Project Draft

EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION VARIABILITY
ON PERFORMANCE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted to
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA
By
ANUJA AJITH
ATHUL A S
NIKHITHA RADHAKRISHNAN
SMRITHI K V
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MUTHOOT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
VARIKOLI PO, PUTHENCRUZ – 682308
JUNE 2021
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is our own work and that, to the
best of our knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously
published or written by another person nor material which has been accepted
for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other
institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been
made in the text.
ANUJA AJITH Signature

(MUT17CE012)
ATHUL A S Signature
(MUT17CE021)
NIKHITHA RADHAKRISHNAN Signature

(MUT17CE043)
SMRITHI K V Signature
(MUT17CE053)
Place: Varikoli
Date:11/06/2021
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the report entitled “EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION
VARIABILITY ON PERFORMANCE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS”,
submitted by ANUJA AJITH, ATHUL A S, NIKHITHA RADHAKRISHNAN
AND SMRITHI K V to Muthoot Institute of Technology and Science, Varikoli for
the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering is a bona
fide record of the project work carried out by them under our supervision and
guidance. The content of the report, in full or parts have not been submitted to any
other Institute or University for the award of any other degree or diploma.
Signed by Research Supervisor(s)with name(s)

and date VARIKOLI
11/06/2021
Signature of Head of the Department
(Office seal)
Effect of Construction Variability on the Performance Project Report-2021
of Flexible Pavements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project work is the product of hard work and experience and it goes a
long way in shaping a person in his respective profession. If words can be
considered as a token of acknowledgement, then these words play a vital role in
expressing our gratitude. First of all, we are thankful to God Almighty, for his choicest
blessings for the successful progress of this project.
We pay our deep sense of gratitude Ms. Remadevi M, Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, MITS, for providing us with all support to do this project, who owns a
nature of imparting her knowledge and expertise, which helped us to understand the
basic concepts and apply the same successfully for the completion of this work.
We would also like to express our sincere thanks to Dr. Neelakantan P. C, Principal
of Muthoot Institute of Technology & Science for his kind support throughout the
completion of this venture.
With great respect, we express our sincere thanks to Dr. Babu Kurian, Head of the
Department, Department of Civil Engineering for giving us all the proper guidance
and encouragement that helped us to complete this project. We would like to extend
our gratitude to Dr. Sandeep M S, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering
Department , for providing all the guidance regarding the project. We would also like
to express our sincere gratitude to Dr.Vishnu R, Assistant Professor, Civil
Engineering Department, NIT Warangal for his selfless support and the deep insight
he has offered to us in the completion of this project. His valuable lessons have helped
us immensely during this project. Last, but not the least, we are grateful to our friends
and parents for their valuable motivation and support.
ANUJA AJITH
ATHUL A S
NIKHITHA RADHAKRISHNAN
SMRITHI K V
Dept. of Civil Engineering i MITS, Varikoli

ABSTRACT
In today’s world, failure of the flexible pavement has become the most important and
exigent problem, which may be due to the low quality of materials used, variation in
design parameters, less and inadequate experience of the technical staff, and errors that
may occur during the construction of the pavement. Although well designed pavements
are being planned and implemented, the pavements fail to reach their design life and
expected performance. Studies and researches reveal that construction variability is an
important factor that affects the pavement life. This paper deals with the performance
evaluation of flexible pavements due to the effect of construction variability. The
parameters, thickness and density of the component layers were considered for the
performance evaluation using the IITPAVE software. Based on the obtained result, a
statistical analysis is also done for the rutting life and fatigue life of the pavement with
respect to the selected parameters. From the study it is found that, the variability of
pavement thickness and density affects both fatigue and rutting life. In the case of
fatigue life, the bituminous layer is more prone to variations in thickness than the
granular layer, but in the case of rutting life, variations are more prone in the granular
layer. Variations due to density have a drastic effect on the subgrade layer, which in
turn results in extensive variations in the pavement service life.
Keyword: Flexible Pavements, Performance Evaluation, Construction Variability,

IITPAVE.
Dept. of Civil Engineering ii MITS, Varikoli

TABLE OF CONTENT
Topic Page no
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 PAVEMENTS 2
1.2.1 Flexible Pavements 3
1.2.2 Rigid Pavements 5
1.3 PAVEMENT FUNCTIONS 6
1.3.1 Provide a reasonably smooth riding surface 6
1.3.2 Provide adequate surface friction (Skid resistance) 6
1.3.3 Protect the subgrade 7
1.3.4 Provide waterproofing 7
1.4 PERFORMANCE OF PAVEMENTS 7
1.4.1 Functional performance 7
1.4.2 Structural performance 8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 GENERAL 10
2.2 COMMENTS ON LITERATURE SURVEY 15
2.3 OBJECTIVES 17
2.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 17
2.5 METHODOLOGY 18
2.6 SCOPE 18
3 ANALYTICAL STUDY OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS 19
3.1 INTRODUCTION 19
Dept. of Civil Engineering iii MITS, Varikoli

3.1.1 Cracking in bituminous pavements 20

3.1.2 Rutting in bituminous pavements 22
3.2 CRITICAL MECHANISTIC PARAMETERS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT 24
3.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN CATALOGUES 25
3.4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 26
3.4.1 Subgrade rutting criteria 26
3.4.2 Fatigue cracking criteria for bituminous layer 27
3.5 CALCULATION OF RESILIENT MODULUS FOR VARIOUS LAYERS 28
3.5.1 Resilient modulus of the subgrade 29
3.5.2 Resilient Modulus of Granular Subbase layer 29
3.5.3 Base layer 30
3.5.4 Bituminous layer 31
4 IITPAVE SOFTWARE 33
4.1 INTRODUCTION 33
4.2 STEPS FOR USING IITPAVE FOR ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT 34
4.3 INPUTS OF IITPAVE 36
4.3.1 Number of layers 36
4.3.2 Resilient Modulus 36
4.3.3 Poisson’s ratio 37
4.3.4 Thickness 37
4.3.5 Wheel load 38
4.3.6 Tyre pressure 38
4.3.7 Analysis points 39
4.4 OUTPUT OF IITPAVE 39
5 DATA COLLECTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
PAVEMENT 41
5.1 GENERAL 41
5.2 DATA GENERATION AND EVALUATION 41
5.2.1 Thickness Variation 43
5.2.1.1 Bituminous Layer 44
Dept. of Civil Engineering iv MITS, Varikoli

5.2.1.2 Granular Layer 49

5.2.2 Density Variation 53
5.2.2.1 Subgrade Layer 54
6 RESULTS AND FINDINGS 66
6.1 GENERAL 66
6.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RUTTING LIFE AND FATIGUE LIFE 66
6.2.1 Performance with respect to variability in thickness. 66
6.2.2 Performance with respect to variability in Density 72
6.2.2.1 Bituminous layer 72
6.2.2.3 Subgrade Layer 76
7 CONCLUSIONS 80
REFERENCES 82
Dept. of Civil Engineering v MITS, Varikoli

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page no.
1.1 Load distribution of flexible pavement. 4

1.2 Load distribution of rigid pavement. 6
3.1 Bottom up cracking 21
3.2 Top down cracking 22
3.3 Rutting in bituminous layer 23
3.4 A pavement section with bituminous layer(s), granular base and
GSB showing the locations of critical strains 25
3.5 Catalogue for pavement with bituminous surface course with
granular base and sub-base - Effective CBR 7% 26
3.6 Pavement cross-section when base and subbase layers are made of
unbound granular layer 31
4.1 Screenshot of IITPAVE start screen 34
4.2 Abridged Screen shot of Input Page of IITPAVE 35
4.3 No of layers 36
4.4 Resilient Modulus 36
4.5 Poisson’s Ratio 37
4.6 Thickness 38
4.7 Wheel load and wheel sets 38
4.8 Tyre pressure 39
4.9 Analysis points 39
4.10 Abridged screen shot of the output page 40
5.1 A Standard Normal Distribution Curve 42
5.2 Cross-section of pavement with bituminous, granular and subgrade
layers 43
5.3 Pavement layer thickness with an effective CBR 10% and 30 msa
traffic 43
5.4 A pavement section with bituminous layer(s), granular base and
GSB 46
5.5 Value input page in IITPAVE 47
Dept. of Civil Engineering vi MITS, Varikoli

5.6 Output page in IITPAVE 47

5.7 Relation between CBR and MDD 54
6.1 Frequency distribution of the thickness of bituminous layer 67
6.2 Frequency distribution of the Rutting Life of bituminous layer 67
6.3 Frequency distribution of the Fatigue life of Bituminous layer 68
6.4 Frequency distribution of variation in Thickness of granular layer 69
6.5 Frequency distribution of granular layer Rutting Life 70
6.6 Frequency distribution of granular layer fatigue life 70
6.8 Frequency distribution of rutting life of bituminous layer 73
6.9 Frequency distribution of fatigue life of the bituminous layer 73
6.10 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of granular layer 74
6.11 Frequency distribution of rutting life of the granular layer 75
6.12 Frequency distribution of fatigue life of granular layer 75
6.13 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of subgrade 76
6.14 Frequency distribution of rutting life of subgrade 77
6.15 Frequency distribution of subgrade fatigue life 77
Dept. of Civil Engineering vii MITS, Varikoli

LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page no.
3.1 Indicative values of resilient modulus (MPa) of bituminous mixes 32

5.1 Generated values of bituminous layer thickness 44
5.2 Results of the Performance Evaluation of bituminous layer as per
variation in Thickness 48
5.3 Generated values of granular layer thickness 50
5.4 Results of the Performance Evaluation of granular layer as per
5.5 Generated values of Resilient Modulus for Subgrade layer 55
5.6 Results of Performance Evaluation of Subgrade Layer as per
variation due to Resilient Modulus 56
5.7 Generated values of resilient modulus of Granular layer 58
5.8 Results of Performance Evaluation of Granular layer due to
variation in Resilient Modulus 60
5.9 Generated values of Resilient Modulus of Bituminous layer 62
5.10 Results of the Performance Evaluation of Bituminous layer as
per variation in resilient modulus 63
6.1 Statistical parameters of performance of bituminous layer based
on variation in Thickness 68
6.2 Statistical parameters of performance of granular layer based on
6.3 Statistical Parameters of Rutting life based on variation in
Thickness 71
6.4 Statistical Parameters of fatigue life analysis based on variation in
thickness 71
6.5 Statistical analysis of performance of bituminous layer based on
Resilient moduli 74
6.6 Statistical analysis of performance of granular layer based on
resilient moduli 76
Dept. of Civil Engineering viii MITS, Varikoli

6.7 Statistical Analysis of performance of subgrade layer based on

resilient moduli 78
6.8 Statistical Parameters of rutting life analysis based on variation
in resilient modulus 78
6.9 Statistical Parameters of fatigue life analysis based on variation
in resilient modulus 79
Dept. of Civil Engineering ix MITS, Varikoli

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Bituminous Concrete….....……………………...…....……………………………..BC
Bituminous Macadam….....………………….……....……………………………..BM
California Bearing Ratio……………………...…………………………………...CBR
Cement Treated Base……………………………………………………………....CTB
Cement Treated Sub Base………………………………………………………..CTSB
Commercial Vehicle Per Day……………………………………………………CVPD
Coefficient of Variation…..…………………………………………………….....COV
Degree Celsius………………………………………………………………….......C
Dense Bituminous Macadam……………………………………………………..DBM
Granular Base……………………………………………………………………….GB
Granular Sub Base…………………………………………………………………GSB
Hot Mix Asphalt…....….....…………………..…....……………………………..HMA
Indian Road Congress……………………………………………………………....IRC
Indian Standard…………………………………………………………………….....IS
Kilo Newton………………………………………………………………………...KN
Maximum Dry Density……………………………………………….………......MDD
Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide………….…………………...MEPDG
Ministry of Road Transport & Highway…………..…………………………...MoRTH
Mega Pascal………………………………………………………………………..MPa
Million Standard Axle……………………………………………………………...msa
Millimetre………………….………………………………………………………..mm
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement……………………………………………………...RAP
Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer………….……………………………….SAMI
Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete……………………………………………….SDBC
Water Bound Macadam…………………………………………………………..WBM
Wet Mix Macadam………………………………………………………………WMM
Dept. of Civil Engineering x MITS, Varikoli

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Transportation contributes to the economic, industrial, social and cultural

development of any country and is vital for the economic development of any region
since every commodity produced whether it is food, clothing, industrial products or
medicine needs transport at all stages from production to distribution. The
inadequate transport facilities retard the process of socio-economic development of
the country. The adequacy of the transportation system of a country indicates its
economic and social development. It is an accepted fact that of all the modes of
transportation, road transport is the nearest to the people. The passengers and the
goods have to be first transported by road before reaching a railway station or a port
or an airport. The road network alone could serve the remotest villages of a vast
country like India. It has been shown that a paved surface in reasonably good
condition can contribute to 15 to 40 per cent savings in vehicle operation cost. This
is very significant from the point of view of the energy crisis and the conservation
of petroleum fuel. Thus, it is all the more important to construct and maintain road
pavements in good conditions.
With the transition of the transport system from just a mode of transport to being
the backbone of the nation’s economy, the usage of road networks and their
expansion has been drastic. The number of vehicles has seen an exponential growth
over the last few decades. With this increasing significance of the road networks
and their usage, it has become essential that performance evaluation of these
pavements be conducted to analyze their life span and potential risks if any.
Dept. of Civil Engineering 1 MITS, Varikoli

A massive volume of road materials is always involved in the construction of

pavements. The economical consideration will have a significant effect on the
degree of variation for quality control and construction performance. Layer
thicknesses play an important role in the response of flexible pavements on service.
Accurate and reliable pavement performance predictions during a pavement’s
design life are of vital importance to minimize the risk of premature failure.
1.2 PAVEMENTS
Pavement is an assemblage of construction materials, constructed layer by layer,

which is intended to carry vehicular load. In order to provide a stable and even
surface for the traffic, the roadway is provided with a suitably designed and
constructed pavement structure. The pavement carries the wheel loads and transfers
the load stresses through a wide area on the soil subgrade below. Thus, the stresses
transferred to the subgrade soil through the pavement layers are considerably lower
than the contact pressure or compressive stresses under the wheel load on the
pavement surface. The reduction in the wheel load stress due to the pavement
depends both on its thickness and the characteristics of the pavement layers. A
pavement layer is considered more effective or superior if it is able to distribute the
wheel load stress through a larger area per unit depth of the layer. However, there
will be a small amount of temporary deformation even on a good pavement surface
when heavy wheel loads are applied. One of the objectives of a well designed and
constructed pavement is therefore to keep this elastic deformation of the pavement
within the permissible limits, so that the pavements can sustain a large number of
repeated load applications during the design life. Based on the alignment and the
environmental conditions of the site, the pavement may be constructed over an
embankment, cut or almost at the ground level itself. It is always desirable to
construct the pavement well above the maximum level of the ground water to keep
the subgrade relatively dry even during monsoons.

Based on the structural behavior, pavements are generally classified into two
categories:
• Flexible pavements
• Rigid pavements
1.2.1 Flexible Pavements
Flexible pavements are those, which have low or negligible flexural strength and
are rather flexible in their structural action under the loads. The flexible pavement
layers reflect the deformation of the lower layers onto the surface of the layer. Thus,
if the lower layer of the pavement or soil subgrade is undulated, the flexible
pavement surface also gets undulated. A typical flexible pavement consists of four
components:
• Subgrade
• Sub-base course
• Base course and
• Surface course
The flexible pavement layers transmit the vertical or compressive stresses to the
lower layers by grain to grain transfer through the points of contact in the granular
structure. A well compacted granular structure consisting of strong graded
aggregate (interlocked aggregate structure with or without binder materials) can
transfer the compressive stresses through a wider area and thus forms a good
flexible pavement layer. The load spreading ability of this layer therefore depends
on the type of the materials and the mix design factors. Bituminous concrete is one
of the best flexible pavement layer materials. Other materials which fall under the
group are, all granular materials with or without bituminous binder, granular base
and sub-base course materials like Water Bound Macadam, crushed aggregate,
gravel, soil-aggregate mixes, etc.

Fig 1.1 Load distribution of flexible pavement.

(Source: www.iosrjournals.org ISSN: 2278-1684, PP: 09-15)
Figure 1 1.1 Load distribution of flexible pavement.
The vertical compressive stress is maximum on the pavement surface directly under
the wheel load and is equal to the contact pressure under the wheel. Due to the
ability to distribute the stresses to a larger area in the shape of a truncated cone, the
stresses decrease at the lower layers. Therefore, by taking full advantage of the
stress distribution characteristics of the flexible pavement, the layer system concept
was developed. According to this, the flexible pavement may be constructed in a
number of layers and the top layer has to be the strongest as the highest compressive
stresses are to be sustained by this layer, in addition to the wear and tear due to the
traffic. The lower layers have to take up only lesser magnitudes of stresses and there
is no direct wearing action due to traffic loads, therefore inferior materials with
lower cost can be used in the lower layers. The lowest layer is the prepared surface
consisting of the local soil itself, called the subgrade. A typical cross section of
flexible pavement consists of a wearing surface at the top, below which is the base
course followed by the sub-base course and the lowest layer consists of the soil
subgrade which has the lowest stability among the four typical flexible pavement
components. Each of the flexible pavement layers above the subgrade, viz. sub-
base, base course and the surface course may consist of one or more number of
layers of the same or slightly different materials and specifications. Flexible
pavements are commonly designed using empirical design charts or equations
taking into the account of the design factors. There are also semi-empirical and
theoretical design methods.

1.2.2 Rigid Pavements
Rigid pavements are those which possess noteworthy flexural strength or flexural
rigidity. The stresses are not transferred from grain to grain to the lower layers as
in the ease of flexible pavement layers. The rigid pavements are made of Portland
cement concrete- either plain, reinforced or prestressed concrete. The plain cement
concrete slabs are expected to take-up about 40kg/cm² flexural stress. The rigid
pavement has the slab action and is capable of transmitting the wheel load stresses
through a wider area below. The main point of difference in the structural behaviour
of the rigid pavement as compared to the flexible pavement is that the critical
condition of stress in the rigid pavement is the maximum flexural stress occurring
in the slab due to wheel load and the temperature changes whereas in the flexible
pavement it is the distribution of compressive stresses. As the rigid pavement slab
has tensile strength, tensile stresses are developed due to the bending of the slab
under wheel load and temperature variations. Thus, the types of stresses developed
and their distribution within the cement concrete slab are quite different. The rigid
pavements do not get deformed to the shape of the lower surface as it can bridge
the minor variations of lower layer
The cement concrete pavement slab can very well serve as a wearing surface as well
as an effective base course Therefore usually the rigid pavement structure consists
of a cement concrete slab, below which a granular base or sub-base course may be
provided. Though the cement concrete slab can also be laid directly over the soil
subgrade, this is not preferred particularly when the subgrade consists of fine graded
soil. Providing a good base or sub-base course layer under the cement concrete slab
increases the pavement life considerably and therefore works out more economical
in the long run. The rigid pavements are usually designed and the stresses are
analysed using the elastic theory, assuming the pavement as an elastic plate resting
over elastic or a viscous foundation.

Fig 1. 2 Load distribution of rigid pavement.

(Source: www.iosrjournals.org ISSN: 2278-1684, PP: 09-15)
Figure 2 1. 2 Load distribution of rigid pavement.
1.3 PAVEMENT FUNCTIONS
The primary functions of a pavement are to:
1.3.1 Provide a reasonably smooth riding surface
A smooth riding surface (Low Roughness) is essential for riding comfort, and over
the years it has become the measure of how road users perceive a road. Roughness
can arise from a number of causes, most often however it is from pavement distress
due to structural deformation.
1.3.2 Provide adequate surface friction (Skid resistance)
In addition to riding comfort, the other road user requirement is that of safety.
Safety, especially during wet conditions can be linked to a loss of surface friction
between the tyre and the pavement surface. A pavement must therefore provide
sufficient surface friction and texture to ensure road user safety under all conditions.

1.3.3 Protect the subgrade
The supporting soil beneath the pavement is commonly referred to as the subgrade,
should it be over-stressed by the applied axle loads it will deform and lose its ability
to properly support these axle loads. Therefore, the pavement must have sufficient
structural capacity (strength and thickness) to adequately reduce the actual stresses
so that they do not exceed the strength of the subgrade. The strength and thickness
requirements of a pavement can vary greatly depending on the combination of
subgrade type and loading condition (magnitude and number of axle loads).
1.3.4 Provide waterproofing
The pavement surfacing acts as a waterproofing surface that prevents the underlying
support layers including the subgrade from becoming saturated through moisture
ingress. When saturated, soil loses its ability to adequately support the applied axle
loads, which will lead to premature failure of the pavement.
1.4 PERFORMANCE OF PAVEMENTS
Pavement conditions will reduce the level of service over time. It is characterized
by the occurrence of structural damage of the pavement layers in which, the neglect
for a long period can worsen the condition of the pavement layers that can affect
the traffic safety and comfort. Road pavement performance is determined based on
the requirements of the functional and structural condition. The functional
performance requirements relate to roughness, pavement surface aggravation, while
the structural condition requirements relate to the pavement strength or carrying
capacity in serving the load and the traffic flow.
1.4.1 Functional performance
It is a provision of comfort, smoothness and economy for users. Road users are only
bothered about the functional performance of the pavement. Functional evaluation

is in the form of information on the characteristics of pavement that directly affect

the safety and comfort of road users and road services. The main characteristics
surveyed in the functional evaluation are skid resistance, surface texture, and road
roughness in serviceability.
1.4.2 Structural performance
It is the structural adequacy of the pavement to withstand a load induced distress.

Load induced distress can be due to one single application of a heavy load or due
to repeated application of traffic loads. Structural evaluation is performed on the
damage of one or more pavement components causing the pavement to no longer
restrain the traffic load. An acceptable structural performance, along with an effort
to maintain pavement surface condition can ensure functional performance of the
pavement.
With the increasing transportation demands, a need for a well-developed

transportation system is on the rise. Although well designed pavements are being
planned and implemented, the pavements fail to reach their design life and expected
performance. Studies and researches reveal that construction variability is an
important factor that affects the life of the pavements. It is the difference in the
constructed pavement with respect to the designed pavement. In order to obtain the
expected design life, an acceptable structural performance along with an effort to
maintain pavement surface condition should be taken into account for the pavement
design.
The study aims at evaluating the effect of construction variability in the

performance of flexible Pavements. There are various factors which contribute to
the variability in construction such as the pavement thickness, the materials used,
density of each layer, the efficiency and skill of laborers, the equipment and
methods used, etc.

In this study, the effect of construction variability is studied by considering

the variation due to thickness and density in each layer.
Chapter II deals with the Literature Review. Chapter III is about the Analytical
Study of the Flexible Pavements as per IRC-37 2018. The Software that has been
used for the analysis, namely, IITPAVE has been explained in detail in Chapter IV.
Chapter V deals with the data collection. The evaluation of the pavements with
respect to the parameters, thickness and density are covered in Chapter VI. Chapter
VII includes the results and findings. The conclusions of the study are detailed in
Chapter VIII which is followed by the References.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
Performance evaluation in flexible pavement is an uncertain aspect due to many

reasons. There is primary uncertainty in traffic estimation, variability in material
parameters and various assumptions, approximations and empiricisms involved in
the analysis and design process. The existence of such uncertainties cannot be
avoided due to the complexity associated with pavement structures, materials
behavior, traffic characteristics, quality control factors, etc.
Almost every constructed road develops distresses randomly in different

subsections of the pavement. One reason for the random development of distress is
the variability in construction quality. As such the goal in this project is to analyze
and identify the variability in material properties that impact the performance of the
pavement to ensure a performance period that is compatible with the expected life
of the pavement. For the literature review, various research papers regarding the
pavement performance, construction variability, IITPAVE software as well as
several Indian Papers were considered so as to take into account the Indian climatic
conditions as well as the mobility conditions.
Paola Dalla Valle et al. (2018) [5] Pavement performance can vary significantly
due to variability in pavement layer thickness, which is mainly due to the
construction process and the quality control procedures in place. Thus, even though
a unique design thickness is specified for a road section, the actual (as-built)
thickness will vary. The sites considered for the analysis, all in the UK (including
Northern Ireland), were mainly motorways or major trunk roads. Pavement survey
data analysed were for Lane 1, the most heavily trafficked lane. Pavement layer

thickness variations were obtained from Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys.
This paper proves how variability of layer thickness (while keeping all the other
design parameters unchanged) affects the design life probability distribution. The
results from this study show that asphalt layer thickness variation significantly
affects the pavement performance, even when such variations are within the
tolerances allowed by UK construction specifications. On the other hand, layer
thickness variations in granular sub-base, within allowed limits, do not significantly
affect pavement performance.
Kang-Won Wayne Lee et al. (2017) [3] The paper used Pavement ME software for
evaluating performance of the pavements and thereby adopting suitable
rehabilitation strategies. Structural layers, climate and traffic spectrum were
accounted for the evaluation. The paper pointed out the consequences of using
Portland cement in the construction. The results indicated that all test sections
observed AC top-down (longitudinal) cracking except Portland cement section
which passed for all criteria. The order in terms of performance (best to worst) for
all test sections by Pavement ME was Portland cement, calcium chloride, control,
geogrid, and asphalt emulsion. It was also observed that all test sections passed for
both bottom up and top down fatigue cracking by increasing thickness of either of
the two top asphalt layers.
Dr. Pradeep K. Gupta et al. (2017) This paper focuses on the design of flexible
pavement as per the guidelines of IRC:37-2012 with an appropriate and productive
combination of maintenance and designed life. After many iterations in thickness,
the pavement is designed for calculated msa and with the obtained values of
horizontal and vertical strains the actual designed msa would be calculated and
checked for the fatigue and rutting type of failure when the pavement is designed
for a design life of 40 years or more
Cesar Sandoval et al. (2013) [8] The consistency of design and construction is an
important factor on pavement performance. Layer thicknesses play an important

role in the response of flexible pavements on service. Differences on layer thickness

between as-designed and as-built are significant in the performance of a pavement
structure. Colombian highway construction specification allows tolerances in
pavement layer thicknesses which may shorten the pavement service life. A study
was performed to investigate whether the allowed construction tolerances have a
significant effect on flexible pavement performance. Two flexible pavement
structures were analyzed; one structure included a cement-treated base layer. For
each structure, all layer thicknesses were varied simultaneously within the
construction tolerances by using statistical simulation techniques; a total of 100
variations were performed for each structure. The performance of the resulting
modified structures was evaluated using the companion software of the
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). The parameters
considered in this study were roughness, bottom-up cracking, and rutting. The
results show that reductions on thickness in the asphalt layer and the cement-treated
base layer, within construction tolerances, have significant effect on pavement
performance. Variations on layer thicknesses, within construction tolerance, of
granular base and sub-base have no significant effect on pavement performance.
Kuldeep Kalita et al. (2014) [7] Due to significant variability associated with the
input parameters of pavement life and traffic repetitions, the performance
evaluation in pavement design process becomes very uncertain. Uncertainty in
performance evaluation can be handled using probabilistic design methods. To
calculate probability or reliability, it needs distributions and the parameters of
distribution of the performance parameters, that is, pavement life and traffic
repetitions. This paper attempts to establish these distributions and their goodness
of fit based on statistical evidence. The uncertainty levels of traffic, pavement life
and the pavement damage parameters are studied for the possible ranges of
variations in different input parameters. Different possible combinations of
distribution are considered. Sensitivity of COV parameters is also studied for
reliability analysis in asphalt pavements. Finally, accounting the distributions and
COVs as well, a factor of safety concept has been introduced towards a reliability-

based deterministic design approach. Mechanistic–empirical (M–E) design method

and fatigue and rutting failures are considered in the present work.
Paola Dalla Valle et al. (2015) [1] Variability is described by statistical terms such
as mean and standard deviation and by its probability density distribution. The
subject of reliability in pavement design has pushed many highway organizations
around the world to review their design methodologies, mainly empirical, to move
towards mechanistic-empirical analysis and design which provide the tools for the
designer to evaluate the effect of variations in materials on pavement performance.
This study has only considered flexible pavements. The sites considered for the
analysis, all in the UK (including Northern Ireland), were mainly motorways or
major trunk roads. Pavement survey data analyzed were for Lane 1, the most heavily
trafficked lane. Statistical characterization of the variation of layer thickness,
asphalt stiffness and subgrade stiffness is addressed. A sensitivity analysis is then
carried out to assess which parameter(s) have the greatest influence on the pavement
life.This research has confirmed that the parameters with the greatest influence on
the variability of predicted fatigue performance are the asphalt stiffness modulus
and thickness. The parameters with the greatest influence on the variability of
predicted deformation performance are the granular subbase thickness, the asphalt
thickness and the subgrade stiffness. The probability distribution that best fits both
fatigue and deformation life was shown to be lognormal.
Deepak Baskandi (2015) [6] This paper examines the impact of development
boundaries on the properties & execution of thick reviewed bituminous blends.
Development and cycle control boundaries were different and their impact on
asphalt execution were ascertained. The fundamental variables considered were
bitumen binder content, varying compaction effect and percent air voids. Impact of
these properties on asphalt execution by assessing exhaustion and rutting execution
of asphalts were assessed.
Imad Abdallah et al. (2005) the goal in this project is to devise a tool that can be
used to identify and minimize variability in material properties that impact the
performance of the pavement to ensure a performance period compatible with the
expected life of the pavement. With that framework, structural models that predict

performance of pavements and material models that relate construction parameters

to primary design parameters were identified. Finally, a statistical algorithm that
relates the impact of each construction parameter to the performance of a pavement
is incorporated into the algorithm. The implementation of an effective performance-
based construction quality management requires a tool for determining impacts of
construction quality on the life-cycle performance of pavements. This report
presents the final efforts in the development of a statistical-based algorithm that
reconciles the results from several pavement performance models used in the state
of practice with systematic process control techniques. Guidelines for the short- and
long-term implementation of this methodology are included in this paper.
Harish G R (2017) [4] This paper uses a mechanistic empirical method for the
design of flexible pavements, which considers the performance of rutting and
fatigue in flexible pavements. These pavement responses were analyzed using
IITPAVE. IITPAVE is the multi-layer analysis programmer used for analysis of
flexible pavement and to determine the stresses at critical locations of the pavement.
In this case the road stretch is selected around Bangalore and engineering properties
of subgrade soil have been studied. The different pavement composition materials
like Cementitious Base and Cementitious Sub-base of aggregate interlayer for crack
relief are used here. Cementitious base and sub-base with SAMI at the interface of
base and the bituminous layer are provided. Foamed bitumen/bitumen emulsion
treated RAP or fresh aggregates Cementitious sub-base has been designed, analyzed
and compared with the conventional granular base and granular sub base. The use
of different composition materials in pavement structure improves serviceability in
comparison with conventional granular base and granular sub-base. From their
study it is concluded that the pavement which is designed will give better
serviceability because of substantial reduction in thickness, and also it is cost
effective compared to other pavement materials.
Dr. Pradeep K. Gupta et al. (2017) This paper focuses on the design of flexible
pavement as per the guidelines of IRC:37-2012 with an appropriate and productive
combination of maintenance and designed life. In this case, they have selected a
stretch of road in Panchkula in Haryana. After many iterations, the pavement is

designed for calculated msa and with the obtained values of horizontal and vertical
strains the actual designed msa would be calculated and checked for the fatigue and
rutting type of failure when the pavement is designed for a design life of 40 years
or more. Thus, the aim of the paper is to put forth design of flexible pavements with
granular Base and Sub-Base with the use of IIT Pave and IRC:37-2012 guidelines
thus using mechanistic empirical approach which is more scientific and reliable as
compared to conventional empirical approach.
2.2 COMMENTS ON LITERATURE SURVEY
A few papers from research articles have been taken as reference papers for this
project. The following conclusions can be drawn from the journal and article
references.
Although pavements are designed for a lifespan of 20 years, expecting

reconstruction and rehabilitation strategies at the end of the design life, actual
pavements often exhibit sections that undergo premature failures. The design of
pavement structures is a very complex and challenging task unlike other structures,
since it involves numerous variabilities, uncertainties and approximations of
various factors such as traffic loading, materials of construction, associated strains,
level of compaction achieved, vehicle axle type, temperature, loading rate,
moisture, etc. If any one of the layers does not meet the design requirements, the
pavement structure fails. The premature failures are localized and arise mainly due
to the difference in the constructed pavement with respect to the designed
pavement, commonly referred to as construction variability.
Construction variability is a major problem in the construction of flexible

pavements and their performance. This occurs due to low quality materials and poor
workmanship. Construction variability adversely affects the life and performance
of the pavements. Construction variability is seen in

• Variability in material.
The materials used may not be uniform or the quality may not be retained
throughout the entire cross section of the road. This paves way for variation
in the constructed pavement and thus affecting the pavement performance.
• Variability in pavement thickness
Pavement thickness variability means the change in the constructed

pavement while compared to the designed pavement thickness. Pavement
performance can vary significantly due to variability in pavement layer
thickness, which is mainly due to the construction process and the quality
control procedures in place. Thus, even though a unique design thickness is
specified for a road section, the actual (as-built) thickness will vary. The
thickness variation can be seen in all the different layers of the pavement.
Since the thickness is more in the subbase layer, the variation in the
thickness is more dominant in the subbase layer.
• Variability in density
Density is an important parameter that affects the pavement performance.

The level of compaction achieved, temperature and the moisture content of
the layers determine the life as well as the performance of the pavement.
The variability of pavement thickness affects both fatigue and deformation life.
• Fatigue
Fatigue cracking or alligator cracking is one of the major damages that reduce
the performance of the pavement. This type of crack starts from the lower
layers of the asphalt, where there is higher stress or strain, and slowly moves
upward as the frequency of loading increases. Furthermore, such cracking can
mainly initiate at the surface of the asphalt course layer/overlay due to thermal
fatigue loads including freeze/thaw cycles or daily or seasonal temperature
changes, and then propagate downwards through that layer. Therefore,
controlling fatigue cracking is one of the most important concerns.

• Rutting
Rutting is one of the most common functional distresses in flexible pavements.

It is defined as the permanent cumulative deformation in each pavement layer
under continuous traffic load, in which the asphalt layer damage has the most
important effect on the total rutting depth of pavement. Development of
permanent deformations reduces the service life of asphalt pavements. This
distress could also result in the reduction of safety level of the road networks
and incur considerable costs for the road maintenance agencies.
The constructed pavement layer thickness shouldn’t fall below the designed one.
This can be achieved by proper quality control and good workmanship.
In research conducted on characterization of variability in highway pavements, it
was reported that among the measures of variability, standard deviation and COV
were the most used measures in determining pavement variability. Nick Thom et
al. carried out research on the variability of pavement design input parameters and
the COVs of the parameters for different layers were summarized. The parameters
were reported to be following a normal distribution.
2.3 OBJECTIVES
• To study the parameters that cause variability in construction of flexible

pavements.
• To analytically evaluate the pavement using IITPAVE software.
• To quantify the effect of construction variability due to variation in thickness
and density in the performance of flexible pavements.
• To correlate the relation between the design parameters and the service life of
the pavements.
2.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The performance of flexible pavements depends on the extent to which construction

quality is ensured. The average costs involved for the construction of a low volume
road is around 1 crore while the expenditure may be as high as around 8 crores for

a high-volume road. Since these structures involve large costs, for bringing out
economic development in the transportation industry, the performance evaluation
and the effect of construction variability has to be thoroughly analyzed.
Construction variability in pavement design parameters is still a remote area of
research in India. The measures of variability described in the above-mentioned
research may differ in the Indian pavement scenarios. Therefore, there is a need for
experimentally quantifying the variation in the parameters prevailing for the
construction practices in India.
2.5 METHODOLOGY
The various stages in the experimental study are
• Literature Survey
• Analytical study of behavior of Flexible Pavements using IRC 37-2018.
• Study of the software IITPAVE.
• Collection of data to determine the probabilistic distribution of the parameters.
• Evaluation of Pavement Parameters using IITPAVE.
2.6 SCOPE
• The construction variability due to thickness and density is considered in this

study.
• The software intakes the parameters- thickness, Poisson's ratio and resilient
modulus of the layers used for construction.

CHAPTER 3
ANALYTICAL STUDY OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Highway pavements should be safe and serviceable. They should be capable of

carrying the loads coming on it during their life period without unacceptable levels
of failures. Unlike structures where the failure is usually followed by complete
collapse, failure in pavements is not sudden but usually by gradual deterioration
over time. At some stage in its life, when the deterioration renders it unserviceable
to the users, the pavement is assumed to have failed. Thus, safety criteria in
pavement design are defined by serviceability thresholds (such as acceptable
cracking and rutting), which, if breached, the design should be considered as unsafe
and pavement as unserviceable.
Analytical study of flexible pavement is the evaluation of pavement on the basis of

stress, strain, deflection etc. The theory adopted for the analysis of pavements is
‘linear elastic layer theory’ in which the pavement is modeled as a multi-layer
system. Elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio and thickness of each layer are the
pavement inputs required for calculation of stresses, strains and deflections
produced by a load applied at the surface of the pavement. Analysis of Flexible
pavement is done on the basis of specifications given in IRC 37-2018. To
understand the effect of construction variability, the mode of failure in pavements
needs to be understood first.

3.1.1 Cracking in bituminous pavements
Crack gets initiated in the bituminous layer when the tensile strain caused by
different factors exceeds the permissible strain of the respective mix. Maximum
tensile strains occur in bituminous layers primarily at two locations: bottom of the
bituminous layer and near the surface of the layer, though absolute maximum tensile
strains may actually occur at locations away from these two planes. Cracking in
pavement can occur in two primary modes:
a. Bottom up cracking:
Cracks may initiate at the bottom of any bound layer due to fatigue
phenomenon, reducing the effective layer thickness causing the cracks to
progress and move upwards with repeated application of traffic loads. When
the whole layer cracks, the crack progresses into the upper layer and will
eventually appear on the surface of the pavement as alligator cracks. Fig 3.1
shows a typical example for the bottom up cracking. The fatigue cracking
in bituminous layers has been addressed in the IRC 37-2018, which gives
limiting tensile strain value for a given design traffic level. The fatigue
cracking susceptibility of the bituminous layer can be reduced by controlling
the flexural tensile strains at the bottom of the bituminous layer. This can be
done by
1. providing a strong support from the underlying layers which reduces

the deflection in the bituminous layer
2. using stiffer bituminous mix which reduces the tensile strain in the
material, and
3. using a mix that is adequately elastic to recover from damage.
A strong subgrade is essential for giving firm support to the upper pavement
layers. The elastic modulus of the subgrade is recommended to be estimated
from its CBR value using the empirical equations given in the IRC 37-2018
guidelines. IRC 37-2018 recommends the use of subgrades with a minimum

effective CBR of 5% for roads with more than 450 commercial vehicles per
day. IRC 37-2018 also restricts the value of the effective modulus of the
subgrade that can be used for design to a maximum value of 100 MPa.
Fig 3.1 Bottom up cracking

(Source : www.pavement interactive.org)
Figure 3 3.1 Bottom up cracking
b. Top down cracking
Top down cracking appears to be a common mode of HMA pavement

distress. At the instance when the tyres come in contact with the road
surface, they expand laterally and push the pavement surface at their edges.
At the next instance when the tyre moves over, the laterally pushed surface
should be elastic enough to pull itself back. If it is not, the surface will crack
at the wheel edges along the longitudinal direction and the crack will
propagate downwards from the surface. Another reason for top down
cracking is the age hardening of bitumen. With age and exposure to sunlight
and Ultraviolet rays, the volatiles in bitumen are lost and the binder becomes
hard and brittle, which significantly increases the cracking susceptibility of
the material. Fig 3.2 shows a typical example for the top down cracking.

Fig 3.2 Top down cracking

(Source : www.pavement interactive.org)
Figure 4 3.2 Top down cracking
3.1.2 Rutting in bituminous pavements
Rutting is the longitudinal depression in the wheel path in bituminous pavements,

which can be attributed to excessive consolidation, formed by an accumulation of
permanent deformations caused by repeated heavy loads, or lateral movement of
the material, caused by shear failure of the bituminous concrete layer, or a
combination of both mechanisms. Fig 3.3 shows a rutting case in the bituminous
layer.
Rutting in pavement occurs in two ways: (a) Due to deformation in subgrade and
other unbound layers (granular sub-base and base). and (b) due to rutting in the

bituminous layer. IRC 37-2018 guidelines provide limiting strain criteria for
controlling rutting in subgrade. Even though no separate criteria are included in the
guidelines for rutting in the granular layers, controlling the vertical compressive
strain on top of subgrade indirectly results in the control of strains in the upper
granular layers. Thicker bituminous layers and stronger sub-bases/bases (such as
CTSB and CTB) reduce the subgrade strains significantly. Even if the subgrade or
unbound granular layers do not undergo rutting, the bituminous layers may do. This
happens in various situations such as when the bituminous layers are not initially
properly compacted and undergo large secondary compaction during their service
life. It is necessary to use sufficiently stiffer mixes with binders that will have less
plastic deformation at high temperatures and high stresses, especially in the upper
layers. At lower depths, the stresses as well as the temperatures will be less
compared to the surface layers and thus the lower bituminous layers are less
susceptible to rutting.
Fig 3.3 Rutting in bituminous layer

(Source: www.pavement interactive.org)
Figure 5 3.3 Rutting in bituminous layer
For the satisfactory performance of bituminous pavements and to ensure that the
magnitudes of distresses are within acceptable levels during the service life period,
IRC 37-2018 guidelines recommend that the pavement sections are to be selected
in such a way that they satisfy the limiting strains prescribed by the performance
models adopted in IRC 37 guidelines for subgrade rutting, bottom-up cracking of
bituminous layer and fatigue cracking of cement treated bases. This is a laborious

process in which the trial and error method is usually used for the analysis of
pavement. Since this method is a very time-consuming method, a software is
developed for the analysis, called IITPAVE.
3.2 CRITICAL MECHANISTIC PARAMETERS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The vertical compressive strain on top of subgrade and the horizontal tensile strain
at the bottom of the bituminous layer as shown in Fig 3.4 are considered to be the
critical mechanistic parameters which need to be controlled for ensuring
satisfactory performance of flexible pavements in terms of subgrade rutting and
bottom-up cracking or fatigue cracking of bituminous layers. Similarly, horizontal
tensile strain at the bottom of the CTB (Cement Treated Base) layer is considered
to be critical for the performance of the CTB bases. They are considered as critical
parameters because horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the bituminous layer
can cause fracture of the bituminous layer whereas vertical compressive strain at
the top of the subgrade can cause the subgrade deformation resulting in pavement
deformation at the pavement surface. Critical points are considered at the middle of
the dual wheels and at the center of the single wheel in the bottom of the bituminous
layer and at the top of the subgrade. The location of any element in the pavement is
defined by (a) depth of the location of the element from the surface of the pavement
and the radial distance of the element measured from the vertical axis of symmetry
(along the center of the circular contact area of one-wheel load). For a dual wheel
set, the points of analysis are at a radial distance of 0 and 155 mm from the center
of the wheel. The two wheels are at a center to center spacing of 310mm from each
other (i.e. The radial distance of analysis points is at the center of the dual wheel set
and at the center of one of the wheels as shown in Fig 3.4). Theoretical calculations
suggest that the tensile strain near the surface close to the edge of the wheel can be
sufficiently large to initiate longitudinal surface cracking followed by transverse
cracking much before the flexural cracking of the bottom layer occurs, if the mix
tensile strength is not adequate at higher temperatures.

Fig 3.4 A pavement section with bituminous layer(s), granular base and GSB
showing the locations of critical strains
(Source: IRC 37-2018)
Figure 6 3.4 A pavement section with bituminous layer(s), granular base and GSB showing the locations of critical strains
For the analysis, after selecting the suitable layer composition for the pavements,
the thickness of each layer can be chosen based on the catalogues provided in IRC
37-2018.
3.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN CATALOGUES
The pavement structural catalogues presented in the IRC 37-2018 guidelines for
design traffic levels up to 50 msa are intended for initial cost estimation and for
guidance only. The catalogues have been developed considering 80% reliability for
design traffic up to 20 msa, and using 90% reliability for higher traffic levels. It
may be noted that for expressways, national highways, state highways and urban
roads, 90% reliability should be adopted irrespective of the design traffic.
Analytical study and evaluation are done with reference to the catalogues. Fig 3.5
represents a catalogue for pavement with bituminous surface course with granular
base and subbase, for effective CBR of 7%. In these catalogues, x-axis represents

the traffic in msa and the y-axis represents the pavement thickness in mm.
Corresponding to each msa, the thicknesses are provided for each layer. The
thicknesses (especially those of bituminous layers) given in the thickness templates
have been selected based on the minimum thickness requirement of the bituminous
layer for pavements with CTB base.
Fig 3.5 Catalogue for pavement with bituminous surface course with granular base
and sub-base - Effective CBR 7%
Figure 7 3.5 Catalogue for pavement with bituminous surface course with granular base and sub-base - Effective CBR 7%
3.4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The performance evaluation of flexible pavements is done using the performance

equations given in IRC 37-2018. There are different equations for evaluating the
fatigue life as well as the rutting life for different reliabilities. The following
performance criteria are used in IRC 37 2018 guidelines for the design of
bituminous pavements.
3.4.1 Subgrade rutting criteria
An average rut depth of 20 mm or more, measured along the wheel paths, is

considered as the critical or failure rutting condition as per IRC 37-2018. The
equivalent number of standard axle load (80 kN) repetitions that can be served by
the pavement, before the critical average rut depth of 20 mm or more occurs, is
given by Eqn (3.1) and (3.2) respectively for 80 % and 90 % reliability levels.

1
𝑁𝑅 = 4.1656 × 10−08 × ( )4.5337 (for 80 % reliability) Eqn(3.1)
𝜀𝑣
1
𝑁𝑅 = 1.4100 × 10−08 × ( )4.5337 (for 90 % reliability) Eqn(3.2)
𝜀𝑣
𝑁𝑅 = subgrade rutting life (cumulative equivalent number of 80 kN standard axle

loads that can be served by the pavement before the critical rut depth of 20 mm or
more occurs)
𝜀𝑣 = vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade
For the calculation of vertical compressive strain on top of the subgrade, horizontal
tensile strain at the bottom of the bottom bituminous layer and the horizontal tensile
strain at the bottom of cement treated base (CTB) layer, the analysis is done for a
standard axle load of 80 kN (single axle with dual wheels). Only one set of dual
wheels, each wheel carrying 20 kN load with the center to center spacing of 310
mm between the two wheels, applied at the pavement surface shall be considered
for the analysis. The shape of the contact area of the tyre is assumed in the analysis
to be circular and the uniform vertical contact stress shall be considered as 0.56
MPa.
3.4.2 Fatigue cracking criteria for bituminous layer
The occurrence of fatigue cracking, whose total area in the section of the road under
consideration is 20 % or more than the paved surface area of the section, is
considered to be the critical or failure condition. The equivalent number of standard
axle (80 kN) load repetitions that can be served by the pavement, before the critical
condition of the cracked surface area of 20 % or more occurs, is given by Eqn (3.3)
and (3.4) respectively for 80 % and 90 % reliability levels.
For 80 % reliability :-
1 1
𝑁𝐹 = 1.6064 × 𝐶 × 10−04 × ( )3.89 × ( )0.854 Eqn(3.3)
𝜀𝑡 𝑀𝑅𝑀

For 90 % reliability :-
1 1
𝑁𝐹 = 0.5161 × 𝐶 × 10−04 × ( )3.89 × ( )0.854 Eqn(3.4)
𝜀𝑡 𝑀𝑅𝑀
𝑉𝑏𝑒
Where C=10𝑀 and M= 4.84 ( -0.69)
𝑉𝑎 +𝑉𝑏𝑒
𝑉𝑎 = per cent volume of air void in the mix used in the bottom bituminous layer
𝑉𝑏𝑒 = per cent volume of effective bitumen in the mix used in the bottom bituminous
layer
𝑁𝐹 = fatigue life of bituminous layer (cumulative equivalent number of 80 kN

standard axle loads that can be served by the pavement before the critical cracked
area of 20 % or more of paved surface area occurs)
𝜀𝑡 = maximum horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the bottom bituminous layer
calculated using linear elastic layered theory by applying standard axle load at the
surface of the selected pavement system.
𝑀𝑅𝑀 = resilient modulus (MPa) of the bituminous mix used in the bottom
bituminous layer
• The factor ‘C’ is an adjustment factor used to account for the effect of
variation in the mix volumetric parameters.
• Resilient moduli of 2000 MPa and 3000 MPa were considered for less than
20 msa and 20 to 50 msa categories respectively.
• For design traffic of 5, 10 and 20 msa, the mix volumetric parameters and
adjustment factor- 𝑉𝑎 , 𝑉𝑏𝑒 and ‘C’ used are 4.5%, 10.5 % and 1.12 and for
20, 30, 40 and 50 msa, the values are 3.5%, 11.5% and 2.35 respectively.
3.5 CALCULATION OF RESILIENT MODULUS FOR VARIOUS LAYERS
Resilient moduli of different pavement layers are one of the main inputs for the
analysis and design of pavements. As per IRC 37-2018, the equations provided for
calculating the resilient modulus of various layers are described below.

3.5.1 Resilient modulus of the subgrade
Resilient modulus (which is measured taking into account only the elastic
component of the deformation of the specimen in a repeated load test) is considered
to be the appropriate input for linear elastic theory selected in IRC 37-2018 for the
analysis of flexible pavements. The resilient modulus of soils can be determined in
the laboratory by conducting the repeated triaxial test. Since these equipment are
usually expensive, the following relationships may be used to estimate the resilient
modulus of subgrade soil (𝑀𝑅𝑆 ) from its CBR value
𝑀𝑅𝑆 = 10 × 𝐶𝐵𝑅 for CBR5% Eqn(3.5)
𝑀𝑅𝑆 = 17.6 × (CBR)0.64 for CBR>5% Eqn(3.6)
Where, 𝑀𝑅𝑆 = Resilient modulus of subgrade soil (in MPa).
CBR = California bearing ratio of subgrade soil (%)
Poisson’s ratio value or subgrade soil may be taken as 0.35.
3.5.2 Resilient Modulus of Granular Subbase layer
The resilient modulus value of the granular layer is dependent on the resilient
modulus value of the foundation or supporting layer on which it rests and the
thickness of the granular layer. A weaker support does not permit higher modulus
of the upper granular layer because the larger deflections caused by loads result in
de-compaction in the lower part of the granular layer. Eqn (3.7) is used for the
estimation of the modulus of the granular from its thickness and the modulus value
of the supporting layer.
MRGRAN =0.2 × (h)0.45 × MRSUPPORT Eqn(3.7)
Where,
h = thickness of granular layer in mm

MRGRAN = resilient modulus of the granular layer (MPa)
MRSUPPORT = (effective) resilient modulus of the supporting layer (MPa)
Poisson’s ratio of the granular sub-base may be taken as 0.35
In IRC 37-2018, the granular base and granular sub-base are considered as a single
layer for the purpose of analysis and a single modulus value is assigned to the
combined layer. Thus, when the pavement has the combination of granular base and
granular sub-base, the modulus of the single (combined) granular layer may be
estimated using Eqn (3.7) taking the MRGRAN as the modulus of the combined
granular layer and MRSUPPORT as the effective modulus of the subgrade.
3.5.3 Base layer
The base layer consists of wet mix macadam, water bound macadam, crusher run
macadam, reclaimed concrete, etc. The thickness of the unbound granular layer
shall not be less than 150 mm.
When both sub-base and the base layers are made up of unbound granular layers,
the composite resilient modulus of the granular base can be estimated using Eqn
(3.7) taking MRGRAN as the modulus of the combined (GSB + Granular base)
granular layer in MPa, ‘h’ as the combined thickness (mm) of the granular sub-base
and base and MRSUPPORT as the effective modulus (MPa) of the subgrade. Fig 3.6
(a) shows the base and subbase layer made of unbound granular layers. In such
cases the base and subbase layers are considered as a single granular layer for
analysis as shown in Fig 3.6 (b).

Poisson’s ratio of granular bases and sub-bases may be taken as 0.35.
(a) (b)
Fig 3.6 Pavement cross-section when base and subbase layers are made of
unbound granular layer
Figure 8 3.6 Pavement cross-section when base and subbase layers are made of unbound granular layer
3.5.4 Bituminous layer
A bituminous pavement generally consists of a bituminous surface course and a

bituminous base/binder course. Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) mixed with
VG40 binder and conforming to IRC and MoRTH specifications, shall be the
material used for base/binder courses for roads with 20 msa or more design traffic.
Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM)/Bituminous Macadam (BM) can be used as
base/binder courses for roads with design traffic less than 20 msa. IRC 37-2018
recommends VG30/VG40 bitumen for design traffic less than 20 msa and VG40
bitumen and modified bitumen for design traffic greater than 20 msa. For
expressways and national highways, even if the design traffic is 20 msa or less,
VG40 or modified bitumen shall be used for surface course and VG40 bitumen shall
be used for the DBM.
A Poisson’s ratio value of 0.35 is recommended for the bituminous layer for
analysis of the pavement.
For the climatic conditions prevailing in the plains of India, the Average Annual
Pavement Temperature is expected to be close to 35°C. If the resilient modulus
value of the specimens prepared using the field bottom (base) bituminous mix is
more than the corresponding maximum value indicated in Table 3.1 for 35°C, the
value given in the table shall be used for the analysis and design.

Table 3.1 Indicative values of resilient modulus (MPa) of bituminous mixes

Table 1 3.1 Indicative values of resilient modulus (MPa) of bituminous mixes
Mix type Average Annual Pavement Temperature ℃
20 25 30 35 40
BC and DBM for VG10 bitumen 2300 2000 1450 1000 800
BC with Modified Bitumen 5700 3800 2400 1600 1300
BM with VG10 bitumen 500 MPa at 35°C
BM with VG30 bitumen 700 MPa at 35°C

CHAPTER 4
IITPAVE SOFTWARE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
IITPAVE is a software, which is an updated version of FPAVE developed for

MoRTH Research Scheme R-56. It is a multilayer analysis programme which is
used for the performance evaluation of flexible pavement. Thickness, Elastic
modulus and Poisson’s ratio of various layers are the main inputs of the IITPAVE
software. The single vertical load applied at the surface is described in terms of (a)
contact pressure and radius of contact area OR (b) Wheel load and contact pressure
OR (c) Wheel load and radius of contact area. The stress analysis software
IITPAVE has been used for the computation of stresses and strains in the flexible
pavements at critical locations. Horizontal tensile strain, 𝜀𝑡 at the bottom of the
bituminous layer and the vertical compressive strain, 𝜀v on the top of the sub-grade
are conventionally considered as critical parameters for pavement design to limit
cracking and rutting in the bituminous layers and non- bituminous layers
respectively. The computation also indicates that tensile strain near the surface close
to the edge of a wheel can be sufficiently large to initiate longitudinal surface
cracking followed by transverse cracking much before the flexural cracking of the
bottom layer if the mix tensile strength is not adequate at higher temperatures.
IITPAVE software, in its current version, can be used to analyze pavements with a
maximum of ten layers including the sub-grade. If the number of layers in the
pavement is more than ten, different layers of similar nature (eg. granular,
bituminous) can be combined and considered as one layer. Cylindrical coordinate
system is followed in the program. Thus, the location of any element in the
pavement is defined by (a) depth of the location of the element from the surface of

the pavement and the radial distance of the element measured from the vertical axis
of symmetry (along the center of the circular contact area of one wheel load).
4.2 STEPS FOR USING IITPAVE FOR ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLE

PAVEMENT
Following are the steps to be followed for using IITPAVE for the analysis of
flexible pavement:-
Step 1:- Open the IRC 37 IITPAVE folder.
Step 2:- Double-click on the IITPAVE_EX.exe file in the IRC_37_IITPAVE folder.

IITPAVE start screen will appear as shown in Fig 4.1
Step 3:- Click on “Design New Pavement Section” to give inputs for the analysis
of the selected pavement section.
Fig 4.1 Screenshot of IITPAVE start screen
(Source: IITPAVE software)

Figure 9 4.1 Screenshot of IITPAVE start screen

Step 4:-Now enter the inputs like No of layers, Resilient modulus, Poisson’s ratio,
Thickness, Wheel load, Tyre pressure, Activity points, Depth, Radial distance and
Wheel sets(single or dual wheel).
Inputs can also be given through an input file. The name of the input file can be
selected by clicking on “Edit Existing File” option which appears on the IITPAVE
Start Screen.
Step 5:- After all the inputs are entered, submit them by Clicking on “Submit”. To
change the data submitted use the “Reset” option.
Step 6:- After successfully submitting the inputs use the “RUN” options which will
appear next to “Reset” after the inputs are submitted.
Fig 4.2 Abridged Screen shot of Input Page of IITPAVE

Figure 10 4.2 Abridged Screen shot of Input Page of IITPAVE

4.3 INPUTS OF IITPAVE
The various inputs required for the analysis of flexible pavement using IITPAVE
are:-
4.3.1 Number of layers
• It is the number of pavement layers that need to be considered in the system

or structure.
• Maximum of ten layers can be provided.
• If more than ten layers are there, then the different layers of similar nature
can be combined.
Fig 4.3 No of layers

(source: IITPAVE software)
Figure 11 4.3 No of layers
4.3.2 Resilient Modulus
Fig 4.4 Resilient Modulus

(Source:IITPAVE software)
Figure 12 4.4 Resilient Modulus
Resilient Modulus is a measure of its elastic behavior
• Resilient Modulus of Subgrade soil.

𝑀𝑅𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 = 10 × 𝐶𝐵𝑅 for CBR<=5% Eqn (4.1)
𝑀𝑅𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 = 17.6 × (𝐶𝐵𝑅)0.64 for CBR>5% Eqn (4.2)
• Resilient Modulus of Granular Layer
𝑀𝑅𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 0.2 × ℎ0.45 × 𝑀𝑅𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 Eqn (4.3)
Where h= thickness of granular layer
• Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Layer
The resilient modulus of the bituminous layer is taken from Table 3.1.
4.3.3 Poisson’s ratio
Poisson’s ratio for sub-grade soil, base, sub-base and bituminous layer is usually
taken as 0.35 as per IRC 37-2018.
Fig 4.5 Poisson’s Ratio

Figure 13 4.5 Poisson’s Ratio
4.3.4 Thickness
Thickness of various layers such as
• Surface or bituminous course

• WMM

• GSB
• Subgrade
Fig 4.6 Thickness

Figure 14 4.6 Thickness
4.3.5 Wheel load
• It depends on the single wheel or dual wheel.

• For a standard axle of 80 KN, if single wheel is considered provide a wheel
load of 40000N or if dual wheel is considered provide a wheel load of
20000N.
(a) (b)
Fig 4.7 Wheel load and wheel sets

(Source:IITPAVE software)
Figure 15 4.7 Wheel load and wheel sets
4.3.6 Tyre pressure
• A contact pressure of 0.56MPa is generally considered for a bituminous

layer.
• If CTB (Cement treated bases) is considered then the contact pressure is
taken as 0.8MPa

Fig 4.8 Tyre pressure

Figure 16 4.8 Tyre pressure
4.3.7 Analysis points
• The points that need to be analyzed must be considered.

• The depth from top surface to the point to be analyzed for each of the points
must be clearly mentioned in mm.
• The radial distance from the center of the dual wheel is considered.
Fig 4.9 Analysis points

Figure 17 4.9 Analysis points
4.4 OUTPUT OF IITPAVE
• The output screen displays options for the mode of output to be viewed
either through “Open file editor” or “view here”.

• After choosing either of the options the output page reports all the input data
and gives the computed values of identified stresses, strains and deflections
for the locations selected.
• The mechanistic parameters reported in the output page are: vertical stress
(𝜎z ), tangential stress (𝜎t ), radial stress (𝜏r ), shear stress (𝜏z ), vertical
deflection (Δz ), vertical strain (𝜀z ), horizontal tangential strain (𝜀t ), and
horizontal radial strain (𝜀r ).
• For locations on the interface of two layers, the analysis will be done twice:
o (a) assuming the elastic properties like elastic modulus and
Poisson’s ratio of the layer above the interface.
o (b) with the elastic properties of the layer below.
• The second set of results, for the layer below the interface, are identified in
the output by the suffix “L” appearing after the depth (Z) value.
• The critical mechanistic parameter, horizontal tensile strain (𝜀𝑡 ), will be the
largest of the tangential and radial strains at the bottom of the bituminous
layer computed at two radial distances of ‘0’ and ‘155’.
• Similarly vertical compressive strain (𝜀v ) will be taken from the results
corresponding to the lower line (with “L”) of the two sets of results available
for the interface between granular layer and sub-grade.
Fig 4.10 Abridged screen shot of the output page (Source:IITPAVE software)
Figure 18 4.10 Abridged screen shot of the output page

CHAPTER 5
DATA COLLECTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

OF PAVEMENT
5.1 GENERAL
Data collection for analysis of pavement parameters should be done by collecting

real life data from a pavement under service. Normally, the parameters required for
analysis are collected along a length around 1 km using Non-Destructive
Techniques so as to not disrupt the pavement. The pavement is then evaluated for
their performance with respect to the parameters.
During the period of the global pandemic, Covid-19, the above method of data
collection was impractical. Therefore, to understand the probabilistic distribution
of the parameters, some journals were referred to. To simulate the actual data
collection from a pavement under service, the distribution of the parameters was
determined and corresponding to the distribution, the parametric values were
generated in Microsoft Excel Sheet using the data analysis tool. Based on the data
generated for analysis, the evaluation of each parametric value, namely, thickness
and resilient modulus was carried out in the IITPAVE Software. The parameter to
be evaluated was varied while all other factors were kept constant. With such
analysis, the effect of construction variability in the performance of the flexible
pavements could be clearly interpreted. While the thickness parameter was varied
for the bituminous layer and the granular layer only, the effect of density variation
was studied for all the three layers.
5.2 DATA GENERATION AND EVALUATION
The pavement parameters adopted for evaluation follow a normal distribution as per
the literature Paola Dalla Valle et al[5] that is referred to Fig 5.1 shows a normal

curve. With the type of distribution and certain measures of variability which
provides a statistical summary about the amount of dispersion in a dataset, the
parameters can be generated. The measures of variability include mean, standard
deviation, coefficient of variation, etc.
Fig 5.1 A Standard Normal Distribution Curve

(Source:https://www.simplypsychology.org/normal-distribution)
Figure 19 5.1 A Standard Normal Distribution Curve
Value generations for both thickness and resilient modulus have been done using
Microsoft Excel Sheet. The sheet intakes parameters such as the number of
variables, number of random numbers to be generated, the type of distribution, the
parameters such as mean and standard deviation. The pavement section considered
consists of a bituminous layer, a granular layer and the subgrade layer. With an
effective CBR of 10%, Fig 5.2 shows the cross-sectional view of the pavement
considered for evaluation. The predicted traffic flow of the pavement is 30 msa.

Fig 5.2 Cross-section of pavement with bituminous, granular and subgrade layers.
Figure 20 5.2 Cross-section of pavement with bituminous, granular and subgrade layers.
5.2.1 Thickness Variation
As per the literature reviewed, thickness variation follows a normal distribution.

One of the input parameters deciding the distribution, namely, the standard deviation
was derived with reference to a COV detailed from the research Paola Dalla Valle
et al[1]. The other input parameter, namely the mean, was obtained from the design
thickness of a pavement with an effective CBR 10% and predicted traffic flow of 30
msa as per IRC 37-2018 as shown in Fig 5.3. The variations in thickness for each
layer is described in the following sections.
Fig 5.3 Pavement layer thickness with an effective CBR 10% and 30 msa traffic
Figure 21 5.3 Pavement layer thickness with an effective CBR 10% and 30 msa traffic

5.2.1.1 Bituminous Layer
Fig 5.3 shows that the thickness of the bituminous layer is 125mm. This thickness
is taken as the mean of the thickness values (μ) that is to be generated. From the
reference that has been cited as Paola Dalla Valle et al[1], the distribution was found
to be following a normal one and the coefficient of variation was determined to be
7%. From Eqn 5.1 the standard deviation (σ) can be determined as:
𝜇
σ = CV× (Eqn 5.1)
100
From the above equation, the standard deviation is obtained as 8.75 mm. With all
the necessary data required, the random value generation is carried out in Microsoft
Excel Sheet. Table 5.1 shows the random values generated under the above
parameters. A total of 40 random values were generated.
Table 5.1 Generated values of bituminous layer thickness

Table 2 5.1 Generated values of bituminous layer thickness
Sl. No. Thickness Value (mm) Sl. No. Thickness Value (mm)
1 105.894 21 122.951
2 106.468 22 123.371
3 108.839 23 124.254
4 110.209 24 124.26
5 110.892 25 126.178
6 113.82 26 127.137
7 115.491 27 129.716
8 116.446 28 130.907
9 118.232 29 131.629
10 118.961 30 132.575

11 119.269 31 132.894
12 120.031 32 134.581
13 120.417 33 135.486
14 120.509 34 136.169
15 121.465 35 136.748
16 121.663 36 139.538
17 121.76 37 140.165
18 121.802 38 141.791
19 122.139 39 142.257
20 122.373 40 145.787
After the generation of random thickness using excel, the analysis is done using the
IITPAVE Software by inputting the resilient modulus, poisson’s ratio and the
randomly generated thicknesses. Here the thickness, resilient modulus and poisson’s
ratio of the granular layer and the resilient modulus and poisson's ratio of the
bituminous layer is kept constant whereas the thickness of the bituminous layer is
varying. Depending upon the variation in thickness, the depth of the analysis points
also keeps changing. After inputting the values, the parameters are analyzed in the
IITPAVE software, and the actual strain values are calculated for different thickness
values. Fig 5.5 and 5.6 is a typical example for the value input page and output page
of IITPAVE Software respectively. From Fig 5.6, the actual vertical compressive
strain is 0.314×10−3and the actual horizontal tensile strain is 0.205×10−3 for the
particular bituminous layer thickness of 121.80 mm. The analysis was carried out
for all the randomly generated thicknesses in order to check their efficiency to cater
the load. Table 5.2 shows the actual and allowable strain values, the fatigue life,
rutting life and whether the thicknesses are safe with respect to the strain values.

The allowable strain values for rutting as well as for fatigue can be calculated using
the Eqn (3.2) and Eqn (3.4). They are as shown below,
The allowable vertical compressive strain (ε𝑣 )=0.416×10−3
The allowable horizontal tensile strain (εt )=0.203 ×10−3
For a dual wheel set, the points of analysis are at a radial distance of 0 and 155 mm
from the center of the wheel. The two wheels are at a center to center spacing of
310mm from each other (i.e. The radial distance of analysis points are at the center
of the dual wheel set and at the center of one of the wheels as shown in Fig 5.4)
Fig 5.4 A pavement section with bituminous layer(s), granular base and GSB
(source: IRC 37-2018)
Figure 22 5.4 A pavement section with bituminous layer(s), granular base and GSB

Fig 5.5 Value input page in IITPAVE (Source: IITPAVE software)

Figure 23 5.5 Value input page in IITPAVE
Fig 5.6 Output page in IITPAVE (Source: IITPAVE software)

Figure 24 5.6 Output page in IITPAVE

Table 5.2 Result of the Performance Evaluation of bituminous layer as per variation in
Thickness
Table 3 5.2 Results of the Performance Evaluation of bituminous layer as per variation in Thickness
Bituminous layer
Allowable strain
Allowable strain
Actual strain
Actual strain
Rutting life
Fatigue life
Thickness
Safe or unsafe
Safe or unsafe
× × × ×
(mm) (msa) (msa)
10−3 10−3 10−3 10−3
105.894 0.3418 .416 safe 73.123 0.2291 .203 unsafe 18.786
106.468 0.3408 .416 safe 74.101 0.228 .203 unsafe 19.141
108.839 0.3365 .416 safe 78.492 0.2243 .203 unsafe 20.399
110.209 0.3341 .416 safe 81.081 0.2222 .203 unsafe 21.159
110.892 0.3329 .416 safe 82.415 0.2211 .203 unsafe 21.572
113.82 0.3277 .416 safe 88.512 0.2167 .203 unsafe 23.326
115.491 0.3248 .416 safe 92.152 0.2142 .203 unsafe 24.403
116.446 0.3232 .416 safe 94.239 0.2128 .203 unsafe 25.034
118.232 0.3201 .416 safe 98.448 0.2102 .203 unsafe 26.260
118.961 0.3189 .416 safe 100.138 0.2091 .203 unsafe 26.802
119.269 0.3184 .416 safe 100.853 0.208 .203 unsafe 27.357

120.031 0.3171 .416 safe 102.741 0.2076 .203 unsafe 27.562
120.417 0.3165 .416 safe 103.627 0.2071 .203 unsafe 27.822
120.509 0.3163 .416 safe 103.925 0.207 .203 unsafe 27.875
121.465 0.3147 .416 safe 106.342 0.2056 .203 unsafe 28.620
121.663 0.3144 .416 safe 106.803 0.2053 .203 unsafe 28.784
121.76 0.314 .416 safe 107.421 0.205 .203 unsafe 28.948
121.802 0.3141 .416 safe 107.266 0.2051 .203 unsafe 28.893
122.139 0.3136 .416 safe 108.044 0.2046 .203 unsafe 29.169
122.373 0.3132 .416 safe 108.671 0.2043 .203 unsafe 29.336

122.951 0.3123 .416 safe 110.098 0.2034 .203 unsafe 29.844

123.371 0.3116 .416 safe 111.223 0.2029 .203 safe 30.131
124.254 0.31 .416 safe 113.850 0.2016 .203 safe 30.894
124.26 0.3101 .416 safe 113.684 0.2016 .203 safe 30.894
126.178 0.307 .416 safe 118.982 0.198 .203 safe 33.137
127.137 0.3054 .416 safe 121.834 0.1976 .203 safe 33.399
129.716 0.3013 .416 safe 129.533 0.1941 .203 safe 35.803
130.907 0.2994 .416 safe 133.302 0.1926 .203 safe 36.90
131.629 0.2983 .416 safe 135.545 0.1916 .203 safe 37.655
132.575 0.2969 .416 safe 138.467 0.1903 .203 safe 38.665
132.894 0.2964 .416 safe 139.529 0.1899 .203 safe 38.983
134.581 0.2938 .416 safe 145.215 0.1877 .203 safe 40.791
135.486 0.2924 .416 safe 148.394 0.1866 .203 safe 41.734
136.169 0.2913 .416 safe 150.952 0.1857 .203 safe 42.527
136.748 0.2905 .416 safe 152.846 0.185 .203 safe 43.156
139.538 0.2863 .416 safe 163.278 0.1815 .203 safe 46.485
140.165 0.2854 .416 safe 165.626 0.1807 .203 safe 47.290
141.791 0.283 .416 safe 172.090 0.179 .203 safe 49.062
142.257 0.2823 .416 safe 174.033 0.1784 .203 safe 49.707
145.787 0.2772 .416 safe 189.029 0.1742 .203 safe 54.533
5.2.1.2 Granular Layer
Fig 5.3 shows that the thickness of the granular layer is 450mm. This thickness is
taken as the mean of the thickness values (μ) that is to be generated. From the
reference that has been cited as Paola Dalla Valle et al[1] , the distribution was
found to be following a normal one and the coefficient of variation was determined
to be 13.5%. From the Eqn 5.1, the standard deviation is obtained as 60.75 mm.
With all the necessary data required, the random value generation is carried out in
Microsoft Excel Sheet. Table 5.3 shows the random values generated under the
above parameters.

Table 5.3 Generated values of granular layer thickness

Table 4 5.3 Generated values of granular layer thickness
Sl. No. Thickness Value (mm) Sl. No. Thickness Value (mm)
1 264.9551 21 465.807
2 308.6283 22 467.27
3 308.8361 23 469.365
4 346.1631 24 469.791
5 353.7149 25 477.784
6 354.0398 26 478.747
7 374.115 27 481.863
8 379.1356 28 483.177
9 402.3612 29 485.312
10 414.489 30 485.527
11 423.704 31 489.883
12 426.208 32 503.03
13 429.305 33 509.79
14 434.57 34 510.747
15 451.02 35 522.34
16 451.038 36 522.7521
17 451.23 37 530.1
18 457.236 38 533.043

19 458.93 39 546.63
20 465.673 40 551.85
After the generation of random thickness using excel, the performance evaluation is
done for the granular layer. Here the thickness of the granular layer is varying and
all other parameters such as the thickness of the bituminous layer, resilient modulus
and poisson’s ratio are kept constant. Also the depth of the analysis point changes
depending upon the variation in thickness of the granular layer. The actual strain
values were determined as shown in Table 5.4. The performance is analyzed by
comparing the actual strain values with the allowable strain values to check whether
the adopted thickness of each layer of the pavement is sufficient to cater the load
and strains developed in the pavement. Table 5.4 shows the results of the
performance evaluation of granular layer corresponding to the variation in
thickness.
Table 5.4 Results of the Performance Evaluation of granular layer as per variation
in Thickness
Table 5 5.4 Results of the Performance Evaluation of granular layer as per variation in Thickness
Granular layer
Rutting life
Fatigue life
Allowable
Allowable
Thickness
Actual
Actual
strain
strain
strain
strain
Safe or unsafe
Safe or unsafe
× × × ×
(mm) (msa) (msa)
10−3 10−3 10−3 10−3
264.955 0.499 .416 unsafe 13.142 0.2123 .203 unsafe 25.264
308.628 0.443 .416 unsafe 22.541 0.2081 .203 unsafe 27.306
308.836 0.443 .416 unsafe 22.610 0.2081 .203 unsafe 27.306
346.163 0.401 .416 safe 35.364 0.2054 .203 unsafe 28.729
353.714 0.393 .416 safe 38.656 0.2049 .203 unsafe 29.003
354.039 0.393 .416 safe 38.835 0.2049 .203 unsafe 29.003

374.115 0.373 .416 safe 49.151 0.2038 .203 unsafe 29.617

379.135 0.368 .416 safe 52.059 0.2035 .203 unsafe 29.787
402.361 0.347 .416 safe 68.018 0.2024 .203 safe 30.422
414.489 0.337 .416 safe 78.071 0.2019 .203 safe 30.716
423.704 0.329 .416 safe 86.460 0.2015 .203 safe 30.954
426.208 0.327 .416 safe 89.004 0.2014 .203 safe 31.013
429.304 0.325 .416 safe 92.152 0.2013 .203 safe 31.073
434.571 0.321 .416 safe 97.615 0.2011 .203 safe 31.194
451.020 0.308 .416 safe 117.068 0.2006 .203 safe 31.497
451.038 0.308 .416 safe 117.068 0.2005 .203 safe 31.558
451.229 0.308 .416 safe 117.240 0.2005 .203 safe 31.558
457.236 0.304 .416 safe 125.143 0.2003 .203 safe 31.681
458.929 0.302 .416 safe 127.602 0.2003 .203 safe 31.681
465.673 0.298 .416 safe 137.205 0.2001 .203 safe 31.805
465.807 0.297 .416 safe 137.415 0.2001 .203 safe 31.805
467.269 0.296 .416 safe 139.529 0.2 .203 safe 31.866
469.365 0.295 .416 safe 142.776 0.2 .203 safe 31.866
469.791 0.295 .416 safe 143.436 0.2 .203 safe 31.866
477.784 0.289 .416 safe 156.230 0.1997 .203 safe 32.053
478.747 0.289 .416 safe 157.709 0.1997 .203 safe 32.053
481.863 0.286 .416 safe 163.278 0.1996 .203 safe 32.116
483.177 0.286 .416 safe 165.363 0.1996 .203 safe 32.116
485.312 0.284 .416 safe 169.360 0.1995 .203 safe 32.178
485.527 0.284 .416 safe 169.630 0.1995 .203 safe 32.178
489.883 0.281 .416 safe 177.713 0.1994 .203 safe 32.241
503.030 0.273 .416 safe 203.927 0.1991 .203 safe 32.430
509.797 0.268 .416 safe 218.800 0.1989 .203 safe 32.557
510.747 0.268 .416 safe 221.032 0.1989 .203 safe 32.557
522.344 0.261 .416 safe 249.233 0.1987 .203 safe 32.685
522.752 0.261 .416 safe 250.101 0.1986 .203 safe 32.749
530.090 0.256 .416 safe 269.697 0.1985 .203 safe 32.813

533.043 0.255 .416 safe 277.958 0.1984 .203 safe 32.878

546.629 0.247 .416 safe 318.896 0.1981 .203 safe 33.072
551.850 0.244 .416 safe 336.436 0.198 .203 safe 33.137
5.2.2 Density Variation
Density of each layer plays a very important role in the performance of the flexible
pavements. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the effect of variation due to
density to thoroughly understand the effect of construction variability. Since there
is no provision to input the density of each layer directly into the software, a relation
between density and CBR is adopted from P.G. Rakkariddi et al . But since the
resilient modulus is a function of CBR, the effect of density can be analysed by
varying the resilient modulus of each layer. Fig 5.7 shows the relation established
between Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). For
determining the relation, Multiple Linear Regression Analysis was used. If the
coefficient of determination (𝑅 2 ), which is defined as the measurement used to
explain how much variability of one factor can be caused by its relationship to
another related factor, is greater than 0.8, it is deemed to be the best fit. Here, 𝑅 2 is
equal to 0.887, which is greater than 0.8. The relation obtained is given below as:
𝐶𝐵𝑅 = (−8.214)𝑀𝐷𝐷2 + 41.68𝑀𝐷𝐷 − 42.36 Eqn(5.2)
where CBR= California Bearing Ratio
MDD = Maximum Dry Density

Fig 5.7 Relation between CBR and MDD

Source: P.G. Rakaraddi et. al (2015)
Figure 25 5.7 Relation between CBR and MDD
One of the input parameters deciding the distribution, namely, the standard deviation
was derived corresponding to a coefficient of variation of the respective layer from
the research Paola Dalla Valle et al[5]. The other parameter, namely, the mean was
determined from the equations specified corresponding to each layer in the IRC 37-
2018 which will be discussed in the following sections.
5.2.2.1 Subgrade Layer
The variation is done for the resilient modulus of the subgrade layer as specified
above. The distribution was found to be following a normal one and the coefficient
of variation was found to be 20%. To find out the mean value of the resilient moduli
for the granular layer, IRC 37-2018 specifications were used. Eqn (3.5) and Eqn
(3.6) are used to estimate the resilient modulus of subgrade soil (𝑀RS ) from its CBR
value.
Since the pavement property corresponds to an effective CBR of 10%, Eqn (3.6) is
used to calculate the resilient modulus of the subgrade layer which results in a value
of 76.826 MPa, which is the mean value for the normal distribution of the resilient

moduli range for subgrade layer. From Eqn (5.1) described earlier, the standard
deviation is obtained as 15.365 MPa. With all the necessary data required, the
random value generation is carried out in Microsoft Excel Sheet. Table 5.5 shows
the random values generated for the resilient modulus values of the subgrade layer.
Table 5.5 Generated values of Resilient Modulus for Subgrade Layer

Table 6 5.5 Generated values of Resilient Modulus for Subgrade layer
Sl. No. Resilient Modulus (MPa) Sl. No. Resilient Modulus (MPa)
1 43.274 21 73.227
2 44.283 22 73.965
3 48.447 23 75.515
4 50.85 24 75.527
5 52.05 25 78.898
6 57.19 26 80.58
7 60.12 27 85.107
8 61.804 28 87.199
9 64.95 29 88.466
10 66.22 30 90.127
11 66.763 31 90.688
12 68.1 32 93.65
13 68.77 33 95.238
14 68.94 34 96.44
15 70.61 35 97.455

16 70.96 36 102.35
17 71.137 37 103.456
18 71.21 38 106.31
19 71.8 39 107.13
20 72.21 40 113.33
After generating the random values of resilient modulus in excel, the analysis was
done using IITPAVE. Here all the parameters like resilient modulus of bituminous
and granular layer, poisson’s ratio, and thickness of layers are kept constant whereas
the resilient modulus of subgrade is varying. In this case, the depth of the analysis
points do not vary as there is no change in the thickness of layers. Table 5.6 shows
the results of the performance evaluation of the subgrade layer due to variation in
the resilient modulus.
Table 5.6 Results of Performance Evaluation of Subgrade Layer as per variation

due to Resilient Modulus
Table 7 5.6 Results of Performance Evaluation of Subgrade Layer as per variation due to Resilient Modulus
Subgrade Layer
Rutting life
Fatigue life
Allowable
Allowable
E-value
Actual
Actual
strain
strain
strain
strain
Safe or unsafe
Safe or unsafe
(MPa) × × × ×
(msa) (msa)
10−3 10−3 10−3 10−3
43.2747 0.4905 .416 unsafe 14.218 0.263 .203 unsafe 10.983
44.2835 0.4817 .416 unsafe 15.435 0.2603 .203 unsafe 11.433
48.4478 0.4487 .416 unsafe 21.293 0.2501 .203 unsafe 13.356
50.8521 0.4318 .416 unsafe 25.341 0.2447 .203 unsafe 14.540
52.0511 0.4238 .416 unsafe 27.584 0.2421 .203 unsafe 15.157
57.1941 0.393 .416 safe 38.834 0.2318 .203 unsafe 17.949

60.1286 0.3774 .416 safe 46.662 0.2263 .203 unsafe 19.707

61.8045 0.3691 .416 safe 51.612 0.2234 .203 unsafe 20.721
64.9409 0.3546 .416 safe 61.896 0.2181 .203 unsafe 22.749
66.2208 0.349 .416 safe 66.529 0.216 .203 unsafe 23.622
66.7632 0.3466 .416 safe 68.643 0.2152 .203 unsafe 23.965
68.0997 0.3411 .416 safe 73.806 0.2131 .203 unsafe 24.897
68.7777 0.3383 .416 safe 76.616 0.212 .203 unsafe 25.404
68.9404 0.3377 .416 safe 77.235 0.2118 .203 unsafe 25.497
70.6177 0.3311 .416 safe 84.465 0.2093 .203 unsafe 26.702
70.9668 0.3297 .416 safe 86.103 0.2088 .203 unsafe 26.952
71.1371 0.3291 .416 safe 86.817 0.2085 .203 unsafe 27.103
71.2101 0.3288 .416 safe 87.177 0.2084 .203 unsafe 27.154
71.8017 0.3266 .416 safe 89.871 0.2076 .203 unsafe 27.563
72.2128 0.3251 .416 safe 91.767 0.207 .203 unsafe 27.875
73.2277 0.3213 .416 safe 96.791 0.2055 .203 unsafe 28.675
73.9656 0.3187 .416 safe 100.423 0.2045 .203 unsafe 29.224
75.5155 0.3133 .416 safe 108.513 0.2023 .203 safe 30.480
75.5273 0.3133 .416 safe 108.513 0.2023 .203 safe 30.480
78.8980 0.3022 .416 safe 127.793 0.1978 .203 safe 33.267
80.5790 0.2969 .416 safe 138.466 0.1957 .203 safe 34.678
85.1070 0.2838 .416 safe 169.901 0.1902 .203 safe 38.745
87.1996 0.2781 .416 safe 186.270 0.1878 .203 safe 40.707
88.4668 0.2747 .416 safe 196.954 0.1864 .203 safe 41.909
90.1272 0.2705 .416 safe 211.204 0.1845 .203 safe 43.613
90.6883 0.2691 .416 safe 216.231 0.1839 .203 safe 44.169
93.6512 0.262 .416 safe 244.099 0.1807 .203 safe 47.290
95.2388 0.2583 .416 safe 260.357 0.1791 .203 safe 48.955
96.4392 0.2556 .416 safe 273.061 0.178 .203 safe 50.143
97.4559 0.2534 .416 safe 283.975 0.177 .203 safe 51.254
102.354 0.2431 .416 safe 342.756 0.1722 .203 safe 57.039
103.455 0.2409 .416 safe 357.178 0.1712 .203 safe 58.346

106.310 0.2355 .416 safe 395.843 0.1686 .203 safe 61.925

107.129 0.2339 .416 safe 408.269 0.1679 .203 safe 62.935
113.328 0.2231 .416 safe 505.855 0.1627 .203 safe 71.128
The variation is done for the resilient modulus of the granular layer as specified
above. The coefficient of variation was determined to be 20%. To find out the mean
value of the Resilient Moduli for the granular layer, IRC 37-2018 specifications
were used. As per Clause 8.1 of IRC 37-2018, when both sub-base and the base
layers are made up of unbound granular layers, the composite resilient modulus of
the granular base can be estimated using Eqn 5.5.
MRGRAN =0.2(h)0.45 × MRSUPPORT (Eqn 5.5)
Where, MRGRAN is the resilient modulus of the combined (GSB + Granular base)
granular layer in MPa, h is the combined thickness (mm) of the granular sub-base
and base which was considered as 450 mm and MRSUPPORT is the effective modulus
(MPa) of the subgrade, obtained as 76.826 from Eqn (3.6). From Eqn 5.1 described
earlier, the standard deviation is obtained as 48.03 MPa. The resilient modulus was
determined as 240.15 MPa. Table 5.7 shows the random values generated under the
above parameters.
Table 5.7 Generated values of Resilient Modulus of Granular Layer

Table 8 5.7 Generated values of resilient modulus of Granular layer
1 135.27 21 228.9
2 138.43 22 231.21
3 151.44 23 236.05

4 158.96 24 236.09
5 162.71 25 246.63
6 178.78 26 251.88
7 187.96 27 266.04
8 193.2 28 272.58
9 203 29 276.54
10 207 30 281.73
11 208.7 31 283.48
12 212.87 32 292.74
13 214.99 33 297.71
14 215.5 34 301.46
15 220.74 35 304.64
16 221.84 36 319.95
17 222.37 37 323.39
18 222.6 38 332.32
19 224.45 39 334.88
20 225.73 40 354.25
Here the resilient modulus of the granular layer is varied and other parameters like
resilient modulus of the bituminous layer and the subgrade, poisson’s ratio, and
thickness of all three layers are kept constant. The depth of analysis points do not
change as the thickness of the layers are not varying. Analysis is then carried out
using IITPAVE for each value of the resilient modulus of the granular layer and

corresponding value of actual strains are then found out. The results of the analysis
are shown in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8 Results of Performance Evaluation of Granular Layer due to variation in

Resilient Modulus
Table 9 5.8 Results of Performance Evaluation of Granular layer due to variation in Resilient Modulus
Granular Layer
Rutting life
Fatigue life
Allowable
Allowable
E-value
Actual
Actual
strain
strain
strain
strain
Safe or unsafe
Safe or unsafe
× × × ×
(MPa) (msa) (msa)
10−3 10−3 10−3 10−3
135.27 0.351 .416 safe 64.828 0.2574 .203 unsafe 11.942
138.43 0.3498 .416 safe 65.842 0.2551 .203 unsafe 12.366
151.44 0.3447 .416 safe 70.376 0.2426 .203 unsafe 15.035
158.96 0.3416 .416 safe 73.318 0.2414 .203 unsafe 15.328
162.71 0.3401 .416 safe 74.795 0.2391 .203 unsafe 15.910
178.78 0.3335 .416 safe 81.745 0.2297 .203 unsafe 18.596
187.96 0.3297 .416 safe 86.104 0.2248 .203 unsafe 20.223
193.2 0.3275 .416 safe 88.758 0.222 .203 unsafe 21.234
203 0.3235 .416 safe 93.843 0.2181 .203 unsafe 22.749
207 0.3219 .416 safe 95.976 0.2152 .203 unsafe 23.965
208.7 0.3212 .416 safe 96.928 0.2144 .203 unsafe 24.315
212.87 0.3196 .416 safe 99.148 0.2124 .203 unsafe 25.218
214.99 0.3187 .416 safe 100.424 0.2114 .203 unsafe 25.685
215.5 0.3185 .416 safe 100.710 0.2112 .203 unsafe 25.780
220.74 0.3164 .416 safe 103.776 0.2089 .203 unsafe 26.902
221.84 0.316 .416 safe 104.373 0.2084 .203 unsafe 27.154
222.37 0.3158 .416 safe 104.673 0.2081 .203 unsafe 27.306
222.6 0.3157 .416 safe 104.823 0.208 .203 unsafe 27.357
224.45 0.315 .416 safe 105.884 0.2072 .203 unsafe 27.771

225.73 0.3145 .416 safe 106.649 0.2067 .203 unsafe 28.033

228.9 0.3132 .416 safe 108.671 0.2053 .203 unsafe 28.784
231.21 0.3123 .416 safe 110.098 0.2043 .203 unsafe 29.336
236.05 0.3105 .416 safe 113.021 0.2023 .203 safe 30.480
236.09 0.3104 .416 safe 113.186 0.2022 .203 safe 30.539
246.63 0.3064 .416 safe 120.042 0.198 .203 safe 33.137
251.88 0.3045 .416 safe 123.475 0.1959 .203 safe 34.540
266.04 0.2993 .416 safe 133.504 0.1906 .203 safe 38.429
272.58 0.297 .416 safe 138.256 0.1882 .203 safe 40.371
276.54 0.2956 .416 safe 141.249 0.1868 .203 safe 41.561
281.73 0.2938 .416 safe 145.215 0.185 .203 safe 43.156
283.48 0.2931 .416 safe 146.794 0.1844 .203 safe 43.705
292.74 0.29 .416 safe 154.044 0.1813 .203 safe 46.685
297.71 0.2883 .416 safe 158.205 0.1797 .203 safe 48.322
301.46 0.2871 .416 safe 161.226 0.1785 .203 safe 49.598
304.64 0.286 .416 safe 164.056 0.1775 .203 safe 50.694
319.95 0.2811 .416 safe 177.427 0.1728 .203 safe 56.272
323.39 0.28 .416 safe 180.609 0.1718 .203 safe 57.557
332.32 0.2772 .416 safe 189.029 0.1692 .203 safe 61.075
334.88 0.2764 .416 safe 191.522 0.1685 .203 safe 62.068
354.25 0.2707 .416 safe 210.498 0.1632 .203 safe 70.284
The distribution of resilient modulus of the bituminous layer was found to be

following a normal one and the coefficient of variation was determined to be 15%.
For determining the mean resilient modulus value, IRC 37-2018 specifications are
referred to. For the climatic conditions prevailing in the plains of India, the average
annual pavement temperature is expected to be close to 35ºC. Since for traffic
greater than 20 msa, VG40 Bitumen type is to be used, the corresponding resilient
modulus in accordance with these parameters from Table 3.4 was found to be 3000
MPa. This value of resilient modulus is the mean value for determining the standard

deviation. From the Eqn (5.1) described earlier, the standard deviation is obtained
as 450 MPa. Table 5.9 shows the random values generated for resilient modulus of
the bituminous layer.
Table 5.9 Generated values of Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Layer

Table 10 5.9 Generated values of Resilient Modulus of Bituminous layer
1 2017.386 21 2894.618
2 2046.931 22 2916.229
3 2168.89 23 2961.622
4 2239.305 24 2961.967
5 2274.421 25 3060.684
6 2425.043 26 3109.916
7 2510.985 27 3242.527
8 2560.067 28 3303.812
9 2651.922 29 3340.925
10 2689.408 30 3389.553
11 2705.292 31 3405.986
12 2744.434 32 3492.76
13 2764.292 33 3539.258
14 2769.057 34 3574.413
15 2818.179 35 3604.189
16 2828.404 36 3747.655

17 2833.392 37 3779.91
18 2835.528 38 3863.512
19 2852.854 39 3887.495
20 2864.896 40 4069.045
For finding the variation in resilient modulus of the bituminous layer, random values
were generated using the excel and the performance evaluation was carried out in
IITPAVE. Here, the depths of the analysis points are not varying in this case (as
there is no change in the thickness). The parameters are thus analyzed by the
software to find out the actual strains (both vertical strain and horizontal strain).
Table 5.10 shows the results of the evaluation.
Table 5.10 Results of the Performance Evaluation of Bituminous Layer as per

variation in resilient modulus
Table 11 5.10 Results of the Performance Evaluation of Bituminous layer as per variation in resilient modulus
Bituminous Layer
Actual strain
Actual strain
Rutting life
Fatigue life
Allowable
Allowable
E-value
strain
strain
Safe or unsafe
Safe or unsafe
× × × ×
(MPa) (msa) (msa)
10−3 10−3 10−3 10−3
2017.386 0.3294 .416 safe 86.460 0.2408 .203 unsafe 15.477
2046.931 0.3287 .416 safe 87.298 0.2393 .203 unsafe 15.858
2168.89 0.3258 .416 safe 90.877 0.2333 .203 unsafe 17.505
2239.305 0.3242 .416 safe 92.928 0.23 .203 unsafe 18.502
2274.421 0.3234 .416 safe 93.975 0.2284 .203 unsafe 19.011
2425.043 0.3201 .416 safe 98.448 0.2219 .203 unsafe 21.271
2510.985 0.3183 .416 safe 100.997 0.2183 .203 unsafe 22.668

2560.067 0.3173 .416 safe 102.448 0.2164 .203 unsafe 23.453

2651.922 0.3154 .416 safe 105.276 0.2128 .203 unsafe 25.034
2689.408 0.3147 .416 safe 106.342 0.2114 .203 unsafe 25.685
2705.292 0.3144 .416 safe 106.803 0.2108 .203 unsafe 25.971
2744.434 0.3136 .416 safe 108.044 0.2094 .203 unsafe 26.653
2764.292 0.3133 .416 safe 108.513 0.2086 .203 unsafe 27.053
2769.057 0.3132 .416 safe 108.671 0.2085 .203 unsafe 27.103
2818.179 0.3122 .416 safe 110.258 0.2067 .203 unsafe 28.033
2828.404 0.312 .416 safe 110.578 0.2064 .203 unsafe 28.192
2833.392 0.3119 .416 safe 110.739 0.2062 .203 unsafe 28.298
2835.528 0.3119 .416 safe 110.739 0.2061 .203 unsafe 28.352
2852.854 0.3116 .416 safe 111.223 0.2055 .203 unsafe 28.675
2864.896 0.3114 .416 safe 111.548 0.2051 .203 unsafe 28.893
2894.618 0.31 .416 safe 113.850 0.204 .203 unsafe 29.504
2916.229 0.31 .416 safe 113.850 0.203 .203 unsafe 30.073
2961.622 0.3096 .416 safe 114.518 0.2018 .203 safe 30.775
2961.967 0.3096 .416 safe 114.518 0.2018 .203 safe 30.775
3060.684 0.3078 .416 safe 117.586 0.1986 .203 safe 32.749
3109.916 0.3069 .416 safe 119.157 0.197 .203 safe 33.796
3242.527 0.3047 .416 safe 123.108 0.193 .203 safe 36.603
3303.812 0.3037 .416 safe 124.957 0.1912 .203 safe 37.962
3340.925 0.303 .416 safe 126.271 0.1901 .203 safe 38.824
3389.553 0.3022 .416 safe 127.793 0.1887 .203 safe 39.957
3405.986 0.302 .416 safe 128.177 0.1883 .203 safe 40.288
3492.76 0.3006 .416 safe 130.906 0.1859 .203 safe 42.349
3539.258 0.2999 .416 safe 132.297 0.1846 .203 safe 43.521
3574.413 0.2993 .416 safe 133.504 0.1837 .203 safe 44.356
3604.189 0.2988 .416 safe 134.520 0.1829 .203 safe 45.116
3747.655 0.2967 .416 safe 138.891 0.1792 .203 safe 48.849
3779.91 0.2962 .416 safe 139.957 0.1784 .203 safe 49.707
3863.512 0.295 .416 safe 142.557 0.1764 .203 safe 51.935

3887.495 0.2946 .416 safe 143.436 0.1758 .203 safe 52.628

4069.045 0.292 .416 safe 149.318 0.1717 .203 safe 57.688

CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
6.1 GENERAL
The performance of flexible pavements with respect to effect of construction

variability in thickness and density of the component layers is studied using
IITPAVE. The statistical analysis of the rutting life and fatigue life of the pavement
based on the selected parameters is done. This chapter deals with the details and
findings of the analysis.
6.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RUTTING LIFE AND FATIGUE LIFE
Based on the results obtained from the performance analysis (using IITPAVE),
frequency distribution charts are prepared and the major statistical parameters
namely mean, median, and standard deviation are calculated. These statistical
parameters are used for studying the effect of construction variability and
performance. Following sections explain the details of the analysis.
6.2.1 Performance with respect to variability in thickness.
Fig 6.1 shows the frequency distribution of the variation in thickness of the
bituminous layer.

Fig 6.1 Frequency distribution of the thickness of bituminous layer

Figure 26 6.1 Frequency distribution of the thickness of bituminous layer
Fig 6.2 shows the frequency distribution of Rutting Life of bituminous layer due to
variation in thickness
Fig 6.2 Frequency distribution of the Rutting Life of bituminous layer of bituminous layer

Fig 6.3 shows a Frequency distribution of the fatigue life due to variation in
thickness of bituminous layer.
Fig 6.3 Frequency distribution of the Fatigue life of Bituminous layer

Figure 27 6.3 Frequency distribution of the Fatigue life of Bituminous layer
The general findings obtained from the statistical analysis are shown in Table 6.1
Table 6.1 Statistical Parameters of Performance of Bituminous Layer based on

variation in Thickness.
Table 12 6.1 Statistical parameters of performance of bituminous layer based on variation in Thickness
RUTTING FATIGUE THICKNESS

LIFE LIFE
MEAN 118.648 msa 35.27 msa 125 mm
MEDIAN 109.384 msa 29.589 msa 122.662 mm
STANDARD 29.36 msa 9.06 msa 8.75 mm

DEVIATION

Frequency distribution of variation in Thickness of granular layer is as shown in Fig

6.4
Fig 6.4 Frequency distribution of variation in Thickness of granular layer

Figure 28 6.4 Frequency distribution of variation in Thickness of granular layer
Fig 6.5 shows Frequency distribution of granular layer Rutting Life due to variation
in thickness
Fig 6.5 Frequency distribution of granular layer Rutting Life

Figure 29 6.5 Frequency distribution of granular layer Rutting Life
Fig 6.6 is the Frequency distribution of granular layer fatigue life due to variation in
thickness.
Fig 6.6 Frequency distribution of granular layer fatigue life

Figure 30 6.6 Frequency distribution of granular layer fatigue life
Table 6.2 shows the general findings obtained from the above statistical analysis.
Table 6.2 Statistical parameters of performance of granular layer based on

variation in Thicknessn variation in Thickness
RUTTING FATIGUE THICKNESS

LIFE LIFE
MEAN 139.838 msa 31.21 msa 450 mm
MEDIAN 137.31 msa 31.805 msa 465.740 mm
STANDARD 82.26 msa 1.74 msa 60.75 mm

DEVIATION
Table 6.3 compares the statistical findings of the rutting life of the two layers with
respect to variation due to thickness

Table 6.3 Statistical Parameters of Rutting life based on variation in Thickness

Table 13 6.3 Statistical Parameters of Rutting life based on variation in Thickness
LAYER MEAN MEDIAN STANDARD

DEVIATION
BITUMINOUS LAYER 118.648 msa 109.384 msa 29.36 msa
GRANULAR LAYER 139.838 msa 137.31 msa 82.26 msa
Since standard deviation is a measure of how spread out the values in a data set are
around the mean, Table 6.3 shows how much the variation in thickness affects each
layer. Higher value of standard deviation in rutting life for the granular layer (82.26
msa) implies that the granular layer is subjected to more variations than the
bituminous layer. Also, since the mean value of rutting life of both the layers is
greater than that of the median, it implies that the frequency distribution of rutting
life of both the layers is positively skewed. Table 6.4 compares the statistical
findings of the fatigue life of the two layers with respect to variation due to
thickness.
Table 6.4 Statistical Parameters of Fatigue Life analysis based on variation in

thickness
Table 14 6.4 Statistical Parameters of fatigue life analysis based on variation in thickness

DEVIATION
The standard deviation values from Table 6.4 shows that in the case of fatigue life
due to variation in thickness, the bituminous layer is more prone to variations than
the granular layer. The mean value of fatigue life of the bituminous layer is greater
than that of the median while it is less than that of the median in the case of the

granular layer. This implies that the frequency distribution of fatigue life of the
bituminous layer due to variation is positively skewed while in the case of granular
layer, it is negatively skewed.
6.2.2 Performance with respect to variability in Density
Density variation is expressed in terms of resilient modulus (As described in 5.2.2)
6.2.2.1 Bituminous layer
Fig 6.7 shows the frequency distribution of the variation in resilient modulus of the
bituminous layer.
Fig 6.7 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of bituminous layer

Figure 32 6.7 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of bituminous layer
Fig 6.8 shows the frequency distribution of rutting life of the bituminous layer due
to variation in resilient modulus.

Fig 6.8 Frequency distribution of rutting life of bituminous layer of rutting life of
bituminous layer
The frequency distribution of fatigue life of the bituminous layer due to variation in
resilient modulus is shown in Fig 6.9.
Fig 6.9 Frequency distribution of fatigue life of the bituminous layer

Figure 31 6.9 Frequency distribution of fatigue life of the bituminous layer
The general findings obtained from the statistical analysis of the above cases are
shown in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Statistical analysis of performance of bituminous layer based on

Resilient moduli
Table 15 6.5 Statistical analysis of performance of bituminous layer based on Resilient moduli
RUTTING FATIGUE RESILIENT

LIFE LIFE MODULUS
MEAN 115.783 msa 32.47 msa 3000 MPa
MEDIAN 112.694 msa 30.235 msa 2879.757 MPa
STANDARD 16.044msa 10.786 msa 450 MPa

DEVIATION
Frequency distribution of variation in resilient modulus of granular layer is as shown

in Fig 6.10
Fig 6.10 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of granular layer

Figure 32 6.10 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of granular layer
Fig 6.11 shows the Frequency distribution of rutting life of granular layer due to
variation in resilient modulus

Fig 6.11 Frequency distribution of rutting life of the granular layer

Figure 33 6.11 Frequency distribution of rutting life of the granular layer
Fig 6.12 is the Frequency distribution of fatigue life of granular layer due to
variation in resilient modulus.
Fig 6.12 Frequency distribution of fatigue life of granular layer

Figure 34 6.12 Frequency distribution of fatigue life of granular layer

Table 6.6 shows the general findings obtained from the statistical analysis.
Table 6.6 Statistical analysis of performance of granular layer based on resilient

moduli
Table 16 6.6 Statistical analysis of performance of granular layer based on resilient moduli

LIFE LIFE MODULUS
MEAN 120.07 msa 33.487 msa 240.1507 MPa
STANDARD 37.39msa 14.77 msa 48.03 MPa

DEVIATION
6.2.2.3 Subgrade Layer
The frequency distribution of the variation in resilient modulus of the subgrade is as

shown in Fig 6.13.
Fig 6.13 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of subgrade

Figure 35 6.13 Frequency distribution of resilient modulus of subgrade

Fig 6.14 shows the frequency distribution of the variation in resilient modulus
of the subgrade rutting life.
Fig 6.14 Frequency distribution of rutting life of subgrade

Figure 36 6.14 Frequency distribution of rutting life of subgrade
The frequency distribution of subgrade fatigue life due to variation in resilient

modulus is as shown in Fig 6.15.
Fig 6.15 Frequency distribution of subgrade fatigue life

Figure 37 6.15 Frequency distribution of subgrade fatigue life

The general findings obtained from the statistical analysis are shown in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7 Statistical Analysis of performance of subgrade layer based on resilient

moduli
Table 17 6.7 Statistical Analysis of performance of subgrade layer based on resilient moduli

LIFE LIFE MODULUS
MEAN 148.11 msa 33.457 msa 76.826 MPa
STANDARD 122.65 msa 15.314 msa 15.3652 MPa

DEVIATION
The statistical findings of the rutting life of the bituminous layer, granular layer and
the subgrade due to variation in resilient modulus is compared in Table 6.8.
Table 6.8 Statistical Parameters of rutting life analysis based on variation in

resilient moduli
Table 18 6.8 Statistical Parameters of rutting life analysis based on variation in resilient modulus

DEVIATION
BITUMINOUS 115.783 msa 112.694 msa 16.044msa

LAYER
GRANULAR LAYER 120.07 msa 107.66 msa 37.39msa
SUBGRADE LAYER 148.11 msa 94.279 msa 122.65 msa
Based on the comparison from Table 6.8, the higher value of standard deviation of
rutting life in the subgrade (122.65 msa) among the other layers implies that the

variation in density of subgrade results in huge changes in design life. This is mainly
because the maximum vertical strain acts at the top of the subgrade layer. While
considering the skewness of the frequency distribution graphs of rutting life of the
layers due to variation in resilient moduli, the graphs are found to be positively
skewed.
Table 6.9 compares the statistical findings of the fatigue life of the layers with
respect to variation due to resilient modulus.
Table 6.9 Statistical Parameters of fatigue life analysis based on variation in

resilient modulus
Table 19 6.9 Statistical Parameters of fatigue life analysis based on variation in resilient modulus

DEVIATION
SUBGRADE LAYER 33.457 msa 28.275 msa 15.314 msa
The comparisons from Table 6.9 show that the highest standard deviation shown
among the three layers is for the fatigue life of the subgrade layer even though the
variation is not as large as the variation seen in the previous cases. This implies how
the density of the subgrade layer affects the service life. In terms of skewness of the
frequency distribution graphs, all the graphs are seen to be exhibiting positive
skewness. Even though the mean values of the results are satisfactory, the median
of the results are less than the expected service life. The positively skewed frequency
distribution graphs implies that the number of observations are more concentrated
around msa values less than the design life.

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
The performance evaluation of flexible pavements due to the effect of construction
variability was done using IITPAVE software. The parameters, thickness and
density of the component layers were considered for the evaluation. Based on the
results, a statistical analysis was done for the rutting life and fatigue life of the
pavement with respect to the selected parameters.
Following conclusions are made based on the performance evaluation:
• For the thickness values greater than the mean value, the actual vertical strain
as well as the horizontal strain are less than the allowable vertical strain and
allowable horizontal strain respectively. This implies that the thickness
values greater than the mean value are safe against rutting as well as fatigue
failure.
• For the thickness values less than the mean value, the allowable vertical
strain is greater than the actual vertical strain while the allowable horizontal
strain is less than the actual horizontal strain. This implies that the thickness
values less than the mean values are safe against rutting failure but unsafe
against fatigue failure.
• In case of variations due to density, for the resilient modulus values greater
than the mean value, the actual vertical strain as well as the horizontal strain
are less than the allowable vertical strain and allowable horizontal strain
respectively. This implies that the values of resilient modulus greater than
the mean value are safe against rutting as well as fatigue failure.
• For the resilient modulus values less than the mean value, the allowable
vertical strain is greater than the actual vertical strain for the bituminous and
granular layer. But for the subgrade layer, the allowable vertical strain is less

than actual vertical strain. This implies that the resilient modulus values less
than the mean values are safe against rutting failure in the bituminous and
granular layer but unsafe for the subgrade. This may be due to the maximum
vertical strain at the top of the subgrade layer, and any compromise in its
design parameters leads to failure. For resilient modulus values less than the
mean value, the allowable horizontal strain is less than the actual horizontal
strain. This implies that the resilient modulus values less than the mean
values are unsafe against fatigue failure.
Based on the statistical analysis of the rutting life, fatigue life and the selected
parameters, the major conclusions are:
• The effect of construction variability due to thickness is more pronounced in

the granular layer than the bituminous layer in terms of rutting. This may be
because of the rutting performance equation in IRC 37-2018 based on
subgrade strain criteria.
• But with respect to fatigue life, the effect of construction variability due to
thickness is more pronounced in the bituminous layer than the granular layer.
This may be because of the effect of the maximum horizontal strain at the
bottom of the bituminous layer, leading to drastic variations in fatigue life.
• It is found that the density variation affects the subgrade layer more. It may
be because of the rutting equation in IRC37-2018 which is based on
subgrade strain criteria. Any variation in the density of the subgrade results
in extensive change in the design life of the pavement. Hence, proper
compaction control methods are necessary for the good performance of the
pavement.

REFERENCES
1. Dalla Valle, Paola & Thom, Nick (2018): ‘Pavement layer thickness variability
evaluation and effect on performance life’, International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, September 2018, Pages 1-9
2. Komershetty Goutami, Dr. KSR Murthy,D. Sandhya Rani (2017): ‘Flexible

Pavement Design & Comparison of Alternative Pavements using IRC 37-2012
IITPAVE’, International Journal for Scientific Research & Development, Vol.5,
Issue 6, 01 September 2017, Pages 71-78
3. Kang-Won Wayne Lee, Kathleen Wilson, Syed Amir Hassan (2017): ‘Prediction
of performance and evaluation of flexible pavement rehabilitation strategies’,
Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Vol.4, Issue 2, April 2017, Pages
178-184
4. Harish G.R (2017): ‘Analysis of Flexible Pavements using IITPAVE’, Imperial

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, Vol.3, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 815-818
5. Paola Dalla Valle, Dr Nick Thom (2015): ‘Variability in Pavement Design’, The
International Journal of Pavement Engineering and Asphalt Technology (PEAT)
ISSN 1464-8164. Volume: 16, Issue: 2, December 2015, pp.50-67
6. P.G. Rakaraddi, Vijay Gomarsi (2015) : ‘Establishing relationship between CBR

with different soil properties’, International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology , Volume: 04 Issue: 02 , February 2015.
7. Deepak Baskandi (2015):‘Influence of Construction Parameters on Performance

of Dense Graded Bituminous Mixes’, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering , Volume 12, Issue 1 Ver. III (Jan- Feb. 2015)

8.Kalita, Kuldeep & Rajbongshi, Pabitra(2014): ‘Variability characterisation of

input parameters in pavement performance evaluation’, Road Materials and
Pavement Design. Vol.16, 09 December 2014, Page 172-185
9.Sandoval, C. & Orobio, Armando(2013): ‘Effect of construction tolerance on

flexible pavement performance’, Revista Ingenieria de Construccion, Vol.28,
December 2013, Pages 266-277.

Project Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Project Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION VARIABILITY

ON PERFORMANCE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

best of our knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously

institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been

made in the text.

ANUJA AJITH Signature

NIKHITHA RADHAKRISHNAN Signature

This is to certify that the report entitled “EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION

VARIABILITY ON PERFORMANCE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS”,

submitted by ANUJA AJITH, ATHUL A S, NIKHITHA RADHAKRISHNAN

AND SMRITHI K V to Muthoot Institute of Technology and Science, Varikoli for

the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering is a bona

Signed by Research Supervisor(s)with name(s)

Signature of Head of the Department

Dept. of Civil Engineering i MITS, Varikoli

Keyword: Flexible Pavements, Performance Evaluation, Construction Variability,

Dept. of Civil Engineering ii MITS, Varikoli

LIST OF TABLES viii

Dept. of Civil Engineering iii MITS, Varikoli

3.1.1 Cracking in bituminous pavements 20

Dept. of Civil Engineering iv MITS, Varikoli

5.2.1.2 Granular Layer 49

Dept. of Civil Engineering v MITS, Varikoli

Figure Title Page no.

1.1 Load distribution of flexible pavement. 4

Dept. of Civil Engineering vi MITS, Varikoli

5.6 Output page in IITPAVE 47

Dept. of Civil Engineering vii MITS, Varikoli

Table Title Page no.

3.1 Indicative values of resilient modulus (MPa) of bituminous mixes 32

Dept. of Civil Engineering viii MITS, Varikoli

6.7 Statistical Analysis of performance of subgrade layer based on

Dept. of Civil Engineering ix MITS, Varikoli

Dept. of Civil Engineering x MITS, Varikoli

Transportation contributes to the economic, industrial, social and cultural

Dept. of Civil Engineering 1 MITS, Varikoli

A massive volume of road materials is always involved in the construction of

Pavement is an assemblage of construction materials, constructed layer by layer,

Dept. of Civil Engineering 2 MITS, Varikoli

1.2.1 Flexible Pavements

Dept. of Civil Engineering 3 MITS, Varikoli

Fig 1.1 Load distribution of flexible pavement.

Dept. of Civil Engineering 4 MITS, Varikoli

1.2.2 Rigid Pavements

Dept. of Civil Engineering 5 MITS, Varikoli

Fig 1. 2 Load distribution of rigid pavement.

1.3 PAVEMENT FUNCTIONS

The primary functions of a pavement are to:

1.3.1 Provide a reasonably smooth riding surface

1.3.2 Provide adequate surface friction (Skid resistance)

Dept. of Civil Engineering 6 MITS, Varikoli

1.3.3 Protect the subgrade

1.3.4 Provide waterproofing

1.4 PERFORMANCE OF PAVEMENTS

1.4.1 Functional performance

Dept. of Civil Engineering 7 MITS, Varikoli

is in the form of information on the characteristics of pavement that directly affect

1.4.2 Structural performance