ijaet oct-dec,2010 article 32.pdf

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

IJAET/Vol.I/ Issue III/Oct.-Dec.,2010/312-338

Research Article

STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF FLEXIBLE HIGHWAY

PAVEMENTS Rokade S

a*, Agarwal P K

b and Shrivastava R

c

Address for Correspondence

aAssistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of

Technology (MANIT), Bhopal MP INDIA bAssociate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of

Technology (MANIT), Bhopal MP INDIA c Director, National Institute of Technology Jamshedpur

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT The evaluation of riding quality of pavement involves a study of the functional behaviour of a stretch of

road pavement in its entirety. For a functional behaviour or performance analysis, information is needed on

the history of riding quality of the pavement stretch. In condition survey, pavement surface condition is

measured at a given time. The riding quality of a pavement can be measured by a Bump Integrator which

qualifies in to physical terms, the overall surface condition of the pavement. It is necessary for the

pavement maintenance engineer to evaluate functional condition of a pavement surface from time to time.

Unevenness is normally measured with response type measuring equipment, which is relatively fast and

inexpensive. The towed fifth wheel Bump Integrator is one such instrument. The unevenness measured by

these devices is generally expressed in terms of cumulative humps and depressions (mm/km) or slope

variance. In the structural evaluation of flexible pavement the pavement deflection is measured by the

Benkelman Beam. It is possible to measure the rebound and residual deflections of the pavement structure.

While the rebound deflection is one related to pavement performance, the residual deflection may be due to

non recoverable deflection of the pavement or because of the influence of the deflection bowl on the front

legs of the beam. Rebound deflection is used for overlay design.

The objective of the present study is to carry out the various studies to evaluate the performance (in service

behavior) of flexible National Highways and State Highway near Bhopal. A detailed pavement condition

survey is done on 4 National Highways and 1 State Highway and the road condition is evaluated both

functionally and structurally.

KEYWORDS: Functional evaluation, Structural evaluation, pavement performance, road

roughness

INTRODUCTION

Rapid industrialisation and urban growth has

led to increased traffic and excessive usage

of the roads. Due to heavy traffic wheel

loads of commercial vehicles, all the

components of the pavement structure get

disturbed and deteriorate. The deterioration

accumulates with the passage of time and

results in failure of pavement structure. The

failure is of structural type if the pavement

fails to carry design loads. It is of functional

type if it does not give a smooth riding

surface, which in turn increases vehicle

operating costs and consequently overall

transportation costs. The existing road

network is under severe strain due to

traffic growth, overloading of vehicles

and the Governments past negligence to

provide the needed funds for road

maintenance. A broad assessment shows

that over 50 percent of state highway



(SH) and major district road (MDR)

network has poor riding quality. Losses

due to poor condition of these roads

would be around Rs. 6000 crore per

annum besides their premature failure

resulting in huge rehabilitation and

reconstruction costs implying infusion of

avoidable plan funds at accelerated

intervals.

Originally, a pavements relative ability to

serve traffic was determined quite

subjectively by visual inspection and

experience. However, experience is difficult

to transfer from one person to another, and

individual decisions made from similar data

are often inconsistent. In the late 1950s,

systems of objective measurement (such as

roughness meters, deflection and skid test

equipment) began to appear that could

quantify a pavements condition and

performance. The performance evaluation

of a road can cover many aspects including

evaluation of road surface condition,

assessment of traffic safety on road surface,

rideability of the road surface and structural

adequacy of road pavement structure. Thus,

the following characteristics of road surface

are generally used to evaluate the

performance of roads.

Condition of the road surface (Surface

distresses)

Skid resistance (Traffic Safety)

Rideability of the road surface.

Pavement Deflection (Structural

Adequacy)

The objective of the present study is to carry

out the various studies to evaluate the

performance (in service behavior) of flexible

National Highway and State Highway near

Bhopal. A detailed pavement condition

survey is done on 4 National Highways and

1 State Highway and the road condition was

evaluated both functionally and structurally.

The scope of the present study includes the

evaluation of the following aspects:

Traffic Volume Survey and

Analysis to assess the present traffic

on the road.

Road Surface Condition Survey on

the basis of Visual Rating.

Roughness Measurements with

Bump Integrator.

Structural Evaluation of the

Pavement with Benkelman Beam.

Existing Pavement Crust and Sub

grade Characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pavement Evaluation

One of the most important functions of a

pavement engineer is the evaluation of in-

service pavements. It is necessary for them

to know the condition of pavement surface

with reference to the riding quality and to fix

suitable failure criteria to establish

maintenance and priority programs. The

evaluation of riding quality of pavement

involves a study of the functional behaviour



of a stretch of road pavement in its entire

reach. For a functional behaviour or

performance analysis, information is needed

on the history of riding quality of the

pavement stretch. Until a measure of

pavement serviceability was developed after

the AASHO road test, little attention was

paid to the evaluation of pavement

performance and the pavement was either

considered satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

The idea of relative performance was not

adequately developed. There are two

general types of pavement condition indices:

one type of index (type 1) represents raw

data for only one pavement condition

parameter (e.g. distress, roughness,

deflection, skid resistance, etc.). The other

type of index represents a combination of

more than one pavement condition

parameter. The method consists of

combining all or some of the rating so as to

constitute a global (or serviceability) index

representing the pavement condition.

The AASHO Road Test, 1958-61, and

researchers associated with it, made an

enormous contribution to the technology

base of pavement management using

pavement evaluation.

Flexible Pavement Riding Quality

Concepts

Pavement roughness is generally defined as

an expression of irregularities in the

pavement surface that adversely affect the

ride quality of a vehicle (and thus the user).

Roughness is an important pavement

characteristic because it affects not only ride

quality but also vehicle delay costs, fuel

consumption and maintenance costs. The

World Bank found road roughness to be a

primary factor in the analyses and trade-offs

involving road quality vs. user cost

(UMTRI, 1998). Roughness is also referred

to as "smoothness" although both terms refer

to the same pavement qualities.

Need for Evaluation of Riding Quality

One of the most important functions of a

pavement engineer is the evaluation of in-

service pavements. It is necessary for them

to know the condition of pavement surface

with reference to the riding quality and to fix

suitable failure criteria to establish

maintenance and priority programs. The

evaluation of riding quality of pavement

involves a study of the functional behaviour

of a stretch of road pavement in its entirety.

For a functional behaviour or performance

analysis, information is needed on the

history of riding quality of the pavement

stretch. Until a measure of pavement

serviceability was developed after the

AASHO road test, little attention was paid to

the evaluation of pavement performance and

the pavement was either considered

satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The idea of

relative performance was not adequately

developed. In condition survey, pavement

surface condition is measured at a given

time. The assessment of riding quality is



considered to be the most important

component of pavement surface condition.

This type of survey is not concerned with

evaluating the structural strength of

pavement and generally no attempt is made

to determine the reason for the evenness or

any other type of pavement condition. The

major objectives of undulations/unevenness

measurements of road pavements are as

follows:

i) To determine whether the pavement

surface is acceptable even from the point

of view of riding quality for motor

vehicles

ii) To measure the unevenness of various

stretches of the road system periodically

and to maintain the record to decide

priority for improvement of road surface

conditions or riding quality from the

point of view of the road users.

iii) To decide the type of pavement surface

treatment to improve the riding quality

to the desired level.

The responsibility of the highway Engineer

is to provide road profile as free as possible

from necessary undulations. However, as

Millard and Lister have pointed out, unless a

cash value is put on riding comfort this leads

to an open ended financial commitment.

Clearly the cost involved specifically in

obtaining a satisfactory surface profile must

be limited to a few percent of the cost of

laying the pavement.

Unevenness/ Roughness of Flexible

Pavements

The riding quality of a pavement can be

measured by a Bump Integrator which

qualifies in to physical terms, the overall

surface condition of the pavement. It is thus

a very useful tool in the hands of a

maintenance engineer.It is necessary for the

pavement maintenance engineer to evaluate

functional condition of a pavement surface

from time to time. The functional

requirements of a pavement surface from

users point of view are to provide safe,

comfortable and fast movement of the

vehicles at reasonably low vehicle operation

cost. Unevenness is normally measured with

response type measuring equipment, which

is relatively fast and inexpensive. The

towed fifth wheel Bump Integrator is one

such instrument. The unevenness measured

by these devices is generally expressed in

terms of cumulative humps and depressions

(mm/km) or slope variance. The work

carried out as a part of the Road User Cost

Study has revealed that, for every 100

mm/km increase in roughness, the speeds

reduces by 1.5 to 2.5 km/hr.

Predicting the trends of unevenness

progression over the life cycle of a road

pavement is undoubtedly the most critical of

the various pavement performance

predictions. Since, the vehicle operation

cost components for a road on a given

alignment depends to a large degree on



unevenness, which has been proved in the

Kenya study on the cost of operation of

vehicles, the optimum timing of

maintenance interventions and economic

benefits accruing from them depend greatly

on the prediction of unevenness progression.

The study of pavement unevenness is

important from the following aspects.

To judge the quality of construction

To assess the need for renewal of

pavement surfacing

To create a healthy competition in road

construction industry to provide better

riding comfort

To create good public relations as the

road users will judge the quality of

construction mainly from the riding

qualities of a pavement

To work out the economic losses in

terms of increased road user costs due

to poor road surface condition and to

convince the legislators about economic

justification of maintenance and

rehabilitation measures and better types

of highway surfacing

In view of the above discussions it is very

essential to measure qualitatively the surface

unevenness in the following two cases:

i) Soon after the construction of each of the

new pavement layers, as one of the

essential quality control checks before

approving the work.

ii) At suitable intervals to evaluate the

surface condition of existing pavement as

a routine maintenance management step

before the maximum permissible terminal

values of undulations are reached.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Description of the study area

In this Pavement Performance Study (PPS) 4

National Highways and 1 State Highway

was chosen near Bhopal, the details about

each road section is as follows:

(1) National Highway (NH-3) Agra-

Bombay Road

The salient features of the Road Section are:

1. Length of the Section of the Road: 5.0

Km

2. Type of Pavement: Bituminous

3. No. of lanes: 2 lanes

4. Divided/Undivided: Undivided

5. Type of Shoulder: Hard Shoulder

6. Drainage System: Longitudinal Drain on

either side, Transverse drain

7. Surrounding Environment: Rural

8. Type of traffic: Mixed traffic (Mainly

Commercial Vehicles)

9. Present Traffic Intensity: 7,220 CVPD

(Seven Days 24 hour Traffic Volume

Count)

10. Average Speed: 100 Km/ hr.

11. Annual Rainfall: 110 cm

12. Details of Existing Crust

Granular Sub Base = 350 mm

WBM Base = 425 mm

Dense Bituminous Macadam=120 mm

Bituminous Concrete = 40 mm



(2) National Highway (NH-12) Jaipur-

Jabalpur Road

The salient features of the Road Section are:

1. Length of the Section of the Road: 5.0

Km





6. Drainage System: Longitudinal Drain on

either side


8. Type of traffic: Mixed traffic (Mainly

Commercial Vehicles)

9. Present Traffic Intensity: 6955 CVPD

(Seven Days 24 hour Traffic Volume

Count)


11. Average Annual Rainfall: 110 cm



WBM Base = 400 mm

Dense Bituminous Macadam=110

mm


(3) National Highway (NH-86) Bhopal-

Sagar Road

The salient features of the Road Section

are:

1. Length of the Section of the Road:

5.0 Km





6. Drainage System: Longitudinal

Drain on either side, No Proper

transverse drains


8. Type of traffic: Mixed traffic

(Mainly Commercial Vehicles)

9. Present Traffic Intensity: 7,115

CVPD (Seven Days 24 hour Traffic

Volume Count)





WBM Base = 425 mm

Dense Bituminous Macadam

=100 mm


(4) National Highway (NH-69) Bhopal

(Obdullaganj) - Nagpur Road


are:


5.0 Km





6. Drainage System: Longitudinal

Drain on either side






Volume Count)







WBM Base = 425 mm

Dense Bituminous Macadam

=100 mm


(5) State Highway (SH-23) Bhopal- Sironj

Road


are:


5.0 Km





6. Drainage System: No proper

Drainage system






Volume Count)





WBM Base = 325 mm

Bituminous Macadam =75 mm

Semi Dense Bituminous

Concrete = 30 mm

PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE DATA

Structural Evaluation of Pavement by

Benkelman Beam

Basic Principles of Deflection Method:

Performance of flexible pavements is

closely related to the elastic deflection

of pavement under the wheel loads. The

deformation or elastic deflection under a

given load depends upon subgrade soil

type, its moisture content and

compaction, the thickness and quality of

pavement courses, drainage conditions,

pavement surface temperature etc.

Pavement deflection is measured by the

Benkelman Beam which consists of a

slender beam 3.66m long pivoted at a

distance of 2.44m from the tip. By

suitably placing the probe between the

dual wheels of the loaded truck, it is

possible to measure the rebound and

residual deflections of the pavement

structure. While the rebound deflection

is one related to pavement performance,

the residual deflection may be due to

non recoverable deflection of the

pavement or because of the influence of

the deflection bowl on the front legs of

the beam. Rebound deflection is used

for overlay design.

The Tables 1 to 10 shows the evaluation of

overlay thickness for existing flexible

pavements by Benkelman Beam Deflection

technique for both the left and the right lanes

for NH-3, NH-12, NH-86, NH-69 and SH-

23.



Table 1: Structural Evaluation of Pavement by Benkelman Beam on (NH-3) on Left Lane

Evaluation of Overlay thickness for Existing Flexible Pavements by Benkelman Beam Deflection IRC:81-

1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-3) Agra- Bombay Road

Average Rainfall:1160 mm Lane: Left

Moisture Content of soil: 11.25 %

Air Temperature (Start): 28.5 oC

Air Temperature (End): 29 oC

Seasonal/ Moisture Correction Factor: 1.075

Sr. No. Test

Point

Location Chainage

Dial Gauge Deflections

Rebound

Deflection

mm

Pavement

Temperat-

ure oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm

Initial Intermediate

Final

1 250 0 8 8 0.160 28 0.070 0.247

2 500 0 2 2 0.040 28 0.070 0.118

3 750 0 6 6 0.120 28 0.070 0.204

4 1000 0 10 12 0.240 28 0.070 0.333

5 1250 0 29 35 0.875 28 0.070 1.015

6 1500 0 28 28 0.560 28 0.070 0.677

7 1750 0 22 25 0.587 28 0.070 0.707

8 2000 0 12 14 0.280 28 0.070 0.376

9 2250 0 30 33 0.747 28 0.070 0.879

10 2500 0 23 23 0.460 28 0.070 0.570

11 2750 0 15 16 0.320 28 0.070 0.418

12 3000 0 24 26 0.520 28 0.070 0.632

13 3250 0 18 18 0.360 28 0.070 0.459

14 3500 0 15 16 0.320 28 0.070 0.415

15 3750 0 18 18 0.360 28 0.070 0.457

16 4000 0 5 6 0.120 28 0.070 0.198

17 4250 0 0 0 0.000 28 0.070 0.068

18 4500 0 4 5 0.100 28 0.070 0.174

19 4750 0 40 45 1.046 28 0.070 1.189

20 5000 0 5 5 0.100 28 0.070 0.172



Table 2: Structural Evaluation of Pavement by Benkelman Beam on (NH-3) on Right Lane


1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-3) Agra- Bombay Road

Average Rainfall:1160 mm Lane: Right


Air Temperature (Start): 27 oC

Air Temperature (End): 28.5 oC


Sr. No. Test

Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflection

mm

Pavement

Temperatu

re oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm


Final

1 250 0 4 4 0.080 27 0.080 0.172

2 500 0 5 9 0.296 27 0.080 0.406

3 750 0 3 7 0.256 27 0.080 0.364

4 1000 0 17 21 0.536 27 0.080 0.666

5 1250 0 21 22 0.440 27 0.080 0.564

6 1500 0 28 29 0.580 27 0.080 0.715

7 1750 0 23 28 0.706 27 0.080 0.852

8 2000 0 25 25 0.500 27 0.080 0.632

9 2250 0 24 25 0.500 27 0.080 0.633

10 2500 0 24 28 0.676 26 0.090 0.824

11 2750 0 20 25 0.646 26 0.090 0.792

12 3000 0 18 18 0.360 26 0.090 0.486

13 3250 0 19 24 0.626 26 0.090 0.772

14 3500 0 12 12 0.240 26 0.090 0.359

15 3750 0 12 12 0.240 26 0.090 0.360

16 4000 0 10 12 0.240 26 0.090 0.361

17 4250 0 5 8 0.247 26 0.090 0.370

18 4500 0 16 22 0.615 26 0.090 0.766

19 4750 0 14 18 0.476 26 0.090 0.619

20 5000 0 13 15 0.300 25 0.100 0.430

Average Deflection (Right + left lane) 0.511

Standard Deviation 0.260

Characteristic Deflection 1.030

Overlay Thickness in mm 134.55





1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-12) Jaipur- Jabalpur Road






Sr. No. Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflection

(mm)

Pave-

ment Temp-

erature oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm


Final

1 250 0 26 31 0.766 32 0.03 0.869

2 500 0 19 29 0.871 32 0.03 0.979

3 750 0 20 25 0.646 32 0.03 0.750

4 1000 0 23 25 0.500 32 0.03 0.603

5 1250 0 27 30 0.687 32 0.03 0.797

6 1500 0 33 43 1.151 32 0.03 1.276

7 1750 0 40 44 0.996 32 0.03 1.120

8 2000 0 34 42 1.073 32 0.03 1.200

9 2250 0 21 31 0.911 32 0.03 1.036

10 2500 0 12 17 0.486 30 0.05 0.602

11 2750 0 9 18 0.622 30 0.05 0.742

12 3000 0 19 25 0.675 30 0.05 0.796

13 3250 0 10 15 0.446 30 0.05 0.560

14 3500 0 13 17 0.456 30 0.05 0.572

15 3750 0 19 22 0.527 30 0.05 0.644

16 4000 0 23 31 0.853 30 0.05 0.979

17 4250 0 18 20 0.400 30 0.05 0.514

18 4500 0 22 25 0.587 30 0.05 0.706

19 4750 0 16 26 0.811 30 0.05 0.936

20 5000 0 14 15 0.300 30 0.05 0.411





1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-12) Jaipur- Jabalpur Road






Sr.

No.

Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflection

(mm)

Pavem-

ent

Tempe

rature oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm

Initial Inter

mediat

e

Final

1 250 0 28 32 0.756 34 0.01 0.849

2 500 0 30 32 0.640 34 0.01 0.727

3 750 0 12 20 0.633 34 0.01 0.717

4 1000 0 28 32 0.756 34 0.01 0.842

5 1250 0 30 34 0.796 34 0.01 0.881

6 1500 0 12 15 0.387 34 0.01 0.458

7 1750 0 55 61 1.395 34 0.01 1.491

8 2000 0 38 41 0.907 34 0.01 0.988

9 2250 0 20 23 0.547 34 0.01 0.616

10 2500 0 8 17 0.602 34.5 0.015 0.670

11 2750 0 20 24 0.596 34.5 0.015 0.665

12 3000 0 14 15 0.300 34.5 0.015 0.362

13 3250 0 12 15 0.387 34.5 0.015 0.452

14 3500 0 6 13 0.464 34.5 0.015 0.532

15 3750 0 18 19 0.380 34.5 0.015 0.447

16 4000 0 34 36 0.720 34.5 0.015 0.797

17 4250 0 12 14 0.280 34.5 0.015 0.346

18 4500 0 24 34 0.971 34.5 0.015 1.057

19 4750 0 17 20 0.487 34.5 0.015 0.561

20 5000 0 16 17 0.340 34.5 0.015 0.411




Overlay Thickness in terms of BM mm 167.53





1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-86) Bhopal- Sagar Road






Sr.

No.

Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflection

(mm)

Pave-

ment

Tempe

rature oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm


Final

1 250 0 9 9 0.180 35 0.0 0.242

2 500 0 15 16 0.320 35 0.0 0.388

3 750 0 25 25 0.500 35 0.0 0.573

4 1000 0 27 27 0.540 35 0.0 0.618

5 1250 0 20 20 0.400 35 0.0 0.482

6 1500 0 29 29 1.580 35 0.0 0.668

7 1750 0 31 39 1.013 35 0.0 1.108

8 2000 0 22 23 0.460 35 0.0 0.556

9 2250 0 20 20 0.400 35 0.0 0.500

10 2500 0 14 14 0.280 36 0.01 0.383

11 2750 0 23 23 0.460 36 0.01 0.562

12 3000 0 18 18 0.360 36 0.01 0.460

13 3250 0 31 32 0.640 36 0.01 0.740

14 3500 0 70 74 1.596 36 0.01 1.702

15 3750 0 16 16 0.320 36 0.01 0.413

16 4000 0 31 31 0.620 36 0.01 0.714

17 4250 0 27 30 0.687 36 0.01 0.779

18 4500 0 49 49 0.980 36 0.01 1.073

19 4750 0 28 30 0.600 36 0.01 0.687

20 5000 0 26 26 0.520 36 0.01 0.605





1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-86) Bhopal- Sagar Road






Sr.

No.

Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflec-

tion

(mm)

Pave-

ment

Tempera

ture oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm


Final

1 250 0 17 20 0.487 34 0.01 0.572

2 500 0 21 27 0.715 34 0.01 0.796

3 750 0 23 27 0.656 34 0.01 0.733

4 1000 0 25 28 0.647 34 0.01 0.720

5 1250 0 27 33 0.835 34 0.01 0.904

6 1500 0 28 29 0.580 34 0.01 0.643

7 1750 0 24 28 1.676 34 0.01 0.736

8 2000 0 21 27 0.715 34 0.01 0.770

9 2250 0 23 23 0.460 34 0.01 0.508

10 2500 0 16 18 0.360 34 0.01 0.403

11 2750 0 14 17 0.427 34 0.01 0.472

12 3000 0 29 29 0.580 34 0.01 0.627

13 3250 0 35 39 0.896 34 0.01 0.947

14 3500 0 35 39 0.896 34 0.01 0.948

15 3750 0 43 45 0.900 34 0.01 0.953

16 4000 0 23 27 0.656 34 0.01 0.708

17 4250 0 37 43 1.035 34 0.01 1.090

18 4500 0 31 39 1.013 34 0.01 1.069

19 4750 0 32 34 0.680 34 0.01 0.735

20 5000 0 33 37 0.856 34 0.01 0.914









1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-69) Bhopal (Obdullaganj)- Nagpur Road






Sr.

No.

Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflectio

n

(mm)

Pavemen

t

Tempera

ture oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm


Final

1 250 0 8 8 0.160 34 0.01 0.247

2 500 0 2 2 0.040 34 0.01 0.118

3 750 0 6 6 0.120 34 0.01 0.204

4 1000 0 12 12 0.240 34 0.01 0.333

5 1250 0 29 35 0.875 34 0.01 1.015

6 1500 0 28 28 0.560 34 0.01 0.677

7 1750 0 22 25 0.587 34 0.01 0.707

8 2000 0 12 14 0.280 34 0.01 0.376

9 2250 0 30 33 0.747 34 0.01 0.879

10 2500 0 23 23 0.460 32 0.01 0.570

11 2750 0 15 26 0.320 32 0.03 0.418

12 3000 0 24 26 0.520 32 0.03 0.632

13 3250 0 18 18 0.360 32 0.03 0.459

14 3500 0 15 16 0.320 32 0.03 0.415

15 3750 0 18 18 0.360 32 0.03 0.457

16 4000 0 5 6 0.120 32 0.03 0.198

17 4250 0 0 0 0.0 32 0.03 0.068

18 4500 0 4 5 0.100 32 0.03 0.174

19 4750 0 40 45 1.046 32 0.03 1.189

20 5000 0 5 5 0.100 32 0.03 0.172





1997

Name of the road: National Highway (NH-69) Bhopal (Obdullaganj)- Nagpur Road






Sr.

No.

Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflec-

tion

(mm)

Pave-

ment

Temper-

ature oC

Tempera-

ture

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection (with

Temp. & MCF)

mm


Final

1 250 0 4 4 0.080 35 0.0 0.172

2 500 0 5 9 0.296 35 0.0 0.406

3 750 0 3 7 0.256 35 0.0 0.364

4 1000 0 17 21 0.536 35 0.0 0.666

5 1250 0 21 22 0.440 35 0.0 0.564

6 1500 0 28 29 0.580 35 0.0 0.715

7 1750 0 23 28 1.706 35 0.0 0.852

8 2000 0 25 25 0.500 35 0.0 0.632

9 2250 0 24 25 0.500 35 0.0 0.633

10 2500 0 24 28 0.676 35 0.0 0.824

11 2750 0 20 25 0.646 36 0.01 0.792

12 3000 0 18 18 0.360 36 0.01 0.486

13 3250 0 19 24 0.626 36 0.01 0.772

14 3500 0 12 12 0.240 36 0.01 0.359

15 3750 0 12 12 0.240 36 0.01 0.360

16 4000 0 10 12 0.240 36 0.01 0.361

17 4250 0 5 8 0.247 36 0.01 0.370

18 4500 0 16 22 0.615 36 0.01 0.766

19 4750 0 14 18 0.476 36 0.01 0.619

20 5000 0 13 15 0.300 36 0.01 0.430







Table 9: Structural Evaluation of Pavement by Benkelman Beam on (SH-23) on Left Lane


1997

Name of the road: State Highway (SH-23) Bhopal Sironj Road






Sr.

No.

Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflec-

tion

(mm)

Pave-

ment

Tempera

ture oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm

Initial Interm

ediate

Final

1 250 0 37 39 0.780 36 0.01 0.877

2 500 0 27 40 0.687 36 0.01 0.782

3 750 0 41 42 0.840 36 0.01 0.935

4 1000 0 48 48 0.960 36 0.01 1.055

5 1250 0 40 41 0.820 36 0.01 0.913

6 1500 0 30 31 0.620 36 0.01 0.710

7 1750 0 45 45 0.900 36 0.01 0.991

8 2000 0 29 29 0.580 36 0.01 0.668

9 2250 0 40 41 0.820 36 0.01 0.908

10 2500 0 26 26 0.520 36 0.01 0.605

11 2750 0 46 46 0.920 34 0.01 1.010

12 3000 0 30 30 0.600 34 0.01 0.689

13 3250 0 40 40 0.800 34 0.01 0.893

14 3500 0 30 31 0.620 34 0.01 0.714

15 3750 0 39 40 0.800 34 0.01 0.897

16 4000 0 28 28 0.560 34 0.01 0.657

17 4250 0 35 35 0.700 34 0.01 0.800

18 4500 0 27 27 0.540 34 0.01 0.641

19 4750 0 35 36 0.720 34 0.01 0.825

20 5000 0 32 34 0.680 34 0.01 0.786



Table 10: Structural Evaluation of Pavement by Benkelman Beam on (SH-23) on Right

Lane


1997

Name of the road: State Highway (SH-23) Bhopal Sironj Road






Sr.

No.

Test Point

Location

Chainage


Rebound

Deflec-

tion

(mm)

Pave-

ment

Tempera

ture oC

Temperature

Correction

(mm)

Corrected

Deflection

(with Temp.

& MCF) mm


Final

1 250 0 34 37 0.827 38 0.03 0.915

2 500 0 30 31 0.620 38 0.03 0.706

3 750 0 34 34 0.680 38 0.03 0.766

4 1000 0 46 49 1.067 38 0.03 1.156

5 1250 0 36 36 0.720 38 0.03 0.806

6 1500 0 35 36 0.720 38 0.03 0.806

7 1750 0 36 37 0.740 38 0.03 0.827

8 2000 0 40 43 0.947 38 0.03 1.036

9 2250 0 29 30 0.600 38 0.03 0.685

10 2500 0 39 42 0.927 38 0.03 1.015

11 2750 0 31 33 0.660 36 0.01 0.746

12 3000 0 44 45 0.900 36 0.01 0.988

13 3250 0 33 34 0.680 36 0.01 0.766

14 3500 0 38 39 0.780 36 0.01 0.867

15 3750 0 27 27 0.540 36 0.01 0.625

16 4000 0 30 33 0.747 36 0.01 0.834

17 4250 0 26 28 0.560 36 0.01 0.645

18 4500 0 34 34 0.680 36 0.01 0.766

19 4750 0 35 38 0.847 36 0.01 0.935

20 5000 0 31 31 0.620 36 0.01 0.706







Determination of Riding Quality

A newly constructed road gives a smooth

ride. As the pavement is subjected to traffic,

damage occurs which is reflected in

deformation of the pavement and

consequently the riding quality of the road

deteriorates. Therefore the quality of the

ride, as measured by road roughness, is a

measure of the roads deterioration with time.

Riding quality also affects vehicle operating

cost. The levels of roughness which are

taken to indicate the need for maintenance,

interventions vary a great deal and are

particularly influenced by the form of

construction. The riding quality may

conveniently be measured by a towed Bump

Integrator. A similar device can be attached

to the rear axle of a suitable vehicle. In order

to give reliable results, however this type of

equipment must be carefully calibrated and

must be operated at as uniform a speed as

possible. The values in (mm/Km)

recommended by the Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways for roads with

different types of surfaces are given in Table

11. The Tables 12 to 16 shows the

Roughness Index values for NH-3, NH-12,

NH-86, NH-69 and SH-23. The condition of

the road section is ascertained accordingly

as good, average, poor and very poor.

Table 11: Recommended Roughness Values for Roads in India in (mm/Km)

Surface Type Good Average Poor Very

Poor

Bituminous Concrete/

SDBC

2000-2500 2500-3500 3500-4000 Over 4000

Premix Bituminous

Carpet/ MSS

2500-4500 4500-5500 5500-6500 Over 6500

Surface Dressing 4000-5000 5000-6500 6500-7500 Over 7500

Table 12: Roughness Index Values for National Highway (NH-3) Agra- Bombay Road

S. No. Test Point

Location

Chainage

Bumps (B) Wheel

Revolution

Obtained W)

Wheel

Revolution

per Km

Roughness

Index (R.I.)

(mm/Km)

Condition of

Road

1 100 96 458 460 2410.5 Good

2 200 101 450 460 2581.1 Average

3 300 100 452 460 2544.2 Average

4 400 105 455 460 2653.8 Average

5 500 105 456 460 2648 Average

6 600 108 457 460 2717 Average

7 700 111 458 460 2787 Average

8 800 108 459 460 2705 Average

9 900 100 460 460 2500 Average

10 1000 101 459 460 2530 Average



Continue from previous page..

11 1100 99 455 460 2502 Average

12 1200 95 458 460 2385 Good

13 1300 96 459 460 2405 Good

14 1400 96 458 460 2410 Good

15 1500 97 450 460 2478 Good

16 1600 81 452 460 2060 Good

17 1700 84 455 460 2123 Good

18 1800 98 456 460 2471 Good

19 1900 86 462 460 2140 Good

20 2000 98 458 460 2460 Good

21 2100 105 455 460 2653 Average

22 2200 109 452 460 2773 Average

23 2300 110 453 460 2792 Average

24 2400 114 450 460 2913 Average

25 2500 115 452 460 2925 Average

26 2600 119 453 460 3020 Average

27 2700 124 455 460 3134 Average

28 2800 129 458 460 3239 Average

29 2900 125 450 460 3194 Average

30 3000 122 452 460 3103 Average

31 3100 134 454 460 3394 Average

32 3200 136 451 460 3467 Average

33 3300 139 453 460 3528 Poor

34 3400 141 452 460 3587 Poor

35 3500 142 451 460 3620 Poor

36 3600 144 455 460 3639 Poor

37 3700 148 456 460 3732 Poor

38 3800 144 459 460 3607 Poor

39 3900 147 457 460 3699 Poor

40 4000 155 455 460 3917 Poor

41 4100 154 453 460 3909 Poor

42 4200 150 455 460 3791 Poor

43 4300 149 457 460 3749 Poor

44 4400 98 456 460 2471 Good

45 4500 97 450 460 2478 Good

46 4600 95 453 460 2411 Good

47 4700 96 458 460 2410 Good

48 4800 87 420 460 2382 Good

49 4900 79 451 460 2014 Good

50 5000 73 449 460 1869 Good



Table 13: Roughness Index Values for National Highway (NH-12) Jaipur-Jabalpur Road

S. No. Test Point

Location

Chainage

Bumps (B) Wheel

Revolution

Obtained (W)

Wheel

Revolution

per Km

Roughness

Index (R.I.)

(mm/Km)

Condition of

Road

1 100 94 427 460 2531 Average

2 200 108 439 460 2829 Average

3 300 127 458 460 3188 Average

4 400 129 457 460 3246 Average

5 500 125 457 460 3145 Average

6 600 115 452 460 2925 Average

7 700 140 455 460 3538 Poor

8 800 145 451 460 3697 Poor

9 900 148 454 460 3748 Poor

10 1000 152 453 460 3858 Poor

11 1100 150 452 460 3816 Poor

12 1200 153 456 460 3858 Poor

13 1300 158 455 460 3993 Poor

14 1400 154 457 460 3875 Poor

15 1500 81 452 460 2060 Good

16 1600 97 450 460 2478 Good

17 1700 86 462 460 2140 Good

18 1800 98 456 460 2471 Good

19 1900 84 455 460 2123 Good

20 2000 98 458 460 2460 Good

21 2100 114 450 460 2913 Average

22 2200 109 452 460 2773 Average

23 2300 110 453 460 2792 Average

24 2400 105 455 460 2653 Average

25 2500 115 452 460 2925 Average

26 2600 119 453 460 3020 Average

27 2700 119 461 460 2968 Average

28 2800 114 453 460 2894 Average

29 2900 252 448 460 6468 Very Poor

30 3000 200 458 460 5021 Very Poor

31 3100 179 448 460 4594 Very Poor

32 3200 136 451 460 3467 Average

33 3300 127 458 460 3188 Average




34 3400 144 455 460 3639 Poor

35 3500 142 451 460 3620 Poor

36 3600 141 452 460 3587 Poor

37 3700 148 456 460 3732 Poor

38 3800 96 458 460 2410 Good

39 3900 97 460 460 2478 Good

40 4000 93 454 460 2355 Good

41 4100 95 453 460 2411 Good

42 4200 92 456 460 2320 Good

43 4300 87 420 460 2382 Good

44 4400 98 456 460 2471 Good

45 4500 97 450 460 2478 Good

46 4600 95 453 460 2411 Good

47 4700 79 451 460 2014 Good

48 4800 149 457 460 3749 Poor

49 4900 96 458 460 2410 Good

50 5000 81 452 460 2060 Good

Table 14: Roughness Index Values for National Highway (NH-86) Bhopal-Sagar Road

S. No. Test Point

Location

Chainage

Bumps (B) Wheel

Revolution

Obtained (W)

Wheel

Revolution

per Km

Roughness

Index (R.I.)

(mm/Km)

Condition of

Road

1 100 96 458 460 2410.5 Good

2 200 101 450 460 2581.1 Average

3 300 100 452 460 2544.2 Average

4 400 105 455 460 2653.8 Average

5 500 105 456 460 2648 Average

6 600 108 457 460 2717 Average

7 700 111 458 460 2787 Average

8 800 108 459 460 2705 Average

9 900 100 460 460 2500 Average

10 1000 101 459 460 2530 Average

11 1100 99 455 460 2502 Average

12 1200 95 458 460 2385 Good

13 1300 96 459 460 2405 Good

14 1400 96 458 460 2410 Good

15 1500 97 450 460 2478 Good




16 1600 81 452 460 2060 Good

17 1700 84 455 460 2123 Good

18 1800 98 456 460 2471 Good

19 1900 86 462 460 2140 Good

20 2000 98 458 460 2460 Good

21 2100 105 455 460 2653 Average

22 2200 109 452 460 2773 Average

23 2300 110 453 460 2792 Average

24 2400 114 450 460 2913 Average

25 2500 115 452 460 2925 Average

26 2600 119 453 460 3020 Average

27 2700 124 455 460 3134 Average

28 2800 129 458 460 3239 Average

29 2900 125 450 460 3194 Average

30 3000 122 452 460 3103 Average

31 3100 134 454 460 3394 Average

32 3200 136 451 460 3467 Average

33 3300 139 453 460 3528 Poor

34 3400 141 452 460 3587 Poor

35 3500 142 451 460 3620 Poor

36 3600 144 455 460 3639 Poor

37 3700 148 456 460 3732 Poor

38 3800 144 459 460 3607 Poor

39 3900 147 457 460 3699 Poor

40 4000 155 455 460 3917 Poor

41 4100 154 453 460 3909 Poor

42 4200 150 455 460 3791 Poor

43 4300 149 457 460 3749 Poor

44 4400 98 456 460 2471 Good

45 4500 97 450 460 2478 Good

46 4600 95 453 460 2411 Good

47 4700 96 458 460 2410 Good

48 4800 87 420 460 2382 Good

49 4900 79 451 460 2014 Good

50 5000 73 449 460 1869 Good



Table 15: Roughness Index Values for National Highway (NH-69) Bhopal (Obdulaganj)-

Nagpur Road

S. No. Test Point

Location

Chainage

Bumps (B) Wheel

Revolution

Obtained (W)

Wheel

Revolution

per Km

Roughness

Index (R.I.)

(mm/Km)

Condition of

Road

1 100 96 458 460 2410.5 Good

2 200 101 450 460 2581.1 Average

3 300 100 452 460 2544.2 Average

4 400 105 455 460 2653.8 Average

5 500 105 456 460 2648 Average

6 600 108 457 460 2717 Average

7 700 111 458 460 2787 Average

8 800 108 459 460 2705 Average

9 900 100 460 460 2500 Average

10 1000 101 459 460 2530 Average

11 1100 99 455 460 2502 Average

12 1200 95 458 460 2385 Good

13 1300 96 459 460 2405 Good

14 1400 96 458 460 2410 Good

15 1500 97 450 460 2478 Good

16 1600 81 452 460 2060 Good

17 1700 84 455 460 2123 Good

18 1800 98 456 460 2471 Good

19 1900 86 462 460 2140 Good

20 2000 98 458 460 2460 Good

21 2100 105 455 460 2653 Average

22 2200 109 452 460 2773 Average

23 2300 110 453 460 2792 Average

24 2400 114 450 460 2913 Average

25 2500 115 452 460 2925 Average

26 2600 119 453 460 3020 Average

27 2700 124 455 460 3134 Average

28 2800 129 458 460 3239 Average

29 2900 125 450 460 3194 Average

30 3000 122 452 460 3103 Average

31 3100 134 454 460 3394 Average

32 3200 136 451 460 3467 Average

33 3300 139 453 460 3528 Poor




34 3400 141 452 460 3587 Poor

35 3500 142 451 460 3620 Poor

36 3600 144 455 460 3639 Poor

37 3700 148 456 460 3732 Poor

38 3800 144 459 460 3607 Poor

39 3900 147 457 460 3699 Poor

40 4000 155 455 460 3917 Poor

41 4100 154 453 460 3909 Poor

42 4200 150 455 460 3791 Poor

43 4300 149 457 460 3749 Poor

44 4400 98 456 460 2471 Good

45 4500 97 450 460 2478 Good

46 4600 95 453 460 2411 Good

47 4700 96 458 460 2410 Good

48 4800 87 420 460 2382 Good

49 4900 79 451 460 2014 Good

50 5000 73 449 460 1869 Good

Table 16: Roughness Index Values for State Highway (SH-23) Bhopal-Sironj Road

S. No. Test Point

Location

Chainage

Bumps (B) Wheel

Revolution

Obtained (W)

Wheel

Revolution

per Km

Roughness

Index (R.I.)

(mm/Km)

Condition of

Road

1 100 96 458 460 2410.5 Good

2 200 101 450 460 2581.1 Average

3 300 100 452 460 2544.2 Average

4 400 105 455 460 2653.8 Average

5 500 105 456 460 2648 Average

6 600 108 457 460 2717 Average

7 700 111 458 460 2787 Average

8 800 108 459 460 2705 Average

9 900 100 460 460 2500 Average

10 1000 101 459 460 2530 Average

11 1100 99 455 460 2502 Average

12 1200 95 458 460 2385 Good

13 1300 96 459 460 2405 Good

14 1400 96 458 460 2410 Good

15 1500 97 450 460 2478 Good




16 1600 81 452 460 2060 Good

17 1700 84 455 460 2123 Good

18 1800 98 456 460 2471 Good

19 1900 86 462 460 2140 Good

20 2000 98 458 460 2460 Good

21 2100 105 455 460 2653 Average

22 2200 109 452 460 2773 Average

23 2300 110 453 460 2792 Average

24 2400 114 450 460 2913 Average

25 2500 115 452 460 2925 Average

26 2600 119 453 460 3020 Average

27 2700 124 455 460 3134 Average

28 2800 129 458 460 3239 Average

29 2900 125 450 460 3194 Average

30 3000 122 452 460 3103 Average

31 3100 134 454 460 3394 Average

32 3200 136 451 460 3467 Average

33 3300 139 453 460 3528 Poor

34 3400 141 452 460 3587 Poor

35 3500 142 451 460 3620 Poor

36 3600 144 455 460 3639 Poor

37 3700 148 456 460 3732 Poor

38 3800 144 459 460 3607 Poor

39 3900 147 457 460 3699 Poor

40 4000 155 455 460 3917 Poor

41 4100 154 453 460 3909 Poor

42 4200 150 455 460 3791 Poor

43 4300 149 457 460 3749 Poor

44 4400 98 456 460 2471 Good

45 4500 97 450 460 2478 Good

46 4600 95 453 460 2411 Good

47 4700 96 458 460 2410 Good

48 4800 87 420 460 2382 Good

49 4900 79 451 460 2014 Good

50 5000 73 449 460 1869 Good



Table 17: The Results of Benkelman Beam Study

CONCLUSIONS

1) The Traffic volume study (7 days count)

indicate that in case of NH 3, NH 12,

NH 69,NH 86 and SH 23, the traffic is

of very high intensity and also heavy

axle load vehicles (rear axle load more

than 10.2 t ) ply on the roads.

2) The heavy axle loads on the road are

leading to its premature failure and

distresses like rutting, cracking,

localized depressions etc.

3) The drainage system both longitudinal

and transverse are inefficient and is not

working properly especially for NH 3

and NH 86 leading to failures

pertaining to improper drainage system,

namely Pot holes, Stripping etc

4) The Benkelman beam study was

conducted on all the five stretches and

structural inadequacy was found in the

sections of all the five stretches i.e.

NH3, NH12, NH69, NH86 and SH23.

5) There is a need to go for measures such

as an overlay on all the five stretches.

The overlay thicknesses in terms of BM

were found for all the stretches and are

shown in Table 17.

6) The Roughness Index Values (RI) were

found by Bump Integrator for all the

five stretches for each 100 m section and

the pavement surface condition was

rated as Very Poor, Poor, Average and

Good.

7) The present study is based on Pavement

Condition Index (PCI) and involves a

set of performance variables, such as

Pavement Distresses and Pavement

Condition Rating.

8) The results of subgrade analysis shows

that in stretches where high PI value was

observed there is a need for a drainage

or blanket layer to enhance the drainage

characteristics of the layered system.

9) The methodology and analytical tools

presented in this study are based on the

extensive field data base from in-service

heavily trafficked highway pavements,

hence can be adopted as reliable

techniques to study the various

applications of flexible pavement

deterioration models in the maintenance

management system for highway

pavements in India.

10) The Pavement Performance Study will

help in arriving at the most appropriate

Sr. No. Name of the Road Overlay Thickness in terms of Bituminous Macadam (mm)

1 NH 3 134.55

2 NH 12 167.53

3 NH 69 134.55

4 NH86 164.85

5 SH 23 144.16



maintenance and rehabilitation activity

or remedial measures, suitable for a

particular section of the road.

REFERENCES

1. AASHTO, AASHTO guide for design

of pavement structures, American

Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, Washington

D.C, 1986.

2. CRRI (Dec.2002), Evaluation of Delhi

Roads for Maintenance and

Rehabilitation Strategies, Final Report.

3. Haas, Ralph and Hudson, (1978).

Pavement Management System,

McGraw Hill,New York.

4. M. Satya Kumar & V .N Viju Kumar

2004, Development of a

methodology for priority ranking of

highway pavements for maintenance

based on composite criteria, Nov.

2004. Indian Highways.

5. Shahin M.Y., Pavement Management

for Airports, Roads, and Parking lots,

Chapman & Hall, New York, 1994

6. Haas, R., Hudson, W. R. and

Zaniewski, J, Modern pavement

management, Krieger Publishing

company, Malabar, Florida USA 1994.

7. Sood, V.K. Highway maintenance

management system- An overview,

proceeding ICORT 1995, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of

Roorkee, 1995.

8. MORT&H, IRC 2001, Report of the

committee on norms for maintenance of

roads in India,New Delhi.

9. K. P. George and A. Raja Shekharan

(1995) Future directions in pavement

management, ICORT-95

10. The Report of the Working Group on

Roads (2007-2012) for 11th Five Year

Plan, Ministry of Shipping, Road

Transport and Highways, April 2007.

11. Rokade, S, Kishan D and M. Dohare,

Evaluation of Pavement Based on

Pavement Condition Indices: An

Overview National Conference at NIT

Raipur, 15-16 February, 2008.