pavement design report (revised)

Pavement Design Report (Revised)10-Sep-18
(ACC) in association with SAMBO Engineering Co. Ltd. (South Korea),
ACE-TES & Assign
Pavement Design Report (Revised)
M/s ACC in association with M/s SAMBO, M/s ACE-TES & M/s Assign Page ii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 2 – PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN ............................................................................ 4
2.1 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 Description of Field and Laboratory Work ..................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Borrow Sources .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2.3 Quarry Sources ............................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Design Methodology: ..................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Design Parameters: ................................................................................................................ 7
2.4.1 Design Life ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.4.2 Design Traffic .................................................................................................................. 8
2.4.3 Reliability (R) ................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.5 Standard Normal Deviation (ZR) ..................................................................................... 9
2.4.6 Serviceability................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.1 Traffic Volume .............................................................................................................. 11
2.5.2 ESALs Computation ...................................................................................................... 12
2.5.4 Computation of Pavement Design and Layer Thicknesses ........................................... 15
2.5.5 Pavement Design;Peshawar –Torkham Motorway ...................................................... 16
2.5.6 Pavement Thickness Design Optimization ................................................................... 16
M/s ACC in association with M/s SAMBO, M/s ACE-TES & M/s Assign Page iii
2.6 Rigid Pavement Design ......................................................................................................... 17
2.6.1 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .................................................................................... 18
2.6.2 PCC Elastic Modulus ..................................................................................................... 18
2.6.3 Load Transfer Coefficient ............................................................................................. 19
2.6.4 PCC Modulus of Rupture .............................................................................................. 19
2.6.5 Pavement Thickness Design ......................................................................................... 19
2.6.6 Slab Length and Reinforcement ................................................................................... 19
2.6.7 Design of Tie Bars ......................................................................................................... 20
2.6.8 Design of Dowel Bars .................................................................................................... 21
2.6.9 Contraction Joint .......................................................................................................... 21
2.6.10 Expansion Joint ............................................................................................................. 22
2.7 Pavement Drainage Design .................................................................................................. 23
2.7.1 Surface Drainage Design ............................................................................................... 24
2.7.2 Subsurface Drainage Design ......................................................................................... 25
Annexure A: Soil Investigation Testing Summary for Proposed Alignment of Motorway ............... 27
Annexure B: Material Testing Summaries of Borrow Material & Aggregate Quarry Sources ......... 28
Material Testing Summaries of Borrow Material & Aggregate Quarry Sources .............................. 29
Annexure C: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)for Peshawar – Torkham Motorway .................. 30
Annexure D: Typical Pavement Cross Sections ................................................................................ 31
Annexure E: List of Lined Drain & Brest Wall ................................................................................... 34
M/s ACC in association with M/s SAMBO, M/s ACE-TES & M/s Assign Page iv
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT ALIGNMENT OF PESHAWAR – KABUL MOTORWAY PROJECT ...................................................................... 2
FIGURE 2: PERCENTAGE CBR AGAINST EACH TEST PIT LOCATION .......................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 3: ESAL’S CONTRIBUTIONS OF VARIOUS CLASSIFIED VEHICLES ................................................................................ 14
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: PROJECT SECTIONS OF PESHAWAR – KABUL MOTORWAY PROJECT ........................................................................... 3
TABLE 2: LABORATORY CBR RESULTS AT TEST PIT LOCATIONS ............................................................................................. 5
TABLE 3: LABORATORY CBR TEST RESULTS AT BORROW PIT LOCATIONS ................................................................................ 6
TABLE 4: STANDARD NORMAL DEVIATION W.R.T VARIOUS LEVELS OF RELIABILITY ................................................................... 9
TABLE 5: RECOMMENDED VALUES OF DRAINAGE COEFFICIENTS OF UNTREATED BASE AND SUB-BASE MATERIALS ....................... 11
TABLE 6: AXLE LOAD SURVEY/EQUIVALENCY FACTORS .................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 7: FORECASTED EQUIVALENT SINGLE AXLE LOAD (ESAL) APPLICATIONS FOR PESHAWAR – TORKHUM MOTORWAY ............ 13
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................................................................. 14
TABLE 9: DESIGN THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURE AGAINST SUB-GRADE CBR = 10% ..................................................... 16
TABLE 10: DESIGN THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURE AGAINST SUB-GRADE CBR = 15% ................................................... 17
M/s ACC in association with M/s SAMBO, M/s ACE-TES & M/s Assign Page 1
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Associated Consultancy Centre (Pvt.) Ltd. Islamabad as the lead firm has associated
with SAMBO Engineering Korea, Associated Consulting Engineers-TES (ACE) and
Assign Consulting Engineering International for providing Consultancy Services for
Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design of Peshawar-Kabul Motorway Section-I:
Peshawar- Torkham 50 Km, Section-Il: Torkham-Jalalabad 76 Km, Section-III:
Jalalabad-Kabul 155 Km. The Contract Agreement between the JV venture and
NHA has been signed on 13th March, 2017.
The firms have worked together on previous projects and have good
understanding of the project and Client’s requirements. The team of experts
selected for the project has been chosen with a strong emphasis on experience
and the proven ability to generate innovative, efficient and effective solutions to
the problems that may arise during project implementation.
Associated Consultancy Centre (ACC) was established in 1986 and is one of the
largest Consultancy firms of the country working in multi sector of engineering
since last 25 years. ACC has completed over 120 projects out of which 50 projects
are in major highway projects.
Sambo Engineering Co., Ltd. (SAMBO) was founded in 1993 with the company
slogan, “Producer of Social Environment”. SAMBO is duly incorporated under the
laws of Korea and is an independent company totally owned by individual
shareholders. It is the fastest-growing firm and became one of the leading
consulting firms in Korea extending its services worldwide.
Associated Consulting Engineers ACE (Private) Limited established in 1958 is one of
the oldest and the largest private sector multidisciplinary consulting houses in
Pakistan. Since its inception, ACE has provided engineering consultancy services
for over 1400 projects in various engineering and architectural disciplines both
within the country and abroad with a capital outlay of about US$ 38.0 Billion.
ACE has contributed considerably in the sector of Transportation Engineering. ACE
was part of JV/ Consortium for the supervision of 6-lane 375 Km Lahore–Islamabad
Motorway (Pakistan) which included various River and Canal Bridges,
Flyover/Interchange Bridges and supervised the 1.5 sections out of 4 Sections of
project.
M/s Assign Engineering Consult International (Pvt.) Ltd. is an associate firm which
is a rapidly growing organization. Their principals bring exceptional project
management, design and supervision experience to the group having been directly
responsible for managing large scale Rural Road Projects including FMR-I, FMR-II &
RAR-I all over Pakistan. They are currently completed the ADB Assisted Project
Management Consultancy (PMC) Project in Sindh.
The subject report has been prepared as the "Pavement Design Report" as
required by the deliverables of the TOR of the project. This report only includes
the Pavement Design of Section-1 from Peshawar to Torkham.
1.2 Objectives of the Project
The project aims at the feasibility study of construction of Peshawar – Kabul
Motorway to provide a faster and comfortable travel facility between two
countries. National Highway (N-5) and Indus Highway (N-55) are the most
important direct routes in the country linking the International Sea Port on the
extreme southern end of the country (Karachi) with Torkham, the International
border on the north. Motorway (M-1), National Highway (N-5) and Indus Highway
(N-55) all have end point at Torkham Border Peshawar city.
In order to promote the International Trade through our ports, superior road
network is essential therefore, NHA decided to start the Peshawar Torkham
Motorway Project on priority basis to attract the International Trade Traffic for
middle-east market and other parts of the world.
Following map shows the project alignment between Peshawar and Kabul:
Figure 1: Project Alignment of Peshawar – Kabul Motorway Project
1.3 Project Scope of Work The Peshawar-Kabul Motorway shall connect Peshawar with Kabul through
Torkham and Jalalabad. The project road under this project can broadly be
classified as Principal Arterial, which shall serve major traffic flow in between
Peshawar and Torkham. The scope of consultancy as defined in TOR is to conduct
feasibility study and preliminary design of subject motorway. The consultant has
carried out Reconnaissance Survey using high definition imagery and a field visit to
Peshawar – Torkham section as per TOR to finalize the alignment. Moreover, all
necessary surveys, designs and estimates will be finalized and feasibility report
generated after the approval of the alignment.
Total Length of the existing road from Peshawar (Hayatabad) to Kabul (Abdul Haq
Square) is approximately 281 Km1. The most part or the road is passing through
the mountainous ranges. The project is divided into three sections which are as
follows:
Sr. No. Section Name of Section Length (KM)
1 Section - I Peshawar – Torkham (Pakistan) 50
2 Section – II Torkham – Jalalabad (Afghanistan) 76
3 Section - III Jalalabad –Kabul (Afghanistan) 155
This report contains the work of Pavement Design for Peshawar - Torkham Section
I.
CHAPTER 2 – PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN
2.1 Design Criteria
The established general design criteria which have been used for developing the
detail design. We recognize that the criterion has been developed with the
following aims in mind:
To provide comfortable stress-free driving environment to road users
To provide the highest practical and feasible level of road safety
To accommodate existing and future traffic needs
To accommodate local weather, terrain and soil conditions
To meet international design standards
To minimize future maintenance requirements, and
To minimize adverse community and environmental impacts
The design criteria adopted is in accordance with the AASHTO design standards
and specifications.
2.2 Soil Testing and Analysis
Soil testing and analysis is an important parameter for carrying out the pavement
design. The soil testing was performed for the detailed analysis of in-situ materials
by the Design Team.
Preliminary geological/soil investigation for the project includes the collection of
samples by digging pits at 5 km intervals along the proposed alignment of the
motorway. Total 10 soil samples were collected from the site and then transported
to the ACC Laboratory, Islamabad, where detailed testing was carried out to
determine the various properties of the materials to be used for the purpose of
road construction. However, CBR testing was performed on five samples out of
ten. The preparation of test result summaries attached as Annexure-A concluded
the preliminary investigations.
Minimum obtained CBR of the natural ground was 13% @ 95% MDD (AASHTO T-
193). Following Table & Graph shows the results of CBR values at test pit locations.
Table 2: Laboratory CBR Results at Test Pit Locations
Pit No
density C.B.R. value (%) at
(Km) AASHTO Unified MDD
2 8+100 A-1-a GP 2.214 7.6 41.0 25.0 5.3
3 13+050 A-2-4 GP 2.202 7.4 56.0 34.8 11.3
4 17+800 A-2-6 GW-GC 2.213 6.7 33.5 22.2 11.2
8 38+300 A-4 CL 2.077 9.9 21.7 13.0 2.6
9 42+600 A-2-4 GC 2.163 8.8 47.0 24.3 9.5
Figure 2: Percentage CBR against each Test Pit Location
2.2.2 Borrow Sources
Borrow materials should be checked for the provision of embankment/suitable fill
material. Based on the adequacy of the sources, the relative haulage distances will
be used wherever required for both the roads. Five (05) different borrow sources
have been identified along the proposed alignment.Out of five; four sources are
non-plastic with A-1-a soils. Their CBR values meet the desired requirements for
preparation of embankment. However they may be retested prior to use for
further verifications. Test results of borrow sources show CBR values vary from
20% to 50% @ 95% of MDD.Following Table & Graph shows the results of CBR
values at borrow pit locations along the proposed alignment.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
8+100 13+050 17+800 38+300 42+600
C B
CBR Value at 95% MDD
Table 3: Laboratory CBR Test Results at Borrow Pit Locations
Pit No.
density C.B.R. value (%) at
(Km) AASHTO Unified MDD
1 6+000 A-1-a GP 2.260 6.8 43.3 31.0 16.2
2 10+500 A-1-a GP 2.210 6.6 48.2 23.7 10.5
3 27+500 A-1-a GP 2.330 5.4 69.8 50.7 23.0
4 38+000 A-2-4 GC 2.261 7.0 44.5 31.3 17.5
5 46+700 A-1-a GW - GM 2.290 5.6 56.2 43.5 22.9
2.2.3 Quarry Sources
Two aggregate quarries (Crusher Plants) near Km 10+000 & Km 27+500were
identified during the site visit which can be used for this project. The aggregates
produced by the material yards are of very good quality, able to meet the
requirements of the road bed, pavement and other aspects of the road and in rich
reserves. Test results of subject quarries are attached as Annexure-B.
2.2.4 Sand
Lawrencepur produces good sand which can be used to produce high quality
concrete.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
6+000 10+500 27+500 38+000 46+700
C B
CBR Value at 95% MDD
2.3 Flexible Pavement Design
Flexible pavement structural design is a daunting task. Although the basic
geometry of a pavement system is quite simple, everything else is not. Traffic
loading is a heterogeneous mix of vehicles, axle types, and axle loads with
distributions that vary with time throughout the day, from season to season, and
over the pavement design life. Pavement materials respond to these loads in
complex ways influenced by stress state and magnitude, temperature, moisture,
time, loading rate, and other factors. Exposure to harsh environmental conditions;
ranging from subzero cold to blistering heat and from parched to saturated
moisture states, adds further complications.
2.3.1 Design Methodology:
For design of flexible pavement structure of project road “AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures (1993)” has been used. Layer thicknesses have
been calculated through by using AASHTO design equation through computer
program.
2.4 Design Parameters:
The most important aspect of pavement design is to define the design factors needed for
any design methodology. Following are the major Design Parameters required for using
AASHTO 1993 pavement design method.
2.4.1 Design Life
Design life or performance period of the pavement is the period of time that an
initial pavement structure will last before it needs rehabilitation. It is important to
note that in actual practice the performance period can be significantly affected by
the type and level of maintenance applied. The design life of the project road is
considered 10 years and all design calculation are based on 10 years design life.
Longer design lives, such as 20 years are usually in situations when we have better
control over the design factors. These design factors include traffic, material
properties, environment and the sub-grade material properties. The properties of
material are relatively reliable however; traffic estimate is not much reliable
because various factors affect the traffic and its growth. Moreover, the design
ESALs values are too much higher due to thousands of heavy trailers using the
road daily with very high value of ESAL damage factors. Similarly, In Pakistan the
pavements are very much prone to rutting due to severe weather. Therefore, a
period longer than 10 years is not feasible.
2.4.2 Design Traffic
The design procedure for highways is based on cumulative expected 18-kip
equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) during the analysis period/design life. The
pavement design is function of traffic and material properties. Therefore, a careful
and accurate estimate of design traffic plays a vital role in the performance of
pavement structure. Volume and type of estimated design traffic also plays a basic
role in selection of pavement type, materials and even design period. The design
traffic has been estimated through classified traffic counts carried out in April,
2017.The total numbers of calculated ESALs for the design life of 10 years are
28.44 million for Peshawar – Torkham Motorway however; the value for pavement
design calculations has been selected as 30 million.
2.4.3 Reliability (R)
Reliability is a mean of incorporating some degree of certainty into the design
process to ensure that the various design alternatives will last the analysis period.
The reliability design factor accounts for chance variations in traffic prediction and
performance prediction, and therefore provides a predetermined level of
assurance that pavement section will survive the period for which they were
designed. A design reliability level of 90% has been adopted for flexible pavement
design of this project.
2.4.4 Standard Deviation (S)
The reliability factor is a function of the overall standard deviation that accounts
for standard variation in materials and construction, the probable variation in the
traffic prediction and the normal variation in pavement performance for a given
design traffic application.The AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures
states:
The estimated overall standard deviation for the case where the variance of the
projected future traffic is considered (along with other variance associated with
revised pavement performance models) are 0.39 for rigid and 0.49 for flexible
pavements.
The estimated overall standard deviation for the case where the variance of the
projected future traffic is not considered (along with other variance associated
with revised pavement performance models) are 0.34 for rigid and 0.44 for flexible
pavements.
The range of S value provided in AASHTO design guide are based on the values
identified above.
0.30 – 0.40Rigid Pavement
0.40 – 0.50Flexible Pavement
A value of 0.45 has been used for the design and analysis of flexible pavement.
2.4.5 Standard Normal Deviation (ZR)
The ZRvalue corresponding to reliability (R) of 90% is -1.282 which has been
adopted in the design which is based on the recommended values of standard
normal deviation (ZR) by AASHTO Guide for design of pavement structures 1993.
Following Table shows the standard normal deviation (ZR) values against reliability
(R).
Table 4: Standard Normal Deviation w.r.t Various Levels of Reliability
Reliability
60 -0.253 94 -1.555
70 -0.524 95 -1.645
75 -0.674 96 -1.751
80 -0.841 97 -1.881
85 -1.037 98 -2.054
90 -1.282 99 -2.327
91 -1.340 99.9 -3.090
92 -1.405 99.99 -3.750
Serviceability is a Performance criteria which represent the user-specified set of
boundary conditions within which a given pavement design alternative should
perform.Initial and terminal serviceability indices have been established to
compute the total change in serviceability that will be used in the design
equations.
Initial Serviceability Index( Po)
The initial serviceability index is a function of pavement design and construction
quality. For flexible pavement design typical value as recommended by AASHTO
Road Test is 4.2 which have been adopted.
Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt)
The terminal serviceability index is the lowest index that will be tolerated before
rehabilitation; resurfacing or reconstruction becomes necessary at this stage.It
generally varies with the importance or functional classification of the pavement.
Recommended value of terminal serviceability index is 2.52 for the project road.
2.4.7 Resilient Modulus (MR)
SUBGRADE:The AASHTO method for pavement design uses the Modulus of
Resilience (MR) of sub-grade as strength parameter. Different methods can be
adopted to determine the sub-grade modulus of resilience however; based upon
CBR value of sub-grade, following TRRL correlation has been used for
determination of Design MRof Sub-grade:
MR = 2555×(CBR) 0.64 Eq. (1)
GRANULAR SUB-BASE & AGGREGATE BASE: In the absence of the actual test data
for sub-base material, an engineering estimate is made and the modulus of the
sub-base material has been estimated.The NHA general specifications proposed
the CBR value for the granular sub-base as 50%. Therefore, estimated/selected
modulus value of granular sub-base corresponds to the CBR value has been taken
as 18,000 psi. (AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Figure 2.7). For
aggregate base course (ABC), an estimated value of 28,000 psi has been used for
the CBR equal to80%.
ASPHALT CONCRETE: In the absence of real life data for asphalt concrete in
Pakistan, these assumptions get trickier, as you get into visco-elastic materials
such as bitumen stabilized base and asphalt concrete. Normally the stiffness of the
asphalt concrete mix is found by carrying out bending beam tests in the laboratory
and procedures such as; those outlined in the Shell pavement design manual.
However, at high temperatures, these tests give very low moduli values. In
comparison, the values seen, at the same temperatures, by back calculating
pavement deflection data are much higher. Therefore, we assumed a value of
400,000 psi for the resilient modulus of asphalt concrete. The assumed moduli
values are on lower side to add a factor of safety in the flexible pavement design.
2.4.8 Layer Coefficients (ai)
A value of layer coefficient is assigned to each layer material in the pavement
structure in order to convert actual layer thicknesses into structural number (SN).
The layer coefficient expresses the empirical relationship between SN and
thickness and is a measure of the relative ability of the material to function as a
structural component of the pavement. The following general equation for
structural number reflects the relative impact of layer coefficients (ai) and
thickness (Di).
The following layer coefficients have been used in the pavement design of
Motorway project (AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993; Figure
2.5,2.6&2.7):
Aggregate Base Course, a2 =0.14/inch (0.055/cm)
Granular Sub-base, a3=0.12/inch (0.047/cm)
2.4.9 Drainage Coefficients (mi)
Depending on the quality of drainage and the availability ofmoisture, drainage
coefficients m2 and m3 should be applied to granular bases and sub-bases to
modify the layer coefficients (The possible effect of drainage on the asphalt
concrete surface course is not considered). As the project road passes through
areas prone to drainage problems, most of the time pavement structure could be
exposed to moisture at saturation level, therefore, it is conservative to assume a
value 1 for the unbound layers having good quality of drainage. Following Table
shows the recommended values of drainage confidents of untreated base and sub-
base materials in flexible pavements.
Table 5: Recommended Values of Drainage Coefficients of Untreated Base and Sub-base Materials
Quality of
Percentage of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed
to Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation Rating Less than 1% 1~5% 5~25% Greater than 25%
Excellent 1.40~1.35 1.35~1.30 1.30~1.20 1.20
Good 1.35~1.25 1.25~1.15 1.15~1.00 1.00
Fair 1.25~1.15 1.15~1.05 1.00~0.80 0.80
Poor 1.15~1.05 1.05~0.80 0.80~0.60 0.60
Very poor 1.05~0.95 0.95~0.75 0.75~0.40 0.40 * AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures Table 2.4
2.5 Pavement Design Calculations
In order to carry out flexible pavement design, following calculations have been
done:
2.5.1 Traffic Volume
Traffic studies for new highway projects are intended to provide necessary input
data for determination of the magnitude and the pattern of the traffic load for the
project road through the design period. This involves collection, verification and
analysis of the traffic data. From the collected data, the projected traffic for the
design life is calculated and converted into Equivalent Standard Axle Loads (ESAL)
for the structural design of pavement. The projected traffic data for Peshawar –
Torkham Motorway is attached as Annexure-C.
2.5.2 ESALs Computation
The damage caused by vehicles to a road depends on the axle loads and wheel
configuration of the vehicles. It is therefore important to determine the axle load
of heavy commercial vehicles in the projected traffic mix that will likely to use
proposed alignment over the design life. For pavement design purpose the
damaging power of axles is related to a standard axle of 8.16 tons (18000 lbs.)
using equivalency factors as described below.
Equivalency Factor= [Actual weight on the axle (lb)/18000x]
The value of "x" used in Road Note 31 is 4.5 whereas; referred to AASHTO guide
foe design of pavement structures and Road Note 29, it is based on AASHTO Road
Test and varies from 3.8 to 4.1depending on the axle load, desired terminal
serviceability index and pavement structure.For calculation of equivalency factors
the value of“x” was used as 4.
In order to determine the cumulative axle load damage that a pavement will
sustain during its design life, it is necessary to express the total number of heavy
vehicles that will use the road during the design period in terms of the cumulative
number of equivalent standard axles load (ESAL). Following Table shows the
damaging factors for computation of equivalent number of axles (ESALs) with
80:20 ratio of Loaded: Empty vehicles.
Table 6: AXLE Load Survey/Equivalency Factors 2
Description Loaded Unloaded Mini Truck 2.52 0.042 2-Axle 4.67 0.052 3-Axle 8.84 0.075
Articulated Trucks
3-Axle 9.6 0.272 4-Axle 10.35 0.385 5-Axle 10.35 0.495 6-Axle 10.84 0.505
* NTRC Axle Load Study 1995
The following equation has been used to determine the traffic (Wt18) in the design
lane:
2NTRC Axle Load Study
Where;
Wt18= The cumulative 18-kip ESAL axles;
DD= A directional distribution factor, expressed as a ratio, that accounts for
thedistribution of ESAL units by direction;
DL = A lane distribution factor, expressed as a ratio, that accounts for
distribution oftraffic when two or more lanes are available in one direction;
AADT =the annual average daily traffic.
According to AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993), the value of
DD is used as 0.5 and the value of DLis usedas0.9. Following Tablesshow the
estimated number of ESALs during the design lifeof Peshawar – Torkhum
Motorway.
Table 7: Forecasted Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) Applications for Peshawar – Torkhum Motorway
Year Vehicle
Type Buses
Damaging
Factor
Loaded 0.767 2.52 4.67 8.84 9.26 10.35 10.35 10.84 ESALs ESALs ESALs
Empty 0.042 0.052 0.075 0.092 0.385 0.495 0.505
2017 Base Year 7 57 361 136 65 135 70 474 3,210,040 3,210,040 1,444,518
2018 Const. Period
7 61 386 146 70 145 75 507 3,435,984 6,646,024 2,990,711
2019 8 65 413 155 74 154 80 542 3,668,889 10,314,913 4,125,965
2020 1 10 124 495 184 88 185 94 677 4,505,392 14,820,305 5,928,122
2021 2 11 132 527 196 94 197 101 721 4,800,419 19,620,724 7,848,290
2022 3 11 140 562 209 100 210 107 768 5,114,767 24,735,491 9,894,197
2023 4 12 149 598 223 107 223 114 818 5,449,701 30,185,193 12,074,077
2024 5 12 159 637 237 114 238 122 872 5,806,570 35,991,762 14,396,705
2025 6 13 170 679 253 121 254 130 929 6,186,809 42,178,571 16,871,429
2026 7 13 180 722 269 129 270 138 988 6,577,726 48,756,297 19,502,519
2027 8 14 192 768 286 137 287 147 1050 6,993,345 55,749,642 22,299,857
2028 9 14 204 816 304 146 305 156 1117 7,435,227 63,184,869 25,273,948
2029 10 15 217 868 323 155 324 166 1187 7,905,032 71,089,901 28,435,960
2030 11 16 231 923 343 165 345 176 1262 8,404,524 79,494,425 31,797,770
2031 12 16 245 979 364 175 366 187 1339 8,918,774 88,413,198 35,365,279
2032 13 17 260 1039 387 186 388 198 1421 9,464,491 97,877,689 39,151,076
2033 14 18 276 1103 410 197 412 211 1508 10,043,602 107,921,292 43,168,517
2034 15 18 292 1170 435 209 437 223 1601 10,658,150 118,579,441 47,431,776
2035 16 19 310 1242 462 222 464 237 1699 11,310,302 129,889,744 51,955,897
2036 17 20 329 1318 490 235 492 252 1803 12,002,361 141,892,105 56,756,842
2037 18 21 349 1399 520 250 522 267 1913 12,736,769 154,628,874 61,851,550
2038 19 22 371 552 265 554 283 2030 1484 13,516,116 168,144,991 67,257,996
2039 20 23 393 586 281 588 301 2154 1575 14,343,154 182,488,145 72,995,258
Following chart shows the overall ESAL’s contributions of various classified
transport vehicles.
2.5.3 Summary of Design Parameters
The design of flexible pavement is based on the 10-15%soaked CBR for subgradeat
95% MDD (AASHTO T-180) Further, the main design parameters of pavement
structural layershave been determined through the comprehensive
analysis.Following Tableshows the summary of design parameters.
Table 8: Summary of Design Parameters
Design Factors Parameters/Values
Asphalt Concrete Course (Mr) 400,000 psi (0.42)
Aggregate Base Course (Mr) 28,000 psi (0.14)
Sub-base Course (Mr) 18,000 psi (0.12)
Sub-grade (Mr) 11,153-14457psi (CBR=10%-15%)
BUSES 1%
2.5.4 Computation of Pavement Design and Layer Thicknesses
Required structural number (SN) based upon all design variables has been
calculated by using followingASHTO design equation:
18 0
1094 0.4
SN
Where;
The estimated future traffic in terms of ESALs for the design period , W18
The reliability level ,R
The roadbed soil resilient modulus ,MR
The design serviceability loss,ΔPSI=P0-Pt
The estimated future traffic in terms of ESALs for the design period (Wt18)was30
million.The required structure number (SN) was5.37 against 10%sub-grade CBR
value;which has been fulfilled by providing adequate pavement structure.Under
AASHTO design procedure the following equation provides the means for
converting the structural number into actual thicknesses of surfacing, base and
sub-base materials:
Where:
a1, a2&a3 = layer coefficients representative of surface, base and sub-base
course respectively;
D1,D2&D3 = actual thicknesses (in inches) of surface, base and sub-base courses
respectively;
m2&m3 = drainage coefficients for base and sub-base layers respectively.
Theabove equation does not have a single unique solution. There are many
combinations of layer thicknesses that can be adopted to achieve a given
structural number. However, several design construction and financial constraints
whichmay be applied to reduce the number of possible layer thickness
combinations and to avoid the possibility of constructing an impractical design.
2.5.5 Pavement Design;Peshawar –Torkham Motorway
Following Tables show the results of pavement thickness calculation from AASHTO
method for Peshawar – Torkham Motorway. The required Structure Number
comes out to be 5.37 for 10 years for Pavement Design.
Table 9: Design Thickness of Pavement Structure against Sub-grade CBR = 10%
PAVEMENT THICKNESS CALCULATION
INCHES CMS INCHES CMS
1 Asphalt Concrete Course = ACWC+ACBC = 9.31 23.646 8.27 24.00 3.97
2 Aggregate Base Course = ABC = 4.19 10.636 11.81 30.00 1.65
3 Granular Sub-base = GSB = 6.58 16.722 7.87 20.00 0.94
4 Subgrade (10% CBR) = SG = 11.81 30.00 0.00
SN provided with new pavement structure 6.57
SN provided = 6.57 > SN required 5.37 Hence OK
Based upon the required structural number following pavement thickness has
been proposed for construction of Peshawar-Torkham Motorway.
Proposed Pavement Design for new Construction:
Asphaltic Concrete wearing Course = 50 mm
Asphaltic Concrete Base Course = 190 mm
Aggregate Base Course = 300 mm
Granular Sub-base = 200 mm
Sub-grade = 300 mm @ 10% CBR
2.5.6 Pavement Thickness Design Optimization
Effect thickness design is one of the most important aspects of project design. The
pavement material, construction methods, and finished project requirements
must be both practical to attain and clearly defined. The designer ensured that the
plans, specifications and estimate clearly and unambiguously define the
requirements. A flexible pavement structure consists of the following layers – the
sub-base, base course, intermediate HMA course (Asphalt Concrete Base Course)
and a surface course. The sub-bas consists of granular material – gravel, crushed
stone, reclaimed material or a combination of these materials. The thickness
design has been optimized keeping in view the quality borrow sources available in
the vicinity of the project nearby achieving improved resilient modulus of the
underlying layers: top 30 cm of embankment fill (= 15% CBR), quality materials of
GSB and GBC. Asphaltic base course layer thickness is optimized to 16 cm followed
by 5 cm of asphalt wearing course. The design meets the required structural
number of 4.63 as the provided structural number is 5.52.
Table 10: Design Thickness of Pavement Structure against Sub-grade CBR = 15%
PAVEMENT THICKNESS CALCULATION
INCHES CMS INCHES CMS
1 Asphalt Concrete Course = ACWC+ACBC = 9.31 23.646 7.48 21.00 3.47
2 Aggregate Base Course = ABC = 4.19 10.636 7.87 20.00 1.10
3 Granular Sub-base = GSB = 3.08 7.832 7.87 20.00 0.94
4 Subgrade (15% CBR) = SG = 11.81 30.00 0.00
SN provided with new pavement structure 5.52
SN provided = 5.52 > SN required 4.63 Hence OK
Optimized Pavement Design for new Construction:
Asphaltic Concrete wearing Course = 50 mm
Asphaltic Concrete Base Course = 160 mm
Aggregate Base Course = 200 mm
Granular Sub-base = 200 mm
2.6 Rigid Pavement Design
Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement is proposed for pavement design (JPCP) which
uses contraction joints and Dowel bars for load transfer.
Different parameters used for the design of rigid pavement are described in the
following paras. Following parameters have been used for the design of the rigid
pavement:
Modulus of Rupture required by the design procedure is the mean value
determined after 28 days using third point loading (AASHTO T97, ASTM C78).
Modulus of Rupture can also be derived from the two equations:
i. Sc = 43.5 x Ec / 10^6 + 488.5
ii. Sc = 8x fc’^0.5 10xfc’^0.5
Effective Modulus of Sub Grade Reaction (k) calculated based upon the sub-base
type, potential design thickness of sub-base, depth of rigid foundation, roadbed
resilient modulus and sub-base modulus of resilience from the chart given in the
ASHTO Design Guide for Pavement Structures.
Based upon these values Rigid Pavement has been designed using the AASHTO
Guide for Pavement Design, 1993. Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP) is
proposed for construction of rigid pavement.
2.6.1 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) gives the support of the underlying layers. For
the proposed designed CBR value of 15% for New Rigid pavement design and
assuming the thickness of Sub-base as 5.5”, the k value calculated using the
AASHTO Figure 3.3 is as follows:
Dsb = 5.5” (140 mm)
Mr = 14,000 psi (CBR of 15% for subgrade)
The resultant k value is taken as 650pci which is the Composite Modulus of
Subgrade Reaction for construction of new pavement.For LOS (Loss of Support)
values taken as 1 (Refer table 2.7), the Effective modulus of Reaction Value comes
out to be 180pci taking into account the LOS factor.
2.6.2 PCC Elastic Modulus
For calculating the Elastic Modulus of PCC following equation is used as
recommended by AASHTO (2.3.3):
Ec = 57,000 (fc’)^0.5
fc’ = PCC compressive strength in psi.
Using a value of 4000 psi for compressive strength of PCC, Ec (Elastic Modulus of
PCC) comes out to be 3,604,997 psi.
2.6.3 Load Transfer Coefficient
The load transfer coefficient (J) accounts for load transfer efficiency. As a general
rule lower the J factor better load transfer. It is used on concrete pavement
structure to transfer load across discontinuities such as joints or cracks. A value of
3.2 is proposed for J.
2.6.4 PCC Modulus of Rupture
This is a measure of the PCC flexural strength. Modulus of Rupture required by the
design procedure is the mean value determined after 28 days using third point
loading (AASHTO T97, ASTM C78). Modulus of Rupture can also be derived from
the two equations:
ii. Sc = 8x fc’^0.5 10xfc’^0.5
Equation (i) gives the value of 645 psi and equation 2 gives (with a value of 9) 569
psi. Average of the two is 607 psi for the Modulus of Rupture. However, based
upon the practical experience with the material a value of 590 psi is proposed for
the pavement design.
2.6.5 Pavement Thickness Design
The thickness or depth of pavement is calculated using the following equation as
recommended by AASHTO:
Log10W18= Zr*So+7.35*log10 (D+1)-0.06+ log10 {Pt-Po}/4.5-
1.5/1+1.624*10^7/(D+1)^8.46+(4.22-0.32pt)xlog10
{(Sc')(Cd)(D^0.75)-1.132/215.63(j)(D^0.75-18.42/(Ec/k)^0.25)
Using the various values calculated above the thickness of the slab “D” comes out
to be 13.8” for the subject project road. The recommended pavement design is as
follows:
Lean Concrete = 3.9” (100 mm)
Granular Sub-base = 5.5” (140 mm)
Subgrade = 11.81” (300 mm), CBR of 15%.
2.6.6 Slab Length and Reinforcement
JPCP is the most common type of rigid pavement. JPCP controls cracks by dividing
the pavement up into individual slabs separated by contraction joints. Slabs are
typically one lane wide and between 3.7 m (12 ft.) and 6.1 m (20 ft.) long. JPCP
does not use any reinforcing steel but does use dowel bars and tie bars.
Jointed plain concrete pavement uses contraction joints to control cracking and
does not use any reinforcing steel. Transverse joint spacing is selected such that
temperature and moisture stresses do not produce intermediate cracking
between joints. This typically results in a spacing no longer than about 6.1 m (20
ft.). Dowel bars are typically used at transverse joints to assist in load transfer. Tie
bars are typically used at longitudinal joints. The proposed slab length is 4.5 m
with a width of 3.65 m (one lane width). The width to length ratio is 1.24 against
the requirement of 1.25. Following table gives major features of the JPCP:
Major Features of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)
Crack Control: Contraction joints, both transverse and longitudinal
Joint Spacing: Typically between 3.7 m (12 ft.) and 6.1 m (20 ft.). Due to the
nature of concrete, slabs longer than about 6.1 m (20 ft.) will
usually crack in the middle. Depending upon environment
and materials slabs shorter than this may also crack in the
middle.
Load Transfer: Aggregate interlock and dowel bars. For low-volume roads
aggregate interlock is often adequate. However, high-volume
roads generally require dowel bars in each transverse joint to
prevent excessive faulting.
2.6.7 Design of Tie Bars
Tie bars are either deformed steel bars or connectors used to hold the faces of
abutting slabs in contact (AASHTO, 1993). Although they may provide some
minimal amount of load transfer, they are not designed to act as load transfer
devices and should not be used as such (AASHTO, 1993). Tie bars are typically
used at longitudinal joints or between an edge joint and a curb or shoulder.
Typically, tie bars are about 12.5 mm (0.5 inches) in diameter and between 0.6 to
1.0 m (24 to 40 inches long). We have proposed the diameter of tie bars as 25mm
and length of tie bars as 35 inches.
2.6.8 Design of Dowel Bars
Dowel bars are short steel bars that provide a mechanical connection between
slabs without restricting horizontal joint movement. They increase load transfer
efficiency by allowing the leave slab to assume some of the load before the load is
actually over it. This reduces joint deflection and stress in the approach and leave
slabs.
Dowel bars are used for Transverse Joints. Dowel Bar spacing is designed for 12
inches spacing and dowel bar length is 18 inches. The diameter of the dowel bar is
taken as slab thickness (12”) multiplied by 1/8 (AASHTO 2.4.2). Thus for our case
the diameter for the dowel bar comes out to be 1.5”.
It is proposed that 36mm bar to be used for the Dowel Bar. These are provided at
a distance of 12” on the transverse joint thus would also be used as contraction
joint.
Dowel bars are typically 32 to 38 mm (1.25 to 1.5 inches) in diameter, 460 mm (18
inches) long and spaced 305 mm (12 inches) apart. Specific locations and numbers
vary. In order to prevent corrosion, dowel bars are either coated with stainless
steel or epoxy. Dowel bars are usually inserted at mid-slab depth and coated with
a bond-breaking substance to prevent bonding to the PCC. Thus, the dowels help
transfer load but allow adjacent slabs to expand and contract independent of one
another. Following figure shows typical dowel bar locations at a transverse
construction joint.
2.6.9 Contraction Joint
A contraction joint is a sawed, formed, or tooled groove in a concrete slab that
creates a weakened vertical plane. It regulates the location of the cracking caused
by dimensional changes in the slab. Unregulated cracks can grow and result in an
unacceptably rough surface as well as water infiltration into the base, sub-base
and subgrade, which can enable other types of pavement distress.
Contraction joints are the most common type of joint in concrete pavements, thus
the generic term "joint" generally refers to a contraction joint.
Contraction joints are chiefly defined by their spacing and their method of load
transfer. They are generally between 1/4 - 1/3 the depth of the slab and typically
spaced every 3.1 - 15 m (12 - 50 ft.) with thinner slabs having shorter spacing
Some use a semi-random joint spacing pattern to minimize their resonant effect
on vehicles. These patterns typically use a repeating sequence of joint spacing (for
example: 2.7 m (9 ft.) then 3.0 m (10 ft.) then 4.3 m (14 ft.) then 4.0 m (13 ft.)).
Transverse contraction joints can be cut at right angles to the direction of traffic
flow or at an angle (called a "skewed joint",). Skewed joints are cut at obtuse
angles to the direction of traffic flow to help with load transfer. If the joint is
properly skewed, the left wheel of each axle will cross onto the leave slab first and
only one wheel will cross the joint at a time, which results in lower load transfer
stresses.
2.6.10 Expansion Joint
An expansion joint is placed at a specific location to allow the pavement to expand
without damaging adjacent structures or the pavement itself. Up until the 1950s,
it was common practice in the U.S. to use plain, jointed slabs with both
contraction and expansion joints (Sutherland, 1956). However, expansion joint
are not typically used today because their progressive closure tends to cause
contraction joints to progressively open (Sutherland, 1956). Progressive or even
large seasonal contraction joint openings cause a loss of load transfer particularly
so for joints without dowel bars.
2.6.11Construction Joint
A construction joint is a joint between slabs that results when concrete is placed at
different times. This type of joint can be further broken down into transverse and
longitudinal construction joints. Longitudinal construction joints also allow slab
warping without appreciable separation or cracking of the slabs.
The joint sealant depth should be at least 1 inch for both Longitudinal and
Transverse joints. Joints shall be sealed before the pavement is opened to traffic
or to use by construction equipment, and as soon after completion of the sawing
as is feasible. Just prior to sealing, each joint shall be thoroughly cleaned of all
foreign material, using approved equipment, and the joint faces shall be clean and
surface dry when the seal is applied.
Transverse contraction joints shall be sealed with seals meeting the requirements
of Preformed Elastomeric Compression Joint Seal for Concrete. AASHTO M 220.
The lubricants for installation of preformed compression seals shall be as
recommended by the seal manufacturer.
The seals shall be installed by suitable tools using an approved lubricant-adhesive
which shall cover both sides of the sealer. The seals shall be installed in a
substantially full compressed condition and shall at all times be below the level of
the pavement surface by approximately 6 mm (1/4 inch). The seals shall be in one
piece without field or factory splice between longitudinal joint and edge of
payment or between longitudinal joints of multilane pavement. The elongation of
the seals during installation shall not exceed 5 percent as determined by length
measurement marks. Expansion joints shall be sealed with material conforming to
Hot Applied Crack and Joint SealerASTM D 3405.
2.6 Typical Pavement Cross Section
Typical cross sections has been developed for the new flexible pavement of
Peshawar – Torkham Motorway and attached as Annexure-D.
2.7 Pavement Drainage Design
Drainage design is one of the most important elements in design of the pavement
structure. The main aim of drainage design of pavements is to prevent the
prolonged saturation/exposure of any of the pavement layers to high levels of
moisture. Broadly, three approaches can be adopted to control moisture related
problems in pavements:
i. Seal the pavement such that water does not infiltrate the pavement layers;
ii. Use materials that are insensitive to moisture changes, and
iii. Provide adequate drainage such that any moisture (surface and sub-
surface) can be drained-off efficiently.
These approaches are the basis of our design approach for the drainage design of
pavement for the subject area. Moisture in roadbed and the pavement structure
can come from any sources. The water may seep upward by capillary action from a
high groundwater table, or it may flow literally from the pavement edges and the
shoulder ditches.
Water vapor and capillary movement are also responsible for water accumulating
beneath a pavement structure. The water in a pavement can also result from
infiltration through the pavement surface. Joints, cracks, shoulder edges and
various defects in the surface, present easy access paths for the water. In frost
susceptible soils (in freezing areas) melting ice-lenses contribute a significant
portion of the free water during the spring freeze-thaw period.
In short, for the project pavement drainage design, the effect of free subsoil water
and the water infiltration are considered in the design. The drainage design of
pavements can be dealt in two parts:
1. Surface drainage design
2. Subsurface drainage design
2.7.1 Surface Drainage Design
1. Surface material permeability
This is simple most important cause of moisture accumulation under the
pavement in the subgrade. The effect of infiltration of surface water has been
directly related to the amount of precipitation and the pavement condition3. In
general, the permeability of flexible pavements decreases with the pavement life
as the traffic seals the porous surface. The permeability (k) of flexible pavements is
generally selected at an approximate value of 0.5 in/hr.
2. Transverse Pavement Slope
The project road has been designed with a cross fall along all the tangent sections
of road to shed the surface water on both sides of the road, with the exception of
the curves, where super-elevation has been introduced due to the dictates of the
geometric design, and water is shed to the inside of the curve and proper drainage
pits been provided with grating. The cross fall is 2%, and the cross fall in the curves
varies with the curvature. The shoulders have been designed at a 4% cross-slope
in the tangent sections. In the curves, the shoulder cross-slopes are (-) 4% on the
outer side of the curve, and on the inside of the curve.
If super-elevation is 4% or less, then the cross-slope of the shoulder is 4%, and:
If super-elevation is more than 4%, then the cross slope of the shoulder is the same as
the super-elevation of the roadway.
3. Transverse Pavement Slope
The longitudinal grades are dictated by design criteria for vehicle speed, sight
distances, and drainage. For this road, maximum gradients of 6% are allowed,
primarily to lower the project costs by controlling excessive cut and fill. So, the
surface drainage design by easing the longitudinal grades is not the controlling
factor for finalizing the road gradients.
4. Runoff Ditches and Water Chutes
3Dempsey, B. J., and Q. U. Robnett. Influence of precipitation, Joints, and sealing on pavement Drainage.
Record No. 705.Transportation Research Board, 1979.
Runoff ditches have been provided on both sides of the road in the cut sections/reaches
for the collection of water from surface of road and to drain it in nearby cross drainage
structure.
The depth and shape of the drainage (or runoff) ditches should be based on the
following criteria to enhance removal of water away from the pavement structure:
The bottom of the ditch should be at the same or lower elevation as that of the
subgrade:
The side slopes should be 2:1 (H:V), or flatter, for safety and erosion issues;
The longitudinal slopes should prevent silting;
The longitudinal slopes should prevent erosion of the ditch bottom (for fine sand or silt
bottom, the velocity should not exceed 1ft/sec; slightly higher velocities can be
tolerated in cohesive clayey soils);
Minimizing excavation, construction, and maintenance costs.
Lined drain has been proposed throughout the length of cut sections for Peshawar-Torkham
Motorway so that cleaning of the drain shall be easy. Complete list of lined drain is attached
as Annexure-E.
2.7.2 Subsurface Drainage Design
The subsurface drainage design for the pavement structure of project road is
based on the following criteria.
1. The pavement system, including shoulders and adjacent areas should be
designed and maintained as impervious as possible to minimize infiltration of
surface and ground water into critical areas;
2. The drainage facility should be designed with a water removing capability such
that infiltrating water can be removed in a very short period;
3. The drainage system should be designed as a structural member of the
pavement structure and must not decrease the performance of the pavement
or require exceptional measures to compensate for material problems.
Keeping in view the first criteria, that demands for infiltration calculations for this
high priority road, which has to be based on judgment alone. As such in-depth
infiltration calculations for net water inflow4 are not available.
For the project road, the soils found along the road are apparently permeable and
water table is not high therefore we foresee no major sub surface drainage
problem. The design philosophy is to drain any infiltrating water (from the upper
4 Net water inflow = design infiltration rate+the design inflow rate+the design inflow rate from artesian
flow+quantity of water from ice-lense melt-vertical outflow.
pavement layers) as soon as possible so that it does not stay under the pavement
long enough to saturate the sub-grade. This has been accomplished by:
Providing transverse slope in the sub-grade of 2% cross fall under the
pavement, and 4% cross-slope under the shoulders;
Properly/Well graded aggregate base course and sub-base has been provided;
Provision of day lighted aggregate base course and sub-base under the
shoulders;
Provision of treated shoulders.
Pavement Design Report Annexure-A
Annexure A: Soil Investigation Testing Summary for Proposed Alignment of Motorway
P it
N o
(Kms) 2" 1"1/2 1" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.10 No.40 No.20
0 LL PL PI
95% 90%
1 3+000 100 100 66.17 52.39 28.52 18.72 12.06 6.81 5.01 28.62 19.19 9.4 A-2-4 GW- GC
2.247 7.0
2 8+100 100 100 100.0 100.0 68.51 36.19 15.53 4.13 2.48 29.35 22.73 6.6 A-1-a GP 2.214 7.6 41.0 25.0 5.3
3 13+050 100 100 100.0 100.0 60.77 34.50 15.17 5.08 3.59 30.89 22.89 8.0 A-2-4 GP 2.202 7.4 56.0 34.8 11.3
4 17+800 100 100 75.09 68.15 36.64 27.56 19.44 10.91 7.99 33.82 22.91 10.9 A-2-6 GW- GC
2.213 6.7 33.5 22.2 11.2
5 24+520 100 87.71 78.39 74.52 46.46 30.45 19.36 7.26 3.18 NON PLASTIC A-1-a GP 2.277 6.6
6 28+000 100 81.15 75.94 61.78 47.53 42.43 39.28 34.83 31.68 31.71 23.38 8.3 A-2-4 GC 2.080 9.2
7 33+000 100 76.37 74.01 68.12 54.90 48.59 44.14 39.99 38.09 31.06 20.75 10.3 A-4 GC 2.122 8.8
8 38+300 100 100 100.0 100.0 78.87 68.48 62.67 59.03 56.19 29.25 21.14 8.11 A-4 CL 2.077 9.9 21.7 13.0 2.6
9 42+600 100 77.51 66.01 50.79 44.32 37.55 32.15 25.74 21.58 29.38 21.09 8.29 A-2-4 GC 2.163 8.8 47.0 24.3 9.5
10 46+600 100 100 94.13 84.62 64.73 55.24 47.60 39.07 32.13 23.96 19.71 4.25 A-2-4 GM /GC
2.201 6.8
Pavement Design Report Annexure-B
Annexure B: Material Testing Summaries of Borrow Material & Aggregate Quarry Sources
P it
N o
(Kms) 2" 1"1/2 1" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.10 No.40 No.20
0 LL PL PI
95% 90%
1 6+000 100 92.96 80 69.08 54.02 38.63 24.64 8.72 3.81 NON PLASTIC
NON PLASTIC
NON PLASTIC
A-1-a GP 2.260 6.8 43.3 31.0 16.2
2 10+500 100 87.13 74.47 67.64 46.95 34.39 22.73 8.23 3.88 NON PLASTIC
NON PLASTIC
NON PLASTIC
A-1-a GP 2.210 6.6 48.2 23.7 10.5
3 27+500 100 89.36 77.32 57.11 27.28 18.57 13.59 6.61 3.34 NON PLASTIC
NON PLASTIC
NON PLASTIC
A-1-a GP 2.330 5.4 69.8 50.7 23.0
4 38+000 100 100 92.82 86.15 51.31 29.84 24.83 22.67 21.58 29.72 21.43 8.29 A-2-4 GC 2.261 7.0 44.5 31.3 17.5
5 46+700 100 100 88.92 66.24 48.35 33.11 23.74 11.34 5.83 NON PLASTIC A-1-a G
W - G M
Material Testing Summaries of Borrow Material & Aggregate Quarry Sources
D e
sc ri
p ti
o n
Locatio n
Los Angeles Abrasio
Agg 1.5" 100 100 98.63 24.3 0.47 0.25 0.14 24.10
Filler 100 97.7 63.8 19.7 8.6
Agg 1.5" Crusher
Filler 100 93.5 36.5 5.1 4.1
SAND Lawranc
Pavement Design Report Annexure-C
Annexure C: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)for Peshawar – Torkham Motorway
Year
Vehicle
Type
Car
Jeep
Wagons
Coaster
Pickup
ADT AADT 2-Axle 3-Axle 3-Axle 4-Axle 5 -Axle 6 -Axle
AGR (%) 4.74 4.74 4.74 4.74 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78
Base Year 2017 5019 2280 7 57 361 136 65 135 70 474 8,604 3,140,460
Const. Period
2018 5288 2402 7 61 386 146 70 145 75 507 9,087 3,316,748
2019 5539 2516 8 65 413 155 74 154 80 542 9,546 3,484,307
1 2020 6828 2883 10 122 486 181 87 182 93 665 11,538 4,211,198
2 2021 7134 3013 11 130 518 193 93 194 99 709 12,092 4,413,580
3 2022 7454 3147 11 139 552 205 99 206 105 755 12,674 4,625,927
4 2023 7788 3288 12 148 588 219 105 220 112 805 13,284 4,848,745
5 2024 8137 3436 12 158 627 233 112 234 120 858 13,925 5,082,565
6 2025 8501 3590 13 168 668 248 119 249 127 914 14,597 5,327,948
7 2026 8873 3747 13 178 710 264 127 265 135 972 15,284 5,578,528
8 2027 9260 3910 14 190 755 281 135 282 144 1033 16,003 5,841,181
9 2028 9665 4081 14 202 802 298 143 300 153 1098 16,758 6,116,505
10 2029 10087 4260 15 215 853 317 152 319 163 1168 17,548 6,405,128
11 2030 10528 4446 16 228 907 337 162 339 173 1242 18,377 6,707,713
12 2031 10975 4634 16 242 963 358 172 360 184 1318 19,220 7,015,368
13 2032 11440 4831 17 257 1021 380 182 382 195 1398 20,103 7,337,490
14 2033 11925 5035 18 273 1084 403 194 405 207 1484 21,027 7,674,780
15 2034 12430 5249 18 289 1150 428 205 430 220 1575 21,994 8,027,974
16 2035 12958 5472 19 307 1221 454 218 456 233 1671 23,008 8,397,843
17 2036 13507 5704 20 326 1295 482 231 484 247 1773 24,069 8,785,199
18 2037 14080 5945 21 346 1375 511 245 514 262 1882 25,181 9,190,894
19 2038 14677 6197 22 367 1459 543 261 545 278 1997 26,345 9,615,822
20 2039 15299 6460 23 389 1548 576 276 578 296 2119 27,564 10,060,923
Pavement Design Report Annexure-D
Annexure D: Typical Pavement Cross Sections
Pavement Design Report (Revised) Annexure-D
Pavement Design Report (Revised) Annexure-D
Pavement Design Report Annexure-E
Annexure E: List of Lined Drain & Brest Wall
List of Lined Drain and Breast Wall
Sr. No.
Chainage (Km) Length Road Side
From To (m) (L/R/B) From To (m) (L/R/B)
1 6+340 6+920 580 Both Side 91 27+370 27+440 70 Left Side
3 7+380 7+390 10 Left Side 93 27+870 28+120 250 Both Side
4 7+460 7+490 30 Left Side 94 28+120 28+220 100 Left Side
5 7+490 8+440 950 Both Side 95 28+220 28+580 360 Both Side
8 8+920 8+980 60 Right Side 98 28+910 29+260 350 Left Side
Pavement Design Report (Revised) Annexure-E
Sr. No.
56 18+250 18+280 30 Right Side 146 37+420 38+100 680 Both Side
57 18+280 18+460 180 Both Side 147 38+640 38+660 20 Right Side
68 22+170 22+400 230 Left Side 158 42+500 42+660 160 Right Side
Pavement Design Report (Revised) Annexure-E
Sr. No.
80 Equation: 26+905 BK = 26+100 AH 170 45+880
83 26+280 26+400 120 Both Side 173 46+720 46+960 240 Right Side
84 26+400 26+440 40 Left Side
85 26+490 26+560 70 Left Side
86 26+560 26+600 40 Both Side
87 26+740 26+820 80 Left Side
88 26+880 26+930 50 Left Side
89 27+080 27+180 100 Left Side
90 27+300 27+370 70 Both Side
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 – PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN
2.1 Design Criteria
2.2.1 Description of Field and Laboratory Work
2.2.2 Borrow Sources
2.2.3 Quarry Sources
2.4.6 Serviceability
2.5.4 Computation of Pavement Design and Layer Thicknesses
2.5.5 Pavement Design;Peshawar –Torkham Motorway
2.5.6 Pavement Thickness Design Optimization
2.6 Rigid Pavement Design
2.6.2 PCC Elastic Modulus
2.6.3 Load Transfer Coefficient
2.6.5 Pavement Thickness Design
2.6.9 Contraction Joint
2.6.10 Expansion Joint
2.7 Pavement Drainage Design
2.7.1 Surface Drainage Design
2.7.2 Subsurface Drainage Design
Annexure A: Soil Investigation Testing Summary for Proposed Alignment of Motorway
Annexure B: Material Testing Summaries of Borrow Material & Aggregate Quarry Sources
Material Testing Summaries of Borrow Material & Aggregate Quarry Sources
Annexure C: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)for Peshawar – Torkham Motorway
Annexure D: Typical Pavement Cross Sections
Annexure E: List of Lined Drain & Brest Wall

pavement design report (revised)

Documents