Short Report on

Pavement Design Using IITPave and IRC

37:2018

Transportation Engineering (PCC-CE503)

Submitted By
Group No. 9
Name (Year-Division-Roll No)
Leander Carvalho (TE-A-09)
Mayank Jitekar (TE-A-26)
Nikhil Kharat (TE-A-32)
Vaishnavi Kore (TE-A-47)

Under Guidance of

Mr. Pritesh Bhana

Ms. Ashwini Shanbhag
 Executive Summary

Pavement can be defined as a layered structure supported by the soil subgrade which forms the
carriageway for the roads. It can also be described as a structure which consists of layers of
materials above the natural subgrade, whose main function is to distribute the loads applied by the
vehicles to the subgrade beneath the pavement. The pavement installed must have characteristics
such as good light reflecting characteristics, sufficient skid resistance, low noise pollution and
acceptable riding quality. The aim is to ensure that the pressures transmitted due to the loading of
the wheels are sufficiently reduced, so that they do not exceed the bearing capacity of the sub-
grade. There are generally two types of Pavements, Flexible pavement, and Rigid pavement.
Flexible pavement also called as bituminous pavement can change their shape to some extent
without any rupture. Rigid pavement also called as concrete pavement cannot change their shape
without any rupture.

For design and calculation for the project IRC 37: 2018 is used. All the necessary data is being
assumed by using the same.

For this project, we were presented with the necessary data that would help us in solving the
problems that we were assigned with. The software which we used to generate the results was
IITPave and with the help of this software we were able to generate the required results. Once, the
results were generated, we had to check whether the design for pavement is safe or not. And once
the design was safe, we had to check whether it would be economical to design it, or we need to
make some further changes so the design becomes cost-effective as well. This was checked using
the excel sheet which was provided to us along with the other data.

Hence keeping this is mind we have generated a report which covers all the points that were
discussed.

1
 Table of Content
Chapter Page No
Executive Summary i
Table of Content ii
List of Figures iii
List of Tables iv
Abbreviations v
Introduction 1
Project Task 5
Data Analysis and Software Calculations 7
Result Discussion and Conclusion 7

2
 List of Figures
Figure-1: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular Base and GSB Showing the locations
of Critical Strain. ____________________________________________________________________03
Figure-2: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular Crack Relief Layer, CTB, and CTSB
Showing the Locations of Critical Stress. _________________________________________________03
Figure-3: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), SAMI Crack Relief Layer, CTB, and CTSB
Showing the Locations of Critical Strains/Stresses __________________________________________03
Figure-4: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Emulsion/Foam Bitumen Stabilized RAP/
Virgin Aggregate Layer and CTSB Showing the Locations of Critical Strains ____________________03
Figure-5: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular Base (WMM) and CTSB Showing
the Locations of Critical Strains________________________________________________________ 03
Figure-6: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular Crack Relief Layer, CTB, and GSB
Showing the Locations of Critical Strains/Stresses _________________________________________ 03
Figure-7: Data entered in IIT Pave software ____________________________________________09

Figure-8: Final output of IIT Pave software ______________________________09

Figure-9: Assessment of results. _______________________________________________________10
Figure-10: Layer Properties __________________________________________________________ 10

3
 List of Tables
Table-1: Predicted Traffic data (Provided data) ______________________________________1
Table-2: Allowable Traffic Data (Subgrade data) ____________________________________ 1
Table-3: Summary of Bituminous Layer Options Recommended in these Guidelines ________ 1
Table-4: Indicative Values of Resilient Modulus (MPa) of Bituminous Mixes. _____________ 1

4
 Abbreviations
IRC - Indian Roads Congress
CVPD - Commercial Vehicles Per Day
SAMI - Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer
SDBC - Semi-Dense Bituminous Concrete
SMA - Stone Matrix Asphalt
VDF - Vehicle Damage Factor
MR GRAN - Resilient modulus of granular layer
MRm - Resilient modulus of the bituminous mix
MRS - Resilient modulus of subgrade soil
MRSUPPORT - Effective resilient modulus of the layer supporting the granular layer
MSA - Million standard axles
n - Design life period, in years
δ - Maximum surface deflection
εt - Horizontal Tensile Strain
εv - Vertical compressive strain
h - Thickness of the granular layer
C - Adjustment factor for fatigue life of bituminous layer
A - Initial traffic
GSB - Granular Sub-base
GB - Granular Base
DBM - Dense Bituminous Macadam
CBR - California Bearing Ratio
mm - Millimeter

5
 Chapter-1

Introduction
1.1 General
The philosophy of the analytical approach to pavement design is that the structure should be treated
in the same way as other civil engineering structures. This contrasts with the traditional method of
designing pavements which is based on experience and the use of a test (the CBR) on the subgrade.
It is because of the complexities of structural behavior and material properties that empirical
procedures have endured for so long in pavement engineering. Conversely, for a pavement of
known thickness constructed on a subgrade of identifiable characteristics, it is possible to
determine the loads that the pavement can safely carry. This method of evaluating the load-bearing
capacity is known as the ‘reverse-design method’ as is used for the evaluation of pavements.

In fairness, the Carthaginians are generally credited with being the first to construct and maintain
a road system (about 600 B.C.) according to Tillson [1900]. The Romans eventually decided that
their neighbors across the Mediterranean were a bit of a threat to the empire destroying Carthage
in 146 B.C. (The Carthage ruins are in Tunisia (Northern Africa) next door to Algeria (on the left)
and Libya (on the right — so to speak).) It is suggested that the Romans took up the practice of a
military road system from the Carthaginians. It is estimated that the Romans built about 87,000
km of roads within their empire. Roman road construction was not inexpensive. Updated
construction estimates of the Appian Way in Italy are about $2,000,000 per km (updated estimates
following Rose [1935] and Leger [1875]).

Telford attempted, where possible, to build roads on relatively flat grades (no more than 1 in 30)
to reduce the number of horses needed to haul cargo. Further, the pavement section was about 350
to 450 mm in depth and generally specified in three layers. The bottom layer was comprised of
large stones (100 mm) wide and 75 to 180 mm in depth)

John Macadam (born 1756) observed that most of the “paved” U.K. roads in early 1800s were
composed of rounded gravel [Smiles, 1904]. He knew that angular aggregate over a well-
compacted subgrade would perform substantially better. He used a sloped subgrade surface to
improve drainage (unlike Telford who used a flat subgrade surface) on which he placed angular
aggregate (hand-broken, maximum size 75 mm) in two layers for a total depth of about 200 mm.

Thus, we have seen pavement structures decrease from about 0.9 m (3 feet) for Roman designs to
350 to 450 mm for Telford designs, to about 250 mm for Macadam designs, to 100 mm at about
the turn of the century (refer to Figure 4). (Naturally, the thinnest pavements were not always
used.) The Massachusetts Highway Commission standard cross-section for macadam construction
was 150 mm thick as reported by Gillette in 1906. This thickness was also used on New York state
roads at about that time.

1
It appears that the first tar macadam pavement was placed outside of Nottingham (Lincoln Road)
in 1848 [Collins and Hart, 1936; Hubbard, 1910]. At that time, such pavements were considered
suitable only for light traffic (not for urban streets). Coal tar (the binder) had been available in the
U.K. from about 1800 as a residue from coal-gas lighting.

Sheet asphalt placed on a concrete base (foundation) became popular during the mid-1800s with
the first such pavement of this type being built in Paris in 1858. The first such pavement placed in
the U.S. was in Newark, New Jersey, in 1870. In 1901 and 1903, Frederick J. Warren was issued
patents for the early “hot mix” paving materials. A typical mix contained about 6 percent
“bituminous cement” and graded aggregate proportioned for low air voids.

Interestingly, Portland cement concrete (PCC) was not used as a pavement wearing course much
until after about 1910 (Agg, 1940); however, it was regularly used as a “stiff” base to support other
wearing courses such as wooden blocks, bricks, cobble stones, etc. One likely reason for this was
the lack of a consistent specification for the early cements.

Types of Pavements
The pavements can be classified based on the structural performance into two, flexible pavements
and rigid pavements. The flexible pavements, those which are surfaced with bituminous (or
asphalt) materials. These types of pavements are called “flexible” since the total pavement
structure “bends” or “deflects” due to traffic loads. A flexible pavement structure is generally
composed of several layers of materials which can accommodate this “flexing”. The Rigid
Pavements are Those which are surfaced with Portland cement concrete (PCC). These types of
pavements are called “rigid” because they are substantially stiffer than flexible pavements due to
PCC's high stiffness.

General layers of Pavements

Typical layers of a conventional flexible pavement include seal coat, surface course, tack coat,
binder course, prime coat, base course, sub-base course, compacted subgrade, and natural
subgrade.

2
 As per IRC 37:2018, There are these 6 types of arrangements, used as per mix
available.

Figure-1: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular Base Figure-2: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular
and GSB Showing the locations of Critical Strain. Crack Relief Layer, CTB, and CTSB Showing the Locations of
Critical. Stress.

Figure-3: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), SAMI Crack Figure-4: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s),
Relief Layer, CTB, and CTSB Showing the Locations of Critical Emulsion/Foam Bitumen Stabilized RAP/ Virgin Aggregate Layer
Strains/Stresses and CTSB …..Showing the Locations of Critical Strains Stress.

Figure-5: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular Base Figure-6: A Pavement Section with Bituminous Layer(s), Granular
(WMM) and CTSB Showing the Locations of Critical Strains Crack Relief Layer, CTB, and GSB Showing the Locations of Critical
Strains/Stresses Strains/Stresses …..Showing the Locations of Critical Strains Stress.

3
1.2 Objectives of Project
1. To understand the philosophy of Pavement Design Code IRC 37:2018.
2. To design a suitable cross-section for given traffic and material data

4
 Chapter-2

Project Task

The aim of the project is to design a pavement for the below provided data, which follows
Expected Traffic < Allowable Traffic

Data provided- for GROUP-1 (A-Division)

A-DIVISION

Group Design Traffic Carriageway Number of Terrain Growth Design Life

No (CVPD) Type Lane Type Rate (Years)
(%)

9 1120 Undivided Two Plain 2.1 15

Table-1: Predicted Traffic data

A-DIVISION

CBR of Compacted CBR of Natural Subgrade

Group No
Subgrade (%) (%)
A-9 10.0 6.0

Table-2: Allowable Traffic data (Subgrade data)

Other required data provided:

Single wheel load= 40,000 N
Contact Pressure = 0.56Mpa
Subgrade thickness= 500mm
Poisson's Ratio= 0.35
C= 2.0

5
Formulas to be used:
365×𝐴[(1+𝑟)𝑛 −1]×𝑉𝐷𝐹×𝐿𝐷𝐹
1. 𝑁𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑆𝐴 = 𝑟
0.64
2. 𝑀𝑅𝑆 = 17.6 𝐶𝐵𝑅
2(1−𝜇2)𝑝𝑎
3. 𝑴𝑹𝒔 = 𝛿
4. 𝑀𝑅𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 0.2 × (ℎ)0.45 × 𝑀𝑅𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒

Tables used for data reference from IRC 37: 2018

Table-3: Summary of Bituminous Layer Options Recommended in these Guidelines.

Table-4: Indicative Values of Resilient Modulus (MPa) of Bituminous Mixes.

6
 Chapter-3

Data Analysis and Software Calculations

Step 01: Calculation of Expected traffic

365 × 𝐴[(1 + 𝑟)𝑛 − 1] × 𝐿𝐷𝐹 × 𝑉𝐷𝐹

𝑁𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑆𝐴 =
𝑟
From given data, A=1120, r=2.1%, n=15years, LDF= 0.5 or 50%, VDF= 3.9

365 × 1120 × [(1 + 0.021)15 − 1] × 0.5 × 3.9

𝑁𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑆𝐴 =
0.021
𝑵𝒔 𝒐𝒓 𝑪𝑺𝑨 = 13.89 MSA

Step 02: Effective CBR of Subgrade

𝑀𝑅𝑆 = 17.6 × 𝐶𝐵𝑅 0.64

From given data,

CBR for 500mm Subgrade layer= 10.0%, For Natural Subgrade layer= 6.0%

𝑀𝑅𝑆 𝑓𝑜𝑟 500𝑚𝑚 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 = 17.6 × (10.0)^0.64

𝑀𝑅𝑆 𝑓𝑜𝑟 500𝑚𝑚 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 = 𝟕𝟔. 𝟖𝟑 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝑀𝑅𝑆 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 = 17.6 × (6.0)^0.64

𝑀𝑅𝑆 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 = 𝟓𝟓. 𝟒𝟏 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Step 03: Effective CBR of Subgrade

2(1 − (𝜇)^2)𝑝𝑎
𝑴𝑹𝒔 =
𝛿
From given data, Wheel load= 40,000N, Contact Pressure= 0.56 MPa

𝛿 = 𝟐. 𝟎𝟔𝟑𝒎 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑰𝑰𝑻 𝑷𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒔

2(1 − (0.35)^2) × 0.56 × 150.8

𝑴𝑹𝒔 =
2.063
𝑬𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑴𝑹𝒔 = 𝟕𝟏. 𝟖𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

7
Now,

𝑀𝑅𝑆 = 17.6 × 𝐶𝐵𝑅 0.64

71.84 = 17.6 × 𝐶𝐵𝑅 0.64
∴ CBR = 9.01%

Step 04: Calculation of MR for Granular layer

𝑀𝑅𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 0.2 × (ℎ)^0.45 × 𝑀𝑅𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒

𝑀𝑅𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 0.2 × (ℎ)^0.45 × 71.84

Trying for h = 260 mm

𝑀𝑅𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 0.2 × (260)^0.45 × 71.84

𝑀𝑅𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 = 𝟏𝟕𝟓. 𝟒𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Step 05: Selection of surface course & binder course

From table no. 4,

Surface course: BC with VG30 < 20 MSA

Binder course: DBM with VG30 < 20 MSA

Step 05: Assuming resilient modulus of bituminous mixes

Considering 30℃ as the pavement's average temperature.

∴ Resilient modulus = 2500 MPa

Now,
Considering h=150 mm for the bituminous layer.

Step 06: Performing it on IIT Pave

8
Figure 07: Data entered in IIT Pave software

Figure 08: Final output of IIT Pave software

9
 Chapter-4

Result Discussion and Conclusion

The results of IIT pave software are shown in Fig.08, which states,

𝜀𝑇 = 0.2267 × 10 − 3
𝜀𝑧 = 0.4906 × 10 − 3

The values of these 𝜀𝑇 & 𝜀𝑧 is compared with standard and safe design values, using Excel sheet
as given below in Fig.09

Figure 09: Comparison of results.

Figure 10: Layer Properties

10
 Design results

1. Bituminous layer
MR = 2500MPa for 30℃
Mix type: VG30
h1 = 150mm
𝞵 = 0.35

2. Granular layer
MR = 175.44MPa
h2 = 260mm
𝞵 = 0.35

3. Subgrade layer
MR = 71.84MPa
h3 = Infinite
𝞵 = 0.35
Conclusion

For our Project, the height considered for the Bituminous Layer is 150mm and for the Granular
Layer is 260mm. If the height for both the layers is either increased or decreased, then the
corresponding value of 𝜀𝑇 and 𝜀𝑧 will differ which in turn would change the Rutting and Fatigue
values, and hence it would be unsafe for designing if the height is changed.
Hence, we can conclude by saying if the height is changed than the values of 𝜀𝑇 and 𝜀𝑧 will also
change.

11
 Roles (TE A)

Leander Carvalho (09) – Second half of the Calculations, Preparation of Report, and
implementation of the software.

Mayank Jitekar (26) – Calculations and collecting Figures.

Nikhil Kharat (32) – Calculations and preparing Tables.

Vaishnavi Kore (47) – Second half of the Calculation, Preparation of Report and collecting data
through the internet.

12
 References
1. IRC 37: 2018 - https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/irc/irc.gov.in.037.2019.pdf
2. Philosophy of Pavement design - http://www.pavers.nl/start_designconcepts.html
3. Introduction to Pavement Design - https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/pavement-types-and-history/pavement-history/
4. Types of Pavements - https://www.asphaltwa.com/pavement-types-pavement-
types/
5. Design of Rigid Pavement -
http://www.mmmut.ac.in/News_content/51255notice_03152021.pdf
6. History of Pavements - https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-
types-and-history/pavement-history/

13