See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360963818

Recent Advancement in Flexible Pavement Design -AN OVERVIEW ON

IRC:37

Presentation · May 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 1,178

1 author:

R. Srinivasa Kumar
Osmania University
38 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fabrication of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) - A Slef Supporting Project View project

Back Calculation models View project

All content following this page was uploaded by R. Srinivasa Kumar on 31 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Recent Advancement in
Flexible Pavement Design
-AN OVERVIEW ON IRC:37

- Prof. R. Srinivasa Kumar

rungoz@yahoo.com
rungoz@Osmania.ac.in
Osmania University
Hyderabad, India.

1
Factors

Subgrade
Economical Strategy
Traffic

Analysis

Materials

Climate

Suitable Reliable
Thickness

2
 Factors considered for Material Testing
Environmental
Identify Design
Effects
Features

PMS & Material

Rehabilitation Characteristics

Evaluation & Traffic

Condition Characteristics

3
 Types of Pavement Design
1. Empirical Methods 2.Theoretical or 3. M-E Methods
Analytical Methods
Group-1: GI, FAA 1945
Burmister (1943,1945) 2008-AASHTO guide
Group-2: CBR, Plate
Load test etc. IRC:37-2018,

Group-3: AASHTO- IRC:58-2015

1972, 81, 86 (Regres

4
 List of A Few Empirical Design Methods
Test on subgrade soil Design Input Design Methods

California State Highway Dept.(1928), US

Corps of Engineers (1958), British Revised
CBR, Wyoming CBR, National Asphalt
1. California Bearing
CBR Value Pavement Association, NAPA (Foster, 1965),
Ratio (CBR) National Crushed Stone Association, (NCSA,
1972), TAI (1970),
IRC:37-1970 Method & NAASRA (1979).

2. Cone Penetration Penetration Value North Dakota Cone Method

Deflection of Plate or US Navy Method based on Burmister’s Elastic

3. Plate Load Modulus of subgrade Theory for Airfield Pavements and Canadian
reaction (k) Dept. of Transport or McLeod Method

4. Hveem
R and C-values
Stabilometer and California Resistance Value Method (1948)
respectively
Cohesiometer
Triaxial Method (1910), which was modified
5. Triaxial by Kansas State Highway Dept.
Elastic Modulus value 5
(A semi-arbitrary method which partly
Compression
comprises theoretical consideration)
INDIAN Guidelines for the Design of
Flexible Pavements by IRC:37
Source:IRC:37-2018

6
Courtesy: IRC
 Timeline of Flexible Pavement
• IRC:37-1970: Empirical Design (based TRRL)
• Shell Method (1963 Emp. & 1977 M-E+CTB), 1982 M-E)
• Asphalt Institute (1982 M-E+Emulsons, 1991 M-E)
• South Africa-National Institute for Trans. & Road Research, 1982
• IRC:37-1984: 1st -Revision (Emp.)
• Austroads, (1992 M-E)
• AASHTO method (1993)-ServiceabilityEMP
• LCPC, France, (1997 M-E)
• IRC:37-2001: 2nd – M-E DesignTF
• AASHTO MEPDG 2008
• IRC:SP:20-2002: PMGSY & IRC:SP:72-2007: Rural Roads
• IRC:37-2012: 3rd – M-E DesignTF+, Composite-Pave
• IRC:37-2018: 4th – M-E Design
7
 First Guidelines: IRC:37-1970
• Adapted based on International Practice (California
State Highway Dept., & TRRL) of Empirical Design
with suitable adjustments
• Design Traffic based on CV (>=3ton);Growth@7.5%
• Categories of Commercial Traffic:A – E (450-1500 CVPD)
• Subgrade is characterized by CBR value
• Total Thickness: CBR Vs. Traffic range (A-E)
• Individual layer thicknesses can be estimated from
the CBR value of the underlying layer
• Limitations: climatic conditions based on pavement
temperatures, vehicle categories, axle load
spectrum, no-lanes and materials Char. of different 8
layers
First Guidelines: IRC:37-1970
(No msa concept)

Courtesy: IRC

9
 First Revision: IRC:37-1984
Courtesy: IRC
(Semi-empirical)
• Design Traffic: ESAL (80kN), axle loads
• AASHO –Axle load- Equivalency Factors
• VDF values recommended for diff. cases
• Default VDF=3: Thick Pavements, Plain terrain,
>1500CVPD
• LDF
• ESAL (8160kg): Axle spectrum considered
• Growth@7.5%
• Only for New pavement-designs
10
 First Revision: IRC:37-1984
Courtesy: IRC

• Thickness design chart for csa (upto 30msa) of diff.

CBRs (2-10%)

• Capping on subgrade: 500mm,

• Sub=base: min. CBR20% (2msa), 30% (>2msa)

11
First Revision: IRC:37-1984
Courtesy: IRC
CBR

12
 First Revision: IRC:37-1984
Courtesy: IRC

• continued for design traffic upto 1500 CVD

• However, modified CBR curves for 10.2 T single
axle legal limits were used instead of 8.16 T and
thickness was increased by 10 - 20%. 13
 First Revision: IRC:37-1984
• Equivalent Thickness Conversion factors: Courtesy: IRC

BM: 1.5
DBM:2.0
• GSB-Drainage Consideration

14
The M-E Era started in INDIA
from 2001 onwards….

Courtesy: IRC

15
 M-E Approach of pavement Design

Mechanistic- Part Empirical Part

• Multi layered structure • These calculated critical
• Each layer characterized strains were correlated
by its thickness, modulus with pavement
of elasticity and performance indicators:
Poisson’s ratio. Cracking & Rutting for a
design life by empirically
derived equations known
• Stresses, strains & as distress models/
deflections at critical performance prediction
locations within the models based on past
pavement structure experience, field obs. and
under traffic loading laboratory results.
• Pavement Performance 16
Structural Response Model
Prediction PPP-Model.
The Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E)
Design Approach

17
 M-E Designs Started from

• Inspired from:
• First International Conference on the
Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavements
• Ann Arber, Michigan, USA, 1962.

18
M-E Pavement Design Method - IRC Design Method

1. Dorman, 1962
2. Saal and Pell, University of Nottingham with
Shell Laboratories, 1960
3. Monismith et al. University of California, 1961

310 mm
Tyres

h1 εt Bituminous Layer (E1, μ1)

h2 Granular Base (E2, μ2)

h3 Granular Sub-base (E3, μ3)

εz Subgrade (En, μn)

 FP design based on M–E principles
• .COmparing Mix and Pavement StructureS
(COMPASS) by the CROW working group.
• South African mechanistic design method (SAMDM)
(Theyse et el. 1996 and 1997).
• CARE (Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute,
Deft) (CROW Report D06-06).
• French Design Manual, LCPC, Paris (CROW Report
D06-06).
• Shell Pavement Design Manual (Shell 1985).
• CROW Design Procedure for Thin Asphalt
Pavements: (CROW Report D06-06).
• The Asphalt Institute Method, MS-1, USA (TAI 1991).
AUSTROADS Pavement Design Guide, Australia20
(AUSTROADS 1992).
 FP design based on M–E principles
• Washington State DoT(WSDOT) Pavement Guide
(WSDOT 1995; Mahoney and Pierce 1996).
• Minnesota DoT (MnDOT) mechanistic–empirical
flexible pavement design (1998).
• AASHTO M–E Design Guide for New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures (NCHRP, 2003).
• Key features: Finite element analysis, load spectra,
roughness evaluation in terms of IRI and reliability in
life-cycle cost assessment.
• Analytical design methods developed at IIT
Kharagpur, India. (Sudhakar 1993 and Animesh
1998).
• IRC:37-2001.
21
 IRC:37-2001
• Design Approach: Courtesy: IRC

• 3 Layer structure
• Strains @ critical locations
• FPAVE- Linear Elastic Model
• Based on R-56 (MORTH project)
• 150 msa
• Mix Specifications introduced
• E-values of DBM (with 60/70) used for
determination of allowable strains in BT layer
• E-values: subgrade, GSB and SubBase given
22
 IRC:37-2001 Contd.,
• Design Approach: Courtesy: IRC

• Fatigue criterion: calibrated at an AAPT of 35 °C

for BC (80/100 bitumen). Generalised for all grades
of bitumen for a temp. 20 - 40 °C:
• Nf = 2.21× 10–4 ×(1/ εt)3.89 × (1/Ebit)0.854
Nf = No of csa to cause 20% cracked surface
The DBM with 60/70 used
• Rutting criterion: Allowable rut depth = 20 mm.
NR = 4.1656× 10–8 ×(1/ εz)4.5337
NR = No. of csa to produce rut depth of 20 mm.
εz = Vertical compressive subgrade strain (×10–6)
23
 IRC:37-2001 Contd.,Courtesy: IRC
• Empirical Eq. used:
Esubgrade (MPa) = 10 × CBR for CBR ≤ 5 %
Esubgrade (MPa) = 17.6 × (CBR)0.64 for CBR > 5 %

Egranular layer (MPa) = Esubgrade × 0.2 × (hgran)0.45

Min. Thickness:
GSB: up to 10 msa is 150 mm (CBR >20%)
exceeding 10 msa is 200 mm (CBR>30
Gran.Base:
up to 2 msa is 225 mm (CBR >20%)
exceeding 2 msa is 250 mm (CBR>30%) 24
 IRC:37-2001 Contd.,
• Thickness charts:
• 1-150msa
• CBR (2-10%)

Courtesy: IRC

25
 Internal Drainage

Cracked Bit. Surface

Base Course
Intrusion of fines
takes place Sub-base Course
Sub-grade
Undesirable

26
 Internal Drainage:
Horizontal movement of moisture
in Sib-base

Desirable Condition

Sub-base Course

27
 Internal Drainage:
Check for Intrusion of Subgrade Fines into Sub-base = ?

IRC:SP:50-2013 IRC:SP:42-2014 MORTH, 2013

Courtesy: IRC
28
The basic ingredients of both mixes are same but the
differences lies in % of fines in DL & FL of GSB mix.

Upper GSB
Drainage Layer
Bituminous
WMM-Base
Sub-base
Lower GSB
GSB
Filter Layer
Sub-grade
Sub-base

29
 GSB gradings Recommended by
IRC:37-2012, MORTH-2013, AASHTO(1993)

Courtesy: IRC 30
To prevent Intrusion of Fines
GSB Grades as per IRC:37 &
MORTH 2013

• MORTH GSB grades: I, II, III, IV, V and VI = 6

Select:
Upper GSB as DL: V & VI
Lower GSP as Filter/Separation Layer: III & IV

The DL should be tested for permeability and

gradation may be altered
31
 Courtesy: IRC
IRC:37-2001 Contd.,
Elastic Modulus (MPa) of Bituminous Mixes

32
 Courtesy: IRC
IRC:37-2001 Contd.,
Criteria for selection of Grade of Bitumen

33
 Observations on IRC:37-2001
• Sufficient thickness of the sub-base/Gran. recommended
in 2001 to stand under construction traffic.
• Rutting in Subgrade & Gran.
• The data on bituminous layers (1980-90) were not very
thick in India and the rutting took place in the subgrade
and the granular layers only. (90% Reliability given in
2012)
• Providing large thickness of gran. layer does not reduce
in thickness of bituminous layer from fatigue
considerations
• Rutting in Bit. layer was to be taken care of by selecting
stiffer binder and mix design (2012 onwards…).
• 50% less rut depth found by VG 40 as compared with
VG 30 (MEPDG.., >2000CVPD & >400C). 34
 Observations on IRC:37-2001
• Fatigue Resistance of Bituminous Layers
• Laboratory tests & field performance indicate that fatigue
life of a bituminous layer depends on bitumen content &
VG of a mix (C factor given in 2012)
• Softer grade (VG30) gave unstable mix with higher
bitumen content if exposed to construction traffic.
• Bituminous layer thickness >150 mm, the temperature of
the bottom DBM is lower than the top; little chance of
rutting in DBM, if the air void = 3%.
• Higher bitumen (having 0.5% - 0.6%) higher
bitumen(VG40) content in DBM makes the mix resistant
to stripping & impermeable and air void = 3% (CRRI)
• Tensile strains near edge of tyres will be higher due to
high temp. (TDC considered from 2012 onwards…)
35
• Polymer and CRMB: 2-10 times higher live than normal.
 IRC:37-2012 (3rd Revision)
• IRC:37-2001, also applicable for upto 30
msa, used bitumen gr. VG 30, with 80%
reliability.
• IRC:37-2012 recommends VG 40 with
traffic beyond 30 msa with 90% reliability.
• Alternate materials: cementitious & RAP
considered to analysis using the software
IITPAVE, a modified version of FPAVE.
• Test values are based on National
Standards of Australia, South Africa and
AASHTO(MEPDG) and India/CRRI. 36
 Grades of Bitumen (IS:73-2006)
• Min. Dynamic viscosity at 600 C

37
 Polymer-Modified Bitumen
• Polymers mixed with bitumen to improve strength:
Types of Polymers
(Used for paving)

Elastomers
Plastomers
Induce elasticity & stiffness
Induce plasticity or viscosity or stiffness to properties to bitumen
bitumen.
1. Styrene Isoprene Styrene,
1. Poly-ethylene,
2. Styrene Butadiene Styrene,
2. Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Ethylene/propylene
3. Ethylene Butyl Acrylate 3. Styrene Butadiene,
4. Linear low-density Polyethylene 4. Poly-butadiene,
(LLDPE)
5. Some types of Rubbers
In India, 3-types are widely used:
1. Poly-ethylene,
2. Vnyl-acetate
3. sSyrene-Butadine-Styrene.
• The above are used for preparation of modified bitumens and emulsions.
38
 Advantages of Polymer Modified Bitumen
Reduce Rutting
Increases
Viscosity & Shear
Resistance
Increases
Softening Point

Reduction Bitumen
Retards Oxidation by upto 10%

Extend upto 50% of

service period
39
 IRC:37-2012 (3 rd Revision)

• CASE-II
• Cement Treated: Sub-base & Base
• Sub-base with its upper 100 mm graded
as permeable “Drainage Layer” (infiltration
@ ≥300 m/day)
• Treated Base course should have a min.
UCC of 4.5 - 7 MPa in 7/28 days.
• Material Char. are from AASHTO 2002
40
(MEPDG).
 IRC:37-2012 (3 rd Revision)

• CASE-III
• Cement Treated: Sub-base & Base

41
 IRC:37-2012 (3rd Revision)
• Min. Traffic growth @ 5%
• Design Life:
– NH& SH: 15 yr.
– Ex& Urban : >20 yr.
– Very High Vol roads: 200 msa
– Other : 10-15 yr.
• in-situ CBR of subgrade soil
(ASTM-D6951-09)

– Log10CBR = 2.465 – 1.12 log10N60o

42
 How to Compute Effective Subgrade CBR due to Capping Layer?
As per IRC:37-2012

4%

8.0%

Single
12% Wheel
(4000 kN)
Tyre
Tyre contact radius
Pressure =
a = 150.8 mm
0.56 MPa

Subgrade-borrowed Soil
500 mm
Layer (CBR = 12%)

Capping layer: 8% min. Embankment (CBR = 4%)

designed traffic ≥ 450 CVPD

43
 IRC:37-2012 (3rd Revision)
• Fatigue Model:
Courtesy: IRC

• cracking 20% area for traffic up to 30 msa

• 10% for beyond traffic.
<30msa, VG30,35oC 2001
>30msa, VG40

44
 IRC:37-2012 (3rd Revision)
Courtesy: IRC
• Rutting Model:
• limiting rutting: as 20 mm in 20 % of the
length for design traffic up to 30 msa
• 10 % of the length for beyond.
80%2001

90% Reliability

• Charts: 2-150msa; CBR:3-15%

45
 Timeline of improvements in IRC:37
1970EMP 1984EMP 2001M-E 2012M-E 46
2018M-E

• Upto • Upto 30 • R-6 & R- • Catalog VI • Upto 300 msa

1500 msa 56 cases • Fine tuned
CVPD • 80kN MoRTH • IITPAVE from feedback
• Design • Design • FPAVE • RAP • Better
curves curves • Upto • CTB, CTSB Bit./Binder/ CT
150msa • 80% & 90% Mixes
Reliabty. • EBit-Values
• VG-grades • Min. Thickness
of CTB & CTSB
• Effective CBR
• Provision for
Geo-synthetics
 2018 & 2012
Perpetual Pavements (≥ 300msa)

• AI, MS-4, 7th Ed. (Endurance Limits)

• Tensile strain in Bit. layer < 70 micro strain
• Comp. strain in Subgrage layer < 200 micro strain

• INDIA
Courtesy: IRC
• 0
AAPT: 35 C
• Endurance Limits: 80 & 200 micro strain
• Only top surface need maintenance…. 47
 Example 10.6, Page:347
Proposed WMM as GSB thickness = 200mm
Effective modulus of combined capping layer with subgrade = 72 MPa

Check adequacy of WMM = 200mm ? Assumed Value

Given Pavement with Standard Axle Load 48

 Inputs: Select Criterion,
layers No. & Thickness, E, µ,
General Design- h, P, Nf
Steps
By Eqn’s Calculate: Allowable Strains in
1. εv in Subgrade top

Run

Compute: Actual Strains in

1. εv in Subgrade top

NO Check Actual < Allowable

? Strain
YES
Finalize Base-Thickness
49
 What is new in IRC:37-2018
2001 Criteria for selection of Grade of Bitumen
Courtesy: IRC

2012

2018

50
What is new in IRC:37-2018
Criteria for selection of Grade of Bitumen
Courtesy: IRC
2012

2018

51
 What is new in IRC:37-2018
Courtesy: IRC
1984 2012

2018

52
What is new in IRC:37-2018
Courtesy: IRC
» 2012
»

2018

53
Modes of Failures considered for
Mechanistic-Empirical Design
Failure
Modes

Fatigue Rutting
Failure Failure

54
 Failure
Fatigue Cracking of Asphalt Modes
Pavement Courtesy: IRC Fatigue Rutting
Failure Failure

Nf = 1.6064 × C× 10–4 × (1/ εt)3.89 × (1/Ebit)0.854 80% reliability

Nf = 0.5161 × C× 10–4 × (1/ εt)3.89 × (1/Ebit)0.854 90% reliability

Where,
Nf = No. of cumulative 80 kN-standard axles to cause 20% and more cracked
surface area
εt = Tensile strain at bottom fibre of the bituminous layer (×10–6) and
Ebit = Resilient modulus of the bituminous surfacing (MPa).

Vbe = Volume of effective bitumen binder in the bituminous layer (%)

Va = Volume of air voids in the bituminous layer (%) 55
Subgrade Rutting Criteria

Failure Rutting Condition

Rut Depth ≥ 20mm

εz

Courtesy: IRC
NR = 4.1656 × 10–8 ×(1/ εz)4.5337 80 % reliability < 20msa

NR = 1.41 × 10–8 ×(1/ εz)4.5337 90 % reliability ≥ 20 msa

where,
NR = No. of cumulative standard axles to produce rut depth of 20 mm
εz = Vertical compressive sub-grade strain (×10–6) 56
Fatigue Performance of Cement Treated Base (CTB)
IRC:37-2018
CBT Failure Courtesy: IRC
Criterion

Based on cum. Std. axle load Based on cum. Std. axle

repetitions load repetitions
estimated using VDF estimated using Axle-Load
Spectrum

57
Fatigue Performance of Cement Treated Base (CTB)
CBT Failure
IRC:37-2018 Criterion

Based on cum. Std. axle load Based on cum. Std. axle

repetitions Based on cum. Std. axle load
repetitions
load repetitions
estimated using Axle-Load
estimated using VDF Spectrum
estimated using Axle-Load
Spectrum Courtesy: IRC

Check :
Cumulative Fatigue Damage (CFD) in CTB

∑CFD(Single + Tandem + Tridem) ≤ 1.0? 58

 Standard Axle Load - Single
155 mm 155 mm

Single axle (80 kN = 80,000 kN)

Tyre pressure =0.56 Mpa

310 mm Dual Wheels

59
 Traffic
• Traffic Surveys:
As per IRC:9-1972: 7 day 24 hours traffic count.
Laden weight ≥ 3 Ton
Traffic Growth Rate = 5.0% Min.
Design Period = 20 yr. Min., Ex, NH, SH
=15 yr. Other

A  P(1  r ) nc

Design Traffic:

60
 Sub-grade Requirements
• Min. CBR = 5%, for traffic > 450 CVPD
• Capping Layer 500 mm thick

• DCP:

61
 Sub-grade Requirements
Courtesy: IRC

(Conversion : CBR → ESubgrade)

Esubgrade (MPa) = 10 × CBR for lab-CBR ≤ 5 %

Esubgrade (MPa) = 17.6 × (CBR)0.64 for lab-CBR > 5 %

Poisson's Ratio: µ = 0.35

62
 Sub-grade Requirements
Effective Subgrade Modulus with Capping Layer: ESubgrade

Effective CBR = ?

Effective Esubgrade =

63
 Sub-base
Granular Sub-base (GSB) Cemented Treated
Sub-base (CTSB)
Min. Thickness:
Filter Layer :100 mm
Drainage layer :100 mm
ECTSB :600 MPa
If UCS:1.5-3MPa
Drainage-cum-filter Layer
= 150 mm
ECTSB :400 MPa
Egranular (MPa): If UCS:-0.75-1.5 MPa
= EEffective-subgrade × 0.2 × (hgran)0.45

µ = 0.25
µ = 0.35
64
 Base
Granular Base (GB) Cemented Treated
WMM, WBM Base (CTB)
Min. Thickness: 150 mm
Min. Thickness: 100 mm
Egranular :
= EEffective-subgrade × 0.2 × (hboth)0.45
ECTB : 5000 MPa
Egranular placed on CTSB:
= 300 Mpa, Natural Gravel UCS:4.5-7MPa
= 350 Mpa ,Crished Roack. µ = 0.25
Crack Relief Layer: Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
Min. Thickness (WMM) RAP:
= 100 mm Min. Thickness = 100 mm

Ecrack Relief : 450 Mpa ERAP: 800 Mpa

µ = 0.35 µ = 0.35
65
 Inputs: Select Criterion,
layers No. & Thicknesses,
General E, µ, h, P, Nf
Design-Steps By Eqn’s Calculate: Allowable Strains in
1. εt in Bituminous Layer
2. εv in Subgrade top

Run

Compute: Actual Strains in

1. εt in Bituminous/ CBT Layer
2. εv in Subgrade top

NO Check Actual < Allowable

? Strains
YES
Final Thicknesses
66
 Example - Pavement Composition
155 mm

Wheel Wheel
(20000 (20000
kN) kN) 80 kN of Std. Axle Load
Tyre Tyre
Pressure Pressure
= 0.56 = 0.56
MPa MPa

Layer-1 140 mm BC +DBM with 3000 MPa, µ = 0.35

VG40
140 mm
WMM
450 MPa, µ = 0.35
Layer-2 500 mm
Granular Sub-Base
640 mm
Layer-3 Sub-grade (75 MPa), µ = 0.35 67
Run – IITPAVE Software
IRC:37-2018
Run

Courtesy: IRC
68
Example Input - IITPAVE

20000 20000
kN kN 80 kN Axle Load

0.56 = 0.56

140 mm BC +DBM with VG40 3000 MPa, µ = 0.35

140 mm
WMM
450 MPa, µ = 0.35
500 mm
Granular Sub-Base
640 mm
Sub-grade 75 Mpa, µ = 0.35

69
Example Output - IITPAVE

70
Example Output – IITPAVE
IRC:37-2018

R=
SigmaT=
Z=Radial
Depth
SigmaZ=
epZ=
TaoRZ=
SigmaR=Dist.
Tangential
from
DispZ=
epR=Shear
epT= from
Surface
Vertical
Radial
Hor.
Hor. Center
Stress
Stress
Vertical Strain
Vertical
Stress
Stress
Radial of Tyre
Deflection
TensileStrain
Strain
Contact Area
155 mm

Wheel Wheel
(20000 (20000
kN) kN)
Tyre Tyre
Pressure Pressure
= 0.56 = 0.56
MPa MPa

71
Max. of: epT & epR

Max. value of epT = 0.1283E-03 = 0.0001283

72
Max. epZ = ? In Subgrade

Max. value of epZ = 0.2053E-03 = 0.0002053

73
 Challenges In Design- A look to the Future
• Well coordinated pavement performance
study and calibration of failure models in
India
• Air Temp & pavement Temp. across India
• As constructed Material Char. Data
• Guidelines do not constitute a rigid
standard
• Regional Designs suitable based on local
environment and pavement performance
in Hilly/Rolling/Coastal, Dry/Wet regions.
• LCC Analysis of the catalog-options 74
 REFERENCES
 IRC:37–1970, “Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements”, First
published, The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, September, 1970.
 IRC:37–1984, “Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements”, First
Revision, The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, December, 1984.
 IRC:37–2001, “Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements”, Second
Revision, The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, July, 2001.
 IRC:37–2012, “Tentative Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements”,
The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, July, 2012.
 IRC:37-2018, Guidelines
 Garg, Sanjay, “Perpetual Flexible Pavements: Pavements of Future”, Journal
of the Indian Road Congress, Indian Roads Congress, Vol.73-1, 2012.
 NCHRP, “Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement
Structures”, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP
Project 1- 37A, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004.
 AASHTO-MEPDG, “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, Interim
Edition: A Manual of Practice”, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2008.
 R. Srinivasa Kumar, Pavement Design, Universities Press, 2012
 R. Srinivasa Kumar, Transportation Engineering, Universities Press, 2018 75
 Books Authored by me Prof. R. Srinivasa Kumar
Osmania University, India
ungoz@yahoo.com

76
View publication stats