A Dessertation Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For The Award of The Degree of

STUDIES ON DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF GSB MIXES USING DRIP
SOFTWARE
A DESSERTATION REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING -CIVIL

(MAJOR: HIGHWAY ENGINEERING)
By
MADHAV.M.P.
IV Semester M.E., (Civil)
Under The Guidance Of

Dr. L.MANJESH
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Bangalore University
Bangalore-560056
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY VISVESVARAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE-560 056
2009
1
SYNOPSIS
Granular Sub-base (GSB) is an intermediate layer between subgrade and base

course. This layer functions as a stress-transmitting medium to spread the surface wheel
loads and as a drainage layer for the pavement to avoid excess wetting and weakening of
subgrade. Various materials and techniques are used for the construction of GSB. The
granular material for sub-base shall preferably be natural and locally available or blended
to attain the required properties from locally available materials.
To design GSB mixes, locally available soils were collected from different rural
roads of Karnataka. The soil samples taken for GSB mixes were having liquid limit
greater than 25 and plastic limit greater than 6, which do not meet the specified limits for
sub-base. To achieve the specified consistency limits, the soil samples were blended with
quarry dust. After arriving at the optimum proportion with quarry dust, the soil samples
were mixed with the aggregates and gravel at different proportions to achieve required
gradation as per IRC: SP: 20-2002.
The laboratory investigations include Grain size analysis, determination of
Consistency limits, Compaction tests and CBR tests for locally available soils and GSB
mixes. From the test results, it was observed that for GSB mixes the dry density and
CBR value increased when compared to the unblended soil samples. Comparative
studies have been carried out to observe the improvement in gradation of GSB mixes
using gravel and aggregates
To investigate the drainage capacity of GSB mixes in pavement design and to
develop design charts for drainage capacities of GSB layers, the permeability tests were
carried out in the laboratory. The drainage analysis of GSB based on available analytical
models was carried out using DRIP (Drainage Requirements in Pavements) software.
Analytical results indicate that for a particular design thickness and permeability of GSB,
the parameters such as pavement width and rainfall intensity significantly influence the
drainage capacity. The limited permeability studies indicated the Grade-III GSB material
specified in IRC: SP: 20-2002 will not function as an effective drainage layer for rural
road construction. Hence it is recommended to consider the granular sub-base material
with permeability of 250 m/day for the construction of drainage layer.
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is immense pleasure to thanks DR.L.MANJESH, Assistant Professor of Civil

Engineering, U.V.C.E., who spared no pains in extending his helping hand and for
invaluable guidance during the course of this Seminar work, be it with suggestions or
guidance.
I express my sincere thanks to, Dr. M.S.AMARNATH, Professor of Civil
Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, for his guidance and suggestions.
I express my sincere thanks to, Dr. G.SURESH, Civil Engineering Department,
for his suggestions to complete this work.
I express my sincere thanks to, Sri. H.A.VIJAYKUMAR, Lecturer of Civil

Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, for his suggestions to complete this work.
I express my sincere thanks to, Dr.S.GANGADHAR, Asst. Professor of Civil

Engineering Department, for his suggestions to complete this work.
I express my sincere thanks to, K.C.MANJUNATH, Research Scholar in Civil

Engineering department, for his suggestions to complete this work.
I am thankful to my Classmates and my Juniors, for their help and cooperation
extended throughout the experimental work.
I express my thanks to all non-teaching staff of the Highway Engineering
laboratory for their help during the laboratory studies.
Finally, all appreciation for this seminar work is due to those mentioned above,
faults, if any are mine.
MADHAV.M.P.
3
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Pavement Structure 1
1.3 Components of Flexible Pavements 2
1.3.1 Surface Course 2
1.3.2 Base Course 2
1.3.3 Sub-base Course
2
1.4 Need for Granular Sub-Base (GSB) and Drainage Layer 3
1.5 Requirements of GSB as Per IRC: SP 20-2002 3
1.6 Need for Use of Locally Available Materials 5
1.7 Features of DRIP Software 5
1.8 Objectives of the Present Study 6
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Field Measurement of Granular Base Drainage Characteristics 7
2.2 Comparison of Pavement Drainage Systems 7
2.3 Locating the Drainage Layer for Bituminous Pavements in Indiana 8
2.4 Asphalt Overlay and Subsurface Drainage of Broken and Seated Concrete
Pavement 9
2.5 Effective Approach to Improve Pavement Drainage Layers 9
2.6 Design Charts for Drainage Capacities of Granular Sub-bases 10
2.7 Road Drainage 10
2.8 DRIP Software for Drainage Design 13
2.8.1 Depth of Flow (Steady-state flow) 14
2.8.2 Time-to-drain (Unsteady-state flow) 15
2.9 Permeability 16
2.9.1 Darcy’s Law 16
2.9.2 Coefficient of Permeability for common soil types 16
CHAPTER-3 PRESENT INVESTIGATIONS 18
3.1 Selection of the Test Stretches for Soil Sampling 18
4
3.2 Materials Used for GSB Mix Design 18
3.2.1 Gravel 18
3.2.2 Aggregate 18
3.2.3 Quarry Dust 20
3.2.4 Locally Available Soil 20
3.3 Tests on GSB materials 20
3.3.1 Gravel 20
3.3.2 Aggregates 20
3.3.3 Gravel 20
3.3.4 Locally available soils 21
3.4 Proportioning of materials for GSB Mixes 21
3.4.1 Proportioning of materials for GSB Mix-I 21
3.4.2 Proportioning of materials for GSB Mix-II 21
3.5 Tests on GSB mix 22
3.6 Drainage Estimation using DRIP software 22
3.6.1 Roadway Geometry 23
3.6.2 Sieve Analysis 24
3.6.3 Inflow 25
3.6.4 Permeable Base Design 26
CHAPTER-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 27
4.1 Laboratory test results for GSB materials 27
4.1.1 Gravel 27
4.1.2 Aggregates 27
4.1.3 Quarry Dust 28
4.1.4 Locally available soils 29
4.2 Properties of GSB mixes 32
4.2.1 Gradation 32
4.2.2 Tests on GSB mixes 37
4.3 Parameters for Sub-base Drainage Analysis 40
4.4 Estimation of Inflow 40
4.5 Drainage capacity of GSB 41
CHAPTER-5
5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51
Conclusions 51
Recommendations 52
CHAPTER-6
SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY 53
REFERENCES 54
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Gradation requirements for Coarse Graded Granular Sub-Base 4

Table 1.2 Gradation requirements for Close Graded Granular Sub-Base 4
Table 2.1 Coefficient of Permeability for common soil types 17
Table 2.2 Degree of Permeability 17
Table 3.1 List of Selected Rural Roads for Sub-grade soil sampling 19
Table 4.1 Particle size distribution and Consistency limits of Gravel sample from
Hoskote. 27
Table 4.2 Test Results of Coarse Aggregates 28
Table 4.3 Particle size distribution of Quarry Dust. 28
Table 4.4 Percentage Gravel, Sand, Silt & Clay fractions and Atterberg limits. 29
Table 4.5 Particle size distribution of Sub-grade soil samples. 30
Table 4.6 OMC, MDD. CBR and Permeability values of Sub-grade soil samples. 31
Table 4.7 Sieve analysis and proportioning of Mix-I for Stretch 1 32
Table 4.17 Sieve analysis and proportioning of Mix-II for Stretch 1 35
7
4.2.2 Test results for GSB mixes 37
Table 4.27 OMC, MDD. CBR and Permeability values of GSB Mix-I. 38
Table 4.28 OMC, MDD. CBR and Permeability values of GSB Mix-II. 38
Table 4.29 Permeability, Time to Drain 50% water, Minimum thickness required
for GSB Mix-I for different intensity of rainfall 43
Table 4.30 Permeability, Time to drain 50% water for minimum GSB
thickness (0.10m) for GSB Mix-I 45
Table 4.31 Permeability, Time to Drain 50% water, Minimum thickness required
for GSB Mix-II for different intensity of rainfall 46
Table 4.32 Permeability, Time to drain 50% water for minimum GSB
thickness (0.10m) for GSB Mix-II 48
Table 4.33 Minimum thickness of Drainage Layer (GSB) required for
Different Intensity of Rainfall 49
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Components of Flexible Pavement 3

Figure 4.1 Dry Density v/s Moisture content for Subgrade Soil Samples 31
Figure 4.2 Dry Density v/s Moisture content for GSB Mix-I 39
Figure 4.3 Dry Density v/s Moisture content for GSB Mix-II 39
Figure 4.4 Permeability v/s Minimum GSB thickness for GSB Mix-I 44
Figure 4.5 Permeability v/s Time to drain 50% water for GSB Mix-I 44
Figure 4.6 Permeability v/s Time to drain 50% water for 0.10 thick layer of GSB
Mix-I 45
Figure 4.7 Permeability v/s Minimum GSB thickness for GSB Mix-II 47
Figure 4.8 Permeability v/s Time to drain 50% water for GSB Mix -II 47
Mix-II 48
Figure 4.10 Permeability v/s Minimum GSB thickness 50
9
LIST OF COMMONLY USED TERMS
GSB - Granular Sub-Base

CBR - California Bearing Ratio
OMC - Optimum Moisture Content
MDD - Maximum Dry Density
DPR - Detailed Project Report
k - Coefficient of permeability
DRIP - Drainage Requirements in Pavements
10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
General
Water plays havoc with all structures and is equally true in a highway. It is not
sufficient merely to provide the road with the surfacing, the water must be collected and
removed from the roadway to ditches or soakways at a safe distance from the road
foundation to prevent surface water reaching the sub-soil and thus lowering its bearing
strength. The geographical features vary greatly in India. Similarly, the rainfall is
meager, moderate and heavy at different places. Thus the road drainage problems are
sure to differ from place to place.
Drainage is one of the most important factors in pavement design. One
misconception is that good drainage is not required if the thickness design is based on
saturated conditions. This concept may have true during the old days when the traffic
loading and volume were small. As the weight and number of axle loads increase, water
may cause more damage to pavements, such as pumping and degradation of paving
materials, other than the loss of shear strength. Theoretically, an internal drainage system
is not required if the infiltration into the pavement is smaller than the drainage capacity
of the base, sub-base and subgrade. Because the infiltration and drainage capacity vary a
great deal and are difficult to estimate, it is suggested that drainage layers be used for all
important pavements.
Pavement Structure
One of the main structural elements involved in road construction is the

pavement. A pavement is designed to support the wheel loads imposed on it from traffic
moving over it. Additional stresses are also imposed by changes in the environment. It
should be strong enough to resist the stresses imposed on it and it should be thick enough
to distribute the external loads on the subgrade. Based on the structural behavior,
pavements are generally classified into two categories, Flexible Pavements and Rigid
Pavements
Flexible pavements are those, which on the whole have low or negligible flexural
strength and are rather flexible in their structural action under the loads. A typical
flexible pavement consists of base course, sub- base course and surface course
11
Rigid pavements are those which posses flexural strength or flexural rigidity. The
rigid pavement is based on slab action and is capable of transmitting the wheel load
stresses through a wider area. A typical rigid pavement consists of base course and a
cement concrete slab.
1.3 Components of Flexible Pavements

In order to take maximum advantage, material layers are usually arranged in
order of descending load bearing capacity with the highest load bearing capacity material
(and most expensive) on the top and the lowest load bearing capacity material (and least
expensive) on the bottom. A typical flexible pavement structure (Figure 1.1) consists
of:
1.3.1 Surface course.

The layer will be in contact with traffic loads. It provides characteristics such as
friction, smoothness, noise control, rut resistance and drainage. In addition, it prevents
entrance of surface water into the underlying base, subbase and subgrade. This top
structural layer of material is sometimes subdivided into two layers: the wearing course
(top) and intermediate/binder course (bottom).
1.3.2 Base course.

The layer immediately beneath the surface course. It provides additional load
distribution and contributes to drainage and frost resistance. Base courses are usually
constructed out of aggregate or HMA.
1.3.3 Sub-base course.

The layer between the base course and subgrade. It functions primarily as
structural support but it can also (i) minimize the intrusion of fines from the subgrade
into the pavement structure, (ii) improve drainage and (iii) minimize frost action
damage. The subbase generally consists of lower quality materials than the base course
but better than the subgrade soils.
12
Figure 1.1 Components of Flexible Pavement
1.4 Need for Granular Sub-Base (GSB) and Drainage Layer

Granular Sub-base is an intermediate layer between subgrade and base course.
This layer functions as a stress-transmitting medium to spread the surface wheel loads
and as a drainage layer for the pavement to avoid excess wetting and weakening of
subgrade. Various materials and techniques are used for the construction of GSB. The
granular material for sub-base shall preferably be natural and locally available or blended
to attain the required properties from locally available materials.
1.5 Requirements of GSB as per IRC: SP 20-2002

The materials to be used for GSB should be natural sand, moorum, gravel,
crushed stone, crushed slag, granulated slag etc. The materials used should be free from
organic or deleterious materials.
The material passing 425 micron sieve when tested according to IS: 2720 (Part
5)-1985 should have liquid limit and plasticity index of not more than 25 and 6
respectively. The material with the CBR greater than 15% can be used for GSB
construction. The gradation requirements for coarse graded and close graded Granular
Sub-bases are given in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2
Table 1.1 Gradation requirements for Coarse Graded Granular Sub-Base

IS SIEVE (mm) % by weight passing the IS sieve
13
Grading I Grading II Grading III
75.0 100 - -
53.0 - 100 -
26.5 55-75 50-80 100
4.75 10-30 15-35 25-45
2.36 - - -
0.425 - - -
0.075 <10 <10 <10
CBR values 30 25 20
Table 1.2 Gradation requirements for Close Graded Granular Sub-Base

% by weight passing the IS sieve
IS SIEVE (mm)
Grading I Grading II Grading III
75.0 100 - -
53.0 80-100 100 -
26.5 55-90 70-100 100
9.50 35-65 50-80 65-95
4.75 25-55 40-65 50-80
2.36 20-40 30-50 40-65
0.425 10-25 15-25 20-35
0.075 3-10 3-10 3-10
CBR values 30 25 20
14
1.6 Need for use of locally available materials
India is a vast country with divergent environmental conditions in different areas
ranging from mountainous terrain to plain terrain and from deserts to coastal and water
logged areas. Also there exists a wide range in the subgrade soil types, rainfall, traffic
patterns and availability of various construction materials. Since specifications for rural
road construction depend on the type of terrain and other environmental conditions,
certain low-cost alternative specifications maximizing the use of local materials have
been tried out on full scale on a large number of low volume roads for different sets of
conditions as under plain areas of Indo-Gangetic plains, black cotton soil areas, high
rainfall areas, water logged areas, hilly areas and desert areas
Low grade marginal materials like moorum, kankar, dhandla, laterite etc where
available within economic leads, should be made use of in pavement construction to the
maximum extent feasible. The material may occur in a graded form or as discrete blocks
or admixtured with soil. There is a variety of waste materials which, if available close to
the construction site of a rural road project, can be utilized to advantage. The various
waste materials that can be incorporated in rural road works are Flyash in road
embankments, lime-flyash stabilized soil, lime-flyash bound macadam, Iron and steel
slag in lieu of stone aggregates in WBM, rice husk ash in lime-rice husk ash concrete,
recycled concrete aggregates in cement concrete, in water-bound macadam (WBM),
other waste materials like quarry waste etc
1.7 Features of DRIP Software

Following are the features of DRIP software
• Performs drainage designs for flexible and rigid pavements and retrofit edge
drains.
• Calculates the time-to-drain and depth-of-flow in the drainage layer.
• Performs separator layer and geotextile designs.
• Performs edge drain and geocomposite fin-drain designs.
• Converts input and output from SI to English units, or vice versa.
15
Objectives of the Present Study
The laboratory investigations on strength and drainage characteristics of GSB
mixes designed using locally available material have been carried out with the
following objectives.
1. To determine the gradation, consistency limits, OMC, MDD, CBR and
Permeability values for the soil samples collected from selected rural roads of
Karnataka.
2. To determine physical properties and gradation for quarry dust, gravel and stone
aggregate.
3. To design Grade-III Granular Sub Base mixes using locally available soil, stone
aggregates, gravel and stone dust.
4. To determine strength and permeability characteristics of designed Granular Sub
Base mixes and to compare results.
5. To determine drainage characteristics of designed Granular Sub Base mixes and
to compare results.
6. To analyze the drainage characteristics of GSB mixes using DRIP 2.0 software
and to develop design charts for drainage capacities of GSB layers.
16
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Field Measurement of Granular Base Drainage Characteristics (1)
Knowledge of the in-situ drainage characteristics of pavement base and coarse
sub-grade materials at an early stage of the design process, allows the pavement designer
to avoid many design-related problems. The use of a device to measure the in-situ drain
ability of base and sub-grade materials during construction would help ensure that base
and sub-grade layers are capable of removing infiltrated water from the pavement system
at a rate adequate to prevent accelerated pavement deterioration. The results of this
project will include:
1. A user's manual for two devices that can be used for measuring the in-situ
drainage characteristics of aggregate base and granular sub-grade materials.
2. Recommendations regarding "action limits" on the drain ability characteristics of

the aggregate base, granular, and select granular materials used by Mn/DOT.
3. Computerized database of the in-situ drainage characteristics of the various base

and granular sub-grade materials used by Mn/DOT.
2.2 Comparison of Pavement Drainage Systems (2)

Pavement drainage systems have become a common addition to construction and
reconstruction plans. Several types of transverse and longitudinal drains that vary in
shape, size, and cost are often included in designs, although little is known about their
performance. The drainage characteristics and pavement performance of four drainage
systems under jointed Portland cement concrete pavement are described and evaluated.
Included are the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) standard dense-
graded base, two dense-graded base sections incorporating traverse drains placed under
the transverse joints, and permeable asphalt-stabilized base-a design that reflects current
Mn/DOT drainable-base thinking. All sections contain longitudinal edge drains.
Experiment variables include drainage flows, percent of rainfall drained, time to drain,
base and sub grade moisture content, and pavement and joint durability. Two primary
conclusions were reached. First, although all systems appear capable of removing
drainable water from the pavement base, the permeable asphalt-stabilized base usually
drained the most water within 2 hr after rainfall ended, while providing the driest
17
pavement foundation and the least early pavement distress. Second, sealing the
longitudinal and transverse joints temporarily reduced all rain inflow. After about 2 wk
inflow resumed, although the joint sealants appeared to be intact.
2.3 Locating the Drainage Layer for Bituminous Pavements in Indiana (3)
Pavement subsurface drainage and its effect on pavement performance has been a
subject of interest since the 18th and 19th centuries. Without doubt the detrimental effect
of heavy wheel loads on pavements with saturated base material is a significant factor.
The consequence of subsurface water on pavement performance includes premature
rutting, cracking, faulting, and increased roughness, all of which lead to a decrease in
serviceability. This research study involves the evaluation of the drainage performance
of three section configurations. The sections were built with a difference in the filter as
well as the drainage layer. Indiana #5D, and #53 impermeable layers were used as a
filter. Indiana #2 and #5C base were used as drainage layer. The study was carried out by
field instrumentation, laboratory testing, field data collection, and numerical modeling.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the sub-drainage performance of three
pavement sections adopted by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT).
Instruments were installed to monitor the air and pavement temperature, frost
penetration, and pavement moisture conditions, and time and duration of rainfall and
pavement outflow volumes. Sub-grade and asphalt core samples were obtained from the
field. Tests were performed on these samples to determine their hydraulic conductivity
characteristics. It was found that the permeability of the #5C drainage base layer material
was higher than the #2 base by approximately 10 times. Since most of the water source
in the pavement was the surface infiltration, the filter layer plays a key role in controlling
the moisture migration from the pavement into the sub-grade. The section with the #5D
HMA impermeable layer showed the lowest moisture migration into the sub-grade. The
#5C base had the tendency to retain less water than the #2 base, making the stripping
potential less of a problem. Contamination of the trench material from the #53 aggregate
fines appears to have occurred, and therefore, section1 (#5D filter layer). In addition, the
outlet pipe inlet capacity was found to be low. Frost penetration was found to be about
1.0 m. This result compared well with empirical methods. From the field temperature
measurements, the SHRP coldest surface pavement temperature was evaluated and found
in good agreement. A large amount of data was obtained about pavement and sub-grade
material hydraulic characteristics. The finite element analysis showed good simulation of
18
the actual pavement surface conditions. A simulation of cracked surface pavement
showed a full saturation condition of the pavement layers.
2.4 Asphalt Overlay and Subsurface Drainage of Broken and Seated Concrete
Pavement (4)
This research was conducted to study subsurface drainage issues surrounding an
asphalt overlay. The type of pavement that was examined in this study was a Superpave
overlay on top of a Broken and Seated Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement ~B&S
JRCP!. A finite-element model of the pavement was developed and a number of
numerical analyses were performed to evaluate the movement of water in the pavement.
The pavement drainage modeling was conducted using the SEEP/W 2002 in GEO-
SLOPE program. A steady-state saturated flow analysis was used to obtain the flow path
of the infiltrated water and flux quantity through the cross-sectional area in the
pavement. This analysis was done for the pavement models with different layer
arrangements and different drainage practices. The findings of this research revealed that
high water permeability in the asphalt base and Superpave surface layers contributed to
water flow into the pavement. This infiltration of water into the pavement structure is a
serious issue that must be addressed in pavement drainage design. The broken and seated
layer functions as an efficient drainage layer.
2.5 Effective Approach to Improve Pavement Drainage Layers (5)
The objective of this study was twofold: quantify the benefits of a specially
designed geocomposite membrane of low modulus polyvinyl chloride - PVC layer
sandwiched between two nonwoven geotextiles to act as a moisture barrier in flexible
pavement systems; and quantitatively measures the moisture content of unbound granular
materials nondestructively. The geocomposite membrane was installed over half the
length of a pavement test section at the Virginia Smart Road, while the other half of the
test section consisted of the same design without the interlayer system. Air-coupled
ground penetrating radar - GPR system with 1 GHz center frequency was used to
monitor and detect the presence of moisture within the pavement system over different
periods of time corresponding to different levels of water accumulation. Results of GPR
data analysis indicated that the use of the geocomposite membrane reduced water
infiltration to the aggregate base layer by as much as 30% when measurements were
performed after rain. It was also found that the moisture content underneath the interlayer
19
was almost constant and therefore independent of the amount of rainwater, which is the
primary source of moisture in pavement systems that have a low water table. The
impact of moisture in the granular layers was investigated using the results of a
deflection monitoring program. The results indicate that the area with the geocomposite
membrane always showed less deflection than the area without the interlayer. The study
recommends that any pavement drainage layer must be backed by an impermeable
interface, given that the water table is low.
2.6 Design Charts for Drainage Capacities of Granular Sub-bases (6)
The studies were carried out at NIIT, Surathkal to investigate the significance of
drainage capacity of GSB in pavement design and to develop design charts for drainage
capacities of GSB layers. The permeability and porosities of Grading-III GSB mixes
were used in the drainage capacity analyses. The drainage analyses of GSB based on
available analytical models were carried out using DRIP software. Analytical results
now that for a particular design thickness and permeability of GSB, the parameters such
as pavement width and rainfall intensity significantly influences on the drainage
capacity. Hence it is recommended to consider these parameters in the design of GSB
thickness, in addition to the strength and traffic parameters.
2.7 Road Drainage (7)

Water plays havoc with all structures and is equally true in a Highway. It is not
sufficient merely to provide the road with the surfacing, the water must be collected and
removed from the roadway to ditches or soakways at a safe distance from the road
foundation to prevent surface water reaching the sub-soil and thus lowering its bearing
strength. The geographical features vary greatly in our country. Similarly, the rainfall is
meager, moderate and heavy at different places. Thus the road drainage problems are
sure to differ from place to place.
Adequate drainage is one of the important fundamental factors governing the
stability, load carrying capacity and life of a roadway. It involves a multiplicity of factors
which increase the complexity of the problem and diffuses its various facts. The problem
of road drainage could be divided in two principal parts, viz. surface water drainage and
sub-surface water drainage. Under the surface water drainage the period of frequency of
floods, design of various drainage structures like culverts and inlet gutters, prevention of
erosion, roadside channels, dykes, median drainage, cross-slopes and side-slopes, catch
drains, longitudinal gradients, etc. has to be taken into account The sub-surface aspect
20
would require consideration of items like under drain for seepage water, beeding and
backfill materials for under drainage, measures against freezing, sub-soil and branch
drains and interceptor and French drains.
Drainage facilities are necessary to prevent flooding of the road and weakening
of the sub-grade soil and the road pavements will be different for various classes of
roads. The method of drainage employed on rural roads is dependent on the amount of
traffic using the road, the drainage characteristics of the sub-grade soil, and the
topography. The general aim is to remove surface water and to keep the water taken at a
depth below road level sufficient to avoid weakening of the sub-grade soil. More
elaborate arrangements will be necessary in case of arterial roads carrying heavy traffic.
The drainage of roads in city areas, because of the limitation of land width and
also due to presence of foot paths, dividing islands and other road facilities pose
problems of different kinds and co-operation of many agencies including public will be
needed to solve them.
The drainage problem in plains may not be as difficult as in hilly and high
altitude areas. In plains, proper camber on road surfaces and berms and construction of
side drains should normally provide for adequate drainage. When water table is high, use
of sand blanket as a capillary cut-off, French Drains and deep side drains should be made
besides keeping the embankment high so that sub-grade is sufficiently above the ground
water. The slopes of road embankment should be made gentler 1:3 or 1:4. In addition to
the transverse fall to remove the surface water, it is necessary to have some longitudinal
fall, particularly at the edge channels, for the same purpose. The greater concentration of
water at the edges of the road makes a lower slope acceptable, as flat as 1 on 200. On a
kerbed road, it is preferable that the longitudinal gradient of the road should be no flatter
than 1 on 200. Where this is not possible, it is necessary to ‘summit’ the channel to
introduce crests and valleys with this minimum slope between. Such a device is rather
unsightly, but is more acceptable at the edge of a shoulder. If a kerb is used, only the
channel should be ‘summitted’, and the kerb kept to a uniform line. Berms constructed to
proper design on both sides of road could also check the traveling of water towards the
road. Grass-lined channels would also be useful. If water channels run parallel to a road,
cross-drainage should receive special attention. Digging of deep borrows pits on road
sides should also be avoided as accumulated water affects sub-grade besides marring the
aesthetics of the road. In hilly areas, there is need to provide catch-water drains, catch
21
pits, side drains, cross drains, scuppers and sometimes valley side drains. The hill sides
also require protection in the shape of turffing, planting of trees, construction of breasts,
retaining walls, etc. The side wall should also be built sufficiently wide so that there is
no over-flow of water. In high altitude regions, cross-drainage is very important and
snow-sheds would be useful when road passes through glacier locations.
Realizing the importance of the subject, the Indian Roads Congress published a
booklet containing some of the practices on road drainage in various countries and later a
Panel Discussion was arranged during its Nainital Session in September 1967. Arising
out of this Panel Discussion, a subcommittee was set up to draft a Code of Practice on
this subject for the benefit of practicing engineers. While a Code of Practice will provide
answers to many of the problems about road drainage being faced by the Highway
Engineers, much will depend upon the ingenuity and skill. If the Highway Engineers
builds a road to a proper design keeping in view the problems of drainage of sub-surface
and the surface levels, he may not have to face the drainage problem later on, on the
other hand any lack of care to these heavy loads or the heavy rains. It is, therefore, but
proper that great emphasis should be laid on the drainage aspect while designing and
building highways. While all this looks so simple, it has to be remembered that proper
data of rainfall, soil condition, and sub-surface water level should be collected by the
Highway Engineers before undertaking any road project. Drainage facilities in the
existing roads should also be surveyed with a view to improving them where considered
necessary.
Highways built to a proper design with an inbuilt road drainage system will last
longer, avoid extra maintenance costs and above all provide all weather routes for free
flow of road traffic and also prove economical in the long run. The maintenance aspect is
equally important and should not be lost sight of. Routine cleaning and repair of drainage
facilities are also important and, therefore, proper and adequate arrangement should be
made for these also.
2.8 DRIP Software for Drainage Design (8)

Moisture-related pavement distresses have long been recognized as a primary
contributor to premature failures and accelerated pavement deterioration. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) provides design guidance for drainage in its manual
22
numbered FHWA-TS-80-224, “Highway Subdrainage Design.” Under a study known as
Demonstration Project No. 87, or simply “Demo 87,” the FHWA Pavement Division
developed a comprehensive effort to provide design guidance for handling water that
infiltrated into the pavement structure from the surface. That study resulted in the
production of the Participant Notebook for Demonstration Project No. 87. Engineers
needed a concise and user-friendly microcomputer program that replicates the subsurface
drainage design procedures in the Participant’s Workbook for Demonstration Project No.
87. Also, because of the increasing use of the SI unit system, there was a need for the
program to incorporate both SI and pound-inch (U.S. Customary) units.
In response to these needs, Applied Research Associates, Inc., developed a
microcomputer program titled “Drainage Requirements in Pavements (DRIP) Version
1.0” under a contract from the FHWA (contract No. DTFH61-95-C-00008). Robert
Baumgardner of the FHWA supplied technical control for the project. The ARA
principal investigator was Walter Barker, and development of the computer program was
led by Tim Wyatt, Jim Hall served as program manager. The program was delivered to
the FHWA in September 1997.
In 1998, a new National Highway Institute course (NHI Course No. 131026)
titled “Pavement Subsurface Drainage Design” was developed to further improve the
guidance on pavement subsurface drainage design, construction, and maintenance. DRIP
Version 1.0 was completely integrated into this course to perform hydraulic design
computations. The program has since been used in the industry and has received
excellent reviews. However, several valuable suggestions were made by DRIP users to
further improve the program. The suggestions mainly pertained to improving design
input screen graphics, variable plot displays and outputs, and the user’s manual. Certain
key drainage calculations and plotting options were also suggested to enhance DRIP’s
technical capabilities. In addition, there was a need to upgrade the program to be
compatible with the computing environments prevalent today. To make these program
modifications, the FHWA entered into a contract (FHWA Contract No. DTFH61-00-F-
00199) with the ERES Division of ARA. Mr. Robert Baumgardner and Mr. Bing Wong
of the FHWA supplied the technical control for the project. The ERES principal
investigator was Jim Hall, and Gregg Larson implemented the program modifications.
Jagannath Mallela of ERES served as the project manager. Under this contract, the
23
microcomputer program “Drainage Requirements In Pavements (DRIP) Version 2.0”
and a revised user’s guide were developed.
This program was developed for subsurface design for highway pavements. The
most significant changes in DRIP 2.0 are related toprogram usability—interface
improvements, improved help, refined analysis, and easy program output access. Most of
the analysis routines developed in the original version of DRIP were retained. The
program performs the following key functions:
• Performs drainage designs for flexible and rigid pavements and retrofit
edgedrains.
• Performs edgedrain and geocomposite fin-drain designs.
2.8.1 Depth of Flow (Steady-state flow)

In this concept, permeable bases are designed to have a steady-stat flow (q d)
equal or greater than the inflow (qi) from the design rainfall. Generally Moulton’s
equation, as presented below are used
If, (S2 – 4q / k) < 0 then
If, (S2 – 4q / k) > 0 then
If, (S2 – 4q / k) = 0 then
2.8.2 Time-to-drain (Unsteady-state flow)

In this approach, the specific time (t) taken for specific degree of discharge
through the drainage path of the permeable base is computed. The t-value is used to
evaluate the drainage quality of the permeable base. In the present investigation, the
specific time for 50 % discharge (t50) was computed using the following equations,
developed by Casagrande and Shannon.
24
Where,
S = Slope Lr = Length of drainage
Sf = slope factor = H/LS k= permeability
H = thickness of granular layer ne =effective porosity of granular material
H1 = depth of water at the upper end t50 = time for 50% discharge
of flow path T50 = time factor for 50% drainage
L = width of granular layer qi = rate of uniform flow
2.9 Permeability
The soil can be considered as a porous medium and the interconnected voids
allow water to flow through it. Water can flow from points of high energy to points of
low energy. The permeability k is used to quantify this property. Coarse grained soils
have larger voids and higher permeability. The fine grained soils have smaller voids and
lower permeability. Many geotechnical engineering problems are related to the soil
permeability such as
• Rate of consolidation
• Stability of slopes, embankments and retaining walls
• Pumping water for underground construction
• Quantity of safety of an earthern dam
2.9.1 Darcy’s Law

Darcy (1856) proposed that average flow velocity through soils is proportional to
hydraulic gradient (based on the experimental observation)
V = k Δh / L = ki
Where k is a proportional coefficient and is called coefficient of permeability (hydraulic
conductivity). The unit of k is length /time.
Darcy’s law is valid for all soils if the flow is laminar (Reynolds number < 1).
Fluid through soils finer than coarse gravel is laminar. That is, the small pore and low
flow speed can warrant a laminar flow in sand, silt and clay. The Darcy’s law will be
valid for those soils. For every coarse sands, gravels and boulders, the pore size is large
25
and the flow speed is high, so the turbulent flow may occur and the Darcy’s law is no
longer valid.
2.9.2 Coefficient of Permeability for common soil types

The following characteristics can influence hydraulic conductivity of soils
• Particle size
• Void ratio
• Composition
• Fabric (structure)
• Degree of saturation
• The wholeness (homogeneity, layering, fissuring, etc.)
The coefficient of permeability values for common soils are tabulated in the Table
2.1 and degree of permeability in the Table 2.2
Table 2.1 Coefficient of Permeability for common soil types
Soil type k (cm/sec)
Clean gravel >1.0
Clean sand, clean sand and gravel mixtures 1.0 to 10-3
Fine sand, silts, mixtures comprising sands, silts and clays 10-3 to 10-7
Homogenous clay <10-7
The permeability of soils exhibits a great range of values, in order of ten. For a
soil having a homogenous fabric, the permeability depends on the fine particles than on
the large. A small percentage of fines can clog pores of an otherwise coarse material and
results in lower hydraulic conductivity
Table 2.2 Degree of permeability
Degree of Permeability Value of k (cm/sec)
High Over 10-1
Medium 10-1 to 10-3
26
Low 10-3 to 10-5
Very low 10-5 to 10-7
Practically impermeable Less than 10-7
27
CHAPTER-3
PRESENT INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 Selection of the Test Stretches for Soil Sampling
To study the drainage characteristics of the subgrade soil samples, newly
constructed rural roads were selected. The roads which were one year old or less than
one year were grouped under newly constructed roads. A list of forty newly constructed
roads was obtained from Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency (KRRDA),
Bangalore. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) for each of the newly constructed road
was collected and details regarding year of construction, pavement thickness, rainfall
data and soil investigation reports were obtained.
Based on the preliminary studies and details given in Detailed Project Report
(DPR), only 10 road stretches were selected for collecting soil samples. The roads
selected have been widely distributed in Karnataka covering different soil types, traffic
and environmental condition.
The list of the road stretches selected for sub-grade soil sampling has been given
in Table 3.1. The details regarding year of construction, sub-grade CBR, rainfall and
crust thickness of selected roads has been obtained from DPRs and presented in the
Table 3.1.
3.2 Materials Used for GSB Mix Design
3.2.1 Gravel
In the present study, gravel was collected from a quarry near Hoskote. Test
conducted on Gravel are Grain size distribution and Atterberg limits. Gravel was used to
design GSB mix.
3.2.2 Aggregate
The aggregate is the basic material for any road construction. It forms the greater
part of the body of the road. It is called upon to bear the main stresses occurring in the
road and top surfaces resists wear from surface abrasion.
In the present study, aggregate passing 20mm sieve was collected from M/s
Kaveri asphalt, Bangalore. These aggregates were used to design GSB mix.
Table 3.1 List of Selected Rural Roads for Sub-grade soil sampling
Sample Name of the Road Name of the Data as per DPR
No Block Year of Sub- Crust details, Rainfall,
28
grade
Construction CBR, mm mm/Year
%
PMC = 20
WBM III=75
Stretch 1 H B Road To Karaki Hosanagara Sep-05 6.8 2000
WBM II =75
GSB = 50
PMC = 20
Shanuboganahalli WBM III=75
Stretch 2 Arakalagudu Jul-07 4 1800
To T-16 WBM II =75
GSB = 200
PMC = 20
K D Road to WBM III= 75
Stretch 3 Sagara May-05 6.7 2000
Narasipura WBM II = 75
GSB = 175
PMC = 20
Bailur - Nayarbettu
Stretch 4 Karkala Jan-08 4 WBM III=75 2000
Road
WBM II =75
PMC = 20
NH-17@ 255.30 WBM III=75
Stretch 5 Kundapura Jan-07 4 2350
KM to Bijur WBM II =75
GSB = 200
PMC = 20
Kambliganahalli to WBM III =75
Stretch 6 Hoskote Sep-06 2 650
NH-4 WBM II =75
GSB =160
PMC = 20
CTR Road to
Stretch 7 Devanahalli Jul-06 7 WBM III=75 740
Doddacheemanahalli
WBM II =75
PMC = 20
M K Road To WBM III=75
Stretch 8 Maddur Jun-05 6 1100
Kothavinahalli WBM II =75
SG = 210
PMC = 20
M.G.Road
Stretch 9 Srinivasapura 2007 6 WBM III=75 500
-Manjilnagara
WBM II =75
PMC = 20
NH-13 To WBM III=75
Stretch 10 Holalkere Jul-05 8 600
Borenahalli WBM II =75
GSB = 75
29
3.2.3 Quarry Dust
The quarry dust used for the work was collected from local quarry.
Quarry dust was collected from M/s Kaveri asphalt, Bangalore. This quarry dust was
used to design GSB mix.
3.2.4 Locally Available Soil

The locally available soil samples were obtained from selected rural roads. For
this purpose trenches were cut open near the pavement edges. Then from each trench a
minimum of 20kgs of soil samples were obtained and collected in neat water proof bags.
The bags were numbered and labeled for easy identification. Soil samples were collected
in small sealed covers for determining of field moisture. Then the samples were
transported to the laboratory to carry out further laboratory investigations.
3.3 Tests on GSB materials
3.3.1 Gravel
In the present study, the soil samples which were collected from quarry were
subjected to the following laboratory test, i) Particle size distribution and ii) Atterberg
limits.
Grain size analysis was carried out based on IS: 2720 (part 4)-1985 and Atterberg
limit test was carried out based on IS: 2720 (part 5)-1985
3.3.2 Aggregates
In the present study, aggregate collected from local quarry was subjected to the
following laboratory tests, i) Specific gravity ii) Water absorption iii) Aggregate
crushing value and iv) Aggregate impact value.
Water absorption was carried out based on IS: 2386 (part-3), Soundness test was
carried out based on IS: 383 and Impact value was carried out based on IS: 2386(part-4).
3.3.3 Quarry Dust

In the present study, quarry dust collected from local quarry was subjected to
Sieve Analysis.
Grain size analysis was carried out based on IS: 2720 (part 4)-1985.
30
3.3.4 Locally Available Soil
In the present study, the soil samples which were collected from different sources
were subjected to the following laboratory test. i) Particle size distribution ii) Atterberg
limits iii) Compaction Test iv) California Bearing Ratio Test and v) Permeability Test.
Grain size analysis was carried out based on IS: 2720 (part 4)-1985, Atterberg
limit test was carried out based on IS: 2720 (part 5)-1985, Light compaction test was
carried out based on IS: 2720 (part 17)-1980, CBR test was carried out based on IS: 2720
(part 16)-1979 and Falling head permeability test was carried out based on IS: 2720 (part
17)-1986.
3.4 Proportioning of Materials for GSB Mixes
3.4.1 Proportioning of Materials for GSB Mix-I

The GSB mix was prepared using 20 mm down size aggregates, gravel, locally
available soil and quarry dust. Aggregates were added to achieve CBR requirements and
quarry dust was added to achieve the desired consistency limits as per IRC: SP-20-2002.
Different percentage of dust was mixed with the soil and consistency limits were
determined. From the results it was observed that quarry dust by 5% of weight of soil
was good enough to reduce the liquid limit to less than 25 and plasticity index less than
6. But to satisfy gradation requirements quarry dust in the range of 7% to 10% by weight
of soil was added. The sieve analysis was carried out for aggregates, gravel, locally
available soils and quarry dust. Based on the results of sieve analysis, gradation was
fixed using Trial and Error method. The Sieve analysis and proportioning of materials
for GSB Mix-I are shown in Table 4.6 to 4.15
3.4.2 Proportioning of Materials for GSB Mix-II

The GSB mix was prepared using 20 mm down size aggregates, locally available
soil and quarry dust. Aggregates were added to achieve CBR requirements and quarry
dust was added to achieve the desired consistency limits as per IRC: SP-20-2002.
Different percentage of dust was mixed with the soil and consistency limits were
determined. From the results it was observed that quarry dust by 5% of weight of soil
was good enough to reduce the liquid limit to less than 25 and plasticity index less than
6. But to satisfy gradation requirements quarry dust in the range of 7% to 10% by weight
of soil was added. The sieve analysis was carried out for aggregates, locally available
soils and quarry dust. Based on the sieve analysis, gradation was fixed using Trial and
31
Error method. The Sieve analysis and proportioning of materials for GSB Mix-II are
shown in Table 4.16 to Table 4.25.
3.5 Tests on GSB mix

The tests conducted on GSB mixes were compaction test (heavy compaction),
CBR test and permeability test. To determine density-moisture relationship, IS heavy
compaction test was conducted. To determine CBR value of GSB mixes, tests were
conducted for soaked (4 days) condition. The constant-head permeability test is
conducted to find out the change in permeability values of the GSB mixes. The results of
the compaction test, CBR test and permeability test for GSB Mix-I and GSB Mix-II are
shown in Table 4.26 and Table 4.27 respectively. The plots for Dry Density v/s Moisture
content for GSB Mix-I and Mix-II are shown in Fig 4.3 and 4.5 respectively.
3.6 Drainage Estimation using DRIP software
This program was developed for subsurface design for highway pavements. The
most significant changes in DRIP 2.0 are related to program usability—interface
improvements, improved help, refined analysis, and easy program output access. The
program performs the following key functions:
• Performs drainage designs for flexible and rigid pavements and retrofit
edgedrains.
• Performs edgedrain and geocomposite fin-drain designs.
32
3.6.1 Roadway Geometry
Using this program feature, the user can compute the length and slope of the true
drainage path based on the longitudinal and transverse grade of the roadway, as well as
the width of the underlying base material. The user can perform these calculations for the
two common roadway cross-sections commonly encountered—crowned and super
elevated (uniform slope) sections.
33
3.6.2 Sieve Analysis
The effective grain sizes (Dx), total and effective porosities, coefficient of
uniformity and gradation, and coefficient of permeability can be computed for any user-
entered gradation using this program feature. Plots of the gradations on semi-log and
FHWA power 45 templates can also be obtained from this program screen.
34
3.6.3 Inflow
The amount of moisture infiltrating the pavement structure from rainfall and melt
water can be computed using this program option. The surface infiltration calculations
can be performed using two different approaches—the Infiltration Ratio approach and
the Crack Infiltration approach. Melt water computations can be performed for a variety
of soil types and pavement cross-section depths.
35
3.6.4 Permeable Base Design
The program offers two permeable base design options—depth-of-flow and time-
to-drain. These methods allow the user to design an open-graded base that can handle the
inflow entering the pavement structure.
36
CHAPTER-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Laboratory test results for GSB materials
4.1.1 Gravel
Wet sieve analysis of gravel and Atterberg limits tests for gravel was carried out
to determine the grain size distribution and consistency limits. The results are shown in
Table 4.1
Table 4.1 Particle size distribution and Consistency limits of Gravel sample from
Hoskote.
Grain size distribution Consistency limits
Sample Sieve size,
% Passing LL PL PI
in mm
20.00 100.00
10.00 88.50
4.750 75.68
2.360 66.42
Gravel from 1.180 61.30
Hoskote NON-PLASTIC
Quarry 0.600 51.36
0.425 44.52
0.300 38.12
0.150 27.28
0.075 21.22
4.1.2 Aggregates
Tests on aggregates have been carried out to determine the aggregate impact
value, crushing strength, Los Angles Abrasion value and specific gravity. The test results
are presented in Table 4.2. These results indicate suitability of the aggregates for
construction of GSB.
37
Table 4.2 Test Results of Coarse Aggregates
As per MORT&H IV
Sl no Tests on Aggregates Test results revision- 2001
Specifications
1 Aggregate Crushing value 28.5% ---
2 Los Angeles Abrasion value 27.6% Max 35%
3 Aggregate Impact value 24.3% Max 27%
4 Water absorption (%) 0.681 Max 2%
5 Specific Gravity 2.60 2.5-3.0
4.1.3 Quarry Dust

The Sieve analysis of Quarry dust sample was carried out to determine the grain
size distribution. The results are tabulated in Table 4.3
Table 4.3 Particle size distribution of Quarry Dust.
Sample Sieve size, in mm % Passing
20.00 100.00
10.00 100.00
4.75 97.46
2.36 87.40
Quarry dust from M/s 1.18 73.34
Kaveri Asphalt,
Bangalore. 0.60 47.30
0.43 36.34
0.30 28.68
0.15 18.26
0.08 9.46
4.1.4 Locally Available Soils
38
The laboratory investigations have been carried out on sub-grade soil samples
collected from selected rural roads in Karnataka. Wet sieve analysis, consistency limits,
Standard Proctor compaction test, CBR and permeability tests were carried out and
results have been recorded..
Results for percentage gravel, sand, silt & clay fractions and Atterberg limits are
tabulated in Table 4.4. Particle size distribution for soil samples are given in Table 4.5.
Results for compaction test, CBR test and permeability test are shown in Table 4.6. Dry
density v/s moisture content for all the soil samples are shown in Figure 4.1.
Table 4.4 Percentage Gravel, Sand, Silt & Clay fractions and Atterberg limits.
Silt and Liquid Plastic Plasticity

Stretch No Gravel Sand
Clay Limit % Limit % Index
1 0.00 64.14 35.86 27.20 NP NP
2 14.62 48.58 36.80 26.80 18.25 9.0
3 40.86 29.94 29.20 40.80 29.86 11.0
4 26.50 48.32 25.18 34.00 25.89 8.0
5 43.50 28.70 27.80 38.00 27.78 10.0
6 3.38 40.96 55.66 35.20 25.00 10.0
7 0.68 80.48 18.84 0.00 NP NP
8 19.94 62.54 17.52 0.00 NP NP
9 3.02 49.60 47.38 38.60 25.00 14.0
10 8.50 47.25 44.25 46.60 36.79 10.0
39
Table 4.5 Particle size distribution of Sub-grade soil samples.
Percent Passing
SIEVE
SIZE
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 9 Sample 10
20 mm 100.00 100.00 78.02 100.00 97.10 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
10 mm 100.00 90.64 70.98 94.66 79.94 100.00 99.46 91.60 100.00 98.52
4.75 100.00 85.38 59.14 73.50 56.50 96.62 99.32 80.06 96.98 91.50
2.36 99.72 81.08 45.02 52.78 45.20 94.38 98.34 68.74 76.50 76.60
1.18 99.34 76.08 38.90 43.58 40.28 92.84 93.46 62.32 63.76 68.02
600 µ 92.80 66.06 34.94 35.98 36.38 85.00 76.98 51.96 56.78 58.64
425µ 83.28 59.94 33.72 32.66 34.28 78.20 66.86 45.08 54.42 55.22
300 µ 72.26 54.20 32.76 30.34 32.48 70.98 54.18 38.24 52.70 52.86
150 µ 48.86 43.66 31.12 26.90 29.76 61.24 30.48 24.86 49.68 48.30
75 µ 35.86 36.80 29.20 25.18 27.80 55.66 18.84 17.52 47.38 44.25
Table 4.6 OMC, MDD. CBR and Permeability values of Sub-grade soil samples.
Standard Proctor Compaction test
Stretch
Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry CBR, % Permeability,
No
Content, % Density, g/cc m/day
1 12.9 1.950 7.00 0.048

2 12.4 1.876 6.00 0.043
3 13.9 1.880 9.00 0.077
4 13.1 1.950 10.00 0.044
5 16.4 1.895 9.00 0.036
6 12.2 1.736 6.00 0.053
7 12.1 1.890 3.00 0.043
8 10.0 1.876 8.00 0.056
9 12.3 1.689 6.00 0.030
10 13.8 1.780 7.00 0.046
2.00
1.95
S tretc h 1
1.90
S tretc h 2
S tretc h 3
1.85
S tretc h 4
Dry Density g/cc
S tretc h 5
1.80
S tretc h 6
S tretc h 7
1.75
S tretc h 8
S tretc h 9
1.70
S tretc h 10
1.65
1.60
6.00 8 .0 0 10.00 12.00 14.0 0 16.00 18.00 20.00
M o istu re C o n te n t %
Figure 4.1 Dry Density v/s Moisture Content for Subgrade Soil Samples
41
It is observed from test results of sieve analysis the percentage of gravel, sand
and silt and clay together varies from 0% to 43.50%, 29.94% to 80.48% and 17.52% to
55.66% respectively, from test results of Standard Proctor Compaction test, the optimum
moisture content and maximum dry density for different subgrade soil samples ranges
from 10 % to 16.4 % and 1.689 g/cc to 1.950 g/cc respectively. From test results of CBR
test, the CBR values varies from 3.0% to 10% and from test results of permeability test,
the permeability values varies from 0.036 m/day to 0.077 m/day for soil samples
collected from different stretches..
4.2 Properties of GSB mixes
4.2.1 Gradation
The GSB mixes were prepared using aggregates, gravel, locally available soil and
quarry dust. Aggregates were added in order to in achieve CBR requirements and quarry
dust was added in order to achieve the desired consistency limits as per IRC: SP-20-
2002. Different percentage of dust was mixed with the soil and consistency limits tests
were conducted and from the results it was observed that 5% of dust by dry weight of
soil was good enough to reduce the liquid limit to less than 25 and plasticity index less
than 6. But for gradation requirements more percentage of dust was added. The
proportion for Mix-I with subgrade soil, stone aggregate, gravel and stone dust and
Proportion for Mix-II with soil, stone aggregate and stone dust are shown in Table 4.7 to
Table 4.26..
Table 4.7 Sieve analysis and proportioning of Mix-I for Stretch 1

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Sieve Mixture
Gradation for
size, Soil Aggregate Gravel Dust A:B:C:D
Coarse GSB III as
mm (A) (B) ( C) (D) 10:60:20:1
per IRC : SP :20-
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 100.00 0.00 75.68 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 35.86 0.00 21.22 9.46 9 <10
42
Percentage Passing
IS Required
Sieve Mixture
Gradation for
Coarse GSB III as
mm (A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
per IRC : SP :20-
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 85.38 0.00 75.68 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 36.80 0.00 21.22 9.46 9 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Mixture
Sieve Gradation for
Soil Aggregate Gravel Dust A:B:C:D
size, Coarse GSB III as
(A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
mm per IRC : SP :20-
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 59.14 0.00 75.68 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 29.20 0.00 21.22 9.46 9 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Mixture
Sieve Gradation for
(A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 73.50 0.00 75.68 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 25.18 0.00 21.22 9.46 9 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Mixture
Sieve Gradation for
(A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 56.50 0.00 75.68 97.46 33 25-45
0.075 27.80 0.00 21.22 9.46 9 <10
43
Percentage Passing
IS Required
Sieve Mixture
Gradation for
Coarse GSB III as
mm (A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
per IRC : SP :20-
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 96.62 0.00 75.68 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 55.66 0.00 21.22 9.46 10 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Sieve Mixture Gradation for
Soil Aggregate Gravel Dust
size, A:B:C:D Coarse GSB III as
(A) (B) ( C) (D)
mm 11:58:21:10 per IRC : SP :20-
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 99.32 0.00 75.68 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 18.84 0.00 21.22 9.46 7 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Mixture
Sieve Gradation for
(A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 80.06 0.00 75.68 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 17.52 0.00 21.22 9.46 7 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Mixture
Sieve Gradation for
(A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 96.98 0.00 75.68 97.46 34 25-45
0.075 47.38 0.00 21.22 9.46 9 <10
44
Percentage Passing
IS Required
Mixture
Sieve Gradation for
(A) (B) ( C) (D) 11:58:21:1
0
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100 100
4.75 91.50 0.00 75.68 97.46 34 25-45
0.075 44.25 0.00 21.22 9.46 9 <10
Table 4.17 Sieve analysis and proportioning of Mix-II for Stretch 1

Percentage Passing
IS
Required Gradation
Sieve Mixture
Soil Aggregate Dust for Coarse GSB III
size, A:B:C
(A) (B) ( C) as per IRC : SP :20-
mm 25:65:10
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 100.00 0.00 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 35.86 0.00 9.46 10 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Soil Aggregate Dust
size, A:B:C Coarse GSB III as
(A) (B) ( C)
mm 25:65:10 per IRC : SP :20-
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 85.38 0.00 97.46 31 25-45
0.075 36.80 0.00 9.46 10 <10

Percentage Passing
IS
Required Gradation
Sieve Mixture
size, A:B:C
(A) (B) ( C) as per IRC : SP :20-
mm 32:58:10
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 59.14 0.00 97.46 29 25-45
0.075 29.20 0.00 9.46 10 <10

IS Percentage Passing
45
Required
Soil Aggregate Dust
(A) (B) ( C)
mm 33:57:10 per IRC : SP :20-
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 73.50 0.00 97.46 34 25-45
0.075 25.18 0.00 9.46 9 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Soil Aggregate Dust
(A) (B) ( C)
mm 33:57:10 per IRC : SP :20-
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 56.50 0.00 97.46 28 25-45
0.075 27.80 0.00 9.46 10 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Soil Aggregate Dust
(A) (B) ( C)
mm 16:72:12 per IRC : SP :20-
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 96.62 0.00 97.46 27 25-45
0.075 55.66 0.00 9.46 10 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Soil Aggregate Dust
(A) (B) ( C)
mm 26:64:10 per IRC : SP :20-
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 99.32 0.00 97.46 36 25-45
0.075 18.84 0.00 9.46 6 <10

IS Percentage Passing
46
Required Gradation
Sieve Mixture
size, A:B:C
(A) (B) ( C) as per IRC : SP :20-
mm 31:59:10
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 80.06 0.00 97.46 35 25-45
0.075 17.52 0.00 9.46 6 <10

Percentage Passing
IS Required
Soil Aggregate Dust
(A) (B) ( C)
mm 20:70:10 per IRC : SP :20-
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 96.98 0.00 97.46 29 25-45
0.075 47.38 0.00 9.46 10 <10

Percentage Passing
IS
Required Gradation
Sieve Mixture
size, A:B:C
(A) (B) ( C) as per IRC : SP :20-
mm 21:69:10
2002
26.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100
4.75 91.50 0.00 97.46 29 25-45
0.075 44.25 0.00 9.46 10 <10
4.2.2 Test results for GSB mixes

The tests conducted on GSB mixes were compaction test (heavy compaction),
CBR test and permeability test. To determine density-moisture relationship, IS heavy
compaction test was conducted. To determine CBR value of GSB mixes, tests were
conducted for soaked (4 days) condition. The constant-head permeability test was
conducted to find out the permeability values of the GSB mixes. The results of the
compaction test, CBR test and permeability test for GSB Mix-I and GSB Mix-II are
shown in Table 4.27 and Table 4.28 respectively. The plots for Dry Density v/s Moisture
content for GSB Mix-I and GSB Mix-II are shown in Fig 4.2 and Fig 4.3.
Table 4.27 OMC, MDD. CBR and Permeability values of GSB Mix-I.
Stretch Modified Compaction test CBR, %
47
Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Permeability
No
Content, % Density, g/cc m/day
1 7.10 2.060 36 1.68

2 8.10 2.020 24 1.59
3 9.10 2.100 37 1.20
4 9.00 2.090 35 1.35
5 8.60 2.030 38 1.27
6 8.00 2.020 34 2.47
7 7.10 2.040 33 3.08
8 8.10 2.000 24 2.50
9 8.30 2.010 28 2.07
10 6.80 2.020 30 2.24
Table 4.28 OMC, MDD. CBR and Permeability values of GSB Mix-II.
Modified Compaction test
Stretch Optimum
Maximum Dry CBR, % Permeability
No Moisture Content,
Density, g/cc m/day
%
1 5.10 2.170 44 3.56
2 6.30 2.120 30 3.08
3 7.50 2.220 46 3.92
4 7.30 2.190 44 2.04
5 6.80 2.140 47 1.89
6 4.90 2.120 41 3.14
7 6.00 2.100 38 2.22
8 5.20 2.080 27 2.78
9
2.10 5.90 2.090 32 2.97
Stretch 1
10 5.00 2.130 39 3.24
Stretch 2
2.05
Stretch 3
Dry Density g/cc
Stretch 4
2.00
Stretch 5
Stretch 6
1.95
Stretch 7
Stretch 8
1.90
Stretch 9
Stretch 10
1.85 48
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Penetration mm
Figure 4.2 Dry Density v/s Moisture Content for GSB Mix-I
2.25
Stretch 1
2.20
Stretch 2
2.15 Stretch 3
Dry Density g/cc
2.10 Stretch 4
Stretch 5
2.05
Stretch 6
2.00 Stretch 7
1.95 Stretch 8
Stretch 9
1.90
Stretch 10
1.85
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Pene tration mm
Figure 4.3 Dry Density v/s Moisture Content for GSB Mix-II
It is observed from the test results that the designed GSB mixes I and II were non
plastic for all subgrade soil samples. The OMC value for the designed GSB mixes I and
II varies from 6.8% to 9.1% and 4.9 % to 7.5 % respectively. The MDD value for GSB
mixes I and II varies from 2.000 g/cc to 2.090 g/cc and 2.080 g/cc to 2.220 g/cc. The
CBR value for GSB mixes I and II varies from 24 % to 38% and 27 % to 47 %
49
respectively. The Permeability value for GSB mixes I and II varies from 1.20 m/day to
3.08 m/day and 1.89 m/day to 3.56 m/day respectively for both the mixes.
4.3 Parameters for Sub-base Drainage Analysis

The sub-base drainage analysis was made using DRIP 2.0 software. The
parameters considered for analysis in DRIP software were intensity of rainfall (intensity
of rainfall for Karnataka state varies from 40 mm/hr to 120 mm/hr) and road geometry
(pavement width, shoulder width and cross slope). Gradation of GSB mixes and physical
properties of GSB mixes (effective porosity and permeability) were also considered.
4.4 Estimation of Inflow

The major sources of inflow are surface infiltration, groundwater seepage and
melt water from ice. In the present study, it was assumed that the subgrade neither
contributes to inflow nor allows for infiltration of water. Also, prevailing climatic
conditions for Karnataka state doesn’t support frost formation in soils, melt water was
not considered as a source of inflow. The only source of inflow is due to infiltration of
rainwater. This is computed by two methods,
i. Infiltration-ratio method
ii. Crack-infiltration method
Due to non-availability of information of pavement infiltration tests, this

approach was not considered. Therefore only infiltration-ratio method was adopted to
compute the inflow for different rainfall intensities and pavement width (3.75m). An
infiltration ratio of 0.415 was assumed for asphalt pavements.
Drainage capacity of GSB
The main requirement of any drainage layer or permeable base is that is should
drain the inflow quickly and safely. Therefore, the design capacity should have a greater
outflow rate than inflow rate. The drainage layer has to satisfy two design requirements;
i) The steady-state flow (depth-of-flow) capacity must be greater than the inflow rate
ii)The unsteady-state capacity must be such that water can be drained quickly after
precipitation. The present analysis is based on the assumption of saturated flow
condition. Thus, the drainage capacity is a function of material property, length of
drainage layer, depth of permeable layer, effective slope of the drainage layer and rate of
flow.
50
In the first phase of the study, the minimum GSB thickness required to achieve
design drainage capacity was computed based on the steady-state flow capacity (depth
-of -flow approach using DRIP software). The results are given in the Table 4.28 and
Table 4.30. Two graphs (log-log scale) were plotted with permeability on x-axis and
computed minimum GSB thickness on y-axis. The Fig 4.7 and Fig 4.9 shows the design
thickness curves. That is, minimum GSB thickness versus permeability values of the
GSB material for pavement width of 3.75 m. These thickness curves were plotted for
different intensities of rainfall (40 mm/hr to 120 mm/hr).
In the second phase of the study, the drainage capacity of GSB was determined
based on the unsteady-flow (time-to-drain) approach. The capacity is decided by
considering the design criteria corresponding to the time required for 50% drainage (t50).
The relationship derived by Casagrande and Shannon (DRIP software) were used to
compute t50 of GSB mixes. The results are shown in the Table 4.28 and Table 4.30. Two
graphs (log-log scale) were plotted with permeability on X-axis and computed duration
to drain 50% water on Y-axis. The Fig 4.8 and Fig 4.10 shows the design thickness
curves that is duration to drain 50% water versus permeability values of the GSB
material for pavement width of 3.75m for calculated GSB thickness. These curves were
plotted for different intensities of rainfall (40 mm/hr to 120 mm/hr).
From the results it was observed that the time required to drain 50% of water for
GSB Mix-I and MIX-II varied within the range of 2.64 hrs to 6.85 hrs and 1.42 hrs to
5.75 hrs. The minimum thickness of GSB required varies from 1.28m to 3.57m and
1.13m to 2.91m for Mix I and Mix II respectively
Two graphs (log-log scale) were plotted with permeability on X-axis and duration
to drain 50% water on y-axis. The results are given in the Table 4.29 and Table 4.31. The
Fig 4.11 and Fig 4.12 shows the design thickness curves; that is duration to drain 50%
water versus permeability values of the GSB material for pavement width 3.75m and
GSB thickness, H=0.10m,
It was observed from the results that the time required to drain 50% of water
varies from 40.18 hrs to 68.85 hrs and 14.21 hrs to 44.41 hrs and it is also observed that
the time required to drain 50% of water will be same for any intensity of rainfall.
A graph (log-log scale) was plotted with permeability values (0.10 m/day to 1000
m/day) in X-axis and calculated minimum GSB thickness (varies from 0.04m to 13 m) in
Y-axis. The results are tabulated in the Table 4.32. The Fig 4.13 shows the design
51
thickness curves that is minimum GSB thickness versus permeability values of the GSB
material for pavement width of 3.75m. These thickness curves were plotted for different
intensities of rainfall (40 mm/hr to 120 mm/hr).
From the results it is observed that for a GSB mix with lesser permeability value,
the required thickness of GSB will be more.
52
Table 4.29 Permeability, Time to Drain 50% water, calculated Minimum thickness required for GSB Mix-I for different intensity of
rainfall
Rainfall Intensity
For 40mm/hr For 60mm/hr For 80mm/hr For 100mm/hr For 120mm/hr
rainfall rainfall rainfall rainfall rainfall
Stretch Permeability Time Time Time Time Time
No m/day to Minimum to Minimum to Minimum to Minimum to Minimum
Drain thickness Drain thickness Drain thickness Drain thickness Drain thickness
50% required, 50% required, 50% required, 50% required, 50% required,
water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m
t50, hrs t50, hrs t50, hrs t50, hrs t50, hrs
1 1.68 5.63 1.76 4.63 2.17 4.04 2.51 3.63 2.82 3.32 3.09
2 1.59 6.15 1.81 5.06 2.23 4.41 2.58 3.96 2.90 3.63 3.18
3 1.20 6.22 2.09 5.12 2.57 4.46 2.98 4.01 3.34 3.67 3.67
4 1.35 5.98 1.97 4.93 2.42 4.29 2.81 3.85 3.15 3.53 3.46
5 1.27 6.85 2.03 5.64 2.50 4.91 2.90 4.41 3.25 4.04 3.57
6 2.47 4.45 1.44 3.67 1.77 3.20 2.06 2.88 2.31 2.64 2.54
7 3.08 4.98 1.28 4.11 1.58 3.58 1.84 3.22 2.06 2.95 2.26
8 2.50 5.93 1.43 4.89 1.76 4.26 2.05 3.83 2.30 3.51 2.52
9 2.07 5.46 1.57 4.50 1.94 3.92 2.26 3.52 2.53 3.23 2.78
10 2.24 5.24 1.51 4.24 1.87 3.69 2.17 3.32 2.43 3.04 2.67
53
Figure 4.4 Permeability v/s Minimum GSB thickness for GSB Mix-I
Figure 4.5 Permeability v/s Time to drain 50% water for GSB Mix-I
54
Table 4.30 Permeability, Time to drain 50% water for minimum GSB thickness
(0.10m) for GSB Mix-I
Minimum
Stretch
GSB Permeability m/day Time to Drain 50% water, t50
No
thickness, m
1 1.68 49.49
2 1.59 55.43
3 1.20 64.29
4 1.35 58.42
5 1.27 68.85
0.10
6 2.47 32.62
7 3.08 32.84
8 2.50 43.20
9 2.07 43.48
10 2.24 40.18
Mix-I
55
Table 4.31 Permeability, Time to Drain 50% water, calculated Minimum thickness required for GSB Mix-II for different intensity
of rainfall
Rainfall Intensity
For 40mm/hr For 60mm/hr For 80mm/hr For 100mm/hr For 120mm/hr
Stretch Permeability Time Time Time Time Time
no m/day to Minimum to Minimum to Minimum to Minimum to Minimum
Drain thickness Drain thickness Drain thickness Drain thickness Drain thickness
50% required, 50% required, 50% required, 50% required, 50% required,
water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m water, Hmin, m
t50, hrs t50, hrs t50, hrs t50, hrs t50, hrs
1 3.56 2.81 1.18 2.32 1.46 2.00 1.70 1.80 1.91 1.67 2.10
2 3.08 3.38 1.28 2.78 1.58 2.43 1.84 2.18 2.06 2.00 2.26
3 3.92 2.42 1.13 1.99 1.39 1.74 1.62 1.56 1.82 1.43 2.00
4 2.04 4.03 1.59 3.32 1.96 2.90 2.27 2.60 2.55 2.38 2.80
5 1.89 4.20 1.65 3.46 2.04 3.01 2.36 2.71 2.65 2.48 2.91
6 3.14 3.34 1.27 2.76 1.57 2.40 1.82 2.16 2.04 1.98 2.24
7 2.22 5.75 1.52 4.75 1.87 4.14 2.18 3.72 2.44 3.41 2.67
8 2.78 5.34 1.35 4.41 1.67 3.84 1.94 3.45 2.17 3.16 2.39
9 2.97 3.13 1.13 2.58 1.40 2.25 1.62 2.02 1.82 1.85 2.00
10 3.24 3.16 1.24 2.61 1.54 2.28 1.79 2.05 2.01 1.87 2.21
56
Figure 4.7 Permeability v/s Minimum GSB thickness for GSB Mix-II
Figure 4.8 Permeability v/s Time to drain 50% water for GSB Mix -II
57
Table 4.32 Permeability, time to drain 50% water for minimum GSB thickness
(0.10m) for GSB Mix-II
Minimum
Stretch
GSB Permeability m/day Time to Drain 50% water, t50
No
thickness, m
1 3.56 17.34
2 3.08 22.27
3 3.92 14.21
4 2.04 32.36
5 1.89 34.92
0.10
6 3.14 21.84
7 2.22 44.41
8 2.78 37.00
9 2.97 19.56
10 3.24 20.37
Mix-II
58
Table 4.33 Minimum thickness of Drainage Layer (GSB) required for Different
Intensity of Rainfall
Minimum GSB thickness, m
Intensity of Rainfall
Permeability
m/day 40 mm/hr 60 mm/hr 80 mm/hr 100 mm/hr 120 mm/hr
0.1 7.41 9.09 10.51 11.76 12.89

1 2.30 2.83 3.28 3.67 4.03
2 1.60 1.98 2.30 2.57 2.83
3 1.30 1.60 1.86 2.09 2.30
4 1.11 1.38 1.60 1.80 1.98
5 0.99 1.23 1.43 1.60 1.76
6 0.90 1.11 1.30 1.46 1.60
7 0.83 1.03 1.20 1.34 1.48
8 0.77 0.96 1.11 1.25 1.38
9 0.72 0.90 1.05 1.18 1.30
10 0.68 0.85 0.99 1.11 1.23
20 0.46 0.58 0.68 0.77 0.85
30 0.37 0.46 0.54 0.62 0.68
40 0.31 0.39 0.46 0.53 0.58
50 0.27 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.51
60 0.25 0.31 0.37 0.42 0.46
70 0.22 0.28 0.34 0.38 0.43
80 0.21 0.26 0.31 0.36 0.39
90 0.19 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.37
100 0.18 0.23 0.27 0.31 0.35
200 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.23
300 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.18
400 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15
500 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.13
600 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11
700 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.10
800 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
900 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.09
1000 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
59
Figure 4.10 Permeability v/s Minimum GSB thickness
60
CHAPTER-5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. The laboratory investigations of the soil samples collected from the rural roads
covering different regions of Karnataka have indicated that, three soil samples were
non-plastic and remaining seven samples were having liquid limit greater than 25 and
plasticity index greater than 6. Hence, majority of soil samples needed blending with
quarry dust to bring down the consistency limits so as to make them suitable for GSB
mixes.
2. The CBR values for soil samples for GSB mixes were in the range of 3% to 10%. But
the minimum CBR value of GSB Grade III material should not be less than 15% as
per IRC: SP: 20-2002. Hence all the soil samples were blended with gravel and
aggregate to increase the CBR value of the mixes to greater than 15%.
3. Two GSB mixes were designed: Mix-I by blending soil samples with quarry dust,
aggregates and locally available gravel, Mix-II by blending soil samples with quarry
dust and aggregates only. Both the GSB mixes satisfies the requirements of gradation,
CBR and consistency limits specified in IRC: SP: 20-2002 for rural road construction.
4. The permeability tests carried out in the laboratory for GSB Mix-I and Mix-II
indicated ‘k’ value in the range of 1.20 m/day to 3.08 m/day and 1.89 m/day to 3.92
m/day respectively. The permeability values for both the mixes indicate poor drainage
potential of GSB mixes.
5. The thickness of drainage layer computed using DRIP software is in the range of from
1.13 m to 3.57 m. The higher thickness of GSB layer from drainage considerations is
mainly due to poor drainage characteristics of GSB mixes
6. Time to drain 50% of water from saturated drainage layer was computed for GSB
Mix-I and Mix-II. The time required for 50% drainage of water was found to be in the
range of 1.42 hrs to 5.75 hrs for designed GSB thickness and quality of drainage can
be classified as good.
61
7. In rural road construction 0.10 m of Grade III GSB layer is treated as drainage layer.
The drainage analysis using DRIP software clearly indicates the thickness used in
practice is inadequate.
8. 0.10m thick GSB layer can effectively perform as a drainage layer for rural roads,
only when permeability values of such mixes are equal to or greater than 250m/day.
In such cases, the GSB layer has to be separated from subgrade by a inverted filter or
a geotextile separator to prevent subgrade intrusion.
Recommendations
Indian Road Congress Special Publications, IRC: SP: 20-2002 has specified the
requirements of material to be used in GSB constructions in terms of only gradation, CBR
and consistency limits. Since GSB is also used as drainage layer in rural road construction, it
is absolutely necessary to incorporate permeability parameters in the specifications for rural
road construction.
62
CHAPTER-6
SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. To design suitable GSB mixes for rural roads can satisfactorily perform as drainage
layer, with a mix layer thickness of 0.10m.
2. To conduct field studies on GSB mixes, in order to determine the field permeability
values and drainage potential of GSB mixes.
63
REFERENCES
1. Vaughan Voller., “Field Measurement of Granular Base Drainage Characteristics”

Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2007.
2. Hagen m. G., Cochran G. R.” Comparison of Pavement Drainage Systems”

Transportation research record, January 1996.
3. Hassan H., and White T., “Locating the Drainage Layer for Bituminous Pavements in
Indiana”, Transportation Research Program, January 1996..
4. Kamyar C. Mahboub., Yinhui Liu and David L. Allen, “Asphalt Overlay and
Subsurface Drainage of Broken and Seated Concrete Pavement”, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, August 2005.
5. Imad L. Al-Qadi, Samer Lahouar, Amara Loulizi, Mostafa A. Elseifi, and John A.
Wilkes, “ Effective Approach to Improve Pavement Drainage Layers”, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Sept/Oct 2004.
6. Suresha.S.N., Ravishankar.A.U., and Varghese George, “Design Charts for Drainage

Capacities of Granular Sub-bases”, Journal of the Indian Road Congress, January-
March 2009.
7. Indian Highways, “Road Drainage”, VOL 3, July 1975.
8. NCHRP., “Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated

Pavement Structures”, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., February
2001.
9. Satyapriya Behera., “Strength and Permeability Characteristics of Granular Sub-base

Developed Using Locally Available Materials”, Dept. of Civil Engineering, NITK,
Surathkal, July 2005.
10. IS: 1888-1982,”Method of Load Tests on Soils”.
11. IS: 2720(part-13)-1985,”Method to test for soils: Direct Shear Test”.
12. IS: 2720(part-16)-1979,”Method to test for soils: Laboratory determination of CBR”.
64
13. IS: 2720(part-17)-1986,”Method to test for soils: Laboratory determination of
permeability”.
14. IS: 2720(part-2)-1973,”Method to test for soils: Determination of Water Content”.
15. IS: 2720(part-3)-1973,”Method to test for soils: Determination of Specific Gravity”.
16. IS: 2720(part-36)-1987,”Method to test for soils: Laboratory Determination of

permeability of granular soils (constant head)”.
17. IS: 2720(part-4)-1985,”Method to test for soils: Grain Size Analysis”.
18. IS: 2720(part-7)-1973,”Method to test for soils: Determination of Water content-Dry

Density Relation using Light Compaction”.
19. IS: 2720(part-8)-1973,”Method of test for soils: Determination of Water content-Dry

Density Relation using Heavy Compaction”.
20. IS: 383-1970,”Specification for coarser and fine aggregates from natural source for
concrete”.
21. Khanna. S.K. and Justo.C.E.G (1984),”Highway Engineering”, Nem Chand and Bros,
Roorkee Sixth Edition.
65

A Dessertation Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For The Award of The Degree of

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Dessertation Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For The Award of The Degree of

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

STUDIES ON DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF GSB MIXES USING DRIP

A DESSERTATION REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

MASTER OF ENGINEERING -CIVIL

Under The Guidance Of

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Granular Sub-base (GSB) is an intermediate layer between subgrade and base

It is immense pleasure to thanks DR.L.MANJESH, Assistant Professor of Civil

I express my sincere thanks to, Sri. H.A.VIJAYKUMAR, Lecturer of Civil

I express my sincere thanks to, Dr.S.GANGADHAR, Asst. Professor of Civil

I express my sincere thanks to, K.C.MANJUNATH, Research Scholar in Civil

Table 1.1 Gradation requirements for Coarse Graded Granular Sub-Base 4

Figure 1.1 Components of Flexible Pavement 3

GSB - Granular Sub-Base

One of the main structural elements involved in road construction is the

1.3 Components of Flexible Pavements

1.3.1 Surface course.

1.3.2 Base course.

1.3.3 Sub-base course.

1.4 Need for Granular Sub-Base (GSB) and Drainage Layer

1.5 Requirements of GSB as per IRC: SP 20-2002

Table 1.1 Gradation requirements for Coarse Graded Granular Sub-Base

Table 1.2 Gradation requirements for Close Graded Granular Sub-Base

1.7 Features of DRIP Software

2. Recommendations regarding "action limits" on the drain ability characteristics of

3. Computerized database of the in-situ drainage characteristics of the various base

2.2 Comparison of Pavement Drainage Systems (2)

2.5 Effective Approach to Improve Pavement Drainage Layers (5)

2.7 Road Drainage (7)

2.8 DRIP Software for Drainage Design (8)

2.8.1 Depth of Flow (Steady-state flow)

If, (S2 – 4q / k) > 0 then

If, (S2 – 4q / k) = 0 then

2.8.2 Time-to-drain (Unsteady-state flow)

2.9.1 Darcy’s Law

2.9.2 Coefficient of Permeability for common soil types

Table 2.1 Coefficient of Permeability for common soil types

Soil type k (cm/sec)

Clean gravel >1.0

Clean sand, clean sand and gravel mixtures 1.0 to 10-3

Homogenous clay <10-7

Table 2.2 Degree of permeability

Degree of Permeability Value of k (cm/sec)

High Over 10-1

Medium 10-1 to 10-3

Very low 10-5 to 10-7

Practically impermeable Less than 10-7

3.2 Materials Used for GSB Mix Design

3.2.4 Locally Available Soil

3.3 Tests on GSB materials

3.3.3 Quarry Dust

3.4 Proportioning of Materials for GSB Mixes

3.4.1 Proportioning of Materials for GSB Mix-I

3.4.2 Proportioning of Materials for GSB Mix-II

3.5 Tests on GSB mix

4.1 Laboratory test results for GSB materials

1 Aggregate Crushing value 28.5% ---

2 Los Angeles Abrasion value 27.6% Max 35%

3 Aggregate Impact value 24.3% Max 27%

4 Water absorption (%) 0.681 Max 2%

5 Specific Gravity 2.60 2.5-3.0

4.1.3 Quarry Dust

Table 4.3 Particle size distribution of Quarry Dust.