Slab thickness
Fig 2 Schematic diagram of a rigid pavement9
Background
In rigid pavements, the applied wheel load is transferred
over a larger area on account of the rigidity of the concrete
slab and it's stiffness as shown schematically in Fig 1. The
magnitude of the resulting pressure depends on several
factors such as the stiffness and size, including thickness of
the slab. The figure also shows the high local pressures
generated in flexible pavement, as they deform locally and
the load is transferred to the sub-grade over a much smaller
area. Concrete pavements have several advantages, such as,
reduced maintenance cost, absence of ruts, washboards and
shoving3. Also, concrete pavements, though they require a
higher initial investment, often turn out to be economical in
the long run considering the savings in fuel and in vehicle
operating cost. Fuel savings upto 11 to 20 percent depending
on the type of vehicle and speed have been reported4.5.6. In
general, rigid pavements can be classified into two types -
jointed plain concrete pavements GPCP), and continuously
reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP). However, attention
in this paper is confined to the former in ':7iewof the immediate
relevance to the Indianconditions, where almost all concrete
roads being constructed are of plain concrete.
A schematic representation of the jointed plain
concrete pavements, and its various constituent elements
such as dowel and tie bars, transverse and longitudinal joints,
are shown in Fig 2. During its service life, a concrete pavement
is subjected to flexural compressive and tensile stresses on
account of structural loads owing to moving traffic and also
L1
14
Critical
location
warping and foundation restraint7. Structurally, concrete
pavements can be considered to be a plate on an elastic
foundation and as such the maximum stressesare experienced
at the bottom of the slabs,as shown in Fig 3. Keeping in mind
that concrete is a brittle material and cracks at low tensile
stresses,cracking in concrete pavements can be initiated by
shrinkage, contraction and expansion of concrete, as also
bending from loading. Excessivecracking can lead to distress
and finally disintegration of pavement. Cracking in
pavements can be classified as .l!;ivenbelow.
(i) Bottom up cracking:caused due to truck axle loading
near the longitudinal edge of the slab, midway
between the transverse joints .
(ii) Topdown cracking:caused when a truck steering axle
is near the transverse joint with the drive axle within
3 to 6 m away and still on the same slab
(iii) Joint faulting: caused by repeated heavy axle loads
crossing transverse joints as shown in Fig 49.
Design guidelines for rigid pavements
Guidelines for design of rigid pavements have been issued
by several associations but the most extensive research has
been carried out by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Someof the issues
considered in the design of JPCP have been highlighted in
Table1. Critical issues of fatigue and erosion have been taken
up separately and some of the other important issues are
discussed below.
Reliability
It is a means of incorporating some degree of certainty in the
design process to ensure that the pavement continues to be
acceptably functional throughout the design life. It takes into
account variations in traffic and performance prediction. The
traditional approach for this purpose is to enhance the
expected loads by a factor of safety, as is done in the IRC
specification, where the axle loads are multiglied by a factor
of 1.2 for carryin,g out further analysis. However, in
The Indian Concrete Journal * Octoher 2005
Table I: Comparison of various guidelines
Guideline Reliability Service- Design traffic Frost Drainage Fatigu~ analysis Erosion analysis
ability h~Il\l'I.oil

Guidelines for Not Not Cumulative traffic Not Not designed for Based on Miner's Since caused largely
design of plain designed designed over design period designed hypothesis. Critical stress by tandem and multi
jointed rigid fir fa considered (only 25 foc found on the basis of axle vehicles not
percent ta k en) 16
pavements Westergaard's equation designed for due to
(IRC: 58-2002) modified by Teller and their small numbers on
Sutherland Indian hil!hwavs

Guide for pavement Considered Not Cumulative traffic Not Not considered Critical stresses found and Designed to take
design considered under various axle considered fatigue damage worked out into account the
(AUSTROADS loads worked out based on Miner's Subgrade/subbase
2004) hypothesis erosion arising from
repeated deflection
at the planned
cracks
++ ++
.;
Design manual for Not Not T!'afficunder vari9u$c NQt Not considered Jjased9n empirical Not consIdered

roads and bridges, designed d!;$igJl~d axle JQads converted cQnsidered equations developed from
VQlume 7 (TRRL foc for to an ~quiv~Jent performanc!:of fullscal!:
Reoort 1132) standard axleload experimental roads
Thickness design of Not Not Cumulative traffic Not Not conside.red Critical stresses found and Considers the
concrete designed designed under various axle considered fatigue damage worked out erosion of
pavements, PCA frx fIX loads worked out based on Miner's foundation due to
1984 hypothesis comer deflection
developed
empirically from
AASHTO road test

AASHTO specification practically everything associatedwith
the design of pavements, including truck axle loadings in the
future, materials used, construction and quality control
procedures, etc. regarded as variables, and the reliability
f . k II h ..1112
actor IS ta en to encompass at ese uncertamties ..e Th
Australian specificatiol}S,AUSTROADS introduces the safety
factor based on the reliability desired in a project. The axle
loads are multiplied by the safety factor in the computation
of stress ratio for fatigue analysis and allowable repetition
for erosion analysisl3.The British TRRL methodology is based
on a probability of survival of the pavement at the level of 50
percent, which can be increased to different levels, by suitably
increasing the pavement thicknessl4.The amount of increase
required is determined using available graphs. The sample
problem solved in the paper later on, clearly illustrates this
concept.
Serviceability
The serviceability of a pavement is defined as the ability to
serve the type of traffic, which uses the facility. For example,
the present AASHTO serviceabilitx index varies from 0
(impossible road) to 5 (perfect road)ll, 2.Studies are conducted
on the user satisfaction levels on the nature of the road and
then the index is determined empirically. It may be noted
that strategies for maintenance of pavement can be designed
on this criterion.
Design traffic
The cumulative traffic is worked out based on present traffic
and rate of growth over the design period. In the case of
guidelines published by IRCI°, AUSTROADSI3, and the
Portland Cement Association (PCA) 15,the different axle loads
are considered individually while those by AASHTOII, 11and
TRRL 14;convert the different load groups into equivalent
standard axle loads (ESALs) based on the load equivalency
factors. These factors are ratios developed based on
experiments conducted to study the effect of damage to
pavement due to passes of loads of varying magnitude and
number of passesrequired to cause comparative damage by
a standard axle load vehicle. Design manual for Roads and
Bridges, Volume 7 (TRRL) has standardised the design for a
4O-yearperiodl4. For Indian specifications, the design traffic
is worked out on the basis of the cumulative axle load over
the design period of which 25 percent is taken as the design
traffic on the basis of a study on the lateral placement of
vehicles moving on a highwayl6. In AUSTROADS
specification, the design traffic on which the likely repetitions
of axle loads is found out, is based on the proportion of
individual axle load groupsl3.
Environmental effects
Environmental effects are due to soil swelling and frost heave.
The swelling is worked out based on the swell rate constant,
potential vertical rise and swell probability and is caused in
soils which are susceptible to volume change with seasonal
change in moisture content. Frost heave is worked out on
the basis of frost heave rate, rnaxirnum potential serviceability
loss and probability and is caused in frost susceptible soils
when temperatures fall below freezing. The differential
heaving, surface roughness and cracking is caused leading to

October 2005 .The Indian Concrete Journal IS

loss of riding quality and serviceability 0! the pavement.
AASHTO design caters for the effect of environment such as
variation in temperature, climate, swelling of soil and frost lag W;8 = ZRSa + 7 .351og(D + 1) -0.06 +
heave11,12.

Drainage
The presence of moisture can manifest as either moisture
caused distresses such as D-cracking or moisture accelerated
distresses such as those due to wheel loading. Inadequate +(4.22-0.32p,)log,
drainage leads to high exposure of moisture causing problems
such as9:
(i) softening of pavement layers and sub grade when .(2)
they are saturated and remain so for a length of
time. where,
W 18 = load in million ESALs
(ii) quality of material degrades on interaction with ZRSo = reliability term
moisture D = slab thickness in inches
(iii) saturation with moisture also leads to loss of bond PSI = design serviceability loss
between the pavement layers. Sc = mean concrete modulus of rupture
Cd = drainage coefficient
Drainage, as a factor in design, is addressed empirically in J = load transfer coefficient
k = effective modulus of sub grade reaction
AASHTO guidelines based on the observation of AASHTO
Ec = concrete elastic modulus.
road tests9.

Fatigue analysis Guide for pavement design (AUSTROADS 2004)13

Fatigue of concrete can causeboth transverse cracking, which
initiates midway between transverse joints on the pavement
edge and longit;udinal cracking which initiates in the wheel
paths at transversejoints17.The concept of cumulative damage
is used in the fatigue analysis. A brief description on the
analysis by various guidelines is given below.
This is based on the likely repetitions of different axle loads
during the design period of the pavement. The allowable
load repetitions are found out based on the Miner's
hypothesis when the stress ratio is more than 0.45. The
equivalent stress is found from the following formula:

Guidelines for design of plain jointed rigid Sc = a+!+CXln(Ef )+4+e~(E f )]2+fXln.~

T T T

pavements (IRC: 58~2002)10

The rigid pavement is analysed for maximum likely flexural {~\
stress due to vehicle loads, warping and corner stresses.The +.£+h~(Ef)]3 +~+jX~

vehicle load stressesare worked out using the Westergaard's

equation modified by Teller and Sutherland8,1°.
where,
Se = equivalent stress
a to j = coefficient tabulated in the guideline
(5 = O.529~(1 +O.54~l410glo(i )+ loglo(b)-OAO48] ..(1) T = base thickness in mrn
Et = effective sub grade strength.
where,
0" = load stress in the edge region Portland Cement Association 198415,17
P = design wheel load
This is based on fatigue damage analysis. The edge stressare
h = pavement thickness in cm
given in a table and are worked out based on empirical
~ = Poisson's ratio for concrete equation derived from experimental data. The stress ratio is
E = modulus of elasticity of concrete, kg/cm2
found and the permissible number of repetition worked out.
k = Modulus of sub grade reaction, kg/ cm3 Thus the (cumulative) fatigue damage due to individual axle
b = radius of equivalent distribution of pressure
loads is determined by summing up the individual
a = radius of load contact area assumed to be
contributions, and should be less than unity.
circular.
Design manual for roads and bridges, Volume 7
Guide for design of pavement structures, 1993 (TRRL Report 1132)14,18
(AASHTO) 11,12
The design is based on fatigue analysis. The design is
The analysis is based on empirical equations developed from standardised for a design period of 40 years. The equations
AASHTO road test with appropriate modifications based on are empirical relations based on studies of performance of
experience. The design equation includes the effect of the full scale experimental roads and for a plain concrete
various parameters discussed above and is given by: pavement is given by18.

16 The Indian Concrete Journal * October 2005

..
/I

Ln(L) = 5.094Ln(H) + 3.466Ln(S) + O.4836Ln( M) Cl = adjustment factor with value of 1 for

untreated sub basesand 0.9 for stabilised sub
+O.O8718Ln(F ) -40.78 .. .(4)
bases
where,
In
L
=
=
natural logarithm
cumulative traffic, msa
P = 100! [
~ ] gives the cumulative erosion
i-l N,
H = slab thickness, mm damage.
S = 28 day mean compressive strength, MPa
M = equivalent foundation modulus, MPa
where,
C2 = factor, 0.06 for no shoulder and 0.94
F = percentage failed bays.
for tied concrete shoulder
Ni = allowable number of repetitions for
Erosion analysis
axle load i
This analysis gives the distress due to pumping and erosion ni = predicted number of repetitions for
of material beneath the slab. It is empirically derived from axlp In''..1i
data collected from study of existing roads. The factors
affecting include the presence of water, the rate at which Comparative analysis of different methods
water is ejected from the sub base, the erodibility of the sub
base, magnitude and number of repeated loads and the Though the procedure to be followed for arriving at the
amount of deflection. The AUSTROADS and PCA cater for thickness of the concrete pavement using different
erosion distress. The AASHTO indirectly co-opts this in the specification has been briefly explained above, a sample
empirical relations developed in the form of loss of support problem using an identical basic data set has been worked
of the sub base the values of which vary from a to 3.0 based out, and the results discussed below. The following are the
on the material used in the sub-grade. It should be noted that salient features of the data used as input.
Indian guidelines do not deal with erosion analysis in detail, .Flexural strength of concrete: 45 kg/cm2 (638.7psi)
on the ground that this is caused largely by tandem and
multi axle vehicles, the numbers of which in India are .Modulus of sub grade reaction: 8 kg/cm3 (287.61pci)
considered smalro. .Elastic modulus of concrete:3x105kg/ cm2(4.55x106psi)
Guide for pavement design (AUSTROADS 2004)13 .Poison's ratio: 0.15
The AUSTROADS have developed an empirical formula to .Two way traffic of commercial vehicles: 3000/day
cater for erosion distress. The equation gives the allowable
load repetition for various axle loads and the cumulative total .Rate of traffic increase: 0.075
as for fati~e should not exceed lOOpercent. .Mix of traffic: given as percentage of the total traffic
as given in Table2.
~ It should be pointed out that the above data is for a two-
log(F2N.)= 14.52-"lmax[ 0{ ~ x ~41.35 -9.0
1 ~0.103
II
lane, two-way concrete highway in Kamataka, and has been
4.45F4 I
used for an illustrative example asper IRC 58-2002.In addition
.(4) to the above, values for the following were required for
determining the thickness of the pavement as per other
where,
F2 = adjustment for slab edge effects guidelines. The values used were chosen in such a manner
Ne = allowable load repetitions that they reflected the Indian conditions.
P = axle load group, kN (i) Load transfer coefficient:2.5 from a range of 2.5-3.1.
LSF = load safety factor A higher value may be taken when dowels and
F3 = erosion factor shoulders are not provided.
F4 = load adjustment for erosion due to axle
(ii) Drainagecoefficient:1.1from the range of 1.0-1.3,given
group.
that IRC specifications advocate the provision of a
Portland cement association 198415,17
The pavement distress due to erosion is worked out in PCA
1984 on the basis of empirical equations developed from
AASHTO road tests.The allowable load repetitions are found
for different axle loads and their cumulative damage worked
out. For a particular design thickness this should be less than
100 Dercent.

logN = 14.524-6.777(C,p-9.0r03 .(5)

where,
N = allowable number of load repetitions

October 2005 * The Indian Concrete Journal 17

 drainage layer and the exposure to saturation level
moisture in Kamataka is not likely to be more than
25 percent of the time, and hence 1.1 has been used.
(iii) Design serviceability factor: 2.0. This value is the
difference between an initial serviceability index of
4.5 and a terminal serviceability index of 2.5 (which
can vary). The latter is 2.5 for major highways and
2.0 for highways of lesser traffic volumes though
the former is kept at 4.5!1,12.
(iv) Reliabilityfactor: 95 percent from a range of 85 to 99.9
percent. The value may be decreased for roads of
lesser importance. It may be noted that both
AAsmo and AUSTROADS use the 95 percent level
in the case of highways.
(v) Equivalentfoundation modulus: For the built up sub- (iii) The fatigue life is calculated for the individual axle
grade modulus of 8kg/ cm3 the likely combination loads and the results are given in Table 3. The
of underlying layers is from the table given in IRC a cumulative fatigue life should be less than one for
sub grade of 2 percent CBR and a thick 10-cm sub- the trial thickness to be safe (initially trial thickness
base course of DLC: A value of 270 MPa was taken as 320 mm).
corresponding to this combination is taken (TRRL)18. (iv) Check is carried out if the total of temperature and
load stressesis lessthan the permissible flexural stress
Similarly, the traffic was converted to ESALs as per the of concrete. The final minimum acceptablethickness
AASHTO/TRRL requirements. Also, since the Indian of the pavement was obtained to be 330 mm.
specifications recommend the provision of concrete shoulder,
the corresponding values were taken for AASHTO, Guide for design of pavement structures, 1993
AUSTROADS and TRRL analysis. The following paragraphs (AASHTO) 11,12
outline the meth9dology used by the different specifications (i) A trial slab thickness is taken (30 cm)
in arriving at the design thickness of pavement.
(ii) The cumulative traffic in ESALs is worked out over
Design thickness of pavement the design period using equivalency factors as given
in Table4 and turns out to be 252.63million ESAL.
IRC 58:200210
(i) The cumulative traffic is worked out over the design (iii) From the nomograph given in Figs 6 and 7,
period: considering the values of load transfer, drainage
coefficient and reliability factor, the slab thickness is
determined.
= 1000 x 1/150
-
.075)20-1
0.075 (iv) If the thickness does not converge with the trial
thickness then new thickness is assumed and
= 47.4 million (of which only 25 percent is taken)10.16 iteration carried out till they converge.
= 11.84million.
Table 4: Conversion or traffic into ESALs (AASHTO)".IJ
(ii) The corresponding flexural stress for the various
aXlesand loads are found (for this a trial slab thickness Axle load, Axle load Traffic Design ESALs
is taken) 10.19.
A sample graph is given in Fig 5. kg kips. equivalency traffic
factor
~i~~l~~!e
Stress in rigkJ pavement ( single axle load = 16 tonnes) <10000 <22 0.080 14,250,330 1,140,026
60 10000 22 2.41 11,067,756 26,673,291
-L-L -o-k=6
-k=6
12000 26 5.01 10,450,252 52,355,762
N 50
E - k = 10 14000 30 9.35 5,130,119 47,966,612
--k=15
~ 40 16000 36 20.4 2,280,052 46,513,060
-k=30
1"..,.. 18000 40 31.6 712,516 22,515,505
"' 30 20000 45 51.3 285,006 14.620.808
-
20 , ,.0.0.0~ Tandem axle

-10 - 36000 80 71.9 142. 503 10,245,966

32000 71 44.65 142. 503 6,362,759
i
0 , 28000 62 25.7 285, 006 7,324,654
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 24000 53 13.4 855, 019 11,457,255
Slab thickness. cm 6.645
20000 45 712. 516 4,734,669
Fig 5 Correlation between slab thickness, flexural stress for
16000 36 2.52 237. 505 598,513
various sub grade modulus 10 <16000 <36 0.131 950. 022 124,453
Total ESAJA 252.633.333

.v Thp Tnt!;..n rnn..rptp Tru1rn..1 .O..tnhpr 21)(1~

 (iv) The design traffic is 41.49 x 106and the expected
repetitions are found out as shown in Table5.
(v) Trial thickness taken was 250 mm; when the
cumulative fatigue damage exceeded 100 percent. It
was found that a thickness of 290 mm was ideal
when the cumulative fatigue was 98.13 percent and
{5
erosion damage was 42.35 percent, Table6.
~
Design manual for roads and bridges, Volume 7
+ (TRRL Report 1132) 14,18

The TRRL design manual gives a graph to convert the daily

traffic directly into ESALs. The design traffic in ESALs for a
traffic density of 3000 commercial vehicles per day is 150
million standard axles (msa), which is for a design period of
40 years. The thickness of the pavement (Equation 4 above)
in millimeters can be obtained by substituting as follows: L
(msa) = 150, S (compressive strength at 28 days in MPa) = 45,
M (foundation modulus for sub grade of 2 percent CBR and

(v) In the present case,a final thickness of the slab was Table 6: Calculation of cumulative fatigue and erosion damage

found to be 300 mm (AUSTROADS)

~-
-
Guide for pavement design (AUSTROADS 2004) 13 Axle group Expected Stress Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis
load. kN repetitions ratio. Allowable Fatigue, Allowable Erosion,
Sr-r- rpn"tition ~ent repetition percent
(i) This guidelines consider pavement design on the
basis of the volume of traffic of Class 3 and above ~~~.f~!.,!R~~!~_~~8!!_-~
100 3,673.124 0.347 Unlimited
, - 3.6
.-' x 101.. --
O 0
vehicles [Heavy vehicle axle group {HVAG)], which 120 3,468,186 0.412 Unlimited n 36 ,,101.
is roughly; equivalent to the Indian axle load greater
than 12 tonnes. It may be noted that the effect of ~~P!CS!.,!$:!~~1~4~~0/~!_--
140 972,958 0.404 Unlimited 0 5.04 x 107 1.93
lighter vehicles is considered to be negligible and 160 432,426 0.459 1.72x107 2.51 5.05 x 106 8.56
ignored. In fact, even as per IRC guidelines, even 180 135,133 0.512 443,000 30.50 1.58 x 106 8.55
though all axle loads are initially considered in the 200 54,053 0.566 83,000 liS 12 6.88 xI()' 7.86
design, the contribution of lighter loads is as such
!4~(!~!!!~!~~!~$:!~~_~~L__-
negligible as it turns out that the stress caused by the
160 22,408 0.281 Unlimited .01 x 1(16 2.22
action of such lighter loads is too small and gives TADT
--"' (Tandem IlXle dual lyre)
virtually infinite fatigue life. , -
200 161,276 0.258 Unlimited o 3.6 x 101. 0

(ii) For a project reliability of 95 percent the load safety 240 193,531 0.307 Unlimited o 3.19 x 10' 0.606

factor is 1.3. 280 64,510 0.355 Unlimited o 3.32 x 106 1.943

320 32,255 0.402 Unlimited o 1.01 x 106 3.19

(iii) The cumulative growth factor is 43.31 for a design 360 32,255 0.449 Unlimited 0 4.30 x 10' 7.50

period of 20 years. Cumulative valueFatigue 98.13 Erosion 4?l~9

October 2005 * The Indian Concrete Journal 10

~

a sub base of 150 mIn dry lean concrete given in MPa) = 270
and F (given aS percent of bays failed and taken as 30 percent
for unreinforced concrete) = 30, which was 333.4 mIn. This
thickness is for a pavement without shoulders. On the
provision of concrete shoulders the thickness is reduced by
the magnitude given in Fig 8 which is 34 mm for a thickness
of 330 mIn. Thus, the reduced thickness for a pavement with
tied shoulders is 299.4 mIn -300 mIn.
Discussion of results.
Table 7 gives the thickness of rigid pavements as
determined using the different specifications. The cumulative
traffic shown in tl;1etable has been calculated as per the
procedures given in IRC, AAsmo, AUSTROADS and TRRL
using the reference traffic load of 3000 vehicles/day both-
way, as given in the input data summarised above. It can be
seenthat where as the figure from IRC and the AUSTROADS
are essentially comparable, those from AAsmo and TRRL,
which are in BASLs, are much higher. This can be expected in
the light of the procedure adopted to convert individual axle
loads and repetitions to the standard axle loads, as shown in
Table4. It should be borne in mind that it is very difficult to
make a comment on how pavements designed according to
the procedures of AAsmo, etc. and having lower thickness,
will perform in Indian conditions, in terms of serviceability,
durability, etc. The table also shows the design traffic derived
from the cumulative traffic. While IRC considers 25 percent
in view of the lateral placement of vehicles on Indian roads16,
the AASmo values are halved considering that the value is
for both sides. Similarly, in AUSTROADS and TRRL there are
provisions to find the design traffic using the cumulative traffic
accounting for factors such as direction of movement, etc. It
should be noted, however, that the design thickness of the
pavement by these methods is essentially comparable, though
the IRC value is the highest -33Omm. This higher value could
be due to the fact that the Indian design does not take into
account the several factors, such as provision of shoulders,
drainage layers, environmental factors and erosion damage,
'II
and thus the specification takes a conservative view in the
absence of data.
It should be noted, however, that in this study the effect
of design service life and variations in the axle load spectrum
have not been carried out. In the context of the former, it
should be reiterated that only in the case of TRRL, a 4O-year
design period for rigid pavements has been considered (as
per TRRL guidelines) though all other calculations have been
carried out using the same design period (20 years). It may
be mentioned, that in the caseof increasing the design life to
say 40 years, the IRC procedure is very likely to yield a still
higher thickness. As far as the spectrum of axle loads is
concerned, the one used in the present illustrative study is
the same as used in the example cited in IRC1°and further
work is required to better understand the effect of different
axle spectrums on the design pavement thickness using
different specifications.
Concluding remarks
An effort has been made in this paper to present a brief
overview of some of the prevailing international standards
for design of rigid pavements and examine the provisions in
the Indian standards in their light. The required pavement
thickness using an identical set of input data has also been
estimated, and it was found that the thickness required by
Indian codes is actually the largest! Now given that reducing
a centimeter of thickness in a 7-m wide road, could result in a
saving of Rs 240,000per kilometer of pavement, and several
hundreds of kilometers of pavement are in various stagesof
planning, it is very important that a closer look at the design
parameters and specification is taken at the earliest. (It may
be mentioned at this junction that the saving mentioned here
is based on extremely simple assumptions and for a more
rigorous analysis issuessuch as maintenance cost, etc. should
be appropriately considered.)
Also, issues such as quality of ride, environmental
conditions, including the local soil conditions, and the effect
of the lean concrete subgrade also need to be appropriately
and rationally accounted for in the design methodology.
Researcheffort needs to be made to initiate appropriate work
in the country so that more accurate estimates of the effect of
parameters such as reliability, serviceability, environmental
effect, provision of shoulders and drainage coefficients.
The Indian Concrete Journal * October 2005
Acknowledgement 16. REDDYK. s. and P ANDEYB. B. Lateral placement of commercial vehicle on National
highways, HRB bulletin No.47, Indian Roads Congress, 1992.
The authors are grateful to Prof Animesh Das of the
department of civil engineering, the Indian Institute of 17. HUANG, Y ANGH. Pavement Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood
Technology (lIT) Kanpur and Prof 8.8. Pandey of the Cliffs, New Jersey, 1993.
department of civil engineering, IIT Kharagpur, for their
valuable inputs. 18. _Empirical Highway Pavement Design, Published by Britpave, British
in-situ Concrete Paving Association, August 2001. Website: http:/ /
References www .bri tpa ve .org .uk / techda ta_roads .h tm1

1. _Commission on SustainableDevelopment,Johannesburg Summit 2002,

19. sINGH R.P. and PANDEY B.B. Analytical design of Rigid Pavements, Indian
Country profile -India. CP-2002,p. 29.
Highways, June 1997.

2. _Highway Statistics1997,Office of Highway Information Management

and Office of Policy Development, Federal Highway Administration, USA, , Lieutenant Colonel Santhosh Kumar belongs to

1999 "",the Corps of Engineers, Indian Anny. He completed

\ ;;, his B.Tech from the College of Military Engineering

, " in 1997, and his M.Tech in civil engineering from liT
_Cement Association of Canada, BenefitsofConcreteHighway, Website:
http: / /www .cement.ca/cement.nsf/ searchFinal/E3ODF5453354042285256 Kanpur in 2005. He is presently posted as design
A9D006%EAA ?OpenDocument
;, 'i; officer in the office of the Additional Director General
(Design and Consultancy), Pune.
_Cement Association of Canada, Reporton Fuel Savingsfor HeRvyTrucks
on ConcretePavementin Canada.Website:httP: / / www .cement.ca/cement.nsf/ Dr Sudhir Misra is an associate professor in the
in temet / FE675149E87F263F85256AA400554CB4?OpenDocumen t department of civil engineering at the Indian Institute
of Technology Kanpur (lIT Kanpur). His research
5. ZANIEWSKI,J .P., BUTLER,B.C., CUNNINGHAM, G., ELKlNS,G.E., PAGGI, M. s. and
interests include construction materials, concrete-
MACHEMEHL,R. Vehicle Operating Costs, Fuel Consumption, and Pavement Type environment interaction and deterioration, durability
and Condition Factors, Publication No. FHWA-PL-82-001, Federal Highway and non-destructive testing of concrete structures.
Administration, UsA, 1982.
...
6. TAYLOR,G., MARSH, P. and OxELGREN,ERIc. Effect ofPavement Surface Type On
Fuel Consumption, National Research Council of Canada, Centre for Surface
Transportation Technology, Report No. CSTT-HWV-CTR-O41, Ottawa, CI) of Snrp~dsheet!;
for
Ontario, August 2000.

7. DAVID, CRONEY and PAUL, CRONEY. The Design and Performance of Road
Pavements. 20.1Edition. Mc GrawHilI. 1991
:: by
8. TIMOSHENKOS. and WOINOWSKY-KRIEGER
S. Theory of Plates and Shells, 2nd
y,-- ~=.- I N. PRABHAKAR
Edition. Mc GrawHill.' -

9. _Design Guidelor theMechanisticEmpricalDesignof New andRehabilitated Spreadsheets for R.C. Design as per I.S. Codes

PavementStructures,Program conducted by National cooperative Highway Contents

Research Program under sponsorship of American Association of State .Introduction, Salient. T I L I Rectangular Beams
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., U.S. 2002. Features by limit-state method
.Rectangular I Circular. Column Footings by
10. _Guidelines lor the Designof Plain JointedRigid Pavements
for Highways. Columns subjected to working stress method
IRC: 58-2002.2ndRevision, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi. Axial Compressive I. Sub-Frame Analysis
Tensile Load & .Annular Sections with and
~SHTO Guide for Design of PavementStructure, Volume I, 1993.
Uniaxial/Biaxial Moments without openings by
Published by American Association of State Highway and Transportation
by limit state method working stress method
Officials, Washington D.C., U.S. 1993. including slenderness. Liquid Retaining Slabs I
~SHTO Guidefi1r Design of PavementStructure, Volume ll, 1993. effect Beams I Walls by working
.Effective Length of stress method
Published by American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Columns. Crack Width calculation
Officials, Washington D.C., US., 1993.
.Two Way & Simply. Ductile Detailing
_Pavement Design 2004. Published by National Association of Road Supported Slabs by limit. Miscellaneous Design
Transport and Traffic Authorities in Australia (AUSTROADS), 2004. state method Data.

_Pavement Design and Maintenance,Volume 7 of Design Manual for

Roadsand Bridges. Published by Transport and Road ResearchLaboratory, Send DD/Cheque favouring 'RCDesign CD' by mail/courier to:
U.K.2001. Mr. N. Prabhakar, Flat E-8, Star Residency, Evershine City,
Vasai (E) Pin 401 208, Thane Dist., Maharashtra
15. PACKARD,
R.G. ThicknessDesignfor ConcreteHighway and StreetPa:uements E-mail: nprabhakar@sancharnet.in Ph: (0250) 2463447
EB109.01.Portland Cement Association, 1984. Visit Website. http://mumbai.sancharnet.in/rcdesign

'II
October 2005 .The Indian Concrete Journal
 Development
This has reference to the paper titled
"Development length of reinforcing bars
-Need to reviseIndian codal provisions"
by Dr N. Subramanian published in the
recentissue1.I would like to comment on
the following aspects.
It is stated, among many things, that
the absence of adequate development
lengths of reinforcing bars often results in
failures especially in cantilever supports,
lap splicesand beam column joints.
In case there is an unexpected high-
magnitude earthquake, may I presume
that the beam-column joint will fail totally?
In such cases, if more development length
is provided at the joint, as per the current
BIS codes, this sort of failure may not be
likely to take place due to higher rigidity of
the beam at the beam-column junction.
Hence as such, I feel that the existing
provisions of Indian code need not be revised
for the development length of reinforcing
bars.
Mr S.
Chartered
'Sri Sai Nivas', Ovium
Block III, Flat 1, Perumal
Narasothipatti,
The author replies:
I would like to thank Mr. Lakshmanan for
his interest in this paper. The main aim of
the paper was to show that a number of
parameters that affect the development
length are not considered in the Indian Code
and the provisions have remained un-
changed for the past 27 years! Hence, these
provisions were compared with those of
the American Code, which is revised every
three years to reflect the current research
undertaken. One more important observa-
tion is that the best fit of experiment result
is provided by fck0.25and not fck05as given in
both ACI and IS codes. Hence, a formula
was suggested to be included in the Indian
Code, based on the above observation. This
22
,1
length of reinforcing bars -
revise Indian codal provisions
formula could also be modified suitably
to takeinto accountthe emergingconcretes
such as high strength, high performance
concrete,self consolidating concreteand
fibre reinforced concrete. Moreover, the
suggested formula is applicable to con-
cretes having strengths up to 100 MPa,
whereas the Indian Code provisions are
applicable for strength up to 40 MPa only.
Sincethe discusserhas raised a point
about anchoragerequirements in beam-
column joints abrief review is given below
about the same. Development length
requirementsof the flexural reinforcement
within a joint of a reinforced Concrete
moment re-'1lstantframe are particularly
important. Many structural failures under
seismic loading are attributed to poor
detailing of beam-column joints2.
Frequently,joints are the weak links in a
frame due to.lack of adequateanchorage
of bars extending into the joints from the
columns and beams. Moreover, when a
plastic hirige develops adjacentto a joint,
with the beam bars entering the strain
Lakshmanan
hardeningrange,yield penetrationinto the
Engineer,
joint core and simultaneous bond
Apartment,
Malai Road,
deteriorationis inevitable3.Bondlossalong
Salem 636004.
a straight bar anchoredin an exterior joint
would resultin completefailure.Therefore,
beam bars at exterior joints, which can be
subjected to yield in tension during
earthquake, should be anchored with a
hook or with other means of positive
anchorage4.Also, anchorageof beambars
should be assumed to begin only at a
distance(10times the bar diameter or half
thecolumn depth,whicheveris lesser)from
the inner column face,well inside the joint
core3.5.More details about anchorage
requirements in beam-column joints
subjected to seismic forces are given
elsewhere3-6.
From the above, it is clear that
developmentlength requirementsin beam-
column joints, which are subjected to
seismic forces, are more stringent.
Need to
Moreover, inadequate development length
will result in slip and pull-out of the bars,
which is not desirable. In any design, the
first requirement is safety and hence we
should not allow any beam to fail. Failure
of beams or partial collapse may lead to
deaths or injury. Hence, if proper detailing
is adopted, the collapse of building as
witnessed in the recent earthquakes in India
and Pakistan could be avoided. (It may be
of interest to note that similar earthquakes
in Japan and USA do not result in huge
loss of human life). In a recent paper,
Darwin et al have shown that the proposed
formulae (Equation 9 of the paper)
provides better match with the test results
than those of ACI 318-05 (that is, more
reliable results with less scatter)7.
Dr N. Subramanian
23, Napa Valley Road,
Gaithersburg,
MD 20878,
USA
Reference
1. SUBRAMANIAN, N. Development length of
reinforcing bars -Need to revise Indian codal
provisions, The Indian Concrete Journal, August
2005, Vol. 79, No.8, pp. 39-46.
2. RAI, D.C. and SE11!,A. E-conference on Indian
Seismic codes, The Indian Concrete Journal, June
2002, Vol. 76, No.6, pp. 376-378.
3. PAULAY,T.andPRIESrELY,M.J.N. Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John
Wliey & sons, New York, 1992, pp. 744.
4. PARK, R. and PAULAY, T. Reinforced Concrete
Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1975,
pp.769.
5. KEY, D. Earthquake Design Practice for Buildings,
Thomas Telford, London, 1989, pp. 218.
6. SUBRAMANIAN,N. and PRAKASHRAo, D.S. Design
of joints in RC Structures with particular reference
to seismic conditions, The Indian Concrete Journal,
February 2003, Vol. 77, No.2, pp. 883-892.
7. DARWIN,D., LUIZ, L.A., and Zoo, I, Recommended
provisions and commentary on development and
lap splice lengths for deformed reinforcing bars
in tension, ACI Structural Journal, November-
December 2005, Vol. 102, No.6, pp. 892-900.
...
The Indian Concrete Journal * October 2005