Ref.: PWD/SH/D-S-K/Cons.

/01

To,
The Executive Engineer
PWD, Bemetara
Division, Bemetara.

Dear Sir,

We take this opportunity to mention that we have been awarded a contract for widening &
strengthening of “Deokar-Saja-Khamariya road from Km. ½ to Km. 33/10 i.e. total length of
31.00 km”.
As per DPR, this total road length is divided into several stretches namely:
Both side widening of 2m for 13.05 km. length ,
One side widening of 2m for 3.35 km. length,
Road strengthening(having from bottom GSB up-to wearing course of MSS at existing road) of
7m for 10.65 km. length,
CC road of 7m for 3.375 km. length &
CC road of 10m for 400m length.
After going through the department DPR we have ascertained a drastic change in quantities
of various pavement layers due to omission of certain critical facts in DPR:

1) Considered length for strengthening of road is just 10.65 km., but as per actual site condition
this length is = (10.65+1.8) km.
2) The total crust thickness of 550mm (20mm MSS, 50mm BM, 250 mm WMM, 250mm
GSB) is assumed to construct in a vertical layer without having projection/offset in between
subsequent layers of pavement which imposes a huge problems at site during construction.
3) Width of GSB(which acts as a drainage layer) has not been considered till side slope(toe),
due to this the pavement’s life will be much less against desired life of 15 years.
4) There is 50% quantity utilization of widening excavation from roadway cutting for
embankment/sub-grade construction.
5) There is 40% deduction in excavation quantity from roadway cutting due to less width on
both sides of existing road.
6) The proposed crust composition of pavement is taken as 550mm based on design CBR
value of 5% with cumulative traffic (msa) value of 3.
7) In DPR: Loosening & re-compaction (L & R activity) is completely omitted.

These points are far from facts while we commence execution at site, which we are justifying
point wise on technical ground on the basis of technical specifications/standard guidelines.

A) After our closed observations at site and as per existing road condition, we are submitting
herewith a strengthening proposal based on existing road durability condition for other 1.8 km
stretch (at Km. 11/10 to 12/6 & km. 13/4 to 14/6, i.e. at 1.8 Km. length, the embankment height
is very less and the surface is almost flat here, in DPR these are considered under widening
section) apart from already considered strengthening length of 10.65 km. We have assessed the
proposed strengthening work after witnessing deteriorated condition of existing road and after
considering below factors which are responsible for pavement disaster:
1) Deep pot-holes & severe cracks on existing surface, increasing continuously.
2) Plenty of huge truck(of 10 wheels) load plying on daily basis.
3) Rain cuts at several places of road edge increasing day by day.
4) Soil strata of BC soil at almost all stretch, so existing road requires proper
strengthening.
These points indicate, the existing road is not able to sustain the present traffic load and will not be
in a position to sustain the upcoming traffic movement. So, to overcome above problems, the
existing surface must be sufficiently strong which is not possible with just overlay in vicinity of
BC soil. With this we understand just overlay cannot add sufficient stability to this existing road of
1.8 Km, so keeping users convenience in view and in order to withstand heavy road wear and tear
and to give a long life to the road we sincerely request you to kindly allow us to go for
strengthening of road for a total length of 12.45 km.
So, we request you to kindly allow us to lay crust from GSB bottom and further at the existing road
portion, wherever strengthening is needed. That is at the strengthening portion on existing road
apart from wearing & binder courses, GSB(in full thickness) as well as WMM(in full thickness)
layers shall come underneath with excavation on existing road till sub grade top.
We are attaching some of the site photographs, showing a no. of deep potholes, severe cracks, and
flat existing surface which will keep increasing till year ahead, this will make our genuine proposal
more realistic

B) As per Cl. 401.4.2 & Cl. 406.1 of MORT&H, the compacted maximum depth of a single layer
of the sub-base (GSB) and sub-base (WMM) are 225mm and 200mm respectively.
On the basis of this we propose the construction of WMM and GSB in two layers with required
offset in between subsequent layers of pavement.
The interval between GSB & WMM construction activity is less so the offset is required in
between respective layers for proper rolling at edge portion and to avoid vertical displacement
due to segregation of layers.

C) As per DPR, the pavement is represented with GSB layer till the end of carriageway only,
without strengthening/covering the below shoulder portion, due to this the water can not be
drained off at shoulder portion hence the water will be accumulated at shoulder and
underneath which may damage the entire pavement. As we all have learnt from other projects,
that the most important causes of pavement failure by the formation of waves and corrugations in
flexible pavements is due to poor drainage.
Moreover as per Section 4, Para 4.2.1.3 & Section 5, Para 5.3 of IRC: 37-2001, when the
traditional granular construction is provided on a relatively low permeability sub-grade, the GSB
layer should be extended over the entire formation width in order to drain the pavement structural
section. So, in order to save the project from early failure this is a compulsory practice to
extend the GSB layer width till the side slope(toe). Also, for movement of Paver/Grader; 2m
(mentioned in the DPR at widening section) is the insufficient width, the minimum width
required for free movement of these equipments is 4m
After considering above factors, here in our project the GSB (drainage layer) shall be till toe,
so that the surface water from the carriageway and shoulder should effectively be drained off
without allowing it to percolate to sub-grade. Also there might be seepage due to underground
water, movement of capillary water which can damage our entire pavement.

D) The CBR requirement of earthwork/sub-grade material shall be > 5 as per DPR. Even though as
per Section 3, Para 3.4.6.1 of IRC :37-2001, the design should be based on the CBR value of
the weakest soil type proposed to be used for sub grade construction or encountered extensively
at sub grade level over a given section of the road, herein DPR the design CBR is considered as 5%.
But in this road at most of the stretches the earth of above required CBR is not available due
to presence of black cotton soil (BC soil, termed as problem-soil in India). These soils are very
poor and undependable sub-grade material and the pavement constructed in such soils are found to
suffer from early failures. So, due to presence of such poor soil, utilization of 50% quantity of
excavation from roadway cutting is impossible.

E) At almost all places there is a sufficient width of 2m on both sides of existing BT/WBM surface,
so 40% deduction of excavation quantity from roadway cutting is not accurate.

F) As we have mentioned that the existing soil strata having CBR value of 5% is not available at
most of the stretches of this road due to presence of BC soil. The CBR value for BC soil lies in
between 2-3%. Consider its maximum value i.e. 3%. (We have examined these BC soil strata by
conducting FSI & CBR tests, the outcome of test results doesn’t fulfill the demand of 5% CBR).
Also, in pavement design; the considered value of cumulative traffic (msa) is just 3.
Now Section 3, Para 3.3.1.3 of IRC:37-2001 says: to obtain a realistic estimate of design traffic,
due consideration should be given to the design traffic or that anticipated based on possible changes
in the road network and land use of the area served, the probable growth of traffic and design life.
In case of the above said road, due to construction of toll plaza at nearby NH, the plying of
huge & heavy traffic might be diverted into the above said road only, so the construction of
this road should be in such a manner that it justify the considered design life of 15 years or
else this is impossible for us to take the responsibility during defects liability period(DLP).
So initial traffic in the year of completion of construction (CVPD) on both directions will be
increased in multiple as compared to the considered CVPD in design of flexible pavement in DPR.
While considering above facts, obviously the cumulative traffic (msa) would be >3. Consider msa
value of 5.2.
Now Section 4, Para 4.1 (Pavement design catalogue, PLATE-1) of IRC :37-2001, from the
pavement thickness design charts, with 3% CBR value and cumulative traffic (msa) value of 5, total
pavement thickness(mm) should be minimum 670mm (25mm wearing course with BC/SDBC,
60mm binder course with DBM, 250mm WMM, & 335mm GSB). i.e. entire road stretch of
widening & strengthening section shall be composed of 670mm pavement thickness.
Also, because of deteriorated condition of existing surface the proposed bituminous course
(wearing & binder courses) shall be of BC/SDBC and DBM.

G) Loosening & re-compaction” is one of the important activity of highway construction, so, this
activity must be included in the estimate for which the contractor shall be paid reasonably.
Finally from the practical considerations, it is suggested that the water table should be kept at
least 1.0-1.2m below the sub grade level; so, the proposed road height shall be raised adopting
335mm thick GSB and subsequent layers wherever the existing road surface level is
comparatively down with respect to besides agricultural/public land in order to prevent
accumulation of inflow water on proposed road level surface. The condition would be even
worse in case of heavy rainfall.
In the light of above substantial facts, we understand that
there is an increase in quantity of sub-base and granular base course layers, subsequently with an
increase in embankment and excavation quantity and other related activities as per actual.
.
Trust your kind self will take this on urgent basis and understand our position that even though we
are ready for execution with all our available resources (manpower & PNM) but we are simply idle
and we can not proceed without finalization of actual quantity.
Kindly do the needful. An expeditious action in the above matter is solicited please.We will be
highly obliged for the same.

Thanking you and assuring our best services we always remain.

Yours faithfully

For Amar Builders

Authorized Signatory

Encl: 17 nos. of existing road photographs.

CC : 1. Chief Engineer, PWD, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur.

2. Superintending Engineer, PWD, Durg Circle, Durg