A-PDF PageMaster Demo. Purchase from www.A-PDF.

com to remove the watermark

 C H A PTER 5.0
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
5.1: Introduction : One of the main purpose of pavement design is to produce a soil
structure system that will carry traffic smoothly and safely with minimum cost. The
increase in axle load and phenomenal growth of traffic warrant as much importance in
design, construction and maintenance of roads. In this chapter a glimpse o f different
approaches of flexible pavement design is narrated. State of the art practice of pavement
design with geosynthetic is also discussed. Finally a methodology for design o f coir mat
reinforced pavement developed in this study is presented.

5.2 METHODS OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

There exists a number of methodos for the design o f flexible pavements as

summarized by Rao,2007. These are empirical method with or without a soil strength

test, limiting shear failure method, limiting deflection method, regression method based

on pavement performance, mechanistic-empirical method and design based on theoretical

studies.

The use of empirical method without a strength test dates back to the development

of Public Roads (PR) soil classification system, in which the subgrade was classified as

uniform from A-l to A-8 and non-uniform from B-l to B-3. This System was later

modified by the Highway Research Board (HRB,1945), in which soil were grouped from

A-l to A-7 and a group Index was added to differentiate the soil within each group.

The empirical method with a strength test was first used by California Highway

Depertment in 1929 (Porter, 1950) .The thickness o f the pavement was related to the

California Bearing Ratio, defined as the penetration resistance o f a subgrade soil relative

to standard crushed rock. The CBR method of design was studied extensively by the US
 167

corps of engineers during the World War II and became a very popular method of

pavement design after the w a r. The IRC also used this method to determine the thickness

of individual layer of pavement. The disadvantage of this empirical method is that it can

be applied only to a given set of environmental, material and loading condition.

In this limiting shear failure method the thickness o f pavement is determined

so that shear failure will not occur. The major properties o f subgrade soil considered are

cohesion and angle of internal friction. Me Leod (1953) advocated the use o f logarithmic

spirals to determine the bearing capacity o f pavement.

The limiting deflection method is used to determine the thickness of

pavements so that the vertical deflection will not exceed the allowable lim it. The Kansas

State Highway Commission (1947) modified Boussinesq’s equation and limited the

deflection of subgrade to 2.54mm (O.linch). The US Navy (1953) applied Burmister’s

theory (Burmister,1943) and limited the surface deflection to 6.35mm (0.25 inch). The

use of deflection as a design criterion has the apparent advantage that it can be easily

measured in the field

A good example of the use o f regression equations for pavement designs is the

AASHTO method based on the result o f the road tests. The disadvantage of the method is

that the design equation can be applied only to the conditions at the road test site.

The mechanistic-empirical methods of design are based on the mechanics of

materials that relate an input ,such as a wheel load, to an output or pavement response

such as stress and strain. The response values are used to predict distress based on

laboratory test and field performance data. Dependence on observed performance is

necessary because theory alone has not proven sufficient to design pavements
 168

realistically.. The horizontal tensile strain st at the bottom of the bituminous layer and the

vertical compressive strain ez on the subgrade are identified as the critical parameters for

fatigue and rutting failures respectively. The mechanistic-empirical method is more

theoretical in approach, through it needs calibration based upon the performance of in-

service pavements. This approach is increasingly popular amongst various countries. In

India too, the Pavement Design Guidelines IRC:37 have been updated in 2001 where the

design methodology has changed from empiricism to mechanistic pavement design

principles. The mechanistic-empirical approach is being successfully used in the design

of reinforced sections also, as it tries to relate the stress-strain parameters with the

expected life of the pavement. Figure 5.1 shows a layered bituminous pavement structure

subjected to a set of standard dual wheel load system.

5.2.1 Design o f flexible pavements as per guidelines o f IRC: 37-2001

5.2.1.1 Scope: Thes guidelines are applied to design flexible pavements for

Expressway, National Highways, State Highways, Major District Roads, and other

categories of roads. Flexible pavements are considered to include the pavements which

have bituminous surfacing and granular base and sub-base courses conforming to

IRC/MOST standards. These guidelines apply to new pavements.

5.2.1.2 Design criteria: The flexible pavements has been modeled as a three layer

structure and stresses and strains at critical locations have been computed using the linear

elastic model. To give proper consideration to the aspects of performance, the following

three types of pavement distress resulting from repeated (cyclic) application of traffic

loads are considered:

 169

1. Vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade which can cause sub-grade

deformation resulting in permanent deformation at the pavement surface.

2. Horizontal tensile strain or stress at the bottom o f the bituminous layer which can

cause fracture of the bituminous layer.

3. Pavement deformation within the bituminous layer.

While the permanent deformation within the bituminous layer can be controlled

by meeting the mix design requirements, thickness o f granular and bituminous layers are

selected using the analytical design approach so that strains at the critical points are

within the allowable limits. For calculating tensile strains at the bottom of the bituminous

layer, the stiffness o f dense bituminous macadam (DBM) layer with 60/70 bitumen has

been used in the analysis.

5.2.1.3 Failure Criteria:

Granular Base / Sub Base Course

'f Compressive Strain

Sub Grade Soil

Figure 5.1: Critical Locations in pavement

 170
5.2.1.4 Fatigue Criteria:

Bituminous surfacings of pavements display flexural fatigue cracking if the

tensile strain at the bottom of the bituminous layer is beyond certain limit. The relation

between the fatigue life of the pavement and the tensile strain in the bottom of the

bituminous layer was obtained as

IV f = 2 .2 1 x 1 0 4 x { —
r*a) 0 .8 5 4

Eqn- 5.1

in which, Nf is the allowable number of load repetitions to control fatigue cracking, e( is

the tensile strain and E is the Elastic modulus of bituminous layer. The use of the above

equation would result in fatigue cracking of 20% o f the total area.

5.2.1.5 Rutting Criteria: The contribution o f rutting from various layers could be

different . It is reported that( Chakroborty et al,2003), 46% of rutting take place from

bituminous surface and granular base course, while the subbase and sub grade contribute

54% of the total rutting. The vertical strain at subgrade is assumed as the index of rutting

to occur in a pavement.

The allowable number o f load repetitions to control permanent deformation can

be expressed as

4.5337
N r = 41656 x i c r 8 x I —
e. E q n - 5 .2

Nr is the number of cumulative standard axles to produce rutting of 20 mm and is the

subgrade strain.
 171

5.2.1.6 Design Procedure:

Based on the performance o f existing designs and using analytical approach,

simple design charts and a catalogue of pavement designs are added in the guidelene. The

pavement designs are given for subgrade CBR values ranging from 2% to 10% and

design traffic ranging from 1 msa to 150 msa for an average annual pavement

temperature of 35° C. The later thicknesses obtained from the analysis have been slightly

modified to adapt the designs to stage construction. Using the following simple input

parameters, appropriate designs could be chosen for the given traffic and soil strength:

- Design traffic in terms of cumulative number of standard axles; and

- CBR of subgrade.

5.2.1.7 Design traffic:

The method considers traffic in terms of the cumulative number o f standard axles

(8160 kg) to be carried by the pavement during the design life. This requires the

following information:

1. Initial traffic in terms of CVPD

2. Traffic growth rate during the design life

3. Design life in number of years

4. Vehicle damage factor (VDF)

5. Distribution of commercial traffic over the carriageway

5.2.1.8 Initial traffic:

Initial traffic is determined in terms of commercial vehicles per day (CVPD). For

the structural design of the pavement only commercial vehicles are considered assuming

laden weight of three tons or more and their axle loading will be considered. Estimate of
 172

the initial daily average traffic flow for any road should normally be based on 7-day 24-

hour classified traffic counts (ADT). In case o f new roads, traffic estimates can be made

on the basis of potential land use and traffic on existing routes in the area.

5.2.1.9 Traffic growth rate:

Traffic growth rates can be estimated

(i) by studying the past trends o f traffic growth, and

(ii) by establishing econometric models.

If adequate data is not available, it is recommended that an average annual growth rate of

7.5 percent may be adopted.

5.2.1.10 Design life:

For the purpose of the pavement design, the design life is defined in terms of the

cumulative number of standard axles that can be carried before strengthening of the

pavement is necessary. It is recommended that pavements for arterial roads like NH, SH

should be designed for a life of 15 years, EH and urban roads for 20 years and other

categories o f roads for 10 to 15 years.

5.2.1.11 Vehicle Damage Factor:

The vehicle damage factor (VDF) is a multiplier for converting the number of

commercial vehicles of different axle loads and axle configurations to the number of

standard axle-load repetitions. It is defined as equivalent number o f standard axles per

commercial vehicle. The VDF varies with the axle configuration, axle loading, terrain,

type o f road, and from region to region. The axle load equivalency factors are used to

convert different axle load repetitions into equivalent standard axle load repetitions. For
 173

these equivalency factors refer IRC: 37-2001. The exact VDF values are arrived after

extensive field surveys.

5.2.1.12 Vehicle distribution:

A realistic assessment of distribution of commercial traffic by direction and by

lane is necessary as it directly affects the total equivalent standard axle load application

used in the design. Until reliable data is available, the following distribution may be
Jft

assumed.

5.2.1.13 Single lane roads:

Traffic tends to be more channelized on single roads than two lane roads and to

allow for this concentration o f wheel load repetitions, the design should be based on total

number of commercial vehicles in both directions.

5.2.1.14 Two-lane single carriageway roads:

The design should be based on 75 % of the commercial vehicles in both

directions.

5.2.1.15 Four-lane single carriageway roads:

The design should be based on 40 % o f the total number of commercial vehicles

in both directions.

5.2.1.16 Dual carriageway roads:

For the design of dual two-lane carriageway roads should be based on 75 % of the

number of commercial vehicles in each direction. For dual three-lane carriageway and

dual four-lane carriageway the distribution factor will be 60 % and 45 % respectively.

 174

5.2.1.17 Pavement thickness design charts:

For the design of pavements to cany traffic in the range of lto 10 msa, use chart 1

and for traffic in the range 10 to 150 msa, use chart 2 of IRC: 37-2001. The-design curves

relate pavement thickness to the cumulative number of standard axles to be carried over

the design life for different sub-grade CBR values ranging from 2 % to 10 %. The design

charts will give the total thickness of the pavement for the above inputs. The total

thickness consists of granular sub-base, granular base and bituminous surfacing. The

individual layers are designed based on the recommendations given below and the

subsequent tables.

5.2.1.18 Pavement composition:

Sub-base: C14.2

Sub-base materials comprise natural sand, gravel, laterite, brick metal, crushed

stone or combinations thereof meeting the prescribed grading and physical requirements.

The sub-base material should have a minimum CBR of 20% and 30% for traffic upto 2

msa and traffic exceeding 2 msa respectively. Sub-base usually consist of granular

material or WBM and the thickness should not be less than 150 mm for design traffic less

than 10 msa and-200 mm for design traffic of 10-msa and above.

Base: Cl 4.2

The recommended designs are for unbounded granular bases which comprise

conventional water bound macadam (WBM) or wet mix macadam (WMM) or equivalent

confirming to MOST specifications. The materials should be of good quality with

minimum thickness of 225 mm.for traffic up to 2 msaandiZSO mmfor traffic-exceeding 2

msa.
 175

Bitum inous surfacing:

The surfacing consists of a wearing course or a binder course plus wearing course.

The most commonly used wearing courses are surface dressing, open graded premix

carpet, mix seal surfacing, semi-dense bituminous concrete and bituminous concrete. For

binder course, MOST specifies, it is desirable to use bituminous macadam (BM) for

traffic upto 5 msa and dense bituminous macadam (DBM) for traffic more than 5 msa.

5.3 Design of pavement with geosynthetic application

Though many design methodologies have emerged which address geotextiles in

pavement , two theories based on original work contributed greatly to a better

understanding of geosynthetic applications for pavement namely the method suggested

by Barenberg et al (1975)b and Giroud and Noiray ( 1981). These methods are suggested

for the design of unpaved roads, providing geotextiles at the subgrade -base interface.

Barenberg considered the lateral restraint action of geotextiles in the pavement whereas

Giroud and Noiray considered the tension membrane effect of geotextiles in addition to

lateral restraint.

DESIGN METHODS FOR UNPAVED PAVEMENTS USING GEO-SYNTHETICS

There are two main approaches to the design o f temporary and unpaved roads. The first

assumes no reinforcing effect of the geosynthetics that is it acts as separator only. The

second approach considers a possible reinforcing effect due to the geosynthetic.

Apparently the separation function is more important for thin roadway sections with

relatively small live loads where anticipated rut depth is o f the order of 50 mm to 100

mm. In such cases the design procedure assumes no reinforcing effect, which is a

conservative approach. On the other hand for large live loads on thin road sections where
 176

deep ruts (> 100. mm) may occur and also for thicker road sections on soft subgrades the

reinforcing function becomes increasingly more important if the stability is to be

maintained.

Soils having low CBR values require membrane type reinforcement. This changes the

mode of bearing capacity failure from punching shear to general shear, Tig 5.2 (Rao2007)

Punching Shear General Shear

Fig : 5.2 : Modes of failure at subgrade

5.3.1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration's

Method

The design method considered in the manual focuses primarily on the separation and the

filtration functions. The design method developed by Steward, Williamson and Mohney

(1977) for the U.S. Forest Services (USFS) considers the following:

• Vehicle passes;

• Equivalent axle loads;

• Axle configuration;

• Tyre pressure
 177

• Subgrade strength; and

• Rut depths.

The following limitations apply:

• The aggregate layer must be

a) Compacted to CBR 80,

b) Cohesionless (non-plastic)

• Vehicle passes less thaft 10,000

• Geotextile survivability criteria must be considered; and

• Subgrade shear strength less than about 90 kPa (CBR < 3)

Based on both theoretical analysis and empirical (laboratory and full scale field) tests on

geotextiles, Steward et al. (1977) determined that a certain amount of rutting would occur

under various traffic conditions, both with and without a geotextile separator and for a

given stress level acting on the subgrade. The presented this stress level in terms of

bearing capacity factors, similar to those commonly used for the design of shallow

foundations on cohesive soils and shown in Table 5.1:

Table 5.1: Bearing capacity factors for different ruts and traffic conditions both

with and without geotextile separators (after Steward et al. 1977)

Traffic
B earing capacity
Condition R uts (m m ) (passes o f 80 kN axle
factor, Nc
equivalents)
<50 > 1000 2.8
W ith o u t geotextile
> 100 < too 3.3
<50 > 1000 5.0
W ith goolextile
> 100 < 100 6.0

The following design procedure is recommended:

Step 1: Determine soil subgrade strength

 178

(i) For field CBR, c in kPa = 30 CBR

(ii) For the WES cone penetrometer, c = cone index divided by 10 orl 1; and

(iii) For the vane shear test, c is directly measured.

Use of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is not recommended for soft clays.

Step 2: The subgrade strength is determined at several locations at different times of the

year. Make strength determinations at several locations where the subgrade appears to be

weakest. Strength should be evaluated at a depth of 0 to 200 mm and from 200 to 500

mm; six to ten strength measurements are recommended at each location to obtain a good

average value. Tests should be also performed when the soils are in their weakest

condition, when the water table is the highest etc.

Step 3: Determine the maximum single axle load maximum dual wheel load and the

maximum dual tandem wheel load anticipated for the road way during the design period.

Step 4: Estimate the maximum amount of traffic anticipated for each design vehicle class.

Step 5: Establish the amount of tolerably rutting during design life of the roadway.

Step 6: Obtain appropriate subgrade stress level in terms of the bearing capacity factors

from Table 5.1

Step 7: Determine the required aggregate thickness from the USFS design charts (Figs

5.3 to 5.5) for each maximum loading. Enter the curve with appropriate bearing capacity

factors (Nc) multiplied by the design subgrade shear strength c to evaluate each required

stress level (eNc)'

Step 8: Select the design thickness based on the design requirements; the design

thickness should be given to the next higher 25 mm.

Step 9: Check the geotextile drainage and filtration requirements. Use gradation and

permeability of the subgrade, the water table conditions, and the retention and
 179

permeability criteria. In high water table areas with heavy traffic, filtration criteria may

also be required.

The criterion is:

AOS < I>85 (W oven)

AOS < 1.8 * I)85 (non-w ovcn)
k-geotes.aie > ^ S O ti

Permittiv its . o > (). 1 see

AOS : Apparent opening*size determined as per ASTM standard ASTM D4751-99

k : Coefficient of Ppermeability.
Dg5 = Particle size in mm such tha 85 % of the particle is fier than this size.
Step 10: Check the geotextile survivability strength requirements (construction stresses

through grab strength, sewn seam strength, tear strength; puncture strength burst strength

and UV stability). Survivability of geogrids and geotextiles for major projects should be

verified by conducting field tests under site specific conditions.

Stepll: Specify geotextiles that meet or exceed these survivability criteria.

5.3.2 Giroud and Noiray (1981) Method using Geotextiles

Giroud and Noiray (1981) proposed a design method, which has been used extensively by

the practising engineers. The method is suitable for roads on purely cohesive subgrade

and applicable to roads subject to light to medium traffic (1 - 10, passes of a standard axle

load, 80 kN) over the lifetime of the road. The subgrade is assumed to be homogeneous at

least over a thickness sufficient for the development of plastic zone and inclusion of a

geotextile increases the bearing capacity from the elastic to the ultimate bearing capacity,

which is considered as change from Terzaghi's local to general shear failure.

The subgrade is assumed to fail under wheel loads when,

P*= P- Pg
p = pressure on the subgrade due to wheel load (N/m2)
 180

pg = reduction o f pressure due to tensioned membrane effect (N/m2)

p* = ultimate bearing capacity o f subgrade (N/ m2) = (x + 2)C8 + yh

Therefore, p- pg = (tr+2) C u + yh

The pressure p is calculated assuming the aggregate spreads the surface load at an angle

a ’ (for reinforced case) as shown in Fig.5.7 including the aggregate weight we find

P r Ti* I +^
2 [ B + 2htano j [ L + 2htana J

P = Axle load (N)

y = Soil unit weight (N/m3)

H = Aggregate height (m), and

B, L = Dual tyre print dimensions (m)

Fig 5.3 U.S. forest service thickness design curve for single wheel load (steward et. al. 1977)
 181

DEPTH (mm)
y>

U.S. forest service thickness design curve for dual wheel load (steward et. al. 1977)
(m m )
DEPTH

cNe (kPa)
Fig 5.5 U.S. forest service thickness design curve for tandem wheel load (steward et. al. 1977)
 182

b, Unroll th » gaotaxllla directly o»nr

tho ground fa b* slabllltsd. II m o o
o. Prvpom (IM g n u a tf by n io n t e g than m m roll Is ragutrad. ovaHop rolls,
slumps, feoutdora, ttc .; fill In lew (pots tnspocl gsouxtila.

PREPARE THE GROUND UNROtL THE GEOTEXTILE

« , Book! dump a jig r ig s lt onto previously

ptocad s g fr < g a l«. Oo m l drlvs on lb*<
gcateKfllo. Maintain ISO m m la 300 mm d. Sprood IK« s m r a m lt o v »r lbs
savor b i l v f i n (ruck liras and GaotoxtUs. gaotaxllla fo th« design thickness.

BACK DUMP AGGREGATE SPREAD THE AGGREGATE

a. Compact the aggregate using doxer

Irecxs o r smooth dram vibratory radar.

COMPACT THE AGGREGATE

Fig5.6 Constructionsequence usinggeotextiles

 183

[V Zo» *| I 1°,
Subgrade soil

(a) (>>’
Fig 5.7Concept of load distribution (after G iroud and Noiray, 1981)

a) w ithout geotextiie, b) with geotextile

For a tyre pressure Pc these dimensions are found for two different cases:

(i) On highway trucks (ii) Off-highway trucks

Inclusion o f a geosynthetic influences the value o f 'a', but Giroud and Noiray took a

conservative value o f 31 ° (tan a = 0.6) which corresponds to the theoretical inclination

o f failure planes in aggregate with a friction angle o f 28°.

Giroud and Noiray considered the deformed shape o f geosynthetic under wheel load as
section of parabolas as shown in Fig. 5.8 the geosynthetic strain is included from:
 184
b - b’
e = for a* > a
a + a’

and

for a > a’

Fig 5.8 Shape of deformed Geotextile

Where,

2a = B + 2 h ta n ( a )

2a' = e - B + 2htan(<Z)

e = track width (refer Fig. 12)

b and b' = half chord length of parabolas P and P'

b and b' can be computed from the following two equations:

- -1 = - i 1 + (2s/a)2 ] + .... In {2s/a +V{ 1 + (2s/a)2} -2

a 2

L» |
— - i =— 1 + (2(r-s)/a*)2 + aV2(r-s) In (2(r-s)/af + jh/ {1 + (2(r-s)/a’)2) - 2]
a* 2
 185

Now the tension in the geosynthetic is obtained from:

t = E r. e

and the membrane support is:

_ F |» , C
i^ *=

Pg a / " {1 + (a/2s)2}

Oiroud and Noiray suggested a simple formula to calculate the thickness o f the aggregate

taking traffic in to consideration as:

0,I91og(Ns)
(CBR)“

where,

Ns= Number o f passes of standard axle load o f 80 kN

For other than standard axle load, it is suggested to calculate Ns from the relationship:

Ns/N = [P/Ps] 3 95

where,

Ns = Number o f passes of standard axle load (Ps = 80 kN), and

N = Number o f passes of axle load P

Above equation is based on experience with paved roads, but it holds good for unpaved

roads also. For rut depth other than 0.075m Giroud and Noiray suggested to put {log Ns -

2.34 (r-0.075)} in place of Ns. Manipulating the above two equations and the relationship

Cu (kPa) = 30 CBR one can get:

ho' = (1.6193 log (N) + 6.3964 log (P) - 3.7892 r-1188877/Cu063)

 186

where,

ho' - aggregate thickness (without Geotextile) (m)

r = rut depth (m)

The above equation is not recommended for N larger than 10,000. For a given rut depth,

number of passes and axle load a relation can be established between ho’ and undrained

shear strength (Cu) o f the subgrade. Based on above analysis as may be required for a

given traffic and road geometry similar design curves can be reproduced as shown in

Fig.5.9.

Fig 5.9 Design chart for flexible pavements (after Giroud and Noiray, 1981)
 187

Giroud and Noiray M ethod using Geogrids

The design method presently hereafter takes into account only three mechanisms

confinement of the subgrade soil, improved load distribution and tension membrane

effect.

Influence o f Confinement of the subgrade soil

As discussed in above sections, the vertical stress on the subgrade soil can be as large the

ultimate bearing capacity of the soil when confinement is provided. The ultimate bearing

capacity (i.e., plastic limit) o f the subgrade soil is expressed by

p lim ==( ^ + 2 ) c l l N + Yh

It has been assumed that the value of the undrained shear strength, CuN at the Nth passage

for the confined subgrade the same as for the unconfined subgrade, if the ratio between

confined and unconfined subgrade stress is equal to the ratio between the plastic and

elastic limit o f the subgrade soil. The rationale behind this assumption is that fatigue of

subgrade soil results from remolding caused by repeated deformations and since

deformations are o f equivalent magnitudes in an unconfined soil at the elastic limit and a

confined soil at the plastic limit, fatigue will be the same in both cases.

Influence o f load distribution

The improvement in load distribution capability o f the reinforced base layer relative to

the unreinforced base layer can be quantified by replacing the angle CC0 by a larger

angle ct. The vertical stress transmitted by the base layer to the upper face o f the geogrid

becomes:

p* = (P /2 )/[(B + 2htana)(L + 2 ta ia )] + yh
 188

Influence of the Tensioned Membrane Effect

As explained previously the normal stress is not the on both sides o f a reinforcing

element exhibiting a tensioned membrane effect. Consequently, the vertical stress on the

lower side of the geogrid under the wheels is:

p —|>5“pm

The magnitude of the tensioned membrane normal stress pm, has been evaluated by

Giroud and Noiray (1981) as a function of the tensile stiffness and elongation of the

reinforcement and the shape of the deformed surface o f the surface o f the subgrade soil.

Combined Influence of the Three Effects

The equations presented above for the three effects, confinement, load distribution and

tensioned membrane effect, are combined to obtain the ratio R =h/ho (“thickness ratio”)

between the thickness o f the base layer with and without reinforcement respectively.

/ h» =
R = h/ L) 2 + 4v - (B + L)j / (4 h 0tana)

Y=1 /[(l+2/7i)/(B+2h0tana0)(LT2h0tana0)+2pm/P]

The value of pm is obtained from several lengthy equations, making it impractical to

prepare a limited number of simple charts if pm is taken into account, however, Y (and

consequently R) are simplified if pm is neglected. Systematic comparisons of values of R

calculated with and without pmhave shown that: (i) if the rut depth is the effect of 0.075

m the effect on R (hence on the design thickness o f the base layer) is negligible; and (ii)

if the rut depth is 0.15m, the values of R calculated with pmis approximately 10% smaller

than the value of R calculated neglecting pm, regardless o f the other parameters.
 189

Consequently, in the design method presented hereafter, the normal stress

difference, pm, resulting from the tensioned membrane effect is neglected, and when it is

not negligible a lump reduction of 10% of the design thickness o f the base layer is

recommended.

Values of the thickness ratio, R, calculated above Equations with ta n a c =

0.6 are presented in Fig 5.10. These values were obtained using values o f B and L

corresponding to a tire inflation pressure of 620 kN/m2. However, almost identical values

are obtained for a wide range o f tire inflation pressures, provided the thickness o f the

base layer is at least 0.15 m.

Fig 5.10 Thickness ratio, R, versus load distribution improvement ratio,

ta n a /tan a 0, and thickness of unreinforced base layer, ho

For simplicity, a single value of tan a 0 (0.6) was used for calculation of R. A parametric

study using a range o f values for tan a D (0.4 to 0.8) showed that R was only slightly
 190

influenced by tan 0Co; particularly for ho values greater than 0.3m. Thus, while it is

recognized that a value of tan &0 of 0.6 may not represent the actual stress distribution, it

has little influence on the ratio tan a / tan cc0 and therefore little influence, on the

calculated thickness of aggregate.

To use Fig. 5.10 to determine the thickness ratio, R, for design o f a reinforced unpaved

structure, the load distribution angle, a corresponding to the considered reinforcement

must be established.

Paved roads : - Rutting type o f deflection of the surface is unacceptable in the case of

paved roads. In this case , geosynthetics can be provided at three different locations in a

permanent road viz. at the interface between the aggregate sub-base and the subgrade

soil, within the pavement structure or with a surface overlay. In the first application the

geosynthetic act in a similar way as that in the unpaved road and can yield the following

benefits (John 1987)

i) Prevents pavement sub-base aggregate from penetrating the subgrade

soil.

ii) Prevents fine soil particles from the subgrade soil entering the sub­

base aggregate.

iii) Reduce the need for excavation of soft fine subgrade soil.

iv) Speeds placement of sub-base aggregate during construction.

v) Reduces rutting of the sub-base aggregate while it is being used as

haul road.
 191

vi) Evens out settlement of the sub-base aggregate over any pockets of

soft material that may have been overlooked.

In the second application ie. Within the pavement structure, a

high geosynthetic elastic stiffness is required to bring in some reinforcing effect. For this

application the most effective location for the geosynthetics is within the base course or

between the base course and the wearing course at a depth not less than 40 mm (John

1987). The presence of geosynthetics the tensile strength and gives the road a greater

resistance to cracking and helps to provide a longer fatigue life.

In the third application, the geosynthetics is placed on the

surface of an existing pavement prior to laying an asphaltic overlay. Presence of

geosynthetics restricts propagation o f reflection cracks and thereby increasing the life o f

overlay (John 1987).

5.4 Design of pavement in the present study

Giroud and Noiray method of flexible pavement design with geosynthetic is developed

for clay subgrade. Since the subgrade material used in the present study is o f cohesionless

in nature so the same methodology cannot be applied directly. Design method based on

Burmister two layer theory is adopted in the present study.

Burmister proposed a method for design of a two layer flexible pavement by the

simplifying assumption that the subgrade is the bottom layer and the surfacing, base and

subbase combine to form the top layer .Burmister further assumed that the op layer can

be treated as an elastic slab infinite in the horizontal plane . The top layer is supposed to

be resting on the bottom the bottom layer ( in the case o f subgrade ) which is assumed to

be semi infinite solid of lower modulus of elasticity compared to that o f the top layer.
 192

To represent the vertical wheel load , the two layer system is assumed to acting

upon by a vertical uniformly distributed load( to represent the tyre contact pressure area)

acircular area o f the of top layer’s upper surface.

Burmister computed the vertical displacement at the surface under the centre of

the applied load assuming the interface between the two layers is perfectly rough, for

various ratios of the modulus of elasticity of the top layer to that o f the bottom layer and

for various ratios of the“*depth of the top layer to the radius of the circular area o f the

applied load. The results o f these computations are generally shown graphically.

The displacement under the wheel load is a function of the thickness of the top

layer. So in the graphical representations a displacement factor Fw is plotted against the

thickness o f the top layer.

The vertical elastic displacement at the surface under the applied load is given by

the following equation

A = (2pa/E (1 - p2 )

A = vertical displacement

p = contact pressure

E = modulus o f elasticity of bottom layer

a= radius of the circular area

|i = Poisson’s ratio

For a flexible p late, p = 0.05

so, A =1.5pa/E

For a rigid plate

A =1.18pa/E
 193

With further refinement in analyzing the stress in a two layered system Burmister

proposed the following equation :

A = FW1.5pa/E

For a rigid plate

A = Fw 1.18pa/E

Fw= F2 = Displacement factor, which can be obtained from graphs presented by

Burmister ( Fig : 5.13, Fw is shown as F 2 )

The design methodology of coir mat reinforced pavement can proceed

according to the mechanistic method as outlined below. Suitability o f this coir mat

reinforced roads is studied for low volume roads where bituminous layer is absent or

even if bituminous layer is provided it is o f nominal thickness o f non structural in nature

which is not assumed to contribute to the strength to the pavement system.

For calculation of strength o f subgrade plate load test is carried out. For

estimation o f strength of layered subgrade where the strength o f individual layers are

different, the plate load test is expected to give better estimation of subgrade strength

( compared to CBR t e s t ) , as in in this case all the layers get involve in sharing the

applied load( Chakravarty et al ,2003) .

The pavement section is designed based on Burmisters two layer theory . For

assessment of modulus of elasticity o f subgrade and other layer settlement is considered

for 106 repetition . Thus the repetitive effect o f load is taken into consideration in the

Burmister analysis.

Burmister ’s displacement equation used for rigid plate applied in this work is

given by the following equation

 194

A= (1.18pa x F 2) / E s -------------------------- (5.1)

A = settlement for pressure p after 1msa repetition

Es = modulus of elasticity of subgrade after lmsa repetition

For repetititive static plate load test on subgrade only , values o f above parameters are as

follows

p = contact pressure = P/A P= 4000 kg , A= Area of 30cm dia plate

= 5.66 Kg/ sqcm “*

a = radius o f circular plate = 15 cm

A = settlement for pressure p after lmsa (million standard axle) repetition =6.14cm

(Table 4.18)

Es = 16.3 Kg/sqcm (Table 4.20)

5.4.1 Calculation of two layer deflection factor (F2) for other pavement layers

For repetitive plate load test on 10 cm WBM without coir m a t, values of parameters in

equation (i) are as follows

p = contact pressure = P/A P= 4000 kg , A= Area o f 30cm diameter plate

= 5.66 Kg/ sqcm

a = 15 cm

A = settlement for pressure p after lmsa repetition =3. lcm (Table 4.18)

Es = 16.3 Kg/sqcm

3.1=(1.18x5.66xl5xF2)/16.3

Therefore, F2=0.5

Similar procedure is adopted to calculate deflection factor (F2) for other conditions of

pavement composition and reinforcement. The results are tabulated in Table 5.2. Fig
 195

5.11 shows the relationship between F2 and WBM layer thickness for the condition of

with and without inclusion o f coir m at

Table 5.2: Two layer displacement factor for different pavement layer

A(cm) p{kg/sqcm) a( cm) Es(kg/sqcm) F2

Sub grade 6.14 5.6 15 16.14 1

10cm WBM 3.1 5.6 15 0.50

10cm WBM with coir mat at interface 1.62 5.6 15 0.26

15cm WBM 2.1 5.6 15 0.34

15cm WBM with coir mat at interface 1.3 5.6 15 0.20

20cm WBM 1.6 5.6 15 0.26

20cm WBM with coir mat at interface 1 5.6 15 0.16

25cm WBM 1.14 5.6 15 0.19

25cm WBM with coir mat at interface 0.84 5.6 15 0.14

F2vs h

-NoOoir
-W ith C a r

Fig :5..11 Relationship of F2 and thickness of pavement in a two layer system for lmsa
 196

5.4.2 Calculation of thickness of pavement layer :

Design curve developed in Fig 5.11 is applicable for load repetition o f 1 msa .This curve

will be useful in calculating the thickness of pavement layer for any design rut depth .It

is explained with an example as follows.

Example 1: Design of pavement for 20mm rut depth

Let us consider a 2 layered flexible pavement with design wheel load of 4.0 ton and tyre

pressure of 5.66 Kg/sqem. Number of load repletion is considered as 1 msa and

allowable deflection o f 20mm as per IRC37-2001. Assuming the bearing area as circular,

the radius o f bearing area is given

a= V [P/ (p tt) ] P= wheel load = 4000 kg , p= tyre pressure =5.66 Kg/ sqcm

= 15,0cm

Burmister ’s displacement equation for flexible plate

A= (1.5pa x F2) / Es

Es= 16.3 Kg/sqcm

A = 20mm =2.0cm

F2=0,25

Now entering the design curve with F2=0.25 , the following results are obtained.

i. WBM thickness required over subgrade without Coirmat = 21 cm

ii. WBM thickness required over subgrade with Coirmat = 11 cm

Example 2: Design of pavement for 15mm rut depth

a= V P/ (p tt) P= wheel load = 4000 kg , p= tyyre pressure =5.66 Kg/ sqcm

= 15.0cm

A= (1.5pa x F2) / E s
 197

Es= 16.3 Kg/sqcm

A = 15mm =1.5cm

so F2=0.19

Now entering the design curve with F2=0.20 , the following results are obtained.

i. WBM thickness required over subgrade without Coirmat = 25 cm

ii. WBM thickness required over subgrade with Coirmat = 16 cm

Example 3: Design of pavement for 25mm rut depth

a= V P/ (p tt) P= wheel load = 4000 kg , p= tyyre pressure =5.66 Kg/ sqcm

= 15.0cm

A= (1.5pa x F2) / E s

Es= 16.3 Kg/sqcm

A = 25mm =2.5cm

so F2=0.32

Now entering the design curve with F2= 0.20, the following results are obtained.

i. WBM thickness required over subgrade without Coirmat = 16 cm

ii. WBM thickness required over subgrade with Coirmat = 10 cm

( Minimum thickness=l 0.0cm )

WBM thickness required for different permissible rut will be different for both the

conditions of withand without inclusion o f coirmat at the interface o f Subgrade and

W BM . This is shown through Table5.3 and Fig5.12 .

 198

Table 5.3 : WBM thickness required with and without coir mat for different allowable rut

Allowable rut

(mm) WBM thickness required

W ithout CM With CM

15 25 16

20 21 11

25 16 10
■A

V\eM thickness required for different allowable rut

WBM thickness
required in cm ■ \AAthout CM
■ VUthCM

Allowable rut in mm

Fig 5.12 : WBM thickness required with and without coir mat for different allowable rut

5.4.3 Calculation of E1/E2 ratio for different pavement sections

Burn-iister’s displacement equation for rigid plate is given by the following equation

A= 1 .1 8 p ax F 2/ E s

Es = modulus of elasticity of subgrade after 106 repetition =16.32 Kg/sqcm

p = contact pressure = P/A P= 4000 kg , A= Area of 30cm dia plate

= 5.66 Kg/ sqcm

a = radius of rigid plate = 15 cm

 199

E1JE2 - Modulus o f elasticity o f granular base (WBM) and subgrade soil respectively

For, h= thickness of pavement layer= (10/15) a =0.66a

F2=0.5

From Burmister,s Curve ( Fig:5.13 ) E1/E2 = 30 .

In Fig 5.13 thickness of reinforcing layer is expressed in terms o f radius of circular

loaded area. So thickness h = 0.5a means 0.5 x l5 cm = 7.5 cm

Similarly for other pavement thickness of 10, 20 and 25 cm and corresponding F2

E1/E2 values are read from Burmister,s Curve. These values are tabulated in Table 5.4

Table 5.4: Two layer displacement deflection) factor for different pavement layer

F2 Pavement E1/E2 %increase in

Thickness Without F2 Thickness without E1/E2 E1/E2 after
of WBM(cm) CM With CM (h) CM With CM CM inclusion
10 0.5 0.26 0.66a 30 200 666.67

15 0.34 0.2 1.0a 35 150 428.57

20 0.26 0.16 1.33a 40 150 375.00

25 0.19 0.14 1.67a 60 150 250.00

Variation of E1/E2 for different Pavement layers with and without inclusion of coirmat

is shown through Fig 5.14 and 5.15 . The vertical compressive stress on subgrade

decreases with increase in E1/E2 values. The % reduction in E1/E2 for 10cm WBM is

observed to be highest 666.67% and lowest for 25cm (250%). This justifies the

maximum reduction of settlement (50% ) for 10cm WBM ( Table 4.19 ) and minimum

(26.32%) for 25 cm WBM.

 200

D E F L E C T * ? * E a C i'Oft
T W O - U f tl E R
E1/E2

Fig : 5.14 : Increase in E1/E2 after coir mat inclusion

 201

% Increase in E1/E2 after CM inclusion

20 25
W BM thickness in mm

Fig : 5.15 : % Increase in E1/E2 after coirmat inclusion

5.4.4 Development of design curve for Coir mat of different strength :

While using coirmat in road construction the individual strength properties of this mat

may very from site to site . This will affect the performance of pavement. So design chart

has been tried to develop for getting pavement layer thickness with coirmat of different

strength.

Puncture resistance is a very popular and simple test for determining the strength of

Geosynthetic material. There is a direct relationship between puncture resistance value

and the the tensile strength of geosynthetics. This is because the material between the

inner edge of the specimen holder and and the outer edge of the puncturing rod is indeed

in a pure state of axis symmetric tension( Mandal & Divshikar DG,2002 ) .

In the present study Puncture resistance of Coirmat is determined by CBR Push through

method. Puncture resistance of coirmat in two and three layer is determined which will

represent the single layer of coirmat of different strength. From the settlement - load

repetition curve for two and three layer of coirmat , settlement at the surface of WBM
 202

layers are calculated for 1million load repetitions. Two layer displacement factor (F2) is

calculated by using equation 5.1 for different pavement thickness.

Table 5.5: Two layer displacement factor for different material combination

Thickness Two layer displacement factor F2

With CM With CM

ofWBM Without CM With CM(1 layer) (2 layer) (3 layer)

(PR=0) (PR=1 6) (PR=3.1) (PR=4.6)

10 0.5 0.26 0.22 0.15

15 0.34 0.21 0.17 0.12

20 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.1

25 0.19 0.14 0.1 0.08

PR = Puncture resistance in KN

Two layer displacement factor F2 for different layers of coir mat is shown in Table 5.5.

Pavement design curve developed for different F2 and PR value o f Coir mat is shown in

Fig 5.16. This generalizes the use of these design curve for coir mat of any PR

strength between 1.6 to 4.6KN.

 203

F2 Vs WBM thickness

-*-P R = 0

-i-PR=1.6
-a -P R = a i

- k- P R = 4 .6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V ffiM thickness (c m )

Fig : 5.16 Design curve for flexible pavement with coirmat of different strength.

PR =0 , without coir mat

Design of pavement by IRC37-20001 method :

IRC 37-2001 has recommended to use pavement thickness design chart for

traffic 1-150 msa based on the CBR value of subgrade soil. Knowing the CBR value of

sub grade soil pavement thickness can be determined from the design chart published.

Thus for designing flexible pavement with coir mat by IRC method ,CBR of

subgrde soil may be considered to be CBR value of subgrade soil obtained after coirmat

inclusion. From the laboratory CBR test series it is observed that CBR value of coirmat

reinforced soil is maximum when mat is placed at 1.0cm depth ( Table 3.6, Table 5.6)

CBR value of subgrade soil is considered corresponding to test result against D/d=3 as

D/d=3 i.e 15cm mould size is adopted by IS2720-PartXVI.

 > 204

Table 5.6 Results obtained from CBR test

Mould size=15cm

Position of Coirmat from top

surface (cm) Unsoaked CBR Soaked CBR

1 9.6% 7,14%

From the design chart Figl o f IRC-2001, corresponding to a CBR of 9.6% and 7.14% the

pavement thickness required are 30 cm and 37.5 cm respectively.

Table 5.7shows the pavement thickness requirement by this two methods . It is

observed that ERC method based on CBR value demands higher pavement thickness than

Burmister method. It is because the reinforcement and separation action of Coir mat isnot

utilized in CBR method The contribution of Coir mat is fully utilized in in this work

based on Burmisters method as it is a field performance oriented method.

. Fig 5.17 shows the pavement thickness requirement by Burmister and CBR method for

1 msa load repetition.

Table 5.7 : Thickness o f pavement required in different method

1RC37-2001 (CBR method)

Soaked CBR Un soaked CBR

=7.14% =9.6% Burmister method

Pavement thickness
required in( cm) 37.5 30 11
 205

Pavement thickness required by two mehod

40

§ 35

I
£
c
30
25
20
15
10
l 5
£
0
Soaked CBR=7.14% Unsoaked C8R =9.6% Burrrister method
Design Method

Fig : 5.17 : Pavement thickness required( cm ) in different method