BITS Pilani

Hyderabad Campus

Flexible Pavement Design

 BITS Pilani
Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2001 to 2012
Timeline of Indian Bituminous
Pavement Design Activities
1970 First Empirical design guidelines for flexible
pavements (IRC:37-1970)
1981 Tentative Guidelines for Strengthening of
Flexible Pavements using BBD technique
(IRC:81)
1984 First Revision of IRC:37
1983-93 Research Scheme R-6 of MoRTH on
pavement performance studies
1997 Guidelines for Strengthening of Flexible
Pavements using BBD technique (IRC:81)

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Timeline of Indian Asphalt Pavement
Design Activities

2001 Second Revision of IRC:37 (Mechanistic)

2002 Rural Roads Manual (for design of Low
Volume Roads for PMGSY program)
(IRC:SP:20)
2007 Guidelines for Design of Flexible Pavements
for Low Volume Roads (IRC:SP:72)
2012 Third Revision of IRC:37

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-1984 – First Revision

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 BITS Pilani
Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2001
IRC:37-2001

• Three major modes of failures identified - subgrade rutting,

bottom-up fatigue cracking of bituminous layer and rutting in
bituminous layer.
• Mechanistic criteria given only for subgrade rutting and fatigue
cracking of bituminous layer.
• Mix rutting expected to be controlled by proper mix design as per
MoRTH (2001) specifications
• 25 % cracked area of bituminous layer and 20 mm rutting in
wheel path considered as critical (terminal) pavement conditions

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2001

Widely used empirical models adopted for estimation of Subgrade

modulus (from CBR), granular layer modulus (from Subgrade
modulus and layer thickness)

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Traffic

1. Initial Traffic
2. Traffic Growth Rate 7.5%
3. Design Life (Years)
– 15 years for NH & SH
– 20 years for Expressways
4. Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF)

Initial Traffic Rolling Terrain Hilly Terrain

0-150 CVPD 1.5 0.5
150-1500 3.5 1.5
>1500 4.5 2.5

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Traffic Loads

Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)

– Converts wheel loads of various magnitudes and repetitions ("mixed traffic") to an
equivalent number of "standard" or "equivalent" loads
– Based on the amount of damage they do to the pavement
– Commonly used standard load is the 80kN equivalent single axle load
Load Equivalency
– Generalized fourth power approximation

4
 load 
   relative damage factor
 8.2tonnes 

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Lane Distribution Factor

Single Lane both direction traffic

Two lane undivided carriageway- 50 % of both directions
traffic
if the traffic on one direction is higher, the higher
traffic has to be considered for design
Four lane single carriageway 40 % of total CVPD
Dual two lane carriageway 75 % of traffic in each
direction
Dual three lane carriageway 60 % of traffic in each
direction
Dual four lane carriageway 45 % of traffic in each
direction
BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
Lane Distribution Factor

– Single Lane – 1

– Two lane – 0.75

– Four Lane Single Carriageway – 0.4

– Dual Carriageway

– Two lane dual carriageway 0.75 of each direction

– Three lane dual carriageway 0.6 of each direction

– Four lane dual carriageway 0.45 of each direction

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2001

Calculate the design traffic in terms of cumulative standard axles for

20 years design life and the pavement design for CBR of 4 %.
i. Period of construction 2 years
ii. Road Type = 4 lane divided carriageway
iii. Traffic = 3560 Commercial vehicles per day (CVPD) in both
directions
iv. Annual growth rate = 6 %
v. Vehicle Damage Factor = 5.1
vi. Lane Distribution Factor = 0.75 (as per IRC code)

(103 msa)

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

VDF IRC:37-2001

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

VDF analysis for 2 axle trucks
Sl No. Axle Load Category in Tonnes Number of % of each Equivalency % Damaging
ESA
From To Mid Axles category Cumulative % Factor Effect
1 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0 0.0000
2 0.5 1.5 1 3 0.20 0.20 0.0002 0.000664 0.0000
3 1.5 2.5 2 87 5.66 5.86 0.0035 0.307882 0.0127
4 2.5 3.5 3 197 12.81 18.67 0.0179 3.529359 0.1456
5 3.5 4.5 4 255 16.58 35.25 0.0566 14.43859 0.5958
6 4.5 5.5 5 232 15.05 50.30 0.1382 32.07101 1.3234
7 5.5 6.5 6 138 8.97 59.27 0.2866 39.55749 1.6323
8 6.5 7.5 7 105 6.83 66.10 0.5311 55.76042 2.3009
9 7.5 8.5 8 81 5.27 71.37 0.9060 73.382 3.0281
10 8.5 9.5 9 89 5.79 77.16 1.4512 129.153 5.3295
11 9.5 10.5 10 108 7.02 84.18 2.2118 238.8737 9.8570
12 10.5 11.5 11 98 6.37 90.55 3.2383 317.3521 13.0954
13 11.5 12.5 12 35 2.28 92.83 4.5864 160.5231 6.6239
14 12.5 13.5 13 27 1.76 94.59 6.3171 170.5618 7.0382
15 13.5 14.5 14 14 0.91 95.50 8.4968 118.9556 4.9087
16 14.5 15.5 15 23 1.50 97.00 11.1972 257.5357 10.6271
17 15.5 16.5 16 18 1.17 98.17 14.4952 260.9138 10.7665
18 16.5 17.5 17 21 1.37 99.54 18.4731 387.9355 16.0080
19 17.5 18.5 18 7 0.46 100.00 23.2185 162.5297 6.7067
1538 100 2423.381

1 Total number of axles 1538

2 Total number of vehicles 769
3 Total Damaging Effect 2423.381
4 3//1 Axle Equivalency 1.575671
5 3//2 Vehicle Damage Factor 3.151341

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

VDF analysis for 3 axle trucks
Sl No. Axle Load Category in Tonnes
% Damaging
Number of % of each ESA
Effect
From To Mid Axles category Cumulative % Equivalency Factor
1 3.5 4.5 4 1 0.25 0.25 0.0053 0.005336 0.0002
2 4.5 5.5 5 9 2.21 2.46 0.0130 0.11724 0.0048
3 5.5 6.5 6 16 3.92 6.38 0.0270 0.432193 0.0178
4 6.5 7.5 7 15 3.68 10.06 0.0500 0.750648 0.0310
5 7.5 8.5 8 7 1.72 11.78 0.0854 0.597601 0.0247
6 8.5 9.5 9 10 2.45 14.23 0.1367 1.367487 0.0564
7 9.5 10.5 10 15 3.68 17.91 0.2084 3.126399 0.1290
8 10.5 11.5 11 21 5.15 23.06 0.3052 6.408305 0.2644
9 11.5 12.5 12 28 6.86 29.92 0.4322 12.10141 0.4994
10 12.5 13.5 13 15 3.68 33.60 0.5953 8.929308 0.3685
11 13.5 14.5 14 7 1.72 35.32 0.8007 5.604841 0.2313
12 14.5 15.5 15 7 1.72 37.04 1.0552 7.386118 0.3048
13 15.5 16.5 16 21 5.15 42.19 1.3659 28.68484 1.1837
14 16.5 17.5 17 28 6.86 49.05 1.7408 48.74239 2.0113
15 17.5 18.5 18 27 6.62 55.67 2.1880 59.07543 2.4377
16 18.5 19.5 19 40 9.80 65.47 2.7162 108.6495 4.4834
17 19.5 20.5 20 38 9.31 74.78 3.3348 126.7234 5.2292
18 20.5 21.5 21 27 6.62 81.40 4.0535 109.4445 4.5162
19 21.5 22.5 22 36 8.58 89.98 4.8825 175.7707 7.2531
20 22.5 23.5 23 19 4.66 94.64 5.8326 110.82 4.5729
21 23.5 24.5 24 7 1.72 96.36 6.9151 48.40566 1.9974
22 24.5 25.5 25 4 0.98 97.34 8.1417 32.56666 1.3439
23 25.5 26.5 26 3 0.74 98.08 9.5246 28.57379 1.1791
24 26.5 27.5 27 2 0.49 98.57 11.0766 22.15329 0.9141
25 27.5 28.5 28 0 0.00 98.57 12.8111 0 0.0000
26 28.5 29.5 29 2 0.43 99.00 14.7416 29.48323 1.2166
27 29.5 30.5 30 0 0.00 99.00 16.8826 0 0.0000
28 30.5 31.5 31 0 0.00 99.00 19.2486 0 0.0000
29 31.5 32.5 32 0 0.00 99.00 21.8551 0 0.0000
30 32.5 33.5 33 1 0.25 99.25 24.7177 24.71775 1.0200
31 33.5 34.5 34 0 0.00 99.25 27.8528 0 0.0000
32 34.5 35.5 35 1 0.25 99.50 31.2770 31.27702 1.2906
33 35.5 36.5 36 1 0.25 99.75 35.0077 35.00766 1.4446
34 36.5 37.5 37 0 0.00 99.75 39.0625 0 0.0000
35 37.5 38.5 38 1 0.25 100.00 43.4598 43.45978 1.7934
36 38.5 39.5 39 0 0.00 100.00 48.2183 0 0.0000
409 100.00 1110.38
1 Total number of axles 818
2 Total number of vehicles 409
3 Total Damaging Effect 1110.382
4 3//1 Axle Equivalency 1.357436
5 3//2 Vehicle Damage Factor 2.714871
BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
IRC:37-2001
1000
CBR 2%

900
3%

4%
Total Thickness of Pavement, mm

800
5%

700 7%

10%
600

500

400
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Design Traffic, msa

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 Pavement Design Catalogue
CBR 4 % (Traffic 10-150)
Cumu- Total PAVEMENT COMPOSITION
lative Pavement Bituminous Surfacing Granular Granular
Traffic Thickness Base (mm) Sub-base
(msa) (mm) BC (mm) DBM (mm) (mm)
10 700 40 80
20 730 40 110
30 750 40 130
250 330
50 780 40 160

100 800 50 170

150 820 50 190

18
Pavement Design Catalogue
CBR 4% (Traffic 10-150 msa)
900

Composition (mm)
Thickness & 600

300

0
10 20 30 50 100 150
Traffic (msa)
Sub-base Base DBM BC

19
Design of Flexible Pavement

i. Total Pavement Thickness = 800 mm

ii. Sub-base thickness = 330 mm
iii. Base thickness = 250mm
iv. DBM thickness = 170 mm
v. BC thickness = 50 mm

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 BITS Pilani
Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37- 2012
IRC:37-2012

• Several things that have significant bearing on the design and

performance of pavements have changed since 2001
guidelines
• New construction methods /equipment
• New materials such as Stone Matrix Asphalt, mixes with
modified bitumen, foamed bitumen, bitumen emulsion,
warm asphalt, cementitious bases and subbases are being
adopted

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Perpetual Pavement

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2012

• The importance of the following has been

recognized
– Rut resistant Bituminous Surface layer
– Bottom Bituminous layer with better fatigue
performance
– Consideration of Top-Down cracking resistance of the
Surface layer

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2012

• The importance of the following has been recognized

– Consideration of Effective subgrade CBR
– Use of stabilized (cement/foam bitumen/emulsion) aggregates and
RAP materials
– Stabilisation of bases/subbases/subgrade
– Importance of Drainage

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2012

• Load associated failure is considered as the mode of failure in the design of flexible
pavements
• Environment effect gets built in during the calibration of rutting and fatigue
equations
• Five Different alternative Sections proposed
• Additional combinations can also be developed
• For traffic > 30 msa – Rut Resistant Surface and binder layers (stiffer binder),
Fatigue resistant bottom bituminous layer (less air void content and more binder)
with 90% reliability

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2012

Combination -1
Bituminous layer(BC+DBM)

WMM

GSB

subgrade

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 IRC:37-2012
Combination -2
With cemented subbase/base and a crack relief layer

Bituminous layer(BC+DBM)

100WMM crack relief layer

Cemented base

Cemented subbase

subgrade
IRC:37-2012

Combination - 3
With cemented subbase/base and a crack relief SAMI layer

SAMI

Bituminous layer(BC+DBM)

Cemented base

Cemented subbase base

subgrade
BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
IRC:37-2012

Combination - 4
With RAP/RAP+virgin aggregate - foam bitumen or emulsion stabilised

Bituminous layer(BC+DBM)

RAP or RAP+ aggregate + bit emulsion or

foamed bitumen
Cemented subbase

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

IRC:37-2012

Combination - 5
cemented base, granular subbase with crack relief layer of aggregate

Bituminous layer(BC+DBM)

Aggregate interlayer
Cemented base

Granular subbase

subgrade

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Cumulative Traffic

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Initial Traffic ‘A’

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

CBR values

Relationship between Cone Penetrometer and CBR

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
Pavement Design Principle

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Fatigue Model

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Rutting Model

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus