Improvement and Widening of G.T Road (N-5), Pavement Design Methodology (Chapter-5)

Improvement / Widening of N-5 From N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi)
to Wah Underpass (Taxila) on Build-Operate-Transfer Basis
Chapter-5 Design Outline/Methodology
5.1 Preliminary Design Criteria
[Awaited from Hameed Ajmal Sheikh]
1
5.2 Traffic Study
5.2.1 Importance of Reliable Estimation of Traffic
5.2.2 Manual Traffic Count
5.2.3 Daily and Seasonal Factors
5.2.4 Normal Traffic
5.2.5 Diverted Traffic
5.2.6 Generated Traffic
5.2.7 Willingness to Pay Survey
5.2.8 Traffic Growth Rates
5.2.9 Traffic Projections
[Draft attached below] - Miss Maira
2
5.3 Capacity Analysis
[Awaited from Musharraf Ahmed Khan]
3
5.4 Axle Load Analysis
5.4.1 Determination of ESALs
5.4.2 Effect of other Factors on Pavement
5.4.3 Axle Load Limit and Weigh Stations
[Awaited from Humayoun Shafique]
4
5.5 Soil Investigation and Testing
5.5.1 Analytical Analysis of Existing Soils
5.5.2 Recommendations of Swell Control
5
5.6 Recommendations Regarding Material Procurement
6
5.7 Pavement Evaluation
5.7.1 Road Condition Survey
5.7.2 Pavement Functional Evaluation
5.7.3 Pavement Structural Evaluation
7
5.8 Preliminary Pavement Design
5.7.4 Axle Load Analysis
The determination of "Equivalent Single Axle Loads" ESALs is one of the governing factors of the
pavement design. Pavement design is primarily dependent on the following factors:
1. Value of support of the sub grade soil.
2. Intensity and frequency of the loads applied during the design life.
3. Constitutive properties of the pavement materials.
Thus determining the ESALs is an important factor for the pavement design.
5.7.4.1 Determination of ESALs
For highway pavement design purposes it is necessary to consider the number and configuration of
axles to classify the vehicle, which are then accordingly allotted the specified damaging factors. It
must be noted here that stresses induced and damaging effect cause by an axle had higher than
the standard axle load(18000 Ibs) determined by the AASHTO Road test increases not in the direct
proportion but is approximately equal to 4.5th power of the ratio between the given and standard axle
load. The power factor of 4.5 (as proposed by AASHTO) illustrates the severity of implication of
overloading beyond the pavement design loads.
Thus care was taken in selecting the damaging factors for the different types of trucks. NTRC
Axle Load Factors11995 has been used to determine the damaging factors for the different categories
of vehicles, in Table 3.7 below:
Table 3.7: Damaging Factor

TRUCK type Damaging Factors (Empty) Damaging Factors (Loaded)
2- Axle 0.043 6.49

3-Axle (Rigid) 0.072 18.48
4-Axle (Articulated) 0.206 17.3
Bus - 0.939
Tractor Trolley 0.1 1.19
The damaging factor for 2 axle truck in 1982 was found to be 3.37 while it has now increased to 6.49
for the same category. On the other hand 2 Axle trucks are also decreasing in number. The proportion
of 2 Axle trucks in 1982 was 99% whereas in1995 NTRC Axle Load studies it had reduced to 69%.
Similarly multi Axle trucks had increased from 1% in 1982 to 31%1994 and this trend is still being
followed.
A ratio 80:20 is assumed for loaded and unloaded traffic, since the trucking industry in Pakistan is
highly competitive and does not follow traditional industry patterns. The studies by TRL (Transport
Research Laboratories) between 1987 and 1989 demonstrate this point. Trucks operate on a
commodity-in and commodity-out principal. Even for National Highway link such as Karachi-
1
AxleLoadSurveyonNationalHighways,NTRC,1995
8
Hyderabad, where all indications point to an upcountry trend in loading, we find that the trucks
operating down country are nearly complete loaded. In a recent report it was found that Commercial
Trucks loaded to empty ratios are as high as 95:5 2. The percent Vehicle Kilometres Loaded averages
out at more than 80%. As no other study available for the project road was available, the use of 80:20
{Loaded: Empty} distribution is proposed.
The lane distribution factors are used as 100% as recommended by the AASHTO Design Guide for
Pavement Structures 2004 considering the factor of safety.
Initial design ESALs are calculated for a period of 10 years and then an Overlay is proposed after
each 7-8 years. The cumulative ESALs for a design period of Ten years come out to be 109.79 million
for N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi) to Wah Underpass (Taxila). The final detailed ESALs calculated
from tile current traffic counts provide by the client as under:
2
Research Report 314, Pakistan Road Freigh Industry: An Overview [Hines and Chilver]
9
BOT Project for Construction, Operation & Management of N-5 Section

National Highway Authority (NHA)
Rawalpindi - Wah Section (18.2 KM)
TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
PROJECTION GROWTH RATES ARE BASED ON Toll Data
Mini Buses/ Cars Motor
Passenger Tractor GRAND
TRUCKS TRUCK TRAILORS Vans/ Jeeps/ Cycles /
DESIGN Buses Trolleys TOTAL
YEAR Pickups Rickshaw
YEAR
4–Axle
2–Axle 3–Axle 4–Axle 5–Axle 6–Axle
Articulated
AADT 2012 2213 4243 47 128 115 118 600 13 28163 0 35640
0 2012 2213 4243 47 128 115 118 600 13 28163 0 35640
1 2013 4539 8702 96 263 236 242 1231 27 57762 0 73098
2 2014 6983 13389 148 404 363 372 1893 41 88871 0 112466
3 2015 9552 18315 203 553 496 509 2590 56 121567 0 153841
4 2016 12253 23492 260 709 637 653 3322 72 155930 0 197327
5 2017 15091 28933 320 873 784 805 4091 89 192045 0 243031
6 2018 18073 34652 384 1045 939 964 4900 106 230002 0 291066
7 2019 21208 40662 450 1227 1102 1131 5750 125 269895 0 341550
8 2020 24503 46979 520 1417 1273 1307 6643 144 311823 0 394609
9 2021 27965 53618 594 1618 1453 1491 7582 164 355889 0 450374
10 2022 31604 60595 671 1828 1642 1685 8569 186 402202 0 508983
11 2023 35429 67929 752 2049 1841 1889 9606 208 450878 0 570581
12 2024 39449 75636 838 2282 2050 2103 10696 232 502035 0 635321
13 2025 43674 83736 928 2526 2270 2329 11841 257 555802 0 703362
14 2026 48114 92250 1022 2783 2500 2566 13045 283 612311 0 774874
15 2027 52781 101198 1121 3053 2743 2814 14310 310 671702 0 850032
16 2028 57686 110602 1225 3337 2998 3076 15640 339 734122 0 929024
17 2029 62841 120485 1335 3635 3266 3351 17038 369 799725 0 1012044
18 2030 68259 130873 1450 3948 3547 3640 18507 401 868674 0 1099298
19 2031 73953 141791 1571 4277 3843 3943 20051 434 941139 0 1191003
20 2032 79938 153265 1698 4624 4154 4262 21673 470 1017300 0 1287384
10
BOT Project for Constuction, Operation & Management of N-5 Section

AXLE LOAD SURVEY / EQUIVALENCE FACTORS
Weighted Avg. Eq. Axle Factors Loaded : Empty
Vehicle Vehicle Code Loaded Empty 80 : 20

SN = SN = SN = SN =
SN = 5
3 5 3 5
2 - Axle Truck 1.2 4.956 4.620 0.043 0.046 3.705
3 - Axle Truck 1.22 7.627 7.250 0.072 0.064 5.813
4 - Axle Truck (C) 1.2 + 2.2 9.769 9.033 0.206 0.203 7.267
4 - Axle Trailer 1.2 - 22 18.066 15.040 0.080 0.174 12.067
5 - Axle Trailer 1.2 - 222 6.946 7.416 0.084 0.074 5.948
6 - Axle Trailer 1.22 - 222 9.041 8.961 0.165 0.154 7.200
Tractor Trolleys 1.1 + 1 1.104 1.101 0.010 0.006 0.882
1.1 + 2 0.814 0.815 0.010 0.006 0.653
Passenger Bus 0.897 0.897
Mini Bus 0.090 0.090
Car 0.0002 0.0002
The Values given for SN = 5 were used in Computations of ESALs with 80 : 20 Ratio of
Loaded : Empty Vehicles.
11
EASL Application

EQUIVALENT SINGLE AXLE LOAD (ESAL) APPLICATIONS

(Buses/Mini Buses/Vans etc. fully
Empty : Loaded = 20 : 80
loaded)
Directional Distribution Factor = 0.5
Lane Distribution Factor = 1.0
Sr. ESA
No Vehicle 5- % age
. 10 - Year 20 - Year
Year
1 2–Axle 66965 131273 296186 22
2 3–Axle 201425 394856 890900 67
3 4–Axle 2790 5469 12338 1
4 4–Axle Articulated 12615 24728 55793 4
5 5–Axle 5586 10951 24707 2
6 6–Axle 6939 13601 30688 2
7 Passenger Buses 4396 8617 19441 1
8 Tractor Trolleys 94 184 415 0
9 Mini Buses/Vans/Jeeps/Pickups/Cars 47 91 204 0

TOTAL ESA 300,857 589,770 1,330,672 100
ESAL / LANE (106) 56.00 109.79 247.70
ESALs contributed by
Axle Trucks
98%
12
5.7.4.2 Effect to other Factors on Pavement
Pavement stresses are affected by many other factors like the Tyre size and Pressure, truck types,
truck lengths and axle configuration etc. Tyre size determines the area of contact with road surface,
which in turns determines the area of load distribution and unit load. For a given size of tyre, the area
of contact with road surface will inversely vary with the tyre pressure. The higher pressure would
result in smaller contact area and vice versa.
5.7.4.3 Axle Load Limit & Weigh Stations
We propose to impose Axle Load Limit on the Project rood and for this purpose Weigh Stations would
also be constructed. Cost for construction of two Weigh in Motion Stations is included in the cost
estimates of the Capital Costs for this project. Following axle load limits would be imposed as
proposed by the National Highway Authority:
Axle Load Limit for Single Axle 12 Tonnes

Axle Load Limit for Tandem Axle 22 Tonnes
Axle Load Limit for Trident Axle 31 Tonnes
Tire Pressures for Rear Axles = 120 psi, Front Axle = 100 psi.
These limits are the same as in the proposed Legal load Limits for Pakistan. All the fines and other
actions will be taken as per the Government of Pakistan proposed Weight Control Act. We propose
that all the fines would be collected and retained by the RBO Cell. The imposition of fines will follow
the same rules and regulations as are imposed on the other Weigh Stations by the National Highway
Authority. The weigh stations would allow the RBO Cell to keep track of the actual axle loads applied
on the pavement during the life of the concession to help validate the design and for the purpose of
future overlays.
5.7.5 Soil Investigation and Testing
This section is a presentation of the findings of preliminary soil investigations performed for
evaluating the existing materials of the road for estimating the properties of the materials. The
appropriate quarries within the influence area of the road were also located and recommendations are
given in this section.
Soil investigation for this project began with the collection of samples by digging pits on each side
along the existing road. All samples were then transported to the Royal material Testing Laboratory
in Rawalpindi, where detailed testing was carried out to determine the various properties of the
materials for preliminary evaluation of the existing road.
Following tests have been carried out on the samples from each layer encountered in every trial pit:
 Soil classification using the AASHTO M145-91 classification method.
 Particle Size Analysis, using the AASHTO T 88-93 method, not less than1 per trial pit.
 Liquid Limit (AASHTO T89-93), Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index(AASHTO T 90-92)on all
samples.
13
 Moisture Density Relationship to calculate tile Maximum Dry Density(MDD) and Optimum
Moisture Content (OMC) using AASHTO T 180-93.
 CBR tests using AASHTO T 193-92 conducted at the moisture content determined in the
field.
 Pit stratigraphy along the existing road.
5.7.6 Test Results
Field Test Results
Soil investigation at site includes the exploration of sub soil strata, study of field moisture
content. Auger holes were drilled up to 1 m depth for this purpose. The samples collected
from the holes were classified in the field according to unified soil classification system to
identify the sub soil profile. Field moisture contents were also determined for the sub soil
strata.
The following results were obtained:-
Subsoil Profile
A total of 10 samples of sub grade were subjected to classification tests on proposed

carriageway. The classification of sub grade material reveals that samples are classified
as A-1-b, A-2-4, A-4 and A-6. Generally A-4 type of soil is considered as fair and most of
the soil of project area is A-4 type. The summary of these test results is attached in this
report. The sub soil strata mainly consist of clayey silt / Sandy silt.
Degree of Compaction
Field density tests were performed in the test pits to determine the degree of compaction
for sub grade soil. A total of 10 Field Density tests were conducted on the proposed roads
of project area. Samples of soil obtained from the test pits were tested in the laboratory to
work out the values of Maximum Dry Density.
The results of these tests indicate that the sub grade soil has compacted upto 90% and
95% with optimum moisture content.
Field Moisture Content
Field moisture content for the subsoil was determined from the samples obtained from
auger holes at 1.0m depth. By the test results the values of field moisture content were
determined to vary from 7.70 % to 13.50 %.
Laboratory Test Results:
Following tests were performed in the laboratory as per AASHTO test procedures for the
sub grade soil samples collected from the test pits:-
 Classification tests
 Moisture – Density Relationship
14
 C.B.R
The test results are discussed as under:-
a) Classification Test
Sieve Analysis and Atterberg’s Limits tests were performed for soil classification. A total
of 10 samples of sub grade were subjected to classification tests on proposed
carriageway. The classification of sub grade material reveals that samples are classified
as A-1-b, A-2-4, A-4 and A-6. Generally A-4 type of soil is considered as fair and
recommended for subgrade.
b) Moisture – Density Relationship
Sub-grade soil samples were tested for their moisture density relationship according to
Modified AASHTO test method. The values of Max Dry Density vary from 1.772 gm/cc to
2.205 gm/cc.
c) California Bearing Ratio (C.B.R)
Sub grade soil samples compacted at their optimum moisture content by 3 different
compaction efforts were soaked in the laboratory for 96 hours before performing C.B.R
test. Ten samples are subjected to CBR test and the result ranges from 5.30 to 25.60 for
90% compaction and 7.80 to 33.70 for 95 % compaction.
The summary sheet of all Geotechnical results is attached as under:
15
16
5.7.6.1 Recommendations Regarding Material Procurement:
17
Though comprehensive investigations were not done for appropriate borrow material for
embankment, But some borrow source was found near the road. One of the sources is near
Margala which is famous for crush stone.
Borrow Sources
Borrow test results included in the geotechnical investigation report have shown that soil is good to
fair quality. Borrow tests results summary is attached in the previous article. However, they may be
retested prior to use for further verification.
Subbase Sources
As mentioned earlier, most of the above borrow sources can be employed for the provision of
subbase materials. Samples for the subbase may be acquired from Margala Hills. These subbase
materials have been used in N-5.
General Specifications supplied by NHA have changed the CBR value for subbase. Now the CBR for
subbase @ 98% compaction is 50%. This has made the choice for selecting the appropriate subbase
important and the subbase testing should be carried out at an early stage prior to select the source.
Detailed investigations will be carried out during the detailed design stage of the project.
Crushed Material for Aggregate Base
Margala have crusher plants and the material can be acquired from this source. It was revealed by the
crush owners that if a specified gradation is given, they can produce the same and we propose that
aggregate base would also be obtained from these crushers.
These sources contain large quantities of hard and tough Aggregate stone, black in colour. Different
tests during the design stage would be carried out. These tests include Gradation, Atterberg Limits,
Los Angeles Abrasion, Sand Equivalent and Specific Gravity.
Sand
Sand for road works would be obtained from Chenab, while for the concrete works sand would be
acquired from Lawrence Pur.
Other Construction Materials
It would be viable to procure steel from mills in Lahore and Islamabad and bitumen from Attock
Refinery, Rawalpindi. However, cement can be obtained from FECTO Cement factory or alternatively
transported from the cement factory Wah.
5.7.7 Pavement Design
The structural design of road pavement depends upon the nature and volume of traffic, soil
characteristics, environmental conditions prevailing at the site and the available construction
materials.
A data base was established after collecting the traffic, load, environmental and soil data. This data
base was supplemented by general construction specifications. General design parameters for use in
18
AASHTO pavement design procedure, such as the level of reliability, overall standard deviation and
initial and terminal serviceability for the pavement structure, were also included in this data base. After
collecting this data and understanding the basic requirements, alternate pavement structures for
design were selected. Based on these alternates and the collected data, various required material
properties were selected. An initial overlay design thickness was then calculated, using AASHTO
2004 procedure. This established a preliminary design thickness for pavement structure.
The various material properties required for design were utilized based on established practices, and
these are mentioned all design related tabulations in this chapter.
For example the layer coefficients utilized in AASHTO 2004 design method are as follows:
Layer Coefficient Modulai
Asphalt Concrete Course = 0.44/in = 435,000 psi

=
Aggregate Base 0.15/in = 40,000 psi
=
Subbase 0.13/in = 20,000 psi
5.7.7.1 Pavement Design for N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi) to Wah

Underpass (Taxila)
Since Overlay is to be carried out between N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi) to Wah Underpass (Taxila)
therefore it is dealt separately. It is important that an evaluation of the existing pavement be
conducted to identify any functional and structural deficiencies to select appropriate pre overlay
repair, reflection crack treatments and overlay designs to correct these deficiencies.
The structural deterioration is defined as any condition that reduces the load carrying capacity of the
road, while the functional evaluation is any condition that adversely affects the highway user.
Functional failures are poor surface friction or long wavelength surface distortion, including heaves
and swells. There are depressions, pot holes and cracks which are mainly due to overloading, poor
compaction and lack of supervision etc.
The evaluation of the effective structural capacity consider the current condition of the existing
pavement materials and also the behaviour of the materials in future. AASHTO recommends
three alternatives for evaluation procedures to determine the effective structural capacity.
1. Structural Capacity based on visual survey and material testing
2. Structural Capacity based on non-destructive testing

3. Structural Capacity based on fatigue damage-from traffic
We have done both functional and structural evaluation of pavement and material testing for
estimating the functional and structural capacity of the existing pavement for preliminary design. The
detail of functional and structural evolution is as under:
FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT
19
Pavement Type
The pavement type on north bound is asphaltic concrete whereas on south bound side, rigid
pavement lanes are there along with the asphaltic concrete pavement lanes. On south bound, truck
lane is mostly cement concrete rigid lane and overtaking lane is asphaltic concrete flexible pavement.
Both the bounds have 2.5 m outer surface treated shoulders and asphaltic concrete / surface treated
1 m shoulders.
Pavement Condition Survey
Pavement Condition Data is most important parameter required for the evaluation of pavement. It is
required for the decision makers to know what is the current condition of the road so they can predict
the future condition for given specific set of traffic, climate, roughness, effects of the works and
residual strength etc by using some deterioration models, built with experience.
Pavement Distress type, extent and severity was recorded for each Km of the road. The data was
collected by WINDSHEILD SURVEY. The vehicle was moved at the speed of average 35 Km/hr,
where the condition was good to fair and moved at the speed of average 20 Km/hr, where the
condition was fair to bad to take account of all the distresses.
Following distresses with measuring units were identified for data collection and the same were
recorded in the data collection form. The specimen form is developed considering site requirements
identified in reconnaissance survey.
 Cracking (% of length effected & Crack Width)
 Rutting (Length of Rutted Portion & Rut Depth & Standard

Deviation of Rut Depth) (machine data)
 Potholes (Number of Potholes in KM)
 Raveling (% of length effected & Disintegration Type)
 Drainage Condition (Performance Indicator)
The summary of the pavement condition data & analysis for the road is attached as under.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Pavement Roughness Survey
Pavement roughness data is another very important parameter for road condition evaluation. The
Consultant collected the roughness data through its own means. This data is expressed in IRI. IRI is a
standard to measure the smoothness of the Pavement and is defined as
“IRI measures Pavement Roughness in terms of the number of mm per Km that a vehicle receives
during its operation”
Pavement Condition Index
The pavement condition Index was evaluated and pavement is categorized in Good, if the pavement
is in best available condition, Fair, if the pavement is doing its function and Poor, if the pavement is
not doing its function to the optimum. The Results are shown in Table 2-1 as below.
Table 2-1: Pavement Condition for Each KM
North Bound South Bound
KM Condition KM Condition
1+000 Good 1+000 Fair
2+000 Good 2+000 Poor
3+000 Good 3+000 Fair
4+000 Good 4+000 Poor
5+000 Good 5+000 Poor
6+000 Good 6+000 Fair
7+000 Fair 7+000 Fair
8+000 Fair 8+000 Fair
9+000 Fair 9+000 Fair
10+000 Good 10+000 Fair
11+000 Good 11+000 Fair
12+000 Good 12+000 Poor
13+000 Good 13+000 Poor
14+000 Fair 14+000 Poor
15+000 Fair 15+000 Fair
16+000 Good 16+000 Fair
17+000 Good 17+000 Fair
18+000 Good 18+000 Good
Pavement Condition Results
The pavement was evaluated for different distresses. These distresses were objectively measured
and analyzed. The results are discussed in upcoming headings
Rutting
The road is having different rutting portions which were recorded for both the sides and hence the
situation is shown by the Figure 2-1& 2-2 as below. Figure 2-1 shows the rutting of North Bound. This
Figure shows that 20% of the pavement length is moderately rutted and 15 % is depicting minor
35
rutting. Figure 2-2 shows the rutting of South Bound. This Figure shows that 10% of the pavement
length is moderately rutted and 50 % is depicting minor rutting.
Figure 2-1: Pavement Rutting on North Bound
Figure 2-2: Pavement Rutting on South Bound
Cracking
The road is having different cracking portions which were recorded for both the sides and hence the
situation is shown by the Figure 2-3& 2-4 as below. Figure 2-3 shows the cracking of North Bound.
This Figure shows that 25% of the pavement length is having minor cracking and 10 % is depicting
moderately cracked. Figure 2-4 shows the cracking of South Bound. This Figure shows that 16.67%
of the pavement length is having minor cracking and 27.78 % is depicting moderately cracked and
33.33% pavement is severely cracked.
36
Figure 2-3: Pavement Cracking on North Bound
Figure 2-4: Pavement Cracking on South Bound
Ravelling
The road is having different raveled portions which were recorded for both the sides and hence the
situation is shown by the Figure 2-5& 2-6 as below. Figure 2-5 shows the ravelling of North Bound.
This Figure shows that 25% of the pavement is lightly rough. Figure 2-6 shows the ravelling of South
Bound. This Figure shows that 16.67% of the pavement length is moderately rough and 55.56 % is
heavily rough.
37
Figure 2-5: Pavement Ravelling on North Bound
Figure 2-6: Pavement Ravelling on South Bound
Potholes
The road is having different potholed portions which were recorded for both the sides and hence the
situation is shown by the Figure 2-7& 2-8 as below. Figure 2-7 shows the potholes of North Bound.
This Figure shows that 5% of the pavement is having potholes of 30-40mm. Figure 2-8 shows the
potholes of South Bound. This Figure shows that 5.56% of the pavement is having potholes of 30-
40mm.
38
Figure 2-7: Pavement Potholes on North Bound
Figure 2-8: Pavement Potholes on South Bound
Pavement Roughness
The road is having different roughness portions which were recorded for both the sides and hence the
situation is shown by the Figure 2-9& 2-10 as below. Figure 2-9 shows the roughness of North
Bound. This Figure shows that 9 Km are having roughness between 2-3 whereas 2 Km are having
roughness between 3-4. Figure 2-8 shows the roughness of South Bound. This Figure shows that 6
Km are having roughness between 3-4, 10 Km are having roughness between 4-5 whereas 4 Km are
having roughness between 5-6.
39
Figure 2-5: Pavement Potholes on North Bound
Figure 2-6: Pavement Potholes on South Bound
5.8 Pavement Drainage
Drainage design is one of the most important elements in design of the pavement structure. The main
aim of the drainage design is to prevent the prolonged saturation/ exposure of any of the pavement
layers to high levels of moisture. Broadly, three approaches can be adopted to control moisture
related problems in the pavements-
1. Seal the pavement such that water does not infiltrate the pavement layers.
2. Use materials that are insensitive to moisture changes.
3. Provide adequate drainage such that any moisture (surface and sub-surface) can be drained
off efficiently.
40
These approaches are the basis of our design approach for the drainage design of pavement for this
project road. The drainage design of pavements can be dealt in two parts.
 Surface Drainage Design
 Subsurface Drainage Design
5.8.1 Surface Drainage Design
5.8.1.1 Surface Material Permeability
This is the single most important cause of moisture under the pavement in the subgrade. The
effect of infiltration of surface water has been directly related to the amount of precipitation and the
pavement condition. In general the permeability of flexible pavements decreases with pavement
life as the traffic seals the porous surface. The permeability of the flexible pavements is
generally selected at an approximate value of 0.5 in/hr.
5.8.1.2 Transverse Pavement Slope:
The road has been designed for centre crown along all the tangent sections to shed the surface
water on both sides of the road, with the exception of curves, where super-elevation has been
introduced and water is to shed to the inside of the curve . The crown in the tangent is 2% and the
cross falls in the curves varies with curvature. The shoulders have been designed at across slope of
4%.
5.8.1.3 Longitudinal Grades
The longitudinal grades are dictated by the design criteria for vehicle speed, sight distances and
drainage. Since the road lies in plain and hilly areas therefore the surface drainage design by
easing the longitudinal grades is not the controlling factor for finalizing the road gradients.
5.8.2 Subsurface Drainage Design
The subsurface drainage design for the pavement structure is based on the following criteria:
1. The pavement system, including shoulders and adjacent areas should be designed and
maintained as Impervious as possible to minimize the infiltrationof surface and ground water
into critical area .
2. The drainage facility should be designed with a water removing capability such that infiltrating
water can be removed in a short period of time.
3. The drainage system should be designed as a structural number of the pavement structure
and must not decrease the performance of the pavement or require exceptional measures to
compensate for material problems.
The surface drainage survey was carried out and the results are included in the Pavement condition
data as under:
41
42
43
44
45
Pavement Condition Linear Plan
A linear plan was developed showing Km wise condition of the road and attached as under:
46
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT
General
For complete structural evaluation, it is important that both destructive and nondestructive testing
should be carried out on the existing pavement system. For the project road, destructive testing was
carried out for determination of the in-situ field densities, laboratory CBR and the gradation for the
existing base, subbase and the subgrade layers.
Knowledge of existing structural capacity and its future capacity requirement to accommodate the
future traffic will be used to develop rehabilitation options. A summary of destructive test results
related to pavement evaluation and design are summarized below.
Pavement Layer Thicknesses
The historic pavement layer thickness data was collected for the project road. Since, the rehabilitation
of the North Bound has been done recently; hence as built drawings were studied whereas
Thicknesses for South Bound were collected from maintenance office of NHA. Figure 3-1 below
shows the graphical representation of the thickness data of all the three layers along the length of the
road. A significant variation in thickness of all layers is observed along the length of the project from
KM 1+000-5+000 & 5+000 – 18+200.
Figure 3-1: Pavement Thicknesses on North Bound
47
Figure 3-2: Pavement Thicknesses on South Bound
Pavement Design Guide
Pavement design was carried out based on the ESALs calculated from traffic data and geotechnical
data. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 2004 was used to carry out the necessary
design calculations along with different softwares. NHA, JICA and NTRC factors for Traffic in Pakistan
were used in EASLs calculation and growth rates.
Contaminated Land
The spillage of fuels, oils or other contaminants on the site should be prohibited and servicing of tools,
plants and machinery during the construction period should be managed to prevent pollution
while large numbers of machines are operating on the site.
Laboratory CBR Results
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test has been used commonly by many design procedures as an index
of the shear strength of unbound materials. With this procedure the strength of the unbound materials
that include base, sub base and subgrade are expressed in terms of a CBR value. The CBR values
obtained for the existing pavement defines the existing structural strength of each individual layer.
This methodology is considered to be destructive, in which samples are taken from the field and
tested in the laboratory.
The CRB values obtained on the material obtained from the field are used both for the empirical and
mechanistic design methodologies. Except for Road Note 31, other methodologies require CBR value
to be converted to an equivalent modulus usually referred as the Resilient Modulus (Mr). Several
empirical relationships have been developed in the past to correlate the CBR with Resilient Modulus
of unbound materials. Among these available empirical relationships, correlation developed by TRRL
was used to convert the CBR to Mr and the relationship is given below.
Mr (MPa) = 17.6 (CBR).64

Or Mr (Psi) = 2555 (CBR).64
The above relationship was selected, since it is applicable over a broad range of CBR values and is
applicable for the base, subbase and subgrade soils. That is, it can be used for fine cohesive
subgrade materials as well as unbound granular base and subbase materials.
The widening road is designed for CBR value of 7.
In addition to the laboratory CBR value, another methodology of predicting CBR is the use of
Correlation with Gradation and Plasticity Index (PI) properties. The correlation model used for
estimating the CBR is briefly discussed below. The correlation is based upon soil index properties that
includes Passing # 200 (P 200) and the PI of the soil. For materials with a PI > 0, a weighted Plasticity
Index, termed wPI was used (Reference: 2002 Design Guide for New and Rehabilitated Pavement
Structures — Arizona State University). The wPI is defined as:
48
wPI = Passing # 200 x Plasticity Index

wPI = P200 x PI
Where PI is used as a decimal and P 200 is used in % form. The above parameter was then used for
the computation of CBR. Table 1 shows the summary of DD, NMC, MMD, OMC, LL, PL, PI, 3 point
CBR & wPI CBR values along the length of the project. The Results are attached and discussed in the
previous article 3.6.1.2
Traffic Forecast for Pavement Design
In order to predict the future traffic demand, the most important factor is the evaluation of annual
cumulative growth rate ACGR. These factors have been calculated for design purposes.
Design Life
Design life is the number of years reckoned from the completion of pavement construction and
application of traffic load until the time when major Rehabilitation / Overlay is required so that it can
continue to carry traffic satisfactorily for further period. A design period of 10 years has been adopted
which is a normal practice to calculate the traffic load and eventually carrying out pavement design as
for as flexible pavement is concerned.
Calculation of EASL
Equivalent Axle Load Factor
The damage caused by vehicles to a road depends on the axle loads and wheel configuration of the
vehicles. It is therefore important to determine the axle loads of heavy commercial vehicles in the
projected traffic mix that is likely to use proposed alignment.
For pavement design purposes the damaging power of axles is related to a standard axle of 8.16
tones (18000 lbs) using equivalence factors which have been derived from empirical studies. In order
to determine the cumulative axle load damage that a pavement will sustain during its design life, it is
necessary to express the total number of heavy vehicles that will use the road during the design
period in terms of the cumulative number of equivalent standard axles load (ESAL).
Equivalent axle factors are determined separately for different types of axle configurations. These in
turn are calculated by summing up the individual damaging factors of a particular vehicle category by
the total number of vehicles surveyed to obtain a weighted average.
Calculation of Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axles
In order to determine the cumulative ESAL over the design period the following procedure has been
followed.
 AADT data is calculated from the traffic count data collected from the site.
 Directional Distribution Factor value of 0.51 (Ref AASHTO 2004) has been selected.
 Lane Distribution Factor value of 1.0 (Ref AASHTO 2004) has been selected.
 Annual traffic in design lane for the base year (2013) is determined.
49
 Equivalence factor for each class of vehicle i.e. Loaded and Empty from NTRC study report
1995.
 Equivalent standard Axles for the base year (2013) are estimated.
 The base year ESALs have been projected for the design life of 10 years by using growth
rates.
 The pavement design procedure is based on the cumulative number of expected equivalent
single-axle loads during the design period. The projected Cumulative ESAL has been
computed over the design life of 10 years of the project.
Cumulative ESAL for 10 Year Design Life
The proposed ESALs are based on traffic data collected from the site at traffic count station.
Considering this, 109.79 million ESALs is used for the calculation of pavement thicknesses for this
road section for new construction.
Reliability
This factor is introduced to incorporate degree of certainty or reliability into the design process to
ensure that the design will survive the design life. For the purpose of this analysis a design reliability
of 90 percent was used for establishing the new design thickness.
The value of overall standard deviation (So) in the AASHTO design procedure expresses the possible
variation in traffic and material that is going to affect the pavement performance. The AASHTO guide
states:
The estimated overall standard deviation for the case where the variance of the projected future traffic
is considered (along with other variance associated with revised pavement performance models) are
0.39 for rigid and 0.49 for flexible pavements.
The estimated overall standard deviation for the case where the variance of the projected future traffic
is not considered (along with other variance associated with revised pavement performance models)
are 0.34 for rigid and 0.44 for flexible pavements.
The range of So value provided in AASHTO design guide are based on the values identified above.
0.30 — 0.40 Rigid Pavement
0.40 — 0.50 Flexible Pavement
A value of 0.45 was used for the analysis.
Drainage Coefficient
The drainage coefficient is needed to study the impact of presence of water in the unbound base and
subbase layers. This will result in an increase and decrease of the layer thickness depending upon
the drainage quality.
Given the lack of the appropriate data to estimate the drainage coefficient, it will be conservative to
assume a value 1.0 for the unbound layers. The unbound layers are the base and the subbase
50
r

Performance Criteria
The serviceability of a pavement is defined as its ability to serve the type of traffic that uses the
facility. Initial and terminal serviceability indexes have been established to compute the total change in
serviceability that will be used in the design equations.
Initial Serviceability Index (Po)
The initial serviceability index is a function of pavement design and construction quality. For flexible
pavement design typical value as recommended by AASHTO Road Test is 4.2, which has been
adopted.
Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt).
The terminal serviceability index is the lowest index that will be tolerated before rehabilitation,
resurfacing or reconstruction becomes necessary and it generally varies with the importance or
functional classification of the pavement. Recommended value of terminal serviceability index is 2.5
for the project road.
Pavement Layer Properties
The specification for granular subbase states a CBR => 30 percent. This is equivalent to a resilient
modulus value of 20,000 psi. The layer coefficient value is then estimated from the following
relationship.
a3 = 0.227 (log Mr) - 0.839
Where a3 is the layer coefficient for the subbase layer and is estimated to be 0.13.
The specification for the aggregate base requires a CBR => 100 percent. This corresponds to a
modulus value of 40,000 psi for aggregate base and 50,000 psi for WBM approximately. The layer
coefficient for the aggregate base & WBM is obtained by the following relationship.
a2 = 0.249 (log Mr) - 0.997
For a modulus value of 40,000 psi, the estimated layer coefficient is 0.15.
Finally the modulus of asphalt layer is estimated at 435,000 psi for new construction or for overlay
condition. Since asphalt is a thermoplastic material that is its properties are dependent on
temperature. The modulus of 435,000 psi is at 68°F. For these conditions the layer coefficient for the
asphalt layer is assumed to be 0.44.
Resilient Modulus Mr
51
The basis for material characterization in the AASHTO Guide 1993 is Elastic or Resilient Modulus
(MR). In the absence of necessary equipment required to determine resilient modulus of subgrade,
various correlations between CBR and MR are in use.
For sandy & granular soil
MR = 2000 (CBR) o.64
Where MR is the resilient modulus of subgrade in Psi.
Heukelom and Klomp have reported correlation between the Corp of Engineer's CBR value using
Dynamic Compaction and the in-situ modulus of soil. The correlation is given by the following
relationship:
For fine silty and clayey soil

MR = 1500 (CBR)
Van Til et al, (1972) have also provided a correlation chart for estimating the Resilient Modulus of
subgrade soils from the R value, CBR, Texas Tri-axial classification and group index.
For this Project, relationship recommended by TRRL was used. The relationship was selected since it
is applicable to a wide range of unbound soil groups.
MR = 2555 (CBR) 0.64
Required Structural Capacity for Future Traffic, SN
The required structural capacity is computed for a new pavement. The required structural number will
be estimated based on AASHTO approach. The design is based upon identifying a flexible pavement
structure number (SN) to with stand the projected level of axle load traffic. The following AASHTO
design equation is used for the purpose.
Log [∆PSI/(4.2 — 1.5)]

logW18 = ZRSO+9.36log (SN+1)-0.20++5.19+ _____________________ +2.32logMR—8.07
0.4 + 1094/(SN + 1)5.19
5.8.2.1 Initial Pavement Design Using AASHTO 2004 Design Guide
The pavement design process is the technique of developing a combination of top layers of different
materials in most economical manner to cater for the total axle load over the design life of a highway.
In other words this is an art through which the stresses as induced in the top layers of a highway due
to movement of heavy wheel load are disseminated and minimized to safe level through selection of
different type and appropriate thickness of pavement layers. The pavement is designed with the
following factors
Table 3-2: Pavement Design Factors

Design Factor Review Recommendation
Design Life 10 years
Traffic (ESALs) 109.79 million
52

Design Reliability (R) 90 %
Standard Deviation (So) 0.45
Initial Serviceability (Po) 4.2
Terminal Serviceability (Pt) 2.5
Drainage Coefficient 1.0
Subgrade Mr 8877 psi
Aggregate Base 40,000 psi (0.15)*
Subbase 20,000 psi (0.13)*
Asphalt Concrete Layer 435,000 psi (0.44)*
* Numbers in the parenthesis are the layer coefficients.
For CBR = 7 for subgrade and 109.79 Million EASLS for both the sections of proposed project for 10
year Design Life, We need to provide a pavement with structural number of 6.51. These Structural
Numbers may be achieved by the following alternatives.
Pavement Thicknesses for new pavement
To achieve required Structural Number of 6.51 for both the sections, following may be considered
for pavement thicknesses.
Alternative 1 (SN=6.51)
Asphaltic Wearing Course = 2.0 in = 05 cm

Asphaltic Base Course = 7.0 in = 18 cm
Aggregate Base = 7.3 in = 20 cm
Sub Base = 11.0 in = 30 cm
Subgrade = 12 in = 30 cm
Existing Pavement Structure
For estimating the future capacity, it is important to estimate the existing structural capacity of the
pavement. For this the condition and existing layer thickness needs to be estimated. The thicknesses
are given in earlier part of report and visual condition results are discussed in upcoming heading.
Visual Condition Survey
Visual condition survey was carried out to assess the existing condition in terms of the type and
severity of the distresses. The general observation is that the road is in fair to good condition with
major distress related to minor rutting and Raveling on North Bound. The general observation is that
the roads is in fair to poor condition with major distresses related to major rutting and sever cracking
on South Bound. The reconnaissance visual condition survey was carried out and general
observations made are discusses in earlier part of this report. Summary and detailed evaluation of the
condition is presented in Annexure A. The condition of the pavement is then used for the computation
of the layer coefficient for the individual layers to estimate the existing structural capacity. Based upon
53
the existing capacity and the future required capacity, rehabilitation strategies are recommended. It is
to be noted that the effective structural strength is evaluated based upon the surface condition.
However, the best approach to evaluate the structural strength is by making use of FWD testing which
is discussed in the next section. Condition survey is more effective in evaluating the functional
performance.
Falling Weight Deflectometer Analysis (FWD)
The use of nondestructive testing (NDT) has been an integral part of the structural evaluation and
rehabilitation process for many decades. In its earliest applications, the total measured deflection
under a particular load arrangement was used as a direct indicator of structural capacity. Several
agencies have developed failure criteria, particularly for flexible pavements, that related the maximum
measured deflection to the number of allowable repetitions.
At present, several NDT deflections measuring systems are available for use in pavement evaluation
work. In general, systems can be categorized into five groups:
 Static-Creep Deflection Methods
 Automated Deflection Beams

 Steady State (Sinusoidal) Deflection Devices
 Impulse Devices
 Wave Propagation Devices.
For this project, Falling Weight Deflection (FWD), which is an impulse load device, was used for
structural evaluation of the existing pavement. KUAB model 150 (FWD) was used for collecting the
deflection data. The high productivity of FWD makes it feasible to collect large amount of data along
the length of project, which is important for assessing variability in condition. The testing was carried
out at in the Left lane
Testing was carried out at 1000 meters interval on average. At each location, four drops at different
load levels were used. The load levels used and recorded were; 7,000, 9,000, and 14,000 lbf. The first
load has been used twice to obtain the proper seating of the loading plate and the sensors on the
road surface. The proper seating load is generally not recorded and therefore also ignored in the
analysis so the first load level is recorded once. The remaining three load levels are used to assess
the non-linearity of the unbound material. If non-linearity is observed as in the case of mostly cohesive
fine-grained soils, non-linearity of the material should be taken in account.
A total of seven sensors were used for the estimation of the deflection basin. The sensor spacing
distances were; 0, 7.87, 11.81, 17.72, 23.62, 35.43 and 47.24 inch respectively from the centre of
loading plate. The sensor spacing was adjusted to capture the response from each individual layer.
For the purpose of evaluation of existing pavement from the deflection data, "Direct Structural
Capacity Prediction" methodology was used as discussed in AASHTO 2004. This approach is used to
determine the effective structural capacity by making use of the deflections measured under the FWD
device. The main philosophy behind the "Direct Structural Capacity Prediction" is that the combined
stiffness influence of all the layers within the pavement system determines the overall structural
capacity of the pavement. The approach relies on outer deflection values to estimate the subgrade
modulus and the measured maximum deflection (at the center of the load) to predict the effective
structural capacity of the existing layered pavement system.
54
According to "2004 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures", the subgrade modulus of
the existing pavement structure can be predicted by the following relationship.
Mrsg = (P)(Sr)
(Dr)(r)
Where:
P = plate load (lbs)
Sr = subgrade modulus prediction factor, dependents upon the sugrade
Poisson's ratio.
Dr = pavement surface deflection (in.) measured at r distance, from the
load, and
r = distance from load to Dr (in.)
Mrsg = subgrade modulus (psi).
According to "AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures" the computed Mrsg of the
subgrade should not be influenced by the response of the pavement layers. Since Sensor 5 is
assumed to be far away from the influence of the pavement structure, this was used for the
computation of the subgrade modulus. A detailed procedure is provided in the AASHTO design guide
to insure that the deflections used to determine Mrsg are outside the pressure bulb under the test
load.
To this point we have concentrated on the existing subgrade properties in terms of Resilient Modulus.
The next step is the determination of the Effective Structural capacity of the existing pavement
structure. The effective structural capacity (Ep) for the existing pavement layers can be determined by
the following relationship.
Do = 1.5 pa [1/ (Mr√ (1+D/a3√ (Ep/Mr)) + 1-1/(√(1+(D/a)2)

Ep
Where:
Do = Deflection measured at the center of the load plate (and adjusted to a
standard temperature of 68oF), in.
p = NDT load plate pressure, psi
a = NDT plate radius, in.
D = Total thickness of pavement layer above the subgrade, inches
Mr = Subgrade resilient modulus, psi
Ep = Effective modulus of all pavement layers above the subgrade layer,
psi.
The only unknown in the above equation is the Ep value. The "Do" corresponds to the deflection
under the load. Since, this deflection is heavily influenced by the asphalt layer, it is important to
normalize the deflection at a standard temperature. This is because asphalt mix being a temperature
sensitive material, its behavior is heavily influenced by the temperature. At high temperature it
behaves like a viscous material, whereas at cold temperatures it is more like an elastic solid. So it is
important to evaluate effective modulus (Ep) at a common reference temperature.
55
The standard temperature recommended by AASHTO is 68 oF. The adjustment to Do is based on the
ratio of predicted deflections:
T(t) = Do (68)
Do (t)
Where:
T(t) = Temperature adjustment factor
Do(68) = Do at 68oF,
Do(t) = Do at the pavement temperature
The above equation requires determination of the pavement temperature at the time of testing. Thus
the determination of average pavement temperature is the key to the estimation of the adjustment
factor. In most situations and also in this case, only air and pavement surface temperatures were
recorded and they do not represent the average temperature for the asphalt layer. This is because the
asphalt temperature changes with depth and the surface temperature is not representative of the
overall asphalt layer temperature. Quite, obviously, the most direct way to determine the temperature
of the asphalt layer during FWD testing is to physically measure the temperature of the pavement at
various depths. Temperature values taken at three depths can then be used for the estimation of the
effective pavement temperature.
An alternative procedure that is employed for this project to estimate the average pavement
temperature during FWD test has been developed by Kentucky (USA) and is also approved by
AASHTO.
Making use of the temperature adjusted Do values and the computed Mr values, "Effective Structural
Capacity", Ep was estimated by making use of the above equation. The "Ep" along with the Mr is then
used for defining up-gradation and rehabilitation strategies.
AASHTO recommends the computation of Effective Structural Number (SN) from Effective Structural
Capacity "Ep" by making use of the following equation.
SN = 0.0045 D 3√Ep
Where "D" in the above equation is the total thickness of the pavement above the subgrade
Evaluation of Effective Structural Capacity
According to "AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures" the computed 'Mr' of the
subgrade should not be influenced by the response of the pavement layers. Since Sensor 5 is found
to be away from the influence of the stress bulb of pavement structure, this was used for the
computation of the subgrade modulus. The effective pavement modulus and subgrade Mr is provided
in the Table 3 below for each individual km of Project road. WSDOT Regression equations for
predicting moduli were also used for statistical analysis of deflection data. The Mr values obtained by
these equations are tabulated in the tables below
56
Table 3-2: MR Values of Embankment Material North Bound
North Bound
MR
Chainage
Values by AASHTO Corrected Mr Values Regression Analysis
1+000 12587.9 4153.99305 6309.2
2+000 12628.0 4167.232868 5909.5
3+000 33576.5 11080.24841 18537.8
4+000 22672.6 7481.941702 11839.9
5+000 83852.4 27671.3082 48698.4
6+000 25438.4 8394.666532 13971.5
7+000 59134.7 19514.46735 35207.1
8+000 40428.9 13341.5236 22096.4
9+000 99673.7 32892.30974 52645.7
10+000 108548.7 35821.07705 61749.2
11+000 22196.2 7324.758052 12169.4
12+000 46475.4 15336.88343 26425.6
13+000 63903.7 21088.21472 34666.8
14+000 75109.5 24786.1481 42973.5
15+000 47879.5 15800.23338 25483.5
16+000 60720.7 20037.84387 30427.6
17+000 60259.0 19885.46483 34758.1
18+000 64686.2 21346.43775 35168.9
18+200 107081.8 35337.00844 59653.4
18+500 37115.0 12247.95609 20992.3
avg 54198.44199 17885.48586 29984.19038
std dev 29694.98458 9799.344911 16813.11399
Table 3-3: MR Values of Embankment Material South Bound
South Bound
MR
Chainage
Values by AASHTO Corrected Mr Values Regression Analysis
2+000 52304.0 17260.32096 30206.6
3+000 57007.6 18812.50809 33473.2
4+000 66869.7 22066.99261 36223.6
5+000 47735.3 15752.64232 26195.4
12+567 30893.0 10194.69249 16905.9
17+000 120978.0 39922.72709 69191.1
18+000 65488.1 21611.06301 37130.1
avg 63039.37081 20802.99237 35617.99773
std dev 28274.78803 9330.680049 16343.28531
57
SNeff from FWD
The SNeff determination follows an assumption that the structural capacity of the pavement is a
function of its total thickness and overall stiffness. The structural capacity based upon this assumption
is calculated using the following relationship defined in AASHTO Design Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures.
SNeff = 0.0045 D 3√Ep
Using the above relationship, the SNeff is estimated
Determination of Overlay Thickness
The thickness of AC overlay over the existing AC pavement is computed by the following relationship.
Dol = SNol = SNf – SNeff

aol aol
where:
SNol = Required overlay structural number
aol = Structural coefficient of AC overlay
Dol = Required overlay thickness, inches
SNf = Structure number required to accommodate future traffic
SNeff = Effective structural number or effective structural capacity of

existing pavement
The determination of these parameters is discussed above.
Presentation of Fwd Data
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data
The FWD data was obtained by applying two different approximate loadings, 9000lbs and
15000lbs. Due to variation in pavement response, the contact pressure applied by the FWD
varies slightly from test to test. In order to compare test point for this survey, all the data was
normalized to 15000 lbs load. The seven normalized deflection readings measured by geophones
do to d6 set at standardized radial distance from the centre of the loading plate are tabulated in
Appendix D. The following deflection parameters, which indicate the performance of various
layers of pavement, were used for the interpretation purpose:
Central deflection (d1) indicator for the overall pavement Response
Deflection difference (d1-d2) indicator of the response from Bituminous layer

Deflection difference (d2-d4) indicator of response from Unbound granular layer
Outer deflection (d6) indicator of the subgrade response
58
Profile of the key deflection parameters have been plotted against chainage in figures in
upcoming headings. A study of the profiles enables the relative condition of the pavement and
subgrade to be assessed qualitatively. Generally, the higher deflection indicates weaker areas.
The peaks in the deflection profiles indicate poorer performance or distressed areas.
North Bound
59
60
South Bound
61
WSDOT Regression equations for predicting moduli were used for statistical analysis of deflection
data. WSDOT Equations (three layer system) are given as
ESG = -530 + 0.00877 (P/D3)
ESG = -111 + 0.00577 (P/D4)
ESG = -346 + 0.00676 (2P/(D3 + D4 ))
Log EAC = -4.134 + 0.257 (5.9/hAC) + 0.928√5.9/hB - 0.697√ (h AC/ hB) -0.96 log ESG + 1.883 log (PA/D02)
Log EB = 0.506+0.0347(5.9/ hAC) + 0.125 √5.9/hB - 0.094 √ (hAC/hB) +0.514 log ESG + 0.254 log (PA/D20)
The Mr values obtained by these equations are tabulated in Table 3-2 & 3-3 above. The comparison
of MR values obtained by both the methods is given in figures (first one is for North & 2 nd one is for
South) below. The trends by both the methodologies follow the same tendency.
62
Back Calculation of FWD Data:
The analysis of the FWD is carried out by using “direct structural capacity prediction” method by
AASHTO and WSDOT regression equations for predicting moduli. WSDOT regression equations
for predicting moduli were used only to calculate moduli, the values,then achieved, are used to
check the trends.
The deflections were normalized to 14000 lbs and temperature corrections were applied. MR
values for subgrade were calculated which were used to calculate Effective Structral Capacity of
the pavement and Normalised Area by using the method stated in earlier part of the report. SNeff
is calculated and hence overlay thicknesses were calculated. The same are plotted in the figures
below
63
North Bound
64
South Bound
Layer wise Analysis
Existing Asphalt Concrete
North Bound
The thickness of asphaltic layer varies from 5 to 7 inches along the length of the road. From KM
1+000-5+000 the thickness is 5 inches where as the thickness is 7 inches from section 5+000-
18+200. These thicknesses were found by destructive testing as stated in earlier part of the
report.
Less than 10 % of the pavement is depicting the low to medium severity cracking which tells that
the pavement asphalt is in good shape. The higher stiffness values point out that the asphalt has
been stiffened due to oxidation phenomenon and aging. More than 70 % of the road is rutting free
and only 10-15% road length is undergone low to medium severity rutting. This further
strengthens the argument that high stiffness of the pavement due to aging has caused no or low
rutting and hence the pavement is resistant to rutting. As pavement has become hardened, it
leads the pavement to be brittle and susceptible to fatigue cracking. And, hence, alligator cracking
results into localized potholes that is also a thermal related phenomenon.
In figure below, the response of different layers is plotted against the chainage. Given the criteria
above, under the heading of “Analysis of FWD Deflection Data”, deflection difference d1-d2 gives
the response of bituminous layer. Higher is the value, weaker is the ashphaltic layer.
65
In our case deflection difference is particularly higher at locations (KM

1+000,2+000,4+000,15+000 & 18+200). The structural capacity has suffered drastically at places
as for as asphalt is concerned.
An analysis was carried out with Modulus Software and following sections are identified as weak
sections as for as asphaltic layer is concerned. KM (1+000, 2+000, 4+000, 15+000 & 18+200)
These are the sections by 2 different methodologies to predict the condition of asphalt; however
these conditions are point based and may / may not be extrapolated for whole KM
South Bound
The thickness of asphaltic layer is 5 inches along the length of the road. These thicknesses were
found by destructive testing as stated in earlier part of the report.
Less than 50 % of the pavement is depicting the medium to high severity cracking which tells that
the pavement asphalt has been deteriorated badly. The higher stiffness values point out that the
asphalt has been stiffened due to oxidation phenomenon and aging. More than 50 % of the road
is rutting free and 10% road length is undergone medium to High severity rutting. This further
strengthens the argument that high stiffness of the pavement due to aging has caused no or low
rutting and hence the pavement is resistant to rutting. As pavement has become hardened, it
leads the pavement to be brittle and susceptible to fatigue cracking. In such case if proper crack
relief (unbound granular layer or proper sealing of the cracks) is not provided before asphaltic
overlay, the cracks reflect again and again on the pavement. And hence alligator cracking results
into localized potholes which are also a thermal related phenomenon. In conclusion, more than 50
% of the pavement asphalt has very poor structural capacity under the high loadings and high
thermal frequencies.
In figure below, the response of different layers is plotted against the chainage. Given the criteria
above, under the heading of “Analysis of FWD Deflection Data”, deflection difference d1-d2 gives
the response of bituminous layer. Higher is the value, weaker is the asphaltic layer.
66
Unbound Granular Material
North Bound
The existing pavement comprises mainly of aggregate base and subbase but we have considered
only base layer for analysis. The thicknesses of base layers vary from 8 to 12 in. It is usually
assumed that response from 3rd and 4th sensor may give good guidelines to predict the behavior
of granular layers. We have modeled a 3 layer pavement structure (i.e. base and subbase layers
has been taken as one layer) for the sake of analysis which is common practice in back
calculation methodology to reduce the errors in predicting the stiffness modulus.
The figure below shows the comparison between the responses of 3 different modeled layers i.e.
asphaltic layer, granular layer and subgrade.
This shows that at only one place, the deflection in granular layer is abrupt and enormous,
depicting some sever localized problems in granular layer. KM 4+000 & 16+000 are example of
this localized problem in granular layer. All other parameters are normal at these locations
however response from granular layers is indicating some problem or initiation of a problem.
67
The statistical analysis using regression equations was carried out and stiffness values vary from
16000 psi to 200000 psi with standard deviation of 50000 psi. Such a variation is a reason of
some sever localized problems in granular layer.
The figure below shows the variability of stiffness values of granular layers along the length of
road.
A plot shown in figure below is drawn between response from granular layer and normalized area.
It is obvious in figure above that at places of high deflection in granular layer is the weaker and
distressed part which results in bad structural capacity of the over all pavement.
South Bound
The existing pavement comprises mainly of aggregate base and subbase. The thicknesses of
base layers vary from 8 to 9 in. It is usually assumed that response from 3rd and 4th sensor may
give good guidelines to predict the behavior of granular layers. We have modeled a 3 layer
68
pavement structure (i.e. base and subbase layers has been taken as one layer) for the sake of
analysis which is common practice in back calculation methodology to reduce the errors in
predicting the stiffness modulus.
The figure below shows the comparison between the responses of 3 different modeled layers i.e.
asphaltic layer, granular layer and subgrade.
This shows that at places, the deflection in granular layer is abrupt and enormous, depicting some
sever localized problems in granular layer. KM 1+000 & 2+000 are example of this localized
problem in granular layer. All other parameters are normal at these locations however response
from granular layers is indicating some problem or initiation of a problem.
The statistical analysis using regression equations was carried out and stiffness values vary from
58000 psi to 200000 psi with standard deviation of 46000 psi. Such a variation is reasons of some
sever localized problems in granular layer.
The figure below shows the variability of stiffness values of granular layers along the length of
road.
69
A plot shown in figure below is drawn between response from granular layer and normalized area.
It is obvious in figure above that at places of high deflection in granular layer is the weaker and
distressed part which results in bad structural capacity of the over all pavement.
Subgrade
North Bound
The modulus values obtained from FWD for subgrade are termed as Effective Modulus Values.
There are many methods to interpret the deflection data for modulus values of subgrade. A few
are discussed in earlier part of this report. The modulus values computed from 2 methods are
tabulated in Table 3-2 & 3-3 and both are plotted in figure below.
This figure shows the same trend of values by 2 different methodologies. The values are further
related to CBR values achieved by the destructive testing and found correlated.
The modulus values vary from 4000 psi to 35000 psi (AASHTO correction factor applied) with the
standard deviation of 9000 psi. The figure also depicts the stated variability of the modulus values
along the road. To reduce the variability the road is divided into sections and these sections are
identified as follow:
70
Sections Average Stiffness (ksi)

KM 1+000– KM 4+000 6.7
KM 5+000– KM 5+000 27.6
KM 6+000– KM 8+000 13.7
KM 9+000– KM 10+000 34.3
KM 11+000– KM 18+000 18.2
A plot shown in figure below is drawn between D6 and the chain age to elaborate the variability.
A plot shown in figure 6 below is drawn between Do and normalized area.
There is a relation between normalized area and deflection Do which gives the overall guess
about the strength and weakness of pavement. The trends achieved according to this criterion
further confirm the already made sectioning for subgrade and are helpful for the identification of
distressed areas in the pavement by the back calculation method. The normalized area values
generally ranges from 11 to 36. In our case the average value is 12 which may be attributed as
low. Now the deflection values Do at locations will define the sections where subgrade is weak.
The deflection values are annexed in appendix 6. Higher is the Do, weaker will be the structure
and subgrade. Lower is the Do stronger will be the subgrade.
Considering all the analysis methodologies used and arguments, the sectioned portions for
subgrade may be good guidelines for rehabilitation strategies.
71
South Bound
The modulus values obtained from FWD for subgrade are termed as Effective Modulus Values.
There are many methods to interpret the deflection data for modulus values of subgrade. A few
are discussed in earlier part of this report.
The modulus values computed from 2 methods are tabulated in Table 3-2 & 3-3 and both are
plotted in figure below.
This figure shows the same trend of values by 2 different methodologies. The values are further
related to CBR values achieved by the destructive testing and found correlated.
The modulus values vary from 10000 psi to 22000 psi (AASHTO correction factor applied) with
the standard deviation of 9000 psi. The figure also depicts the stated variability of the modulus
values along the road. To reduce the variability the road is divided into section for uniform
averaged stiffness as follow:
72
Sections Average Stiffness (ksi)

KM 1+000– KM 12+000 16.8
A plot shown in figure below is drawn between D6 and the chain age to elaborate the variability.
A plot shown in figure 6 below is drawn between Do and normalized area.
There is a relation between normalized area and deflection Do which gives the overall guess
about the strength and weakness of pavement. The trends achieved according to this criterion
further confirm the already made sectioning for subgrade and are helpful for the identification of
distressed areas in the pavement by the back calculation method. The normalized area values
generally ranges from 11 to 36. In our case the average value is 12.5 which may be attributed as
low. Now the deflection values Do at locations will define the sections where subgrade is weak.
The deflection values are annexed in appendix 6. Higher is the Do, weaker will be the structure
and subgrade. Lower is the Do stronger will be the subgrade.
Considering all the analysis methodologies used and arguments, the sectioned portions for
subgrade may be good guidelines for rehabilitation strategies.
General Discussion
73
Visual condition survey suggests that the existing asphalt concrete is in fair condition on North Bound
and very stressed on South Bound. The existing asphalt has not aged i.e. oxidized due to as for as
north bound is concerned whereas, South Bound Asphaltic layers have gone.
The aggregate base course and subbase material has been considered as a one single layer to
extrapolate the effective stiffness modulus for the bound material. The combination of both the
unbound layers into one layer is attributed to the fact that it cannot be modeled with confidence to
extrapolate closely realistic moduli values. The back calculated moduli for the respective section
suggest that the unbound material has weaker areas in the unbound material but the fact that the road
section is cracked; ingress of water through these cracks cannot be ruled out. This may have caused
localized weakness in the underlying layers.
The subgrade strength in selected sections is used for future overlay. It may be noted the correction
factor of 0.33 as recommended by AASTHO design guide has been applied to the subgarde moduli
values.
Conclusions
Considering all the given conditions, following are the sections for North Bound & South Bound
according to which strategies should be devised.
Sections (North Bound) Average Stiffness (ksi)

KM 1+000– KM 4+000 6.7
KM 5+000– KM 5+000 27.6
KM 6+000– KM 8+000 13.7
KM 9+000– KM 10+000 34.3
KM 11+000– KM 18+000 18.2
Sections (South Bound) Average Stiffness (ksi)
KM 1+000– KM 4+000 (3 lanes) 16.8

KM 5+000– KM 15+000 (1or 2 Lanes) 16.8
In the analyses, it is learnt that modulus values for subgrade vary. This fact is further strengthened by
the geotechnical investigations.
AASHTO suggests a many remedies for rehabilitation of a road; however followings are worth
considering for our conditions.
 Thick overlay
 Full depth repair

 Partial depth patching
 Surface treatments
74
Considering economy, strength of the pavement required in future and serviceability two strategies
are devised.
STRATEGY ONE
a) Thick overlay
The philosophy behind this technique is that by providing thick overlay. The stress levels are
dramatically reduced on the underlying layers and hence the underlying layers are less
susceptible to more damage. This philosophy is seriously undermined by the fact that if the
water from underlying layers keep rising to the upper layers or if stress levels are not well
distributed by the upper layers on the underlying layers then the damage will definitely reflect
on the upper layers in due course of time.
In our case, the SNreq is achieved by putting the overlay of asphaltic layer and aggregate
base layer when and where suited. The summary is given in the table below.
Table ____________________
Existing Thicknesses Additional
Removal (cm)
Sections (cm) Thicknesses (cm)
AWC ABC AgB AWC ABC AgB AWC ABC AgB
KM 1+000– KM 4+000 (N) 5 8 20 5 - - 5 13 15
KM 5+000– KM 5+000 (N) 5 13 30 5 - - 5 7 -
KM 6+000– KM 8+000 (N) 5 13 30 - - - 6 - -
KM 9+000– KM 10+000 (N) 5 13 30 - - - 5 5 -
KM 11+000– KM 18+000 (N) 5 13 30 -** -** - 5 5 -
KM 1+000– KM 4+000 (3 lanes) 5 8 20 5 8 RC* 5 15 25
(S)
KM 5+000– KM 15+000 (1or 2 5 8 20 5 8 RC* 5 15 20
Lanes) (S)
* RC means re-compact the base

** Milling & Filling may also be considered for KM 1565 & 1568 at detailed design level
75
STRATEGY TWO
b) Full Depth Repair
The Strategy comprises of removal of distressed area and reconstruction of the section. For
more distresses areas as may be identified after detailed design, full depth pavement repair is
devised with improved subgrade of not less than 10 CBR and with the provision of filter layer
of subbase gradation and strength when and where needed.
The design thicknesses have already been calculated in Pavement Design Section of this
report and the same are produced here.
Asphaltic Wearing Course = 2.0 in = 05 cm
Asphaltic Base Course = 7.0 in = 18 cm

Aggregate Base = 7.3 in = 20 cm
Sub Base = 11.0 in = 30 cm
Subgrade = 12 in = 30 cm
Recommendations
The distressed areas in the existing asphalt concrete shall be saw cut n proper dimensions and cold
milled to appropriate depth (not more that the thickness of existing asphalt). The exposed unbound
material shall be checked for density and moisture. After the application of proper prime coat the
patch shall be filled with asphalt base course to achieve the existing surface level.
After deep patching, a monolithic layer of asphalt base course material shall be laid in prescribed
thickness after application of tack coat. This shall be followed with a nominal layer of asphalt wearing
course in prescribed thickness.
Vigilant visual survey should be carried out for the removal of cracked/distressed existing asphalt.
Choice among the two strategies devised in earlier part of this report may be made. Usually Highway
agencies avoid going for full depth repair considering cost effects, however in long run this strategy is
worth considering. For economical point of view, strategy one of Structural overlay, of design
thicknesses given in earlier part of this report, may be adopted.
For shoulder treatment the existing material in shoulder is to be compacted to 100% dry density. Over
the prepared surface 15cm of aggregate subbase course material is to be laid followed with double
surface treatment.
It is suggested that some level of site supervisions is necessary. It may therefore be worthwhile to
engage supervisory consultants with minimal required staff for quality control.
76
Pavement Design Sheet
DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

National Highway (State Highways)
I N P U T
1 Design ESAL = Wt 18 = 1.10E+08
(Log Wt
2 Log (Wt 18) = = 8.04
18)
3 Reliability (90%) = ZR = -1.282

4 Slope Variance = S0 = 0.45
5 Initial Serviceability Index = P0 = 4.2
Terminal Serviceability
6 = Pt = 2.5
Index
7 Serviceability Loss = P0 - Pt = 1.7
8 CBR = CBR = 7
9 Design Sub-Grade (Mr) = Mr SG = 8,877
1
Sub-Base (Mr) = Mr SB = 20,000
0
1 Water Bound Macadam
= Mr WBM = 40,000
1 Base (Mr)
1
Layer Coefficients = a1 = 0.44
2
= a2 = 0.15
= a3 = 0.13
O U T P U T
SN - CALCULATION
1 Layer 1 = SN1 = 3.97 OK

2 Layer 2 = SN2 = 5.05 OK
3 Layer 3 = SN3 = 6.51 OK
SNRequired = SNreq = 6.51
PAVEMENT THICKNESS CALCULATION

Calculated Recommended
Reconstruction / Widening
(inches) (cms) (cms)
1 Asphalt Wearing Course = AC = 2.00 5.08 5.0
Asphaltic Concrete Base
2
Course
= ABC = 7.02 17.84 18.0
3 Agrregate Base = AgB = 7.20 18.29 20.0
4 Sub - Base = SB = 10.80 27.43 30.0
77
ROUGH RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN
Pavement Design Parameters
Though the rigid pavement is not recommended by the Consultant as for as life cycle cost is
concerned however, following lines may be treated as rough design for the sake of costing purposes
only. The recommended approach is to carry out Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP). In
contrast to Jointed Reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP), JPCP pavements have relatively short
joint spacing and do not require reinforcing steel within each slab.
In the case of rigid pavements, the thickness design is governed by several factors but the major ones
are: concrete modulus of rupture, subgrade and subbase support, design period, and traffic.
Table 5-1: Rigid Pavement Design Factors

Modulus of Rupture 750 psi
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 900 pci
Design Life 10 years
EASLs Million 109.79 Millions for 10 years
Elastic Modulus of Concrete 4,000,000 psi
Load Transfer Coefficient, J 3.2
Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.20
Loss of Support Value 0.5
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.645
Standard Deviation, So 0.35
ΔPSI 2.0
Based upon the information provided in Table 5-1, the recommended design slab thickness is:
Recommended Design Thickness = 15.0 inches (405 mm)
Tie Bar Size = #4 (0.5 inch (12.7mm) dia.
Tie Bar Spacing = 24 inches (610mm)
Tie Bar Length = 24 inches (610mm)
Dowel Bar Size = 1.5 inch (38mm) diameter placed at 12 inch (305mm) interval
Dowel Bar Length = 20 inches (508mm)
78
Final Design Parameters
Pavement Type = JPCP
Design PCC thickness = 15 inches (381mm)
Lean Concrete Base Layer = 6 inches (150mm)
Drainable Subbase Layer = 8 inches (200mm)
Type of shoulder = Tied PCC shoulders
Contraction Joint = Field molded sealant in reservoir
Longitudinal Joint = Butt joint with sealant
Requires Dowel and Tie Bars only (no Reinforcement Steel)
Typical Cross sections for N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi) to Wah Underpass (Taxila) Dual
Carriageway for 25 years with two alternates are attached as
79
OPTION-1 CROSS SECTIONS OF ROAD WITH

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT (FOR LTV) AND RIGID
PAVEMENT (FOR HTV)
80
81
OPTION-2 CROSS SECTIONS OF ROAD WITH

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT (FOR LTV & HTV)
82
83
84
85
86
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS OF N-80 ROAD

WITH FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT (NEAR TARNOL
RAILWAY CROSSING)
87
88
5.8.2.2 Discussion of Pavement Cross Section Options Using AASHTO
Following options for pavement structures were considered in the preliminary pavement structure
selection, using the AASHTO Design Guide:
Option-1 and 2 (Flexible Pavement for LTV & Rigid Pavement for HTV) From
Year 2013 to 2038:
Flexible Pavement Design
 Asphaltic Wearing Course = 50 mm

 Asphaltic Base Course = 160 mm
 Aggregate Base Course = 250mm
 Sub Base Course = 300 mm
 Subgrade at 95 % compaction = 300 mm
Rigid Pavement Design
 PCC Layer = 381 mm

 Lean Concrete Base Layer = 100 mm
 Drainable sub base = 200mm
 Subgrade at 95 % compaction = 300 mm
 Tie bar Provided 12.7mm Dia @610mm with length of 610mm
 Dowel bar Provided 38mm dia. @305mm with length 508mm
 Contraction Joint is field sealent and longitudinal joint is butt joint with sealant
Out of these two options, option 1 is economical for overall 25 years. The comparison of flexible and
rigid pavement is given in the article as under
Comparison between Flexible and Rigid Pavement
1. Per Kilometre Cost of flexible pavement is less than the rigid pavement cost.
2. Rutting is more in flexible pavement than the rigid pavement.

3. Flexible pavement is used for the areas where subgrade quality is good i.e. A4 type soil.
4. Whereas the rigid pavement can be laid where the subgrade condition is poor.
5. Maintainace cost of flexible pavement is less whereas for rigid pavement is very high.
6. Design life of flexible pavement is less i.e. 10 years whereas for rigid pavement it is about 20
to 25 years.
Year wise Pavement Sections Description:
Following is the year wise pavement sections detail for options-1 and 2 using the AASHTO Design
Guide:
Option-1
From Taxila to Rawalpindi, Km 0+000 to Km 18+256.991 (From 2013 to 2038)
89
 Central median = 2000 mm

 Unpaved Inner Shoulder = 700 mm
 Paved Inner Shoulder = 1000mm
 One Lane of Flexible pavement (for LTV) = 3650 mm
 Two lane of Rigid Pavement (for HTV) = 7300mm
 Paved Outer Shoulder = 3000 mm
 Unpaved outer Shoulder = 500mm
From Rawalpindi to Taxila , Km 0+000 to Km 18+256.991 (From 2013 to 2038)

 One Lane of Flexible Pavement (for LTV) = 3650 mm
 Two lane of Flexible Pavement (for HTV) = 7300mm
Option-2
From Margala Hills to Rawalpindi & Margala Hills to Taxila, Km 0+000 to Km

13+600 & Km 13+600 to Km 18+256.991 (From 2013 to 2038)

 Two Lane of Flexible Pavement (for LTV) = 7300 mm
 New Jersey Barrier = 600mm
 Two lane of Rigid Pavement (for HTV) = 7300mm
From Rawalpindi to Margala Hills & Taxila to Margala Hills , Km 0+000 to Km

13+600 & Km 13+600 to Km 18+256.991 (From 2013 to 2038)

 Two Lane of Flexible Pavement (for LTV) = 7300 mm
 New Jersey Barrier = 600mm
 Two lane of Flexible Pavement (for HTV) = 7300mm
90
5.8.2.3 Mechanistic Analysis
As mentioned the initial design was carried out using AASHTO 2004 design guide. This design in
theory could be checked by mechanistic-empirical method for determining strains at different layers.
The structural (cracking) and the functional condition (roughness, rutting) are predicted by use
of empirical relationships. In order to estimate the functional failures of the pavement, we had to
establish certain strain criteria.
There are a number of strain criteria which could be used for Mechanistic Analysis for example the
allowable tensile strain at bottom of asphalt layer ranges from 223 to 23 micro-strains. It is very
difficult to follow or select one criterion, since they are all developed for different set of conditions. The
reason for these differences if not only, the variation in the design mix (bitumen content, voids,
types of aggregates and grading etc) but also the difference in climate (precipitation,
temperature ranges, sunshine hours etc).
Therefore in absence of a reliable strain criterion for the conditions prevailing in Pakistan like the
temperature ranges, mix design, aggregate types etc, it is simply guess work to adopt any strain
model and mechanistic analysis is un relevant for our conditions.
5.8.2.4 Discussion of Design Assumptions
The final design has been selected by taking into account the following factors:
The project soils are suitable for road rehabilitation/reconstruction except at some places where soil is
A6 type and hence borrow sources are near the vicinity of the road, which conforms to the
specifications to be used.
We propose to use a soil of CBR equals to 7% in the subgrade and all the design activities are based
on this assumption. Material of 7% CBR is to be used as subgrade (Select Fill). The similarity in the
subgrade CBR throughout the construction length would provide ease in construction, maximum
uniformity in the pavement and uniformity in the performance of these sections over the design period.
The structural number for this pavement design is 6.51. The required structural number “SN" as per
AASHTO is 5.05, whereas the structural number obtained from the alternate/optimized design
(Asphalt Course, Aggregate base arid Granular Subbase) is 6.51, which is more than the required
one.
In the past, stress has been given to design the pavement using Mechanistic Analysis. The most
important input data required for the mechanistic analysis is the characterization of the
material properties. The definitive material property used to characterize the subgrade in the
AASHTO Design Guide is the resilient modulus (Mr). Special equipment is required to carry out these
tests, which no agency in Pakistan has acquired to date.
The currently used equation (Mr = 2555*(CBR)^0.64, to determine the Mr from the CBR, is an
empirically developed equation and is good for CBRs up to ten only. We need research in Pakistan to
determine and verify the above relation, rather than relying on the empirical values. Moreover certain
other queries are still to be resolved; regarding the mechanistic procedures. For example, what is the
relationship between laboratory and field determined layer properties? Which procedure should be
91
used to develop a mechanistic empirical design procedure? What testing protocols should be
followed? What types and frequencies of tests are needed? Are these methods more cost effective?
AASHTO has not established any mechanistic design procedure and is planning to publish a
mechanistic empirical pavement design procedure by the year 2002. Significant effort would be
required separately for establishing the stress strain criteria for conditions prevailing in Pakistan.
Currently we use linear elastic theory for the mechanistic analysis, whereas the materials, especially
asphalt has shown non-elastic behaviour under stress.
Granular materials and the subgrade soils are non-linear with an elastic modulus varying with the
level of stresses. The resilient modulus of granular materials increases with the increase in stress
intensity, while that of fine grained soils decreases with the increase in stress intensity. Thus the
Mr value is stress dependent and the coefficient that relates Mr to CBR should be stress dependent,
and not a constant value.
It is a fact that the prevalent design methodologies, developed overseas and for a certain range of
conditions, cannot be efficiently applied in Pakistan. All these factors urged the need of developing a
realistic design procedure for the conditions prevailing in Pakistan. Moreover there are certain other
factors which lead to the premature failure of pavements in Pakistan e.g.
 Saturation of aggregate layers or improper drainage provision.
 High pavement temperatures.

 Extreme axle load.
 High tyre pressures.
 Presence of excessive fines in the aggregate layers.
 Improper use of Marshall Mix design procedures, including the densities that are achieved in
the field and the laboratories, and size and shape of the aggregates.
The design proposed by us has minimum asphalt as compared to the mechanistic procedure. As
discussed above the mechanistic procedures due developed for certain set of conditions, which may
or may not exist in Pakistan.
The design proposed by us has minimum asphalt as compared to the mechanistic procedure. As
discussed above the mechanistic procedures due developed for certain set of conditions, which may
or may not exist in Pakistan. Therefore the design with less asphalt and a very stiff base and subbase
is proposed.
In Pakistan AASHTO Guide for pavement Structures is often used for developing pavement
structural design but the table below compares the traffic loading conditions for which the AASHTO
design procedure was developed and those existing in Pakistan:
Traffic Loading Comparison of AASHTO Road Test and Pakistan
Max. Single Axle Max Tandem Axle Max Tridem Axle Max Truck Load Max Tyre
Load (ton) Load (ton) Load (ton) (ton) Pressure (psi)
AASHTO 13.6 21.8 None 48 85
Pakistan 24 42 50 80 160
92
Considering the above facts, serious doubts about using the AASHTO design criteria exists,
therefore we must propose such designs which suit our conditions and temperatures.
Typical Cross Sections for the Pavement Design for N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi) top Wah
Underpass (Taxila) for 25 years with two alternates are attached above.
Bus Bays where required have also been provided. Typical Cross Section of the Bus Bay is attached
as Fig below.
U-turns are provided where necessary. Details of existing U-turns are given in the linear Plan below.
Typical cross sections for U-turn is attached as Fig.
93
94
95
96
List of U-Turns
Existing U-Turns
Sr No. Chainage Location

1 1+200 Near Chattah Construction (Left)
2 1+700 Afridi Nursery (Left)
3 3+200 Masjid and Awan Training Centre (Left)
4 3+400 Near Road to Fateh Jang (Left)
5 3+750 Ittefaq Colony (Left)
6 4+980 Ramzan CNG (Left)
7 5+600 Attock CNG (Right)
8 7+000 Near Sanjani Toll Plaza
9 8+200 Derbaar Sai Jhaly Serkar (Right)
10 9+400 Prime CNG (Left)
11 9+800 Hospital (Right)
12 10+020 PSO (Left)
13 11+210 Masjid (Left)
14 11+800 PSO (Right)
15 12+380 Multi Gsarden Housing Society (Left)
16 13+000 PSO Office (Left)
17 13+800 Govt. Degree College (Right)
18 14+780 Railway line (Right)
19 15+400 Haider CNG (Right)
20 15+700 Service Station (Left)
21 16+600 Drain (Left )
22 17+300 Kohsar Colony Phase-II
Proposed U-Turns

1 0+900 Graveyard (Left)
2 1+700 Afridi Nursery (Left),Existing
3 3+200 Masjid and Awan Training Centre (Left), Existing
4 3+400 Near Road to Fateh Jang (Left), Existing
5 3+750 Ittefaq Colony (Left), Existing
6 4+900 Masjid (Right)
7 6+000 Block Factory (Left)
8 7+000 Near Sanjani Toll Plaza, Existing
11 9+800 Hospital (Right), Existing
9 10+200 FECTO Cement Factory (Right)
10 11+210 Masjid (Left), Existing
11 12+380 Multi Gsarden Housing Society (Left), Existing
12 13+800 Govt. Degree College (Right), Existing
13 15+780 Floor Mill (Right)
14 17+300 Kohsar Colony Phase-II
5.9 Geometric Design
97
Geometric design of the N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi) to Wah Underpass (Taxila) Dual Carriageway
will be carried out using the Eagle Point Software, a comprehensive highway design and
drafting computer software with complete capabilities of geometric design, earthwork and pavement
volumes computation and drafting.
The geometric standards have been used as specified in the AASHTO Geometric Design Guide for
design speed 120 km/h and as per the Terms of Reference.
5.9.1 Horizontal Alignment
Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the existing road corridor will be generated using northing,
easting, elevation and code/description of the points collected with Total Station, with the help of
Data Collection and Surface Modelling software included in Eagle Point Highway designing system.
Horizontal geometries will meet the design criteria specified.
5.9.2 Super elevation
For small radius curves and at higher speed, the removal of adverse cross slope alone will be
insufficient to reduce frictional needs to an acceptable level, and cross fall should be increased by the
application of super elevation. Small radius curves are super elevated in order to counter act the
effect of centrifugal force. Super elevation has been defined corresponding to the design speed and
curve radius. Maximum of 6% super elevation will be provided and super elevation transition lengths
will be provided as per the AASHTO design standards.
5.9.3 Vertical Alignment
Vertical alignment will be designed by standards set out in the Terms of Reference in conjunction
with the AASHTO Design Guide, on the same software as used for horizontal alignment.
Natural ground profile for the designed horizontal alignment will be extracted from the DTM with the
use of RoadCalc/Eagle Point. Wherever alignment intersects with a triangle, a data point is generated.
All the generated points are then used to create a profile. Stationing for profile is with regard to the
alignment for which this profile was generated.
Design vertical grade line will be fixed by placing the vertical point of intersections (VPIs) at suitable
locations using computer graphic screen while viewing the natural ground profile. Locations of VPIs
will be selected precisely, thereby matching the design profile with the designed thickness of
pavement structure and its implementation methodology. This vertical profile design practice has
reduced the unnecessary fill quantities, thereby reducing the ultimate cost of the project.
In order to avoid an abrupt change in slope in passing from one grade to another, vertical curves of
parabolic nature, will be used in vertical alignment. Both sag and crest curves shall be applied based
on the topography of the terrain. While fixing the design vertical profile, minimum sight distances,
minimum vertical curve length and allowable maximum gradients will be kept in mind as governing
criteria.
Several trials will be made to achieve the most economical design having optimal cut and fill
quantities, while maintaining all horizontal &vertical geometric design standards.
5.9.4 Sight Distances
98
The ability to see ahead is of utmost importance in the safe operation of the highway transportation
system. The paths and speeds of motor vehicles are subjected to the personal and uncontrolled
habits of individual drivers. Therefore in order to promote adequate safety and to provide maximum
capacity of a highway facility, it is vitally necessary that a road at all points be opened to view for
a distance sufficient to enable the driver to control the speed of his vehicle, so as to avoid
striking unexpected obstacles in his path; and at frequent intervals the road should be opened to view
for a distance sufficient to enable the driver to pass vehicles without hazards.
The geometric design shall meet the criteria for passing sight distances.
5.9.5 Determination of Stopping Sight Distance
Minimum desirable stopping sight distance is the combination of two distances. One is the distance
travelled by the vehicle from the instant the stationery object is visible to the instant the brake is
applied. The other is the distance required to stop the vehicle after the brakes are applied. The first of
these two depends on the speed of the vehicle and the sum of the perception time and the brake
reaction time. The second distance depends on the speed of the vehicle; the characteristics and
conditions of the brakes, tires, and pavement surface and the alignment and grade of the highways.
The average brake reaction time is 1/2 second. In the development of the recommended non passing
sight distance, a braking reaction time of full one Second is assumed in order to take care of the
majority of the drivers rather than the average drivers. The perception time likewise is different for
different drivers, the fastest drivers being alert, usually have a lower perception time.
The approximate braking distance of vehicle on a level highway may be determined by use of the
formula:
d=v ∧2/2 fg
Where,
d = braking distance in feet;
v = velocity of the vehicle when the brakes are applied, in feet per second,
f = coefficient of friction b/w t re and road surface;
g = acceleration of gravity, in feet per second per second
Sight distances shall cater to safety requirements as per applicable codes.
Criteria for Different Parameter of Geometric Design:
1. Design Speed (Max.):

For Carriageway 120 KPH
2. Horizontal Curvature (Min.): 755 m

3. Maximum Super Elevation 6.0 %
4. Transverse Slope (Camber):
Pavement 2.0 %
Shoulders 4.0 %
5. Stopping Sight Distance (Min.): 250m
6. Passing Sight Distance (Min.): 775m

7. Gradient (Max.): 4%
99
8. Length of Vertical Curve (Min.): 72 m

9. Width of Pavement on Either Sides 10.95 m
10. Width of Inner Shoulder on Either Side 1.0 m
11. Width of Outer Shoulder on Either Side 3.0 m
12. Embankment Height Varies
13. Embankment Side Slope:
Fill. 1:2
14. Right of Way (Min.):
Flat Terrain 40 m
In Restricted Area/Built-up Area Available R.OW. width
15. Slab Culverts Span in Meters (Min.):
Cross Drainage (Generally) 1.00 m
Side Drains width in millimeters (Min.) To be provided wherever required as per site
conditions
5.9.6 Templates and Volumes
The design templates will be made depending upon the type of soil, designed Thicknesses of different
layers of the Pavement structure and drainage details. These templates determine the cut and fill
volume, catch points, cross section and other design elements. The software processes these
templates for the road alignment giving the complete data for the designed surfaces. After processing
of templates along the horizontal and vertical alignments, end areas, cut and fill, earthwork volumes
will be computed.
5.9.7 Plan and Profile Sheets
All plan and profile drawings will be created from the DTM of the project with the use of Eagle Point,
on standard A3 size sheets, with a scale Horizontal 1:1000 and Vertical1:100.
On the plan portion of the sheet, all the manmade and natural topographic features along the road
alignment will be shown. Horizontal alignment design data including stationing after every 200 M
interval, stationing of point of intersection, co-ordinates of each PI, deflection angle, tangent lengths,
radius, length of curve, chord length, external and middle ordinates and stationing of beginning and
end of horizontal curve will be shown. All the traverse points with their co-ordinates and bench marks
with their reduced elevations will also be shown on the plan portion. In addition, Right of Way, Centre
Line and edge of shoulders shall also be shown on the plan. This information will be much more
accurate and detailed
5.10 Cross Drainage Structures
The condition of most of the structures is satisfactory while minor structures will be
rehabilitated/reconstructed between N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi) to Wah Underpass (Taxila).
However most bridges, would be retained.
100
Due to the widening of the existing highway, extension of these structures has to be done in order to
improve the geometric and reduce the chances of accidents. Bridges will be extended as per the
requirement and condition.
Generally the type of treatment required for the structures can be grouped as:
a) Those structures, which require minor repairs. This includes repair of the broken parapet
walls, head walls, wing walls, piers and abutments.
b) The structures which are unsound structurally including the cracked slab and arch etc.
c) The structures which require extension due to rehabilitation and widening.
d) The structures which require de-silting and cleaning.
e) New drainage structure: to provide for storm run-off drainage.
5.10.1 Design of New Structures
The major types of structures are:
a) Bridges
b) Slab culverts
The basic design criteria and procedures that will be adopted in the design of bridges/ new slab
culverts/ reconstruction and extension of existing slab culverts are the same as recommended by the
West Pakistan Code of Practice for Design of Highway Bridges 1967" and "Standard specifications for
Highway Bridges AASHTO". The traffic loading adopted for the design is Class A and Class AA
tracked vehicle/ whichever produces the maximum stresses.
Cost for the construction of structures have been included in the cost estimate. Since all the bridges
are not proposed to be constructed during this stager therefore cost estimates calculated for the future
overlays also caters for the construction/rehabilitation for the structures/bridges.
5.11 Ancillary Works
Ancillary facilities include pavement markings/ Road Posts and Hazard Structures/Reflectorized
Pavement Studs/ Gantry Signs, Traffic Signs and Traffic lights near Toll Plazas. All these are provided
to enhance the road safety.
5.11.1 Pavement Marking
Pavement marking has been proposed to regulate the traffic and for the safety of road users. Since
the project existing road is dual carriageway with three lanes of 10.95 meters on each sides with
shoulders/ therefore continuous pavement marking of both edges of the pavement and discontinuous
marking at the centre will be provided all along the length of the project.
Pavement marking will be done by 15 cm thick continuous lines with reflective yellow paint at both
edges of the pavement. Centreline will be marked with 15 cm thick discontinuous line with reflective
paint. Where overtaking is prohibited due to any factory centre line marking will be done continuous.
Details for the pavement marking will be provided in the preliminary drawings.
5.12 Road Signs
Informatory, regulatory and warning signs have been proposed to be fixed required locations for
proper guidance and information for the road users. The informatory signs will indicate distances and
101
directions to various destinations from a particular point along the road. Signs for other public
utilities will also be included in the category of the informatory signs.
Regulatory signs will be helpful in informing the road users of special obligation, restrictions or
prohibitions, which they must comply with.
Warning signs are intended to warn the road users of a danger on the road and to inform them of its
nature.
Other than these signs Gantry signs for information/distances of the main towns/cities will also be
provided.
5.13 Toll Plazas and other Structures
The existing Toll plaza is located near Sangjani at Chainage Km 7+800 and we are proposing that it
will work during the rehabilitation/reconstruction period of the road which is generally 2 years. We are
also proposing the two toll plazas, one is located near Khayaban-e-Kashmir Road at chainage Km
1+100 and other near road to Khan Pur just before the Wah Underpass (Taxila) at chainage Km
17+100.
There are two existing weigh stations of NHA, one is near Multi Garden Housing Society at chainage
Km 11+500 and other is located near CDA Housing Scheme at chainage 12+000 on opposite side of
first weigh station. For proper monitoring and to control the overloading of trucks, we are proposing
another weigh station between Old GT Road and road to Khan Pur at chainage Km 14+600. We are
proposing the sevice area location near Nicholson Tower (Historical Monument) at chainage Km
12+700.Proposed maintenance compound is proposed opposite of CDA Housing scheme at chainage
Km 12+100.
It is important to note that the location of toll plazas, service area and maintenance compound will be
finalized by the client at detail design stage.
Toll Plazas and other structures will be constructed as per the standards and the cost has been
included in the Cost Estimates. Typical lay out of the Toll Plaza for N-5/M-2 junction to Wah
Underpass is attached as Fig below:
102
103
For location and Chainage of toll plazas and weigh stations follow the tables below:
List of Toll Plazas
Existing Toll Plazas
Sr No. Chainage Description Location

1 7+800 Sangjani Toll Plaza Near Sangjani
Proposed Toll Plazas
Sr No. Chainage Description Location

1 1+100 Toll plaza No.1 Near Khayaban-e-Kashmir Road
2 17+100 Toll plaza No.2 Between Khan Pur Road and Wah Underpass
List of Weigh Stations
Existing Weigh Station

1 11+500 Near Multi Garden Society
2 12+000 Near CDA Housing Scheme
Proposed Weigh Station

1 11+500 Near Multi Garden Society
2 12+000 Near CDA Housing Scheme
104
5.14 Structural Design
5.14.1 Cross Drainage Structures
5.14.2 Design of New Structures
[Awaited from Hameed Ajmal Sheikh / Ahsan Cheema]
105
5.15 Implementation of ITS
5.16 Ancillary Works
5.16.1 Pavement Marking
5.16.2 Lighting
5.17 Road Signs and Safety Plan
5.18 Facilities
5.18.1 Tool Plaza
5.18.2 Service/Rest Area
5.18.3 Weighing Station
5.18.4 Maintenance Compound
5.18.5 Landscaping
5.19 Preliminary Design Drawings
5.19.1 Typical Cross-Section of Highway
5.19.2 Plan of Turnol Flyover
5.19.3 Number, Location and Type of Pedestrian Crossings
5.19.4 Linear Plan of Road Section
5.19.5 Typical Drawing for Toll Plazas
5.19.6 Typical Drawing for Weigh Stations
5.19.7 Allied Facilities (Maintenance Compound, Service Areas etc.)
5.19.8 ITS System
5.19.9 Landscaping
106
Chapter-6 Methodology
6.1 Construction Methodology
6.1.1 Construction Plan
6.1.2 Traffic Diversion Plans
6.1.3 Work Zone Safety Plans
6.1.4 Resource Requirements
6.1.4.1 Machinery and Plant
6.1.4.2 Labor
6.1.4.3 Material
6.1.5 Type of Structure and Erection Technology
6.2 Construction Supervision Methodology
6.2.1 Supervision Procedure
6.2.2 Project Monitoring
6.2.3 Quality Control – Testing and Procedures
6.2.4 Environmental Management Plan
1
Chapter-7 Operation and Maintenance
7.1 Approach Towards Operation and Maintenance
7.2 Organization
7.2.1 Managing the Carriageway
7.2.2 Operational Matters
7.2.3 Project Coordination
7.2.4 O&M Team Tasks
7.2.5 Maintenance & Maintenance Plan
7.2.6 Operation and Maintenance Manual
7.2.7 Special Maintenance and Weather Emergencies
7.2.8 Works Coordination Data
7.2.9 Route Strategies and Performance Indicators
7.2.10 Overlays and Reconstruction Activities
7.2.11 Environmental Awareness
1
Chapter-8 Work Programs
1
Chapter-9 Cost Estimates and Quantities
1
Chapter-10 Bid Bond
1
Chapter-11 Statement of Proposed Technical Changes
1
Chapter-12 Statement of Land Requirement
1
Annexure: Information of Technical Associates
Annexure 1 Introduction of Technical Associate
Annexure 2 Design & Supervision Related Experience
1
1

Improvement and Widening of G.T Road (N-5), Pavement Design Methodology (Chapter-5)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improvement and Widening of G.T Road (N-5), Pavement Design Methodology (Chapter-5)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improvement / Widening of N-5 From N-5/M-2 Junction (Rawalpindi)

to Wah Underpass (Taxila) on Build-Operate-Transfer Basis

Chapter-5 Design Outline/Methodology

5.1 Preliminary Design Criteria

[Awaited from Hameed Ajmal Sheikh]

5.2 Traffic Study

5.2.1 Importance of Reliable Estimation of Traffic

5.2.2 Manual Traffic Count

5.2.3 Daily and Seasonal Factors

5.2.4 Normal Traffic

5.2.5 Diverted Traffic

5.2.6 Generated Traffic

5.2.7 Willingness to Pay Survey

5.2.8 Traffic Growth Rates

5.2.9 Traffic Projections

[Draft attached below] - Miss Maira

5.3 Capacity Analysis

[Awaited from Musharraf Ahmed Khan]

5.4 Axle Load Analysis

5.4.1 Determination of ESALs

5.4.2 Effect of other Factors on Pavement

5.4.3 Axle Load Limit and Weigh Stations

[Awaited from Humayoun Shafique]

5.5 Soil Investigation and Testing

5.5.1 Analytical Analysis of Existing Soils

5.5.2 Recommendations of Swell Control

[Awaited from Humayoun Shafique]

5.6 Recommendations Regarding Material Procurement

[Awaited from Humayoun Shafique]

5.7 Pavement Evaluation

5.7.1 Road Condition Survey

5.7.2 Pavement Functional Evaluation

5.7.3 Pavement Structural Evaluation

[Awaited from Humayoun Shafique]

5.8 Preliminary Pavement Design

5.7.4 Axle Load Analysis

1. Value of support of the sub grade soil.

5.7.4.1 Determination of ESALs

Table 3.7: Damaging Factor

2- Axle 0.043 6.49

BOT Project for Construction, Operation & Management of N-5 Section

BOT Project for Constuction, Operation & Management of N-5 Section

AXLE LOAD SURVEY / EQUIVALENCE FACTORS

Weighted Avg. Eq. Axle Factors Loaded : Empty

Vehicle Vehicle Code Loaded Empty 80 : 20

BOT Project for Constuction, Operation & Management of N-5 Section

EQUIVALENT SINGLE AXLE LOAD (ESAL) APPLICATIONS

Directional Distribution Factor = 0.5

Lane Distribution Factor = 1.0

5.7.4.2 Effect to other Factors on Pavement

5.7.4.3 Axle Load Limit & Weigh Stations

Axle Load Limit for Single Axle 12 Tonnes

5.7.5 Soil Investigation and Testing

 Soil classification using the AASHTO M145-91 classification method.

5.7.6 Test Results

Field Test Results

The following results were obtained:-

A total of 10 samples of sub grade were subjected to classification tests on proposed

Field Moisture Content

Laboratory Test Results:

 Moisture – Density Relationship

The test results are discussed as under:-

b) Moisture – Density Relationship