.757 398 0.000 0 3.510 0.720 1089 0.000 0 3.560 0.730 822 0.000 0 3.428 0.703 1741 0.000
0
Design Period (years) 30 Night-time Temperature Differential in slab, C 11.67 225-235 230 0.00 460-480 470 0.00 650-680 665 0.00 0 4.084 0.838 41 0.000 0 3.557 0.730 834 0.000 0 3.412 0.700 1912 0.000 0 3.461 0.710 1443 0.000 0 3.329 0.683 3057 0.000
(for top-down cracking) = day-time diff/2 + 5
Total Two-way Commercial Traffic (cvpd) in the
year of completion of construction 756 Trial Thickness of Concrete Slab, m 0.210 215-225 220 0.00 440-460 450 0.00 620-650 635 0.00 0 3.940 0.809 94 0.000 0 3.428 0.703 1745 0.000 0 3.313 0.680 3358 0.000 0 3.362 0.690 2534 0.000 0 3.231 0.663 5368 0.000
Load Transfer Efficiency Factor for TDC
Av. Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic Varies for diff
analysis, Beta = 0.66 for dowel Joints, 0.90 for 0.66 205-215 210 0.00 420-440 430 0.00 590-620 605 0.00 0 3.797 0.779 212 0.000 0 3.298 0.677 3653 0.000 0 3.214 0.660 5897 0.000 0 3.264 0.670 4450 0.000 0 3.132 0.643 9427 0.000
(expressed as decimal) modes joints without dowels
Cumulative No of Commercial vehicles during
18047603 Elastic Modulus of Concrete, Ec (MPa) 30000 195-205 200 0.00 400-420 410 0.00 560-590 575 0.00 0 3.653 0.750 482 0.000 0 3.169 0.650 7646 0.000 0 3.116 0.639 10354 0.000 0 3.165 0.649 7814 0.000 0 3.033 0.622 16553 0.000
design period (two-way), A

Average No of axles per commercial vehicle, B 2.12 Poisson's Ratio of Concrete, Mu 0.15 185-195 190 0.00 380 - 400 390 0.00 530-560 545 0.00 0 3.509 0.720 1094 0.000 0 3.039 0.624 16005 0.000 0 3.017 0.619 18182 0.000 0 3.066 0.629 13721 0.000 0 2.935 0.602 29068 0.000

Cumulative No of Commercial Axles during design 38184928 Radius of relative stiffness, m 0.54 175-185 180 0.00 360 - 380 370 0.00 500-530 515 0.00 0 3.366 0.691 2483 0.000 0 2.910 0.597 33503 0.000 0 2.918 0.599 31927 0.000 0 2.968 0.609 24094 0.000 0 2.836 0.582 51042 0.000
period (two-way), C = A*B

Proportion of traffic in predominant direction (For

1.00 Design Axle Load Repetitions for Fatigue Analysis 165-175 170 0.00 340 - 360 350 0.00 470-500 485 0.00 0 3.222 0.661 5636 0.000 0 2.780 0.571 70131 0.000 0 2.820 0.579 56064 0.000 0 2.869 0.589 42308 0.000 0 2.737 0.562 89629 0.000
2-lane 2-way highways use a value of 1.0), D
Lateral Placement factor (0.25 for 2-lane 2-way.
0.25 For Bottom-up Cracking Analysis 155-165 160 0.00 320 - 340 330 0.00 440-470 455 0.00 0 3.078 0.632 12792 0.000 0 2.651 0.544 147814 0.000 0 2.721 0.558 98446 0.000 0 2.770 0.568 74292 0.000 0 2.639 0.541 159202 0.000
For multilane highways the value is 0.25 X C), E
Factor for selection of traffic for BUC analysis (for
0.27 Front single (steering) Axles = H * K1 1206487 145-155 150 0.00 300 - 320 310 0.00 410-440 425 0.00 0 2.935 0.602 29036 0.000 0 2.521 0.517 359717 0.000 0 2.622 0.538 176435 0.000 0 2.672 0.548 130822 0.000 0 2.540 0.521 311609 0.000
six-hour period during day), F
Factor for selection of traffic for TDC analysis (for
0.26 Rear single Axles = H * K2 876290 135-145 140 1.45 280 - 300 290 2.94 380-410 395 33.33 12700 2.791 0.573 65904 0.193 12700 2.392 0.491 1225513 0.010 2722 2.524 0.518 353694 0.008 2722 2.573 0.528 245237 0.011 2722 2.441 0.501 726326 0.004
six-hour period during night), G
Design axle repetitions for BUC analysis (for 6
2552672 Tandem Axles = H * K3 431795 125-135 130 4.35 260 - 280 270 2.94 350-380 365 0.00 38100 2.648 0.543 150781 0.253 12700 2.263 0.464 8914510 0.001 8165 2.425 0.498 856698 0.010 2722 2.474 0.508 534277 0.005 0 2.343 0.481 2282427 0.000
hour day time traffic), H = B*E*F
Proportion of vehicles with spacing between front
and the first rear axle less than the spacing of 0.2179 Tridem Axles = H * K4 38100 115-125 120 8.70 240 - 260 250 8.82 320-350 335 33.33 76199 2.504 0.514 414197 0.184 38100 2.133 0.438 infinite 0.000 16331 2.326 0.477 2892608 0.006 8165 2.376 0.488 1488001 0.005 2722 2.244 0.461 13505295 0.000
transverse joints, I
Design axle repetitions for TDC analysis (for 6-
hour night time traffic), J = B*E*G*I 547087 For Top-Down Cracking Analysis 105-115 110 5.80 220 - 240 230 2.94 290-320 305 0.00 50799 2.360 0.484 1802355 0.028 12700 2.004 0.411 infinite 0.000 10887 2.228 0.457 20545535 0.001 2722 2.277 0.467 6669476 0.000 0 2.145 0.440 infinite 0.000
Proportion of Front single (steering) Axles, K1 0.473 Front single (steering) Axles = J * K1 258574 95-105 100 7.25 200 - 220 210 8.82 260-290 275 33.33 63499 2.217 0.455 28051866 0.002 38100 1.874 0.385 infinite 0.000 13609 2.129 0.437 infinite 0.000 8165 2.178 0.447 infinite 0.000 2722 2.047 0.420 infinite 0.000

Proportion of Rear single Axles,K2 0.343 Rear single Axles = J * K2 187806 85-95 90 2.90 180 - 200 190 8.82 230-260 245 0.00 25400 2.073 0.425 infinite 0.000 38100 1.745 0.358 infinite 0.000 5444 2.030 0.417 infinite 0.000 8165 2.080 0.427 infinite 0.000 0 1.948 0.400 infinite 0.000

Proportion of tandem Axles, K3 0.169 Tandem Axles = J * K3 92542 < 85 80 69.57 < 180 170 64.71 < 230 215 0.00 609593 1.929 0.396 infinite 0.000 279397 1.615 0.331 infinite 0.000 130648 1.932 0.396 infinite 0.000 59880 1.981 0.407 infinite 0.000 0 1.849 0.380 infinite 0.000

Proportion of Tridem Axles, K4 = (1-K1-K2-K3) 0.015 Tridem Axles = J * K4 8165 100 100 100 876290 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.660 431795 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.012 187806 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.023 92542 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.022 8165 Fat Dam from Tridem Axles = 0.004
Total Bottom-up Fatigue Damage due to single and
* Av. Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic given is for representation only and it has not used in calculating the design traffic. tandem axle loads = 0.660 + 0.012 = 0.672 Total Top-Down Fatigue Damage = 0.023 + 0.022 + 0.004 = 0.049
Front Single Axles and Rear Tridem axles not considered for bottom-up analysis

Cumulative no of commercial traffic for design period is considered from traffic projection table as given in Traffic Report Sum of CFD for BUC & TDC= 0.721 DESIGN IS SAFE SINCE SUM OF CFD FOR BUC AND TDC< OR EQ.1

CBR of Subgrade Soil, % 8

Design of Dowel Bars Design of Tie Bars

Slab Thickness, h (m) 0.220 Slab Thickness, h (m) 0.220

Lane Width, b (m) 3.5
Expansion Joint Width, z1 (mm) 20
Coefficient of friction, f 1.5
Contraction Joint Width, z2 (mm) 5
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (MPa/m) 50.33 3
Density of Concrete, (kN/m ) 24
Radius of Relative Stiffness,l (m) 0.54 Allowable tensile stress in plain bars, MPa 125

Allowable tensile stress in deformed bars, MPa 200

E for Dowel Bar (MPa) 200000
Allowable bond stress in plain bars, MPa 1.75
Modulus of Dowel Support (MPa/m) 415000
Maximum Single Axle Load (kN) 140 Allowable bond stress in deformed bars, MPa 2.46

Maximum Single Wheel Load (kN) 70

Design for Plain Bars

% of Load transfer across the joint through Dowel Bar 40 Diameter of Tie Bar (m) 0.012
2
% of Load Transfer at Terminal Stage to Tied Shoulders 30 Area of steel required per meter width (mm /m) 221.76
Wheel Load to be considered for Dowel bar design (kN) 49 2
C/S area of tie bar, A (mm ) 113.04
Perimeter of tie bar, P (mm) 37.68
Factor of Safety 1
Safety of Dowel Bar can be examined for a load of 80
Spacing of tie bar (mm) 509.74 Say 510 mm c/c
Length of tie bar, L (mm) 428.57
Grade of Concrete (MPa) 40

Diameter of Dowel Bar (m) 0.036 Required length of tie bar is (mm) 578.57 Say 580 mm

Allowable Bearing Stress in Concrete, Fb (MPa) 27.549 Design for Deformed Bars

Spacing between Dowel bars (m) 0.200 Diameter of Tie Bar (m) 0.012
2
Length of Dowel Bars (m) 0.500 Area of steel required per meter width (mm /m) 138.6
No.of Dowel Bars participating in load transfer 3 2
C/S area of tie bar, A (mm ) 113.04
No.of spacings 2 Perimeter of tie bar, P (mm) 37.68

Total Load Transfer by Dowel bar system 1.883

Spacing of tie bar (mm) 900.00 Say 900 mm c/c
Load transferred by outer dowel bar, Pt (kN) 16.996 Length of tie bar, L (mm) 487.80

Required length of tie bar is (mm) 637.80 Say 640 mm

Check for Bearing Stress

Moment of Inertia of Dowel bar, I (mm4) 82406.16

Relative Stiffness of Dowel bar, Beta 0.022

Bearing stress between Concrete and Dowel bar, Fbmax 25.096

Safe

Page-23
 Annexure-VII
Pavement Design Summary
 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN FROM CH.2+065 TO CH.19+000
Final Proposed Rigid Pavement Design
Location Design PQC (mm) DLC (mm) GSB / DL Subgrade Dowel Bar (Contraction Joint) Deformed Tie Bar
CBR (M-40) (M-10) (mm) (mm) (Longitudinal Joints)
(%age)
CH.2+065 to CH.19+000 8 280 150 150 500 36mm DIA, 450mm Length & 12mm DIA, 640mm
300mm Spacing Length & 600mm
Spacing

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT LAYER DESCRIPTION – CONVENTIONAL LAYER STRUCTURE FROM CH.36+000 TO CH.74+850

Effective CBR BC DBM GSB Design Traffic

WMM (mm) Subgrade (mm)
(%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MSA)

10 40 75 250 200 500 30

The volumetric parameters used in design are Va = 3.0% & Vb = 11.25%

Page-24
 Annexure-VIII
Laboratory Test Results of Borrow Area