Pavement Design in Nigeria - A Case Study

PAVEMENT DESIGN IN NIGERIA: A CASE STUDY OF LAGOS-IBADAN
EXPRESSWAY
BY
UNA, OTO-OBONG VICTORIA
06CK04639
A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL

ENGINEERING, COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
ENGINEERING (B. ENG) OF COVENANT UNIVERSITY, OTA, OGUN STATE,
NIGERIA
COVENANT UNIVERSITY
MAY 2011
i
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that I, Una, Oto-Obong Victoria, is the sole author of this work and it was
based on an original research carried out by me, the researcher. It has not been previously
presented or submitted for the award of a Degree, Diploma or Certificate anywhere.
I hereby authorize Covenant University to lend it to other institutions or individuals for the
purpose of academic research.
_____________
Una, O. V
ii
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this report was written and submitted by Una, Oto-Obong Victoria, a
student of Covenant University, College of Science and Technology, School of Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of
Bachelor of Engineering (B. Eng).
____________________ _____________________
STUDENT SIGNATURE DATE
______________________ _____________________
PROF. A. S. ADEDIMILA DATE
(Project Supervisor)
_______________________ ______________________
PROF. A. S. ADEDIMILA DATE
(Head of Department)
_______________________ ______________________
EXTERNAL EXAMINER DATE
iii
DEDICATION
To Almighty God, my Rock of Ages, for upholding me in wearying times.
To my parents for being a source of unending support.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am indebted to my head of department and project supervisor Professor A. S. Adedimila for his
invaluable contribution to the compilation of this report.
My appreciation goes to Mr. Azubuike, Pastor Ohien and Engr. Ayobami of the Federal Ministry
of Works and Housing and Urban Development, Abuja, for their support and contribution.
I acknowledge my lecturers Prof. J. B. Adeyeri, Dr. A. S. Ogbiye, Dr. A. N. Ede, Dr. D. O.

Omole, Dr. Alade, Dr. D. O Olukanni and Mrs. Taiwo Durotoye. I appreciate all you have taught
me.
v
ABSTRACT
This study researched into how new and existing highways in Nigeria can be designed for
construction or reconstruction to check under design and premature distress and
accommodate the growing numbers of heavy vehicles. It presents an analysis of the
determination of the thickness of flexible pavement for Lagos- Ibadan Expressway as
designed using the CBR method, the AASHTO method, the Asphalt Institute’s method
and the Overseas Road Note 31 method and a comparative analysis to show the
inadequacies of the existing CBR method in use in Nigeria.
The study involved the determination of traffic volume on Lagos- Ibadan Expressway,
axle load measurement of the vehicles and material testing and evaluation to determine
the different inputs to be used for the various design methods.
The study uses traffic volume studies with 2009 as the baseline year. The results show
that the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on the expressway was 37,996 vpd with
about 19,369 vpd in the heavier direction. Heavy duty vehicles constitute an average of
18.41% of the ADT with about 3,642vpd in the heavier direction.
The axle load measurement showed that most of the heavy vehicles were overloaded
resulting in high vehicle damage factors of 11.12 and 9.39 for the Ibadan bound
(northbound) and Lagos bound (southbound) vehicles respectively. The average daily
ESAL was determined to be 34,199 in the heavier direction with a projected cumulative
value of 117,138,497 over a design period of 10 years at a 4% growth rate.
Subgrade CBR was found to be 19%, sub base CBR was found to be 22% and aggregate
CBR assumed to be 80%.
These values were used to determine the pavement thickness using the different afore
mentioned methods and thicknesses were comparatively analyzed. It was concluded that
the CBR method should be discontinued as pavement design method in Nigeria in favour
of the other methods: AASHTO, Asphalt Institute and Overseas Road Note 31 methods.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Certification ii
Declaration iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgement v
Abstract vi
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables xiii
List of Figures xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview 1
1.1.1 Methods of Pavement Design 1
1.2 Problem Analysis 2
1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Research 2
1.4 Research Question 3
1.5 Scope of the Study 3
1.6 Significance of the Study 3
1.7 Definition of Terms 3
vii
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Historical Development of Roads 6
2.2 Pavement Types 6
2.3 Design Methods 7
2.3.1 Empirical Methods 7
2.3.2 Limiting Shear Failure Methods 8
2.3.3 Limiting Deflection Method 8
2.3.4 Regression Methods Based on Pavement Performance or Road Test 9
2.3.5 Mechanistic-Empirical Methods 9
2.4 Design Requirements 10
2.5 Flexible Pavements 12
2.5.1 Flexible Pavement Materials 15
2.5.2 Subgrade 20
2.6 Flexible Pavement Design 27
2.6.1 CBR Method 27
2.6.2 Overseas Road Note 29 28
2.6.2 R -Value Design 28
2.6.3 Full Depth Asphalt Pavement 32
2.6.4 The AASHTO Method 33
2.6.5 Asphalt Institute Design 35
2.6.6 Overseas Road Note 31 36
viii
2.7 Current Developments 40
2.7.1 Superpave 40
2.7.2 Other Pavement Concepts 41
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 42
3.1.1 The Study Area 42
3.2 Research Design 42
3.2.1 Materials Evaluation 43
3.2.2 Traffic Count 44
3.2.3 Axle Load Surveys 44
3.2.4 Design 45
3.3 Data Collection Instrument 45
3.4 Procedures for Processing Collected Data 45
3.5 Limitation of the Methodology 47
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.1 Introduction 48
4.2 Traffic Engineering 48
4.2.1 Traffic History 48
4.2.2 Traffic Volume and Traffic Count Analysis 49
ix
4.2.3 Axle Load Measurement 51
4.3 Materials Test 65
4.4 Design 67
4.4.1 CBR method 67
4.4.2 AASHTO Method 68
4.4.3 Asphalt Institute Method 69
4.4.4 Overseas Road Note 31 (ORN 31) Method 70
4.5 Summary of Results 71
4.6 Discussion 72
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECCOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary 73
5.2 Conclusion 74
5.3 Recommendations 74
REFERENCES 75
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Figure 8: Design Chart for Sub-Base 79
Appendix B
Figure 9: Design Chart for Rolled Asphalt Road base: Minimum
x
Thickness of Surfacing and Road base (base course) 80
Appendix C
Figure 10: Design Chart for Dense Macadam Road base: Minimum
Thickness of Surfacing and Road base (base course) 81
Appendix D
Flexible Pavement Design Curve (CBR) 82
Appendix E
Full Depth Asphalt Concrete Pavement Chart 83
Appendix F
Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type I Chart 84
Appendix G
Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type II Chart 85
Appendix H
Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type III Chart 86
Appendix I
Untreated Aggregate Base 150mm Thickness Chart 87
Appendix K
Untreated Aggregate Base 300mm Thickness Chart 88
Appendix L
Approximate Correlation between K, SSV, CBR and R-Value* 89
Appendix M
Design Chart for Flexible Pavement Pt = 2.5 90
Appendix N
Key to Structural Catalogue 91
xi
Appendix O
Granular Road base / Structural Surface 92
Appendix P
Bituminous Road base / Semi-Structural Surface 93
Appendix Q
Composite Road base / Semi-Structural Surface 94
Appendix R
Composite Road base / Structural Surface 95
Appendix S
Controls and Layer Co-efficients for AASHTO Design 96
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Properties of Unbound Materials 17
Table 2.2: Subgrade Strength Classes 25
Table 2.3: Granular Equivalent (GE) Values for Typical Pavement Materials 30
Table 2.4: Equivalence Factors for Different Axle Loads 37
Table 2.5: Traffic Classes 39
Table 4.1: Historic Traffic (24hr ADT) 48
Table 4.2: Summary of Manual and Automated Traffic Counts in Both Directions 50
Table 4.3: Summary of the Daily Heavy Vehicle Count and their Percentages in Both Directions
52
Table 4.4: Traffic Projection over 20 years at 4% Growth Rate 53
Table 4.5: Results of the Axle Load Measurement Test conducted by Pavement Evaluation
Unit (PEU) on the 22nd Dec, 2009 on Lagos - Ibadan Expressway _ Ibadan Bound.
Station: Ogere Old Toll Gate 54
Table 4.6: Analysis of the Axle Load Measurement (Ibadan bound) 56
Table 4.7: Results of the Axle Load Measurement Test conducted by Pavement Evaluation
Unit (PEU) on the 22nd Dec, 2009 on Lagos - Ibadan Expressway _ Lagos Bound.
Station: Ogere Old Toll Gate 58
Table 4.8: Analysis of the Axle Load Measurement (Lagos bound) 61
Table 4.9: Equivalent Standard Axle Loading (ESAL) and cumulative ESAL Projection Over
Design Period (10 – 20years) 64
Table 4.10: DCP Test Results Showing In-situ Subgrade Strength on Lagos-Ibadan Expressway
66
Table 4.11: Summary of Design Thickness Results 72
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Stress Distribution on a Road Pavement 11
Figure 2: Typical Cross Section of a Conventional Flexible Pavement 13
Figure 3: Dry Density-Moisture Content-CBR Relationship for Sandy Soil 24
Figure 4: Distribution of Subgrade Stress 25
Figure 5: Pavement Design Chart for Asphalt Pavement with Aggregate Base 29
Figure 6: Pavement Design Chart for Bituminous Pavement 32
Figure 7: Sketch of the design thickness (not to scale) 68
Figure 8: Design Chart for Sub-Base 79
Figure 9: Design Chart for Rolled Asphalt Road Base: Minimum Thickness of
Surfacing and Road Base (Base Course) 80
Figure 10: Design Chart for Dense Macadam Road Base: Minimum Thickness of
Surfacing and Road Base (Base Course) 81
xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
The portion of the highway most obvious to the motorist is the road pavement, the surface of a
road on which vehicles will travel. Natural ground cannot support the wheel loads of vehicles-
particularly when wet. The road pavement provides traction for vehicles to travel as well as
transfer normal stresses from the vehicle to the underlying soils (sub-grade). The pavement
reduces the stresses on the subgrade to such a level that the subgrade does not deform under the
action of traffic. At the same time, the pavement layers themselves need to be strong enough to
tolerate stresses and strains to which the layer is exposed (Rolt, 2004).
Pavement design gives the specification of the various layers that make up the pavement in terms
of their thickness and constituent materials.
1.1.1 Methods of Pavement Design
Methods of pavement design can be subdivided into two main groups:
1. Methods derived purely from empirical studies of pavement performance;

2. Methods which make use of the calculated stresses and strains within the
pavement (theory), together with studies of the effect of these stresses and strains
on the pavement materials (mechanistic behaviour). These are usually called
‘mechanistic methods’, ‘theoretical methods’, or, simply ‘analytical methods’
The two methods are complimentary. Empirical methods require some theoretical understanding
to help extend them to different conditions, while mechanistic methods require empirical
information for calibration. Neither method is ideal on its own, but the combination of the two
provides a competent basis for design (Rolt, 2004).
Only a small percentage of the area of the surface of a road needs to show distress for the road to
be considered unacceptable by roads users. It is therefore the weakest part or the extreme tail of
the statistical distribution of strength which is important in design (TRL (2003): Overseas Road
Note 31 (ORN31)).
1
1.2 PROBLEM ANALYSIS
In Nigeria today, it is no longer a surprise to drive along dilapidated road pavements. Many
roads, instead of providing safe passage to destinations, have long become death traps. This
situation is on the increase and fast becoming the order of the day.
However good the pavement design, the condition of the road will slowly deteriorate with time
and traffic. The long-term behaviour of the road will also depend on the maintenance that is
undertaken. The aim is to design the road to carry traffic satisfactorily for a safe period of time
without needing major structural maintenance (Rolt, 2004).
An inquiry into the situation of the nature and condition of road pavements in Nigeria has shown
that many of these roads have failed to perform optimally during their design life. They have
witnessed frequent deterioration and failures along significant stretches, rendering many sections
of the road impassable few years after completion. These pavement failures may be attributed to
several factors, which include geotechnical properties of the soil, topography and drainage,
climate, depth to water table, geology, and design (under design)and construction materials
(Osadebe and Omange, 2005). Abam et al (2000) attributed many of these road failures to the
use of foreign standards, particularly the British Standard (BS) and the American Standard
(ASTM) that have no regard for local environmental and ecological peculiarities.
Also the roads in Nigeria at the time of design were not intended to be the main travel route for
heavy duty vehicles carrying goods from one axis of the country to the other, which have
significant damaging effects on the road. The increasing percentage of heavies can only be a
reflection of the ineffective railway system in Nigeria.
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The degenerate condition of the roads in Nigeria is unacceptable, and obvious steps have to be
taken to revert this. This study aims to provide insight for pavement design engineers into the
particular pavement design procedure(s) appropriate for road design in Nigeria.
The specific objectives of this study are to:
2
1. Review the prevailing pavement design method(s) in Nigeria as well as various
alternative design methods available.
2. Investigate the trend of growth of vehicles on the Lagos- Ibadan expressway.
3. Make comparative assessment of the prevailing design method and the alternative
methods and recommend an appropriate pavement design procedure for Nigeria.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION

In the absence of an adequate railway system in Nigeria, how can the pavement thickness of new
and existing highways in Nigeria be determined for construction or reconstruction to check under
design and premature distress and accommodate the growing numbers of heavy vehicles?
1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study reviews design procedures for new flexible pavements with the view to identifying
the most desirable procedure(s) to be used for the design for construction and reconstruction of
new and existing Nigerian roads. The study is limited to research on a major federal highway:
Lagos-Ibadan expressway.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is significant in the sense that it will bring to light method(s) to be used for pavement
design in Nigeria after careful consideration of all the local environmental and ecological factors
to ensure the pavements live out their expected lifetime without underperforming.
1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS
New Pavement is a pavement structure placed on a prepared sub-grade. It applies to new

highway construction, to a relocated highway, or to the new part of a widened highway.
Pavement Reconstruction Reconstructed pavement or full depth reconstruction results when an

existing pavement structure is completely removed to the sub-grade and replaced with a new
pavement structure. This type of work is needed when the existing pavement has deteriorated to
such a weakened condition that it cannot be salvaged with corrective action. The type and extent
of pavement distress will determine when pavement reconstruction is necessary.
Sub-grade The undisturbed virgin substrate or embankment material which the pavement
structure is placed upon.
3
Design Life The terminal pavement condition at which partial reconstruction or a major overlay
would be necessary.
Bearing Ratio The load required to produce a certain penetration using a standard piston in a
soil, expressed as a percentage of the load required to force the piston the same depth in a
selected crushed stone. Bearing Ratio values are normally determined using the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) test method.
Design Bearing Ratio (DBR) The selected bearing ratio used to design the pavement. It is based
on a statistical evaluation of the CBR test results on the soil samples.
Soil Support Value (SSV) – An index of the relative ability of a soil or stone to support the
applied traffic loads. It is specifically used for the pavement design method in the AASHTO
Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. The soil support value of the sub-grade is
related to its CBR (DBR).
Structural Number (SN) A measure of the structural strength of the pavement section based on
the type and thickness of each layer within the pavement structure.
Layer Coefficient The relative structural value of each pavement layer per inch of thickness. It
is multiplied by the layer thickness to provide the contributing SN for each pavement layer.
Skid Resistance A measure of the coefficient of friction between an automobile tire and the
roadway surface.
Equivalent Single Axel Load (ESAL) The conversion of mixed vehicular traffic into its
equivalent single-axle, 18-Kip Load. The equivalence is based on the relative amount of
pavement damage.
Daily ESAL (T18) The average number of equivalent 18-Kip loads which will be applied to the
pavement structure in one day. Normally, a 20-year design period is used to determine the daily
load.
Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI) A measure of a pavement's ability to serve traffic on a

scale of 0 to 5. It reflects the extent of pavement condition.
Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt) A pavement design factor which indicates the acceptable
pavement serviceability index at the end of the selected design period (usually 20 years).
4
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS
The first road builders of any significance in Western Europe were the Romans, who saw the
ability to move quickly as essential for both military and civil reasons. It is from the Romans that
the term highway comes as all their roads were elevated 1m above the local level of the land.
This was to minimize the risk of an ambush, as was the best known characteristic of the roads,
their lack of corners. The standards set by the Romans in terms of durability far exceeded
anything achieved after the fall of the empire.
After the fall of the Roman Empire the road system fell into a state of disrepair and by the end of
the middle ages, there was in effect no road system in the country. The only routes available
were unpaved tracks, muddy and impassable in winter and dusty and impassable in summer.
Diversions around particularly poor stretches resulted in sinuous alignments. The state of the
roads combined with the general lawlessness at the time meant only the determined or insane
traveled. Road building techniques evolved thanks to the work of pioneers such as Telford and
Macadam. By about 1830 a system of well paved built roads existed such that the only
constraints on road traffic and travel times were imposed by the nature of road vehicles (Toll,
1997a).
The first Asphaltic roadway in the United States was constructed in 1870 at Newark, New
Jersey. The first sheet-asphalt pavement, which is a hot mixture of asphalt cement with clean,
angular, graded sand and mineral filler, was laid in 1876 on Pennsylvania Avenue in
Washington, D.C. (Huang, 2004).
2.2 PAVEMENT TYPES
Toll (1997b) summarizes the four types of pavements currently in use in the United Kingdom:
1. Flexible - pavements with a bitumen bonded surfacing and road base.
2. Flexible Composite - The surfacing and upper road base are bituminous on a
lower road base of cement bound material
3. Rigid - Pavements with a concrete surface slab which can be un-reinforced, joint
reinforced or continuously reinforced.
6
4. Rigid Composite - continuously reinforced concrete slab with a bituminous
overlay.
2.3 DESIGN METHODS
The Roman approach to road design is essentially the same as that in current use. The roads were
constructed of several different layers, increasing in strength from the bottom. The lowest layer
was normally rubble, intermediate layers were made of lime bound concrete and the upper layer
was a flag or lime grouted stone slabs. The thickness of the layers was varied according to the
local ground conditions (Toll, 1997b).
According to Huang (2004), although pavement design has gradually evolved from art to
science, empiricism still plays an important role even up to present day. Prior to the early 1920s,
the thickness of pavement was based purely on experience. The same thickness was used for a
section of highway even though widely different soils were encountered. As experience was
gained through the years, various methods were developed by different agencies for determining
the thickness of pavement required, concluding that the methods of flexible design can be
classified into five categories:
1. Empirical method with or without a soil strength test.

2. Limiting shear failure method
3. Limiting deflection method
4. Regression method based on pavement performance or road test and
5. Mechanistic-empirical method
2.3.1 Empirical Methods
The use of empirical method without a strength test dates back to the development of the Public
Roads (PR) soil classification system (Hogentogler and Terzaghi, 1929), in which the subgrade
was classified as uniform from A-1 to A-8 and nonuniform from B-1 to B-3. The PR system was
later modified by the Highway Research Board (HRB) (1945), in which soils were grouped from
A-1 to A-7 and a group index was added to differentiate the soil within each group. Steele (1945)
discussed the application of HRB classification and group index in estimating the sub-base and
total pavement thickness without strength test.
The empirical method without a strength test was first used by the California Highway
Department in 1929 (Porter, 1950). The thickness of pavements was related to the California
7
Bearing Ratio (CBR), defined as the penetration resistance of a subgrade soil relative to a
standard crushed rock. The CBR method of design was studied extensively by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers during the World War  and became a very popular method after the war.
The advantage of an empirical method is that it can be applied only to a given set of
environmental, material, and loading conditions. If these conditions are changed, the design is no
longer valid, and a new method must be developed through.
2.3.2 Limiting Shear Failure Methods
This method is used to determine the thickness of pavements so that shear failures will not occur.
The major properties of pavement components and subgrade soils to be considered are their
cohesion and angle of internal friction. Barber (1946) applied Terzaghi’s bearing capacity
formula to determine pavement thickness. McLeod (1953) advocated the use of logarithmic
spirals to determine the bearing capacity of pavements. This method is hardly recommended
anymore because with ever increasing speed and volume of traffic, pavements should be
designed for riding comfort rather than for barely preventing shear failures.
2.3.3 Limiting Deflection Method
This method is used to determine the thickness of pavements so that the vertical deflection is will
not exceed the allowable limit. The Kansas State Highway Commission (1947) modified
Boussinesq’s equation and limited the deflection of subgrade to 2.54mm (0.1 in.). The U.S. Navy
(1953) applied Burmister’s two-layer theory and limited the surface deflection to 6.35mm
(0.25in.). The use of deflection as a design criterion has the apparent advantage that it can easily
measured in the field. Unfortunately, pavement failures are caused by excessive stresses and
strains instead of deflections.
2.3.4 Regression Methods Based on Pavement Performance or Road Test
A good example of the use of regression equations for pavement design is the American
Association of State Highway Transport Officials (AASHTO) method based on results of road
tests. The design equations can only be applied to the conditions at the road test site. For
conditions other than those under which the equations were developed, extensive modifications
based on theory or experience are needed. Regression equations can also be developed from the
8
performance of existing pavements but a wide scatter of data and a large standard error are
expected and so their usefulness in pavement design is limited because of the many uncertainties
involved (Huang, 2004).
2.3.5 Mechanistic-Empirical Methods
This method is based on the mechanics of materials that relates an input, such as a wheel load, to
an output or pavement response, such as stress or strain. The response values are used to predict
distress from laboratory- test and field- performance data. Dependence on observed performance
is necessary because theory alone has not proven sufficient to design pavements realistically.
It was first suggested to use vertical compressive strain on the surface of subgrade as a failure
criterion to reduce pavement deformation together with the use of horizontal tensile strain at the
bottom of the asphalt layer to minimize fatigue cracking.
The use of vertical compressive strain to control pavement deformation is based on the fact that
plastic strains are proportional to elastic strains in paving materials. Thus, by limiting the elastic
strains in other components above the subgrade, the elastic strains in other components above the
subgrade will also be controlled; hence, the magnitude of permanent deformation on the
pavement surface will be controlled in turn.
The advantages of mechanistic methods are the improvement in the reliability of a design, the
ability to predict the types of distress, and the feasibility to extrapolate from limited field and
laboratory data (Huang, 2004).
9
2.4 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
After the selection of the appropriate type of pavement required and the design life is done, the
traffic for design is estimated. Research done by the Transport and Road Research laboratory
shows that the loads imposed by private cars do not contribute significantly to the structural
damage caused to road pavements and so for the purpose of structural design therefore, only the
numbers of commercial vehicles with unladen weight exceeding 1500kg and their axle loadings
are considered (ORN 29).
Texas Department of Transport (TxDOT, 2011) concludes that the major requirements critical to
a pavement design include:
1. Traffic loads
2. Serviceability index
3. Reliability (confidence level)
4. Material characterization
5. Drainage characteristics and
6. Evaluation of existing pavement conditions.
Traffic Loads
One of the primary functions of a pavement is load distribution. Therefore, in order to adequately
design a pavement, representative loading characteristics must be presumed about the expected
traffic it will encounter. Loads, the vehicle forces exerted on the pavement (e.g. by trucks, heavy
machinery, airplanes), can be characterized by the following parameters:
1. Tire loads
2. Axle and tire configurations
3. Typical axle load limits
4. Repetitions of axle loads
5. Traffic distribution (by direction and lane)
6. Traffic projections (growth rate).
10
Traffic loads, along with environment, damage pavement over time. The simplest pavement
structural model asserts that each individual load inflicts a certain amount of unrecoverable
damage. This damage is cumulative over the life of the pavement and when it reaches some
maximum value, the pavement is considered to have reached the end of its useful service life.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of wheel load along the layers of the pavement with the most
superior material being at the topmost layer.
Figure 1: Stress distribution on a road pavement
Source: Texas Department of Transport (2011). www.onlinemanuals.txdot.gov
11
Pavement structural design requires a quantification of all expected loads a pavement will
encounter over its design life. This quantification is usually done in one of two ways:
1. Equivalent single axle loads (ESALs). This approach converts axle

configurations and axle loads of various magnitudes and repetitions (‘mixed
traffic’) to an equivalent number of ‘standard’ or ‘equivalent’ loads. The standard
axle is given as 8200kg (80 KN)
2. Load spectra. This approach characterizes loads directly by number of axles,

configuration, and load. It does not involve conversion to equivalent values.
Structural design calculations using load spectra are generally more complex than
those using ESALs since the impact of each specific axle load is evaluated.
Both approaches use the same type and quality of data, but the load spectra approach has the
potential to be more accurate in its load characterization.
2.5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Flexible pavements are so named because the total pavement structure deflects, or flexes, under
loading. A flexible pavement structure is typically composed of several layers of materials. Each
layer receives loads from the above layer, spreads them out, and passes on these loads to the next
layer below. Thus the stresses will be reduced, which are maximum at the top layer and
minimum on the top of subgrade. In order to take maximum advantage of this property, layers
are usually arranged in the 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 (Mathew and Rao, 2006). This principle makes it
possible to use local materials and usually results in a most economical design (Huang, 2004).
Figure 2 shows the cross section of a conventional flexible pavement. Starting from the top, the
pavement consists of friction course (seal coat), surface course, binder course, base course, sub-
base course, compacted subgrade (capping layer) and natural subgrade. The use of the various
courses is based on either necessity or economy, and some of the courses may be omitted.
12
Seal Coat Surface Course
Tack Coat Binder Course
Base Course
Prime Coat
Sub-base Course
Compacted Subgrade
Natural Subgrade
Figure 2: Typical cross section of a conventional flexible pavement
Source: Pavement Analysis and Design (Huang, 2004)
Seal Coat (Friction Course) is a specialized thin-lift wearing course which, when
specified, is placed over the surface course. The thin asphalt surface treatment used to waterproof
the surface and provide improved vehicle skid resistance, but does not provide any structural
value to the pavement. Typically friction courses are placed on high volume limited access
roadways.
Surface Course is the top course sometimes called the wearing course, and is placed
upon the binder course. It must be tough enough to resist distortion under traffic and provide an
even and skid-resistant riding surface. It must be water proof to protect the entire pavement and
subgrade from the weakening effect of water. If these requirements cannot be met, the use of a
seal coat is recommended.
Binder Course is sometimes referred to as the asphalt base course. If the binder course in
more than 76mm (3in.), it is generally placed in two layers.
Base Course is the main load-bearing / load spreading layer in the road structure placed
upon the compacted sub-base and is usually 100mm. or thicker depending on the loading of the
traffic for which the road is designed (Summers, 2000). A gravel base course can be designed
and specified for low volume roadways (<2,000 vehicles per day) depending upon loading and
other design considerations (Mass Highway, 2006).
Sub-base Course is the layer beneath the base course. It consists of granular material -
gravel, crushed stone, reclaimed material or a combination of these materials. Two different
granular materials are used for the base course and the sub-base course for economy. Instead of
13
using the more expensive base course material for the entire layer, local and cheaper materials
can be used as a sub-base course on top of the subgrade. If the base course is open graded, the
sub-base course with more fines can serve as a filter between the subgrade and the base course
(Huang, 2004).
Capping Layer (selected or improved subgrade) may consist of better quality subgrade
material imported from elsewhere or existing subgrade material improved by mechanical or
chemical stabilization (ORN 31). When the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the subgrade is
less than 5%, it is normal to require a suitable capping layer of low cost material.
This capping layer is usually a granular type material designed to provide a working platform on
which sub-base construction can proceed with minimum interruption from wet weather, and
capping is also used to minimize the effect of a weak subgrade on pavement strength (Summers,
2000).
Tack Coat and Prime Coat A tack coat is a very light application of asphalt, usually
asphalt emulsion diluted with water, used to ensure a bond between the surface being paved and
the overlaying course. It is important that each layer in an asphalt pavement be bonded to the
layer below. Tack coats are also used to bond the asphalt layer to a PCC base or and old asphalt
pavement. The essential requirements of a tack coat are that it must be very thin, it must
uniformly cover the entire surface to be paved, and it must be allowed to break or cure before the
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) is laid.
A prime coat is an application of low viscosity cutback asphalt to an absorbent surface, such as
an untreated granular base on which an asphalt layer will be placed. Its purpose is to bind the
granular base to the asphalt layer.
The diffrence between a tack coat and a prime coat is that a tack coat does not require the
penetration of asphalt into the underlying layer, whereas a prime coat penetrates into the under
lying layer, plugging the voids, and forms a water tight surface. Although the type and quantity
of asphalt used are quite different, both are spray applications (Huang, 2004).
14
2.5.1 Flexible Pavement Materials
There are many different alternatives when it comes to choosing the materials to use in the
pavement design. These materials are chosen for their particular properties, such as: -
smooth ride, impervious to water, skid resistance, texture, load spreading ability/strength,
drainage of the road pavement, etc (Summers, 2000).The material chosen depends on many
factors, including availability, cost, and feasibility of design (Toll, 1997b).
It is standard practice to design the road using each of the available options and then compare
them using the above criteria.
Surfacing Materials
The materials for the surface course also known as the wearing course and is described as such in
the design charts to be Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) or Porous Asphalt (PA) (Toll, 1997b).
Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) is a gap graded material with a high binder concentration (50
Penetration). It is easy to lay and has good fatigue resistance but is susceptible to slow moving
heavy traffic (e.g. uphill). The surface texture is formed by rolling pre coated chippings into an
asphalt mat. This technique requires careful judgment to achieve the desired result. HRA is
sufficiently string to be considered structurally as part of the combined bituminous layer
thickness as given by the design charts.
Porous Asphalt (PA) is an open graded material designed to facilitate rapid drainage of surface
water from the road, reducing spray. It also has the added bonus of reducing traffic noise. The
material is less stiff and a 50mm layer makes only a 20mm contribution to the combined
bituminous layer.
According to Huang (2004), the surfacing courses (surface and binder courses) of flexible
pavement are usually constructed of dense graded HMA, the binder course is used in addition to
the surface course firstly because the HMA is too thick to be compacted in one layer, and so it is
placed in two layers. Secondly, the binder course generally consists of larger aggregates and less
asphalt and does not require as high a quality as the surface course, so it is a more economical
design to replace a part of the surface course by the binder course.
15
Base Course Materials
The base course of flexible pavements as explained by Toll (1997b) is constructed of the
following materials:
Dense Bitumen Macadam (DBM) is a continuously graded material of relatively low

binder content (100 penetration). It has less resistance to fatigue cracking than other materials. It
is now referred to as close graded macadam.
Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) is a gap graded material with a high binder concentration (50
Penetration). It is easy to lay and has good fatigue resistance but is susceptible to slow moving
heavy traffic (e.g. uphill). The surface texture is formed by rolling pre coated chippings into an
asphalt mat. This technique requires careful judgment to achieve the desired result. HRA is
sufficiently string to be considered structurally as part of the combined bituminous layer
thickness as given by the design charts.
High Density Macadam (HDM) is a continuously graded material with a greater

percentage of finer material than DBM. It is less easy to lay but has high resistance to cracking
and deformation and has the highest stiffness.
DBM50 is DBM with a 50 penetration binder. It is marginally inferior to HDM but is

superior to ordinary DBM.
Dense Tar Macadam is similar to DBM but uses a tar binder. This improves
performance but is more temperature susceptible.
ORN 31 gives guidance on the selection of unbound materials for use as road base (base course),
sub-base, capping and selected subgrade layers. The main categories with a brief summary of
their characteristics are shown in Table 2.1.
16
Table 2.1: Properties of Unbound Materials
Source: Overseas Road Note 31
A wide range of materials can be used as unbound road bases (base courses) including crushed
quarried rock, crushed and screened, mechanically stabilized, modified or naturally occurring `as
dug' gravels. Their suitability for use depends primarily on the design traffic level of the
pavement and climate but all road base materials must have a particle size distribution and
particle shape which provide high mechanical stability and should contain sufficient fines
(amount of material passing the 0.425 mm sieve) to produce a dense material when compacted.
In circumstances where several types of road base are suitable, the final choice should take into
account the expected level of future maintenance and the total costs over the expected life of the
pavement.
Graded Crushed Stone (GB 1,A and GB1,B). Two types of material are defined in this
category. One is produced by crushing fresh, quarried rock (GB1,A) and may be an all-in
product, usually termed a `crusher-run', or alternatively the material may be separated by
screening and recombined to produce a desired particle size distribution. The other is derived
from crushing and screening natural granular material, rocks or boulders (GB1,B) and may
contain a proportion of natural, fine aggregate. After crushing, the material should be angular in
shape with a Flakiness Index of less than 35%. If the amount of fine aggregate produced during
17
the crushing operation is insufficient, nonplastic angular sand may be used to make up the
deficiency.
Dry-bound macadam (GB2,A). Dry-bound macadam is a traditional form of construction,

formerly used extensively in the United Kingdom, and is comparable in performance with a
graded crushed stone. It has been used successfully in the tropics and is particularly applicable in
areas where water is scarce or expensive to obtain. It is also suitable where labour intensive
construction is an economic option. The materials consist of nominal single-sized crushed stone
and non-plastic fine aggregate (passing the 5.0 mm sieve). The fine material should preferably be
well graded and consist of crushed rock fines or natural, angular pit sand.
Water-bound Macadam (GB2,B). Water-bound macadam is similar to dry-bound macadam. It

consists of two components namely a relatively single-sized stone with a nominal maximum
particle size of 50 mm or 37.5 mm and well graded fine aggregate which passes the 5.0 mm
sieve. The coarse material is usually produced from quarrying fresh rock. The crushed stone is
laid, shaped and compacted and then fines are added, rolled and washed into the surface to
produce a dense material. Care is necessary in this operation to ensure that water sensitive plastic
materials in the sub-base or subgrade do not become saturated. The compacted thickness of each
layer should not exceed twice the maximum size of the stone. The fine material should
preferably be non-plastic and consist of crushed rock fines or natural, angular pit sand.
Naturally Occurring Granular Material (GB3). A wide range of materials including latentic,
calcareous and quartzitic gravels, river gravels and other transported gravels, or granular
materials resulting from the weathering of rocks can be used successfully as road bases. Only the
20 mm and 10 mm sizes should be considered for traffic in excess of 15 million equivalent
standard axles.
Sub-bases (GS)
The sub-base is an important load spreading layer in the completed pavement. It enables traffic
stresses to be reduced to acceptable levels in the subgrade, it acts as a working platform for the
construction of the upper pavement layers and it acts as a separation layer between subgrade and
18
road base (base course). Under special circumstances it may also act as a filter or as a drainage
layer. In wet climatic conditions, the most stringent requirements are dictated by the need to
support construction traffic and paving equipment. In these circumstances the sub-base material
needs to be more tightly specified. In dry climatic conditions, in areas of good drainage, and
where the road surface remains well sealed, unsaturated moisture conditions prevail and sub-base
specifications may be relaxed. The selection of sub-base materials will therefore depend on the
design function of the layer and the anticipated moisture regime, both in service and at
construction.
Bearing Capacity
A minimum CBR of 30 per cent is required at the highest anticipated moisture content when
compacted to the specified field density, usually a minimum of 95 per cent of the maximum dry
density achieved in the British Standard (Heavy) Compaction Test, 4.5 kg rammer. Under
conditions of good drainage and when the water table is not near the ground surface the field
moisture content under a sealed pavement will be equal to or less than the optimum moisture
content in the British Standard (Light) Compaction Test, 2.5 kg rammer. In such conditions, the
sub-base material should be tested in the laboratory in an unsaturated state. Except in arid areas,
if the road base allows water to drain into the lower layers, as may occur with unsealed shoulders
and under conditions of poor surface maintenance where the road base is pervious, saturation of
the sub-base is likely. In these circumstances the bearing capacity should be determined on
samples soaked in water for a period of four days. The test should be conducted on samples
prepared at the density and moisture content likely to be achieved in the field. In order to achieve
the required bearing capacity, and for uniform support to be provided to the upper pavement;
limits on soil plasticity and particle size distribution may be required.
19
2.5.2 Subgrade
This is the upper layer of the natural soil which may be undisturbed local material or
may be soil excavated elsewhere and placed as fill. In either case it is compacted during
construction to give added strength.
The strength of the subgrade is assessed in terms of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and this
is dependent on the type of soil, its density, and its moisture content. To estimate the design
subgrade strength, it is first necessary to estimate the design moisture content of the subgrade.
ORN 31 concludes that for designing the thickness of a road pavement, the strength of the
subgrade should be taken as that of the soil at a moisture content equal to the wettest moisture
condition likely to occur in the subgrade after the road is opened to traffic. In the tropics,
subgrade moisture conditions under impermeable road pavements can be classified into three
main categories:
Category (1), the water table is sufficiently close to the ground surface to control the
subgrade moisture content. The type of subgrade soil governs the depth below the road surface at
which a water table becomes the dominant influence on the subgrade moisture content and will
dominate the subgrade moisture content when it rises to within the following depths of the road
surface: 1 m for non-plastic soils;
3m for sandy clays (PI<20 per cent);
7m for heavy clays (PI>40 per cent).
Category (2), Subgrades with deep water tables and where rainfall is sufficient to
produce significant changes in moisture conditions under the road. These conditions occur when
rainfall exceeds evapotranspiration for at least two months of the year. The rainfall in such areas
is usually greater than 250 mm per year and is often seasonal.
Category (3), Subgrades in areas where the climate is dry throughout most of the year
with an annual rainfall of 250 mm or less, with no permanent water table near the ground
surface. Direct assessment of the likely strength or CBR of the subgrade soil is often difficult to
make but its value can be inferred from an estimate of the density and equilibrium (or ultimate)
moisture content of the subgrade together with knowledge of the relationship between strength,
density and moisture content for the soil in question. This relationship must be determined in the
20
laboratory. The density of the subgrade soil can be controlled within limits by compaction at
suitable moisture content at the time of construction.
Estimating the Subgrade Moisture Content
ORN 31 explains that the easiest method of estimating the design subgrade moisture content is to
measure the moisture content in sub-grades below existing pavements in similar situations at the
time of the year when the water table is at its highest level. These pavements should be greater
than 3m wide and more than two years old and samples should preferably be taken from under
the carriageway about 0.5m from the edge. Allowance can be made for different soil types by
virtue of the fact that the ratio of subgrade moisture content to plastic limit is the same for
different subgrade soils when the water table and climatic conditions are similar. When the water
table is not near the ground surface, the subgrade moisture condition under an impermeable
pavement will depend on the balance between the water entering the subgrade through the
shoulders and at the edges of the pavement during wet weather and the moisture leaving the
ground by evapotranspiration during dry periods. Where the average annual rainfall is greater
than 250 mm a year, the moisture condition for design purposes can be taken as the optimum
moisture content given by the British Standard (Light) Compaction Test, 2.5 kg rammer method.
When deciding on the depth of the water table in Category (1) or Category (2) subgrades, the
possibility of the existence of local perched water tables should be borne in mind and the effects
of seasonal flooding (where this occurs) should not be overlooked.
For design for category (3) sub grade, a value of 80 per cent of the optimum moisture content
obtained in the British Standard (Light) Compaction Test, 2.5 kg rammer method, should be
used.
Determining the Subgrade Strength
Having estimated the subgrade moisture content for design, it is then possible to determine the
appropriate design CBR value at the specified density. ORN 31 recommends that the top 250
mm of all subgrades should be compacted during construction. Compaction will not only
improve the subgrade bearing strength but will reduce permeability and subsequent compaction
by traffic. It is first necessary to determine the compaction properties of the subgrade soil by
21
carrying out standard laboratory compaction tests. Samples of the subgrade soil at the design
subgrade moisture content can then be compacted in CBR moulds to the specified density and
tested to determine the CBR values. With cohesionless sands, the rammer method tends to
overestimate the optimum moisture content and underestimate the dry density achieved by
normal field equipment. The vibrating hammer method is more appropriate for these materials. If
samples of cohesive soils are compacted at moisture contents equal to or greater than the
optimum moisture content, they should be left sealed for 24 hours before being tested so that
excess pore water pressures induced during compaction are dissipated. Alternatively, a more
complete picture of the relationship between density, moisture content and CBR for the subgrade
soil can be obtained by measuring the CBR of samples compacted at several moisture contents
and at least two levels of compaction. The design CBR is then obtained by interpolation. This
method is preferable since it enables an estimate to be made of the subgrade CBR at different
densities and allows the effects of different levels of compaction control on the structural design
to be calculated. Figure 3 shows a typical dry density/moisture content/CBR relationship for a
sandy-clay soil that was obtained by compacting samples at five moisture contents to three levels
of compaction: British Standard (Heavy) Compaction, 4.5 kg rammer method, British Standard
(Light) Compaction, 2 5 kg rammer method, and an intermediate level of compaction. By
interpolation, a design subgrade CBR of about 15 per cent is obtained if a relative density of 100
per cent of the maximum dry density obtained in the British Standard (Light) Compaction Test is
specified and the subgrade moisture content was estimated to be 20 per cent. If saturated
subgrade conditions are anticipated, the compacted samples for the CBR test should be saturated
by immersion in water for four days before being tested. In all other cases when CBR is
determined by direct measurement, the CBR samples should not be immersed since this results
in over design. In areas where existing roads have been built on the same subgrade, direct
measurements of the subgrade strengths can be made using a dynamic cone penetrometer. In situ
CBR measurements of subgrade soils are not recommended because of the difficulty of ensuring
that the moisture and density conditions at the time of test are representative of those expected
under the completed pavement. Whichever method is used to obtain the subgrade strength, each
sample or each test will usually give different results and these can sometimes cover a
considerable range. For design purposes it is important that the strength of the subgrade is not
seriously underestimated for large areas of pavement or overestimated to such an extent that
22
there is a risk of local failures. The best compromise for design purposes is to use the lower ten
percentile value i.e. that value which is exceeded by 90 per cent of the readings. The simplest
way to obtain this is to draw a cumulative frequency distribution of strength as shown in Figure
4. If the characteristics of the subgrade change significantly over sections of the route, different
subgrade strength values for design should be calculated for each nominally uniform section. The
structural catalogue requires that the subgrade strength for design is assigned to one of six
strength classes reflecting the sensitivity of thickness design to subgrade strength. The classes are
defined in Table 2.2. For sub-grades with CBR's less than 2, special treatment is required.
23
Figure 3: Dry density-moisture content-CBR relationships for sandy-clay soil
Source: ORN 31
24
Figure 4: Distribution of Subgrade strength
Source: ORN 31
TABLE 2.2: Subgrade Strength Classes
Source: ORN 31
25
Selected Subgrade Materials and Capping Layers (GC)
These materials are often required to provide sufficient cover on weak sub-grades. They are used
in the lower pavement layers as a substitute for a thick sub-base to reduce costs. The
requirements are less strict than for sub-bases. A minimum CBR of 15 per cent is specified at the
highest anticipated moisture content measured on samples compacted in the laboratory at the
specified field density. This density is usually specified as a minimum of 95 per cent of the
maximum dry density in the British Standard (Heavy) Compaction Test, 45 kg hammer in
estimating the likely soil moisture conditions, the designer should take into account the functions
of the overlying sub-base layer and its expected moisture condition and the moisture conditions
in the subgrade. If either of these layers is likely to be saturated during the life of the road, then
the selected layer should also be assessed in this state. Recommended gradings or plasticity
criteria are not given for these materials. However, it is desirable to select reasonably
homogeneous materials since overall pavement behaviour is often enhanced by this. The
selection of materials which show the least change in bearing capacity from dry to wet is also
beneficial.
26
2.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
Flexible pavement design deals primarily with structural aspects i.e., the selection of appropriate
materials, characterization of strength or load-carrying properties and layer thickness
determination (Seeds, 2009).
2.6.1 CBR Method
The CBR method was first used by the California Division of Highways as a result of extensive
investigations made on pavement failures during the years 1928 and 1929 (Corps of Engineers,
1958). Tests were performed on typical crushed stone representative of base course materials and
the average of these tests designated as a CBR of 100%. This is the method prevalent in Nigeria.
The method uses a set of design curves for determining structural thickness requirement. The
curves were first developed by the US Corps of Engineers and modified by the British
Transportation and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL, 1970); it was adopted by Nigeria as
contained in the Federal Highway Manual (Highway Manual, 1973). The Nigerian (CBR) design
method is a CBR-Traffic volume method, an empirical procedure which uses the California
Bearing Ratio and traffic volume as the sole design inputs. The thickness of the pavement
structure is dependent on the anticipated traffic, the strength of the foundation material (CBR),
the quality of pavement material used and the construction procedure. This method considers
traffic in the form of number of commercial vehicles/day exceeding 29.89 kN (3 tons). Subgrade
strength evaluation is made in terms of CBR. The selection of pavement structure is made from
design curves. The thickness of the pavement layers is dependent on the expected traffic loading.
Recommended minimum asphalt pavement surface thickness is considered in terms of light,
medium and heavy traffic as follows:
Light traffic - 50 mm
Medium - - 75 mm
Heavy - 100 mm
27
2.6.2 Overseas Road Note 29
This manual opines that in formulating the design of new flexible pavements, the traffic, the
design life, the subgrade, sub-base, road base and surfacing are to each be considered in turn.
From a consideration of the initial commercial traffic, growth rate and design life, the cumulative
number of standard axles to be carried by each slow lane of the pavement is estimated. The
recommended minimum thickness for the various layers of the pavement is obtained from
relevant charts (see Appendices A-C). The thickness of each individual layer is to be rounded
upwards to the next 10mm intercept.
2.6.3 R -Value Design
The Minnesota Department of Transport (Mn/DOT) Geotechnical and Pavement

Manual’s approach is based on the soil R-value, and the following inputs are required:
1. Traffic
2. Environmental conditions
3. Material properties
The design consists of determining the total thickness of pavement required above the subgrade,
as well as the various thicknesses of each of the pavement components, for traffic and subgrade
conditions.
Structural designs are based upon the cumulative damaging effect of traffic over a 20-year
period.
Soil R-value
The R value selected for design is generally based on the average value minus one standard
deviation of the test results obtained on samples taken during the geotechnical investigation.
Asphalt Pavement with Aggregate Base

The design of asphalt pavement with aggregate base is based on the concept of the Granular
Equivalent (GE). The granular equivalent thickness of a pavement is determined by assigning
granular equivalent values to pavement materials on the basis of their contribution to the
pavement strength in comparison to the strength offered by a layer of Mn/DOT class 5 or 6
aggregate base. Figure 5 shows the chart used to determine the required GE, expressed in inches,
28
for the design-lane, cumulative, 18-kip ESALs and subgrade R values. After the required GE is
determined, it is converted into the appropriate bituminous wearing course, bituminous binder
course, bituminous base, and aggregate base thicknesses for the pavement using the values given
below. Once layer thicknesses have been established, total pavement thickness and layer
composition is determined. Table 2.3 shows the factor used to determine the total granular
equivalent required for the pavement, and a minimum base granular equivalent value.
Figure 5: Pavement design chart for asphalt pavement with aggregate base.
Source: Minnesota Department of Transport Geotechnical and Pavement Manual
29
TABLE 2.3: Granular Equivalent (GE) Values for Typical Pavement Materials
Material Specification GE Factor
Plant-mixed bituminous pavement Wearing course 2.25
Plant-mixed bituminous pavement Base course 2.00
Road-mix surface 2321 1.50
Road-mix base 2321 1.50
Bituminous treated base (Rich) 2204 1.50
Bituminous treated base (Lean) 2204 1.25
Aggregate base Class 5,6 1.00
Aggregate base Class 3,4 0.75
Selected granular material 0.50*
* May be used in design when so approved by the Pavement Design Engineer.
30
For example, if calculation of traffic and an estimated R value for an area resulted in a required
GE of 16 for a pavement, the designer could develop the following designs:
Design 1
Material Thickness (inches) GE Total GE
Class 5 aggregate base 8.0 1.00 8.00
Plant-mixed
bituminous base 2.0 2.00 4.00
course
Plant-mixed
bituminous wear 2.0 2.25 4.50
course
Total GE 16.50
Design 2
Material Thickness (inches) GE Total GE
Class 5 aggregate base 6.0 1.00 6.00
Plant-mixed
bituminous base 3.5 2.00 7.00
course
Plant-mixed
bituminous wear 1.5 2.25 3.375
course
Total GE 16.375
31
2.6.3 Full Depth Asphalt Pavement
Full depth asphalt pavement is defined as a pavement structure in which every layer above the
subgrade or improved subgrade is asphalt. This type of construction is quite popular in areas
where local materials are not available. It is more convenient to purchase only one material:
HMA, rather than several materials from different sources, thus minimizing the administration
and equipment costs. Developed by the Asphalt Institute in 1960 and is generally considered the
most cost effective and dependable type of asphalt pavement for heavy traffic. Figure 6 is used to
determine the bituminous pavement thickness for full-depth pavement.
Figure 6: Pavement design chart for bituminous pavement
Rolt (2004) describes two empirical methods: AASHTO (1986) from the USA and TRL’s
Overseas Road Note 31 (TRL, 1993). Seven key factors need to be addressed in the structural
design process:
32
1. The terminal condition of the road
2. The strength of the underlying subgrade soil
3. The strength of the pavement layers that are to be used
4. Environmental effects
5. Traffic
6. Maintenance
7. Reliability
2.6.4 The AASHTO Method
This is probably the most widely used method worldwide. Present serviceability index (PSI) is
defined as
PSI= 5.0 – b1logR – b2RD2 – b3(C + P)0.5 (2.1)
Where R is roughness (inches per mile); RD the rut depth (inches); C the cracking
(percent); P the patching (per cent); and b1, b2, b3 are coefficients.
In the AASHTO design guide, the terminal PSI is chosen by the designer.
Traffic is considered in terms of standard axles, as described previously.
Subgrade strength is correlated in resilient modulus. One of these values is estimated for each
month (or period of the year), and the values weighted using a nomograph that ensure the
functional dependence of road performance and subgrade strength is taken into account properly.
A simple average should never be used.
The AASHTO method takes into account, unlike most empirically based design methods,
variations in material properties and allows the overall thickness to be reduced as the strength of
the materials increase above the minimum values required by the specifications. The method
employed is based on the structural number principle. The structural number is given by:
SN = ∑𝑖 𝑎𝑖 . ℎ𝑖 (2.2)
Where ai is the strength coefficients of layer i; and hi the thickness of layer i.
The strength coefficients are related to the standard material strength tests. For example, a
relationship has been derived between the strength coefficients for crushed stone base (a2) and its
33
CBR value. Similarly the value f a2 for cement- stabilized materials has been related to
unconfined compressive strength. The coefficient for asphalt materials is very temperature
dependent. Lower values should be used in hotter climates.
Environmental factors are accommodated by weighing the traffic by a constant called the
regional factor (R). Thus, in hot and arid regions where traffic does less damage to a pavement, it
is assumed that a design suitable for a lower level of traffic is adequate and, therefore, the
regional factor is low. In wet areas, the traffic is assumed to be more damaging, so the regional
factor is high. Values range from 0.2 in arid areas to 5.0 in wet areas. Despite its importance in
the design process, no detailed guidance is given for selecting its value. Values are selected
based on engineering judgment or calibrating the AASHTO design method so that it agrees with
design charts already in use in the particular region. These approaches are valid provided the
behaviour of pavements in the region is known.
The AASHTO design equation relates traffic carrying capacity in terms of standard axles
(weighted by a regional factor) to structural number, subgrade strength expressed in terms of
resilient modulus, original PSI, the PSI value selected to define the terminal condition, and the
level of reliability desired. It is given as
log10[(PSI0 − PSIf )⁄(4.2−1.5)]
Log W8.2=Z .S0 + 9.36 log10 (SN + 1) + + 2.32log10MR – 8.27 (2.3)
0.4+(1094⁄(SN+1)5.19 )
Where W8.2 is the cumulative weighted traffic over the design period; Z is the normal deviate
(e.g. Z = - 1.65 for 95% reliability; Z= 1.04 for 80% reliability; and Z= 0 for 50% reliability); S 0
the standard error of traffic prediction and performance prediction, typically in the range 0.35-
0.45; SN, the structural number, PSI0, the initial PSI; PSIf; the final PSI; and MR. the resilient
elastic modulus of subgrade.
In summary AASHTO method requires the following steps:

1. Estimate of the total axle loading in equivalent standard axles over the design life.
2. Multiply the traffic by the regional factor.
3. Estimate the subgrade strength in terms of elastic modulus (1500.CBR psi or
10.3.CBR MPa) as necessary for monthly conditions.
4. Select serviceability loss (PSI0 – PSIf) typically between 2.0 and 3.0.
34
5. Select reliability level and standard deviation of local performance ‘model’ (this
is related to construction quality but is usually assumed to be in the range 0.35 -
0.45 on the logW8.2 scale).
6. Use a nomograph to find SN, or use the equation iteratively.
Finally choose the various pavement layers and their thickness to provide the value of SN by
additive procedure. First the design procedure is used to calculate the SN of the pavement that
would be needed if the base were the subgrade. This will produce the minimum required
thickness of asphalt surfacing to protect the base. Next the design process is used to calculate the
SN required to protect the sub base, since the contribution of the asphalt base is already known,
the minimum thickness of the base can be calculated. This process is repeated until all layers
have been dealt with.
2.6.5 Asphalt Institute Design

The design procedure presented by the Asphalt Institute (2008) in their asphalt pavement
thickness design manual applies elastic layer theory to pavement design. The design procedure
includes:
1. Select or determine input data
a. Traffic value, EAL, expressed as the total number of equivalent 80kN
(18,000 lb) single-axle load applications expected during the design
period.
b. Subgrade resilient modulus, Mr.
The resilient modulus may be approximated from the CBR test values according to the
relationship
Mr (MPa) =10.3 CBR or (2.4)
Mr (psi) =1500 CBR (2.5)
The resilient modulus may be approximated from the R-value test results according to the
relationship
Mr (MPa) = 8.0 + 3.8 (R- value) or (2.6)
Mr (psi) =1155 + 555 (R- value) (2.7)
35
c. Surface and base types to be considered: asphalt concrete, emulsified
asphalt mix Type I, II or III, or untreated base or sub base.
2. Determination of the design thickness for specific conditions described by the
input data using the relevant charts (see Appendices E- J).
2.6.6 Overseas Road Note 31

There are three main steps ORN 31 suggests to be followed in designing a new road pavement,
these are: (i) estimating the amount of traffic and the cumulative number of equivalent standard
axles that will use the road over the selected design life; (ii) assessing the strength of the
subgrade soil over which the road is to be built; (iii) selecting the most economical combination
of pavement materials and layer thicknesses that will provide satisfactory service over the design
life of the pavement (It is usually necessary to assume that an appropriate level of maintenance is
also carried out).
Baseline traffic flows
In order to determine the total traffic over the design life of the road, the first step is to estimate
baseline traffic flows. The estimate should be the (Annual) Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
currently using the route, classified into the vehicle categories of cars, light goods vehicles,
trucks (heavy goods vehicles) and buses. The ADT is defined as the total annual traffic summed
for both directions and divided by 365.
Axle loading and equivalency
The damage that vehicles do to a road depends very strongly on the axle loads of the vehicles.
For pavement design purposes the damaging power of axles is related to a 'standard' axle of 8.16
tonnes (80 KN) using equivalence factors which have been derived from empirical studies (TRL,
2003). In order to determine the cumulative axle load damage that a pavement will sustain during
its design life, it is necessary to express the total number of heavy vehicles that will use the road
over this period in terms of the cumulative number of equivalent standard axles (esa). If there are
no computer facilities available the following method of analysis is recommended. The
equivalence factors for each of the wheel loads measured during the axle load survey are
determined using Table 2.4 or the accompanying equation 2.8 to obtain the equivalence factors
for vehicle axles. The factors for the axles are totaled to give the equivalence factor for each of
36
the vehicles. For vehicles with multiple axles i.e. tandems, triples etc., each axle in the multiple
group is considered separately. The mean equivalence factor for each type or class of vehicle
travelling in each direction must then be determined. Vehicle classes are usually defined by the
number and type of axles. Note that this method of determining the mean equivalence factors
must always be used; calculating the equivalence factor for the average axle load is incorrect and
leads to large errors. In order to determine the cumulative equivalent standard axles over the
design life of the road, the following procedure should be followed:
1. Determine the daily traffic flow for each class of vehicle weighed using
the results of the traffic survey and any other recent traffic count
information that is available.
2. Determine the average daily one-directional traffic flow for each class of
vehicle.
3. Make a forecast of the one-directional traffic flow for each class of vehicle
to determine the total traffic in each class that will travel over each lane
during the design life.
4. Determine the mean equivalence factor of each class of vehicle and for
each direction from the results of this axle load survey and any other
surveys that have recently been carried out.
5. The products of the cumulative one-directional traffic flows for each class
of vehicle over the design life of the road and the mean equivalence factor
for that class should then be calculated and added together to give the
cumulative equivalent standard axle loading for each direction. The higher
of the two directional values should be used for design.
37
TABLE 2.4: Equivalence factors for different axle loads
Axle load (kg) 4.5

Equivalence factor = ( ) (2.8)
8160
38
Accuracy
Pavement thickness design is relatively insensitive to cumulative axle load and this method
provides fixed structures for ranges of traffic as shown in Table 2.5. As long as the estimate of
cumulative equivalent standard axles is close to the centre of one of the ranges, any errors are
unlikely to affect the choice of pavement design.
TABLE 2.5: Traffic Classes
39
2.7 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
2.7.1 Superpave
Mass highway (2006) intimates that new pavement design methods are being implemented on a
limited basis across the United States. The “AASHTO Mechanistic- Empirical Pavement Design
Guide” (M-E Design Guide) was released in 2004 with the goal of improving the existing
pavement design procedures. The M-E Design Guide transitions from the existing empirical-
based pavement design procedures to mechanistic-empirical based procedures. It employs
analytical modeling capabilities and incorporates the pavement field performance data collected
under the Strategic Highway Research Project (SHRP).
Superpave is an acronym for Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements. It is a product of the

SHRP. The research led to a new system for design of HMA based on mechanistic concepts. The
Superpave™ has been fully implemented by most of the state highway agencies in the US. The
Superpave system accounts for materials characteristics in light of climatic and traffic
considerations. Perhaps the most significant component of Superpave is its new asphalt binder
grading system, which is designed to link with pavement performance. The Superpave
methodology is believed to be the best available at this time. However it is an evolving
methodology, and as such there are various asphalt characterization routines that are under
consideration as future additions to the Superpave (Witczak, et al., 2002).
Mahboub (2004) explains that the asphalt binder grading system in Superpave is called the
performance grading (PG). The system is a radical departure from the previous viscosity or
penetration based systems. Superpave accounts for the impact of climatic factors on binder
characteristics at both hot and cold temperature regimes. To simulate climatic conditions, testing
is conducted at hot, cold and intermediate pavement temperatures. Heavy traffic conditions may
be addressed by selecting a binder corresponding to higher temperature regimes.
A mechanistic mix design methodology provides us with the opportunity to integrate asphalt mix
design and flexible pavement design (Mahboub and Little, 1990). Super pave is hoped to link
with the latest AASHTO pavement design guide in a mechanistic manner.
40
2.7.2 Other Pavement Concepts
Research is continuing into porous and permeable pavements that have the potential to improve
safety, reduce runoff and diminish undesirable environmental impacts. Some noise-reducing
pavements are based on a similar premise. Permeable pavements may be constructed as full-
depth porous pavements or surface friction courses. Full-depth porous pavements are constructed
using specialized asphalt layers or Portland cement concrete surfaces that permit water to drain
down to a specially constructed crushed stone base. This crushed stone base functions as a
temporary stormwater storage area and allows the runoff to infiltrate into the sub-grade. While
this design concept appears promising for low volume facilities and parking areas, the foundation
needed to adopt it on larger facilities is not in place at this time. Permeable surface friction
courses such as Open Graded Friction Course (OGFC) permit water to drain from the driving
surface below the tire-pavement interface. This reduces hydroplaning, tire spray and tire noise
while improving skid resistance and visibility. Several types of OGFC have been placed on
Interstate and limited access highways in Massachusetts.
Experimental pavements have been constructed which feature the use of colored aggregate in the
pavement surface to improve the visual consistency of the roadway with its surroundings. Other
projects have been built which feature the use of colored aggregate to improve the definition
between the roadway and shoulder. These practices may be considered in special circumstances
(Mass highway, 2006).
41
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter highlights the methods and procedures with which the study was carried out.
3.1.1 The Study Area
This study was centered on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway; a major federal road in Nigeria. The
Lagos –Ibadan Expressway (Route No 20) was constructed between 1976 and 1979. It is a most
strategic road in that it is a part of the Trans West African inland routes which connects Lagos,
Cameroun and other West African countries and also leads to the northern states in Nigeria.
The 6- lane (each lane measuring about 3.65m) expressway stretches for 106 km. From Lagos
(old toll gate) to the Sagamu interchange lies the first 45km stretch and from the interchange to
Ibadan (old toll gate) lies the second 61km stretch. Three bridge locations over River Ogun (km
7+000), concrete deck on pile at km 11+500 and over River Owuru (km 33+750) exist along the
expressway.
The original design for the pavement structure comprised from top to bottom:
 5cm bituminous concrete wearing course
 5cm bituminous upper base or binder course
 15cm crushed stone base (Los Angeles abrasion loss of 30 -35%)
 15cm natural laterite materials sub base course
The carriage way on Lagos-Ibadan expressway has undergone various levels of deterioration
over the years since it was built and opened to traffic. Presently, the pavement is in a dilapidated
state (Bi-Courtney Highway Services Limited, 2010).
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
This research involved an inquiry into the traffic trend on Lagos-Ibadan expressway to proffer a
more appropriate design for the reconstruction of the road using the CBR, AASHTO, Asphalt
Institute and Overseas Road Note 31 methods of pavement design. The study was based on data
obtained from the archives of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing and Urban
Development as collated by Bi-Courtney Highway Services Limited. The consortium of
42
consultants carried out traffic survey and materials testing at different sections of the highway
including:
 Sub-grade investigation carried out to obtain reliable information regarding the

types and characteristics of the sub-surface materials for safe design.
 A traffic survey and axle load survey carried out to determine the traffic count and
axle load distribution of a sample of the heavy vehicles using the road.
Data collected from these surveys were used to calculate the mean number of equivalent standard
axles for a typical vehicle in each class. These values were then used in conjunction with traffic
forecasts to determine the predicted cumulative equivalent standard axles that the road will carry
over its design life.
3.2.1 Materials Evaluation
The dynamic cone penetrometer testing was also carried out by the consultant to obtain the in-
situ strength of the different layers of the pavement, from which the in-situ subgrade CBR was
obtained.
Sub-grade investigation and material survey was carried out by the consultants. The exercise
included the excavation of trial pits along the median of the existing double carriageway and
potential borrow area.
 Soil sampling was carried out at every 500m interval along the length of the road.
Approximately 200 pits were excavated along the roads central area from Lagos-
Ibadan.
 Similarly, tests pits and hand auger holes were opened up at eleven (11 Nos)
potential borrow areas located along the corridor.
 Laboratory tests were performed on the soil sample. Tests were carried out
according to the procedures set out in the British Standard B.S. 1377- ‘Methods of
Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes’. These tests included:
1. Soil classification test
2. Soil compaction and CBR Tests
43
Soil Classification Test
The following laboratory tests were carried out by the consultants on all soil samples obtained
from the field for proper identification and subsequent classification:
1. Atterberg Limits Determination

2. Determination of Linear Shrinkage
3. Grain Size Analysis
Soil Compaction and CBR Determination
The soil samples were subjected to compaction tests to determine the maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content using both B.S. (proctor) compaction on the sub-grade samples and
West African Standard Compaction on the borrow pit samples.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) determination for unsoaked and soaked specimens to give an
insight into the possible loss of strength of the material in wet condition (rainy season), which
usually lasts five to six months in the project area (Bi-Courtney Highway Services Limited,
2010).
3.2.2 Traffic Count
A 7-day 12hr manual traffic count was carried out by the consultant at km 0+600, km 7+370, km
18+300, km 27+300, km 38+000, km 55+000, km 96+500 and km 105+250 representing Lagos
(old toll gate), Isheri, Ibafo, Mowe, Sagamu interchange, Ogere, Aramed/quarry and Ibadan (old
toll gate) respectively between 19th and 25th August 2009. Also between 17th and 26th October
20009, a 7-day 24hr automated count was conducted at selected locations. The Metrocount MC
5600 Automatic Counter/Classifier was used for the count. Conversion factors were then applied
to determine the 24hr Annual Daily Traffic (ADT). The percentage of heavy vehicles was then
determined.
3.2.3 Axle Load Surveys
The consultant carried out axle load survey by weighing a sample of vehicles (heavy trucks) at
the roadside. The axle load was weighed using portable weighing devices. A suitable site was
selected for the survey where there was enough space to accommodate a temporary lane so that it
will not affect the thorough traffic. The vehicles weighed were directed through the temporary
lane such that the wheel pass over the weighing device placed on the wheel path of the
44
temporary lane. The vehicle was stopped when the wheel was freely on the weighing device and
the weight was noted down. The data, along with the axle configuration was recorded (Bi-
Courtney Highway Services Limited, 2010).
The equivalence factors for each of the wheel loads measured during the axle load survey were
determined using the factors for the axles for each of the vehicles. For vehicles with multiple
axles i.e. tandems, triples etc., each axle in the multiple group was considered separately. The
raw field data was reduced to average traffic equivalent factors for each vehicle classification.
Traffic forecasting (projection) was then done using a growth rate over the design life of the
pavement to estimate the equivalent standard axle projection.
3.2.4 Design
The thickness and constituents of the pavement layers was determined using the results from the
analysis of the data obtained from research. Tentative design for the road was determined using
the CBR, Asphalt Institute, AASHTO and Overseas Road Note 31 methods of pavement design
as described previously. A comparative analysis was then done to show the inadequacies of the
existing CBR method.
3.3 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
Data collection was from ministry records in the form of reports obtained from the Federal
Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development (FMWH&UD). The report: Design for the
Reconstruction, Expansion and Modernization of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. Final Report
(Volume 1- Main Report) by Bi-Courtney Highway Services Ltd (Nov. 2010) contains
information from traffic survey and materials testing carried out in December 2009.
3.4 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING COLLECTED DATA
1. Microsoft Excel was used to process the data obtained from the traffic counts and
axle load surveys.
2. Data analysis involved using equations and charts specified by the various design
methods to be used to obtain values required for the design of the road pavement.
 Traffic projection was calculated using the equation given as
FT = CT(1 + r)n (3.1)
45
Where FT is future traffic (vehicles per day. vpd); CT is current traffic from base year (vpd); r is
growth rate (%); n is design period (years).
 The equivalence factor was calculated for each axle in terms of standard
single load of 8160kg using equation 2.8 and the sum of equivalent factors for
all the axles of a vehicle gives the equivalence factor for that vehicle (vehicle
damage factor: VDF).
 Equivalent standard axle loading for the base year was calculated using the
equation given as
ESAL = ADT x VDFx365 (3.2)
Where ESAL is equivalent standard axle loading of the base year; ADT is the daily commercial
vehicles (heavy vehicles); VDF is the average vehicle damage factor in the heavier direction.
 Cumulative equivalent standard axle loading projection over the design life
was calculated using the equation given as
Cumulative ESAL projection = ESAL x f x G (3.3)
Where ESAL is the equivalent single axle loading of base year;
f is the lane distribution factor of heavy vehicles on the design lane
(1+r)n −1
G is growth factor given as G= (3.4)
r
r=growth rate (%)

n= design period (years)
3. Design of pavement thickness using design charts including:

i. Flexible Pavement Design Curve (CBR). (see appendix D)
ii. Full Depth Asphalt Concrete Pavement Chart. (see appendix E)
iii. Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type I Design Chart. (see appendix F)
iv. Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type II Design Chart. (see appendix G)
v. Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type III Design Chart. (see appendix H)
vi. Untreated Aggregate Base 150mm thickness Design Chart. (see appendix I)
vii. Untreated Aggregate Base 300mm thickness Design Chart. (see appendix K)
viii. Design Chart for Flexible Pavement Pt = 2.5
ix. Design chart for granular road base / structural surface. (see appendix O)
46
x. Design chart for bituminous road base/semi-structural surface. (see appendix
P)
xi. Design chart for composite road base / semi-structural surface. (see appendix
Q)
xii. Design chart for composite road base / structural surface. (see appendix R)
3.5 LIMITATION OF THE METHODOLOGY
Obtaining extensive information and values from actual field test could not be carried out by me
as an individual. This therefore restricted the collection of the survey and field test data to recent
reports of these works carried out by consultants. These reports were obtained from the Federal
Ministry of Works and Housing and Urban Development.
47
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the data obtained from the traffic count, axle load measurement and
material tests performed on Lagos- Ibadan expressway are presented and analyzed to
determine the several inputs required for the methods of design to be considered.
This report used data from studies carried out in December 2009 by Bi-Courtney
Highway Services Limited (hereinafter known as the consultants) as obtained in the
report: Design for The Reconstruction, Expansion and Modernization of the Lagos-
Ibadan Expressway. Final Report: Volume 1-Main Report.
The studies cover both traffic volume and traffic loading measurements that facilitated
the design of highway capacity and pavement structures according to the different
methods to be considered.
4.2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
4.2.1 Traffic History
Available traffic data, as collated by the consultant from previous studies based on 12hr
ADT count for both directions (at various stations along the road) to which conversion
factors were applied to get the 24 hour count is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1:
Historic Traffic
Year Lagos Sagamu Ogere Ibadan
1990 24,305 14,649 1,877 9,946 (24hr ADT)
1991 __ 33,643 2,129 30,369
1992 __ 43,647 17,221 __
1993 58,033 40,916 16,324 44,413
1994 __ 14,069 23,041 29,659
1995 53,164 54,769 9,105 15,905
1998 41,998 13,574 11,383 13,401
Source: Design for the Reconstruction, Expansion and Modernization of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway.
Final Report: Vol 1- Main Report by Bi-Courtney Highway Services Ltd.
48
On examination of the figures, no definite pattern could be established for the trend of
growth. Also there are deficit figures for some years. However, the 1998 data gives the
percentages of heavy vehicles as 8%, 15.3%, 14.8%, 15% and 14.4% at Ojota, Ibafo,
Sagamu, Ogere, and Ibadan respectively. The average percentage of heavy vehicles on
the expressway comes to 13.5%.
4.2.2 Traffic Volume and Traffic Count Analysis
Two regimes of traffic were identified along the expressway:
1. High Volume Regime: this is constituted by traffic between Lagos and Sagamu
interchange (km 43) both Ibadan bound and Lagos bound going or coming from
the hinterland.
2. Low Volume Regime: this comprises vehicles going to Ibadan or through Ibadan
to other western or eastern states of Nigeria.
Traffic Count
The traffic count conducted by the consultant resulted in a more accurate determination
of conversion factors for 12hr counts to 24hr counts. The factors applicable to the Lagos-
Ibadan expressway was found to be 1.2 for light vehicles and 1.38 for heavy vehicles as
opposed to the factors from the traffic unit of the Federal Ministry of Works given as
1.37 and 1.55 for light and heavy vehicles respectively which tend to overestimate the 24
hr ADT.
Table 4.2 shows a summary of the manual and automated count in both directions at
various stations along the express way. From the table, it is seen that there is a reasonable
correlation between the figures reported from the manual count (using the modified
factors) and the automated counts as opposed to the values obtained using the national
factors.
49
Table 4.2: Summary of Manual and Automated Traffic Counts in Both Directions
TRAFFIC COUNT STATION 12 hr Manual 24 hr Manual Count ADT 24 hr Manual count ADT 24 hr ADT Automated
Traffic count (National Factors) (Calibrated factors) Traffic count
Section 1: lagos - Sagamu 19-25/08/2009 19-25/08/2009 19-25/08/2009 17-26/10/2009
Lagos Old Toll Gate 77,485
Lagos CMD/Conoil station 53,747 73,140 64,173 78,904
Isheri 46,154 64,584 56,738 __
Ibafo Township 37,365 52,119 45,767 __
Mowe Township (RCCG Vicinity) 31,247 43,791 38,479 __
Before Sagamu Interchange 29,617 41,435 36,400 37,208
Section 2: Sagamu Interchange
After Sagamu Interchange 18,116 25,362 22,285 21,998
Ogere 17,272 21,770 19,134 __
Aramed Quarry 23,089 32,385 28,459 __
Ibadan old Toll Gate 24,875 34,754 30,256 25,743
Source: Design for the Reconstruction, Expansion and Modernization of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. Final Report: Vol 1- Main Report by Bi-
Courtney Highway Services Ltd.
50
Table 4.3 shows the 24hr ADT versus the daily heavy vehicles both Ibadan bound and
Lagos bound and their percentage constitution. The average percentage of heavy vehicles
presently stands at 18.41%. This shows a high growth rate when compared to an average
percentage heavy of 13.5% recorded on the same road in 1998.
Table 4.4 shows the traffic projection using a 4% growth rate up to the year 2029. The
traffic projection in the heavier direction was calculated to be 105,856 vpd.
4.2.3 Axle Load Measurement
Axle load measurement data collated by the consultants from both Ibadan bound and
Lagos bound directions were used to determine the Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) and the
Vehicle Damage Factor (VDF) as shown in Table 4.5 and Table 4.7.
The analysis of the axle load measurement data obtained 11.12 and 9.39 as the average
vehicle damage factors as shown in Table 4.6 and Table 4.8 for Ibadan bound and Lagos
bound directions respectively.
Equivalent Standard Axle Loading (ESAL)
The volume of daily heavy vehicles were used to calculate the ESAL for the base year
(2009) using equation 3.2 and the cumulative ESAL projection using equation 3.3, at a
growth rate of 3.5 % and a lane distribution factor 0.8 (for a 6-lane highway) as shown in
Table 4.9. The growth factor is 11.73, 19.3 and 28.28 for 2019, 2024 and 2029
respectively (see equation 3.4).
The average daily ESAL in the heavier direction was calculated to be 34,199 standard
axles, and the average projected cumulative ESAL (for 10 years) was calculated to be
117,138,497.
51
Table 4.3: Summary of the Daily Heavy Vehicle Count and their Percentages in Both Directions
% Heavies % Heavies
Station Location 24 hr Manual count ADT Calibrated ADT Heavy Vehicles NB SB
(Calibrated Factors) NB SB NB SB
Lagos old Toll Gate _ _ _
Lagos CMD/Conoil station 64,173 28,929 35,244 3,358 3,911 11.61 11.10
Isheri township 56,738 28,763 27,975 4,488 6,342 15.60 22.67
Ibafo township 45,767 22,581 23,186 3,514 4,072 15.56 17.56
Mowe township (RCCG vicinity) 38,479 19,382 19,096 3,411 4,455 17.60 23.33
Before Sagamu Interchange 36,400 17,934 18,466 3,108 3,723 17.33 20.16
After Sagamu Interchange 22,284 11,959 10,325 2,330 2,117 19.48 20.50
Ogere 19,134 8,877 10,257 1,856 2,283 20.91 22.26
Aramed Quarry 28,459 13,497 14,963 2,401 3,522 17.79 23.54
Ibadan old toll gate 30,526 15,713 14,813 2,900 2,354 18.46 15.89
TOTALS 341,960 167,635 174,325 27,366 32,779 17.15 19.67
AVERAGE 37,995.56 18,626.11 19,369.44 3,040.67 3,642.11 18.41
52
Table 4.4: Traffic Projection over 20 years at 4% Growth Rate
(Calibrated Traffic Counts)

BASE YEAR
TRAFFIC COUNT STATION CHAINAGE
2009 2019 2024 2029
Section 1: Lagos - Sagamu
AVERAGE
Lagos old toll gate 0+600 64,173
Isheri 7+370 56,738
Ibafo 18+300 45,767 48,311 71,513 87,006 105,856
Mowe 27+300 38,479
Sagamu 1 37+500 36,400
Section 2: Sagamu - Ibadan
AVERAGE
Sagamu 2 38+500 22,285
Ogere 55+000 19,134
25,101 37,156 45,205 54,999
Aramed 96+500 28,459
Ibadan old toll gate 105+250 30,526
Average 37,995.67
53
Table 4.5: Results of the Axle Load Measurement Test conducted by Pavement Evaluation Unit (PEU) on the 22nd Dec, 2009
on Lagos - Ibadan Expressway _ Ibadan Bound. Station: Ogere Old Toll Gate
S/No Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 CONFIGURARTION

1 5,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 112
2 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 123
3 5,000 6,000 9,000 12
4 6,000 7,000 7,000 12
5 5,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 113
6 10,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 113
7 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 113
8 5,000 13,000 7,000 8,000 8,000 113
9 3,000 4,000 4,000 12
10 9,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 112
11 8,000 13,000 12,000 8,000 112
12 7,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 112
13 4,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 112
14 7,000 7,000 8,000 8,000 112
15 7,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 112
16 8,000 9,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 113
17 7,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 112
18 7,000 8,000 8,000 12
19 11,000 12,000 13,000 12
20 8,000 11,000 11,000 12
21 5,000 5,000 6,000 12
22 4,000 5,000 5,000 12
23 13,000 14,000 14,000 15,000 15,000 113
24 5,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 112
25 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
26 5,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 123
27 4,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 112
28 7,000 9,000 11,000 11,000 112
29 7,000 10,000 13,000 13,000 112
30 7,000 8,200 8,200 8,100 112
31 8,000 8,100 8,100 11,000 112
32 6,000 9,000 11
54
33 5,000 9,000 9,000 10,100 10,100 122
34 6,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 113
35 4,000 6,000 11
36 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
37 8,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 112
38 8,000 9,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 122
39 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
40 9,000 12,100 12,100 13,000 112
41 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
42 9,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 113
43 7,000 11,000 9,000 9,000 112
44 7,000 12,000 12,100 12,100 112
45 8,000 15,000 14,100 14,100 112
46 7,000 15,000 12,100 12,100 12,100 113
47 7,000 11,000 8,100 8,100 112
48 5,000 6,000 11
49 5,000 6,100 5,000 5,000 5,000 123
50 5,000 6,000 4,200 4,200 4,000 122
51 7,000 6,100 10,100 12
52 7,600 12,000 10,000 10,000 112
53 8,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
54 7,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 112
55 7,000 13,000 12,100 12,100 112
56 6,000 9,000 5,000 5,000 112
57 9,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 113
58 7,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 11
59 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 122
60 7,000 6,000 6,100 4,100 4,100 122
61 7,600 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 122
62 7,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 112
63 5,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 112
64 8,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 113
65 4,000 5,000 5,000 12
66 7,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 13
67 8,000 13,000 10,000 10,000 112
68 8,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 122
69 7,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
70 8,000 13,000 12,100 12
71 9,000 14,400 14,100 14,100 112
55
Table 4.6: Analysis of the Axle Load Measurement (Ibadan bound)
CONFI Veh. Numbe

GURATI Damage r of
S/No Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 ON GVM Factor Axels Equivalence Factor Weight of freight caused by overloaded axles ESAL Caused by overloaded axles
1 5,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 112 19,000 0.37 4 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
2 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 123 30,000 0.80 6 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11
3 5,000 6,000 9,000 12 20,000 1.92 3 0.11 0.25 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 800 0.55
4 6,000 7,000 7,000 12 20,000 1.25 3 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 5,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 113 27,000 0.83 5 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.00
6 10,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 113 63,000 38.24 5 2.50 11.35 8.13 8.13 8.13 0.00 1,800 5,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 1.50 10.35 7.13 7.13 2.83
7 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 113 26,000 0.69 5 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
8 5,000 13,000 7,000 8,000 8,000 113 41,000 10.57 5 0.11 8.13 0.50 0.91 0.91 0.00 4,840 7.13
9 3,000 4,000 4,000 12 11,000 0.09 3 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 9,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 112 45,000 19.19 4 1.55 8.13 5.67 3.83 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 3,840 2,840 0.55 7.13 4.67 2.83
11 8,000 13,000 12,000 8,000 112 41,000 15.63 4 0.91 8.13 5.67 0.91 0.00 0.00 4,840 3,840 7.13 4.67
12 7,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 112 39,000 11.17 4 0.50 5.67 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 3,840 1,840 1,840 4.67 1.50 1.50
13 4,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 112 18,000 0.30 4 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00
14 7,000 7,000 8,000 8,000 112 30,000 2.83 4 0.50 0.50 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00
15 7,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 112 42,000 15.68 4 0.50 5.67 5.67 3.83 0.00 0.00 3,840 3,840 2,840 4.67 4.67 2.83
16 8,000 9,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 113 35,000 3.22 5 0.91 1.55 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 840 0.55
17 7,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 112 33,000 4.52 4 0.50 0.91 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
18 7,000 8,000 8,000 12 23,000 2.33 3 0.50 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 11,000 12,000 13,000 12 36,000 17.64 3 3.83 5.67 8.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,840 3,840 4,840 2.83 4.67 7.13
20 8,000 11,000 11,000 12 30,000 8.58 3 0.91 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,840 2,840 2.83 2.83
21 5,000 5,000 6,000 12 16,000 0.47 3 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 4,000 5,000 5,000 12 14,000 0.26 3 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 13,000 14,000 14,000 15,000 15,000 113 71,000 61.79 5 8.13 11.35 11.35 15.48 15.48 0.00 4,840 5,840 5,840 6,840 6,840 7.13 10.35 10.35 14.48 14.48
24 5,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 112 25,000 1.36 4 0.11 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00
25 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 46,000 21.03 4 1.55 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 3,840 3,840 0.55 7.13 4.67 4.67
26 5,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 123 32,000 0.94 6 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11
27 4,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 112 21,000 0.65 4 0.04 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
28 7,000 9,000 11,000 11,000 112 38,000 9.72 4 0.50 1.55 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.00 840 2,840 2,840 0.55 2.83 2.83
29 7,000 10,000 13,000 13,000 112 43,000 19.26 4 0.50 2.50 8.13 8.13 0.00 0.00 1,840 4,840 4,840 1.50 7.13 7.13
30 7,000 8,200 8,200 8,100 112 31,500 3.51 4 0.50 1.02 1.02 0.97 0.00 0.00 40 40 0.02 0.02
31 8,000 8,100 8,100 11,000 112 35,200 6.68 4 0.91 0.97 0.97 3.83 0.00 0.00 2,840 2.83
32 6,000 9,000 11 15,000 1.80 2 0.25 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
56
33 5,000 9,000 9,000 10,100 10,100 122 43,200 8.44 5 0.11 1.55 1.55 2.61 2.61 0.00 840 840 1,940 1,940 0.55 0.55 1.61 1.61
34 6,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 113 54,000 11.15 6 0.25 0.91 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
35 4,000 6,000 11 10,000 0.29 2 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
36 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 46,000 21.03 4 1.55 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 3,840 3,840 0.55 7.13 4.67 4.67
37 8,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 112 43,000 16.09 4 0.91 3.83 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 2,840 3,840 3,840 2.83 4.67 4.67
38 8,000 9,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 122 46,000 9.02 5 0.91 1.55 1.55 2.50 2.50 0.00 840 840 1,840 1,840 0.55 0.55 1.50 1.50
39 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 46,000 21.03 4 1.55 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 3,840 3,840 0.55 7.13 4.67 4.67
40 9,000 12,100 12,100 13,000 112 46,200 21.46 4 1.55 5.89 5.89 8.13 0.00 0.00 840 3,940 3,940 4,840 0.55 4.89 4.89 7.13
41 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 46,000 21.03 4 1.55 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 3,840 3,840 0.55 7.13 4.67 4.67
42 9,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 113 55,000 20.57 5 1.55 3.83 3.83 5.67 5.67 0.00 840 2,840 2,840 3,840 3,840 0.55 2.83 2.83 4.67 4.67
43 7,000 11,000 9,000 9,000 112 36,000 7.44 4 0.50 3.83 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 2,840 840 840 2.83 0.55 0.55
44 7,000 12,000 12,100 12,100 112 43,200 17.95 4 0.50 5.67 5.89 5.89 0.00 0.00 3,840 3,940 3,940 4.67 4.89 4.89
45 8,000 15,000 14,100 14,100 112 51,200 39.83 4 0.91 15.48 11.72 11.72 0.00 0.00 6,840 5,940 5,940 14.48 10.72 10.72
46 7,000 15,000 12,100 12,100 12,100 113 58,300 33.65 5 0.50 15.48 5.89 5.89 5.89 0.00 6,840 3,940 3,940 3,940 14.48 4.89 4.89 4.89
47 7,000 11,000 8,100 8,100 112 34,200 6.27 4 0.50 3.83 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.00 2,840 2.83
48 5,000 6,000 11 11,000 0.36 2 0.11 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
49 5,000 6,100 5,000 5,000 5,000 123 26,100 0.71 5 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
50 5,000 6,000 4,200 4,200 4,000 122 23,400 0.50 5 0.11 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.00
51 7,000 6,100 10,100 12 23,200 3.38 3 0.50 0.27 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,940 1.61
52 7,600 12,000 10,000 10,000 112 39,600 11.39 4 0.73 5.67 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 3,840 1,840 1,840 4.67 1.50 1.50
53 8,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 45,000 20.39 4 0.91 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 4,840 3,840 3,840 7.13 4.67 4.67
54 7,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 112 40,000 12.50 4 0.50 5.67 3.83 2.50 0.00 0.00 3,840 2,840 1,840 4.67 2.83 1.50
55 7,000 13,000 12,100 12,100 112 44,200 20.41 4 0.50 8.13 5.89 5.89 0.00 0.00 4,840 3,940 3,940 7.13 4.89 4.89
56 6,000 9,000 5,000 5,000 112 25,000 2.03 4 0.25 1.55 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
57 9,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 113 66,000 51.08 5 1.55 15.48 11.35 11.35 11.35 0.00 840 6,840 5,840 5,840 5,840 0.55 14.48 10.35 10.35 10.35
58 7,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 11 20,000 0.69 4 0.50 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
59 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 122 24,000 0.55 5 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.00
60 7,000 6,000 6,100 4,100 4,100 122 27,300 1.11 5 0.50 0.25 0.27 0.05 0.05 0.00
61 7,600 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 122 45,600 8.83 5 0.73 2.50 2.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 1,840 1,840 840 840 1.50 1.50 0.55 0.55
62 7,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 112 33,000 4.52 4 0.50 0.91 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
63 5,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 112 24,000 1.11 4 0.11 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
64 8,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 113 41,000 5.21 5 0.91 1.55 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.00 840 0.55
65 4,000 5,000 5,000 12 14,000 0.26 3 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
66 7,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 13 34,000 5.16 4 0.50 1.55 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 840 840 840 0.55 0.55 0.55
67 8,000 13,000 10,000 10,000 112 41,000 14.04 4 0.91 8.13 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 4,840 1,840 1,840 7.13 1.50 1.50
68 8,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 122 50,000 13.58 5 0.91 3.83 3.83 2.50 2.50 0.00 2,840 2,840 1,840 1,840 2.83 2.83 1.50 1.50
69 7,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 44,000 19.98 4 0.50 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 4,840 3,840 3,840 7.13 4.67 4.67
70 8,000 13,000 12,100 12 33,100 14.93 3 0.91 8.13 5.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,840 3,940 7.13 4.89
71 9,000 14,400 14,100 14,100 112 51,600 37.87 4 1.55 12.88 11.72 11.72 0.00 0.00 840 6,240 5,940 5,940 0.55 11.88 10.72 10.72
TOTALS 488,200 668,000 623,500 527,100 174,300 20,000 789.23 291 53.85 270.79 212.07 188.87 60.93 2.72 17040 150940 127360 111960 33560 1840 1.11 77.36 53.06 42.95 12.40 1.5
Total Axles 291.00

Avg. Axles per Truck 4.10
Average VDF per Truck 11.12
Avg VDF per Truck represented by overloads 2.65
Avg VDF per Truck represented by loads up to 8160kg 8.46
57
Table 4.7: Results of the Axle Load Measurement Test conducted by Pavement Evaluation Unit (PEU) on the 22nd Dec, 2009
on Lagos - Ibadan Expressway _ Lagos Bound. Station: Ogere Old Toll Gate
S/No Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 CONFIGURARTION

1 7,000 13,000 13,000 10,000 112
2 8,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 112
3 10,000 10,000 7,000 12
4 7,100 11,000 11,000 10,100 112
5 6,000 7,000 5,000 5,000 112
6 6,900 9,000 7,000 7,000 112
7 7,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 112
8 6,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 112
9 7,000 13,000 13,000 11,000 13
10 5,000 9,000 11
11 9,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 112
12 7,000 9,000 9,000 12
13 5,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 112
14 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112
15 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112
16 8,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
17 8,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 112
18 7,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 112
19 5,000 8,400 8,400 8,000 112
20 7,000 13,000 13,000 12,000 112
21 5,000 4,040 4,040 4,000 112
22 7,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 122
23 7,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 122
24 7,100 12,000 12,000 11,000 11,000 122
25 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112
26 7,000 13,000 12,000 12
27 8,000 15,000 15,000 13,000 13,000 122
28 5,000 4,000 4,000 111
29 6,000 7,000 7,100 7,000 112
58
30 7,000 9,000 7,000 7,000 112
31 6,400 9,000 8,000 8,000 112
32 7,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 112
33 7,000 9,000 8,100 8,100 112
34 8,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 112
35 8,000 11,000 11,000 10,080 112
36 7,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 122
37 8,000 10,000 11,000 13,000 13,000 122
38 7,000 9,000 9,000 8,100 8,100 8,100 123
39 8,000 8,100 11,000 11,000 112
40 9,200 10,000 10,000 12
41 8,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 112
42 6,000 7,000 9,000 9,000 112
43 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
44 9,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 112
45 6,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 112
46 6,000 7,000 9,000 9,000 112
47 7,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 112
48 6,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 112
49 6,000 10,000 10,000 11,000 112
50 9,000 13,000 13,000 11,200 112
51 9,000 9,400 9,200 9,200 112
52 7,000 9,000 9,000 12
53 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 122
54 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 122
55 7,000 8,000 11
56 6,000 8,000 11
57 7,000 10,000 10,000 12
59
58 6,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 112
59 9,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 122
60 8,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13
61 7,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112
62 7,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112
63 8,000 9,000 9,000 12
64 6,000 8,000 8,000 7,000 112
65 9,000 13,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 113
66 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112
67 9,000 10,000 11,000 11,000 112
68 7,000 8,000 11
69 8,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 113
70 9,000 13,000 13,000 12
71 8,000 10,000 11,000 11,000 112
72 9,000 11,000 11
73 5,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 112
74 7,000 9,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 122
75 9,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 122
76 5,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 122
77 8,000 9,000 11
78 7,000 8,000 11
79 8,000 9,000 11
80 5,000 7,000 11
81 7,000 9,000 9,000 12
82 7,000 9,000 9,000 12
83 6,400 8,000 8,000 12
84 7,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 122
85 8,000 13,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 122
86 6,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 112
87 6,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 112
60
Table 4.8: Analysis of the Axle Load Measurement (Lagos bound)
CONFI Veh
GURATI Damage Number
S/No Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 ON GVM Factor of Axles Equivalence Factor Weight of freight caused by overloaded axles ESAL Caused by overloaded axles
1 7,000 13,000 13,000 10,000 112 43,000 19.26 4 0.50 8.13 8.13 2.50 0.00 0.00 4,840 4,840 1,840 7.13 7.13 1.50
2 8,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 112 43,000 16.09 4 0.91 3.83 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 2,840 3,840 3,840 2.83 4.67 4.67
3 10,000 10,000 7,000 12 27,000 5.50 3 2.50 2.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,840 1,840 1.50 1.50
4 7,100 11,000 11,000 10,100 112 39,200 10.81 4 0.53 3.83 3.83 2.61 0.00 0.00 2,840 2,840 1,940 2.83 2.83 1.61
5 6,000 7,000 5,000 5,000 112 23,000 0.97 4 0.25 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
6 6,900 9,000 7,000 7,000 112 29,900 3.03 4 0.47 1.55 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
7 7,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 112 36,000 7.05 4 0.50 1.55 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 840 1,840 1,840 0.55 1.50 1.50
8 6,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 112 31,000 3.63 4 0.25 1.55 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
9 7,000 13,000 13,000 11,000 13 44,000 20.60 4 0.50 8.13 8.13 3.83 0.00 0.00 4,840 4,840 2,840 7.13 7.13 2.83
10 5,000 9,000 11 14,000 1.66 2 0.11 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
11 9,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 112 49,000 29.17 4 1.55 11.35 8.13 8.13 0.00 0.00 840 5,840 4,840 4,840 0.55 10.35 7.13 7.13
12 7,000 9,000 9,000 12 25,000 3.61 3 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
13 5,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 112 19,000 0.44 4 0.11 0.25 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
14 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112 21,000 0.58 4 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
15 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112 22,000 0.72 4 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
16 8,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 45,000 20.39 4 0.91 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 4,840 3,840 3,840 7.13 4.67 4.67
17 8,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 112 43,000 16.09 4 0.91 5.67 5.67 3.83 0.00 0.00 3,840 3,840 2,840 4.67 4.67 2.83
18 7,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 112 41,000 14.34 4 0.50 5.67 5.67 2.50 0.00 0.00 3,840 3,840 1,840 4.67 4.67 1.50
19 5,000 8,400 8,400 8,000 112 29,800 3.30 4 0.11 1.14 1.14 0.91 0.00 0.00 240 240 0.14 0.14
20 7,000 13,000 13,000 12,000 112 45,000 22.44 4 0.50 8.13 8.13 5.67 0.00 0.00 4,840 4,840 3,840 7.13 7.13 4.67
21 5,000 4,040 4,040 4,000 112 17,080 0.24 4 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
22 7,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 122 44,000 7.66 5 0.50 2.50 1.55 1.55 1.55 0.00 1,840 840 840 840 1.50 0.55 0.55 0.55
23 7,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 122 48,000 11.83 5 0.50 3.83 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00 2,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 2.83 1.50 1.50 1.50
24 7,100 12,000 12,000 11,000 11,000 122 53,100 19.55 5 0.53 5.67 5.67 3.83 3.83 0.00 3,840 3,840 2,840 2,840 4.67 4.67 2.83 2.83
25 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112 21,000 0.58 4 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
26 7,000 13,000 12,000 12 32,000 14.30 3 0.50 8.13 5.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,840 3,840 7.13 4.67
27 8,000 15,000 15,000 13,000 13,000 122 64,000 48.14 5 0.91 15.48 15.48 8.13 8.13 0.00 6,840 6,840 4,840 4,840 14.48 14.48 7.13 7.13
28 5,000 4,000 4,000 111 13,000 0.19 3 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
29 6,000 7,000 7,100 7,000 112 27,100 1.79 4 0.25 0.50 0.53 0.50 0.00 0.00
61
30 7,000 9,000 7,000 7,000 112 30,000 3.06 4 0.50 1.55 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
31 6,400 9,000 8,000 8,000 112 31,400 3.72 4 0.34 1.55 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
32 7,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 112 32,000 3.89 4 0.50 1.55 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
33 7,000 9,000 8,100 8,100 112 32,200 3.99 4 0.50 1.55 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
34 8,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 112 40,000 11.08 4 0.91 3.83 3.83 2.50 0.00 0.00 2,840 2,840 1,840 2.83 2.83 1.50
35 8,000 11,000 11,000 10,080 112 40,080 11.17 4 0.91 3.83 3.83 2.59 0.00 0.00 2,840 2,840 1,920 2.83 2.83 1.59
36 7,000 11,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 122 49,000 13.16 5 0.50 3.83 3.83 2.50 2.50 0.00 2,840 2,840 1,840 1,840 2.83 2.83 1.50 1.50
37 8,000 10,000 11,000 13,000 13,000 122 55,000 23.51 5 0.91 2.50 3.83 8.13 8.13 0.00 1,840 2,840 4,840 4,840 1.50 2.83 7.13 7.13
38 7,000 9,000 9,000 8,100 8,100 8,100 123 49,300 6.51 6 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.97 0.97 0.97 840 840 0.55 0.55
39 8,000 8,100 11,000 11,000 112 38,100 9.55 4 0.91 0.97 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.00 2,840 2,840 2.83 2.83
40 9,200 10,000 10,000 12 29,200 6.71 3 1.72 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,040 1,840 1,840 0.72 1.50 1.50
41 8,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 112 37,000 7.46 4 0.91 1.55 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 840 1,840 1,840 0.55 1.50 1.50
42 6,000 7,000 9,000 9,000 112 31,000 3.86 4 0.25 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
43 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 46,000 21.03 4 1.55 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 3,840 3,840 0.55 7.13 4.67 4.67
44 9,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 112 37,000 7.16 4 1.55 2.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 840 1,840 840 840 0.55 1.50 0.55 0.55
45 6,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 112 19,000 0.44 4 0.25 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
46 6,000 7,000 9,000 9,000 112 31,000 3.86 4 0.25 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
47 7,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 112 33,000 4.52 4 0.50 0.91 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
48 6,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 112 30,000 3.91 4 0.25 2.50 0.91 0.25 0.00 0.00 1,840 1.50
49 6,000 10,000 10,000 11,000 112 37,000 9.08 4 0.25 2.50 2.50 3.83 0.00 0.00 1,840 1,840 2,840 1.50 1.50 2.83
50 9,000 13,000 13,000 11,200 112 46,200 21.97 4 1.55 8.13 8.13 4.16 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 4,840 3,040 0.55 7.13 7.13 3.16
51 9,000 9,400 9,200 9,200 112 36,800 6.88 4 1.55 1.89 1.72 1.72 0.00 0.00 840 1,240 1,040 1,040 0.55 0.89 0.72 0.72
52 7,000 9,000 9,000 12 25,000 3.61 3 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
53 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 122 24,000 0.55 5 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.00
54 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 122 24,000 0.55 5 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.00
55 7,000 8,000 11 15,000 1.42 2 0.50 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
56 6,000 8,000 11 14,000 1.17 2 0.25 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
57 7,000 10,000 10,000 12 27,000 5.50 3 0.50 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,840 1,840 1.50 1.50
58 6,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 112 19,000 0.44 4 0.25 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
59 9,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 122 64,000 44.65 5 1.55 15.48 11.35 8.13 8.13 0.00 840 6,840 5,840 4,840 4,840 0.55 14.48 10.35 7.13 7.13
60 8,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13 47,000 25.31 4 0.91 8.13 8.13 8.13 0.00 0.00 4,840 4,840 4,840 7.13 7.13 7.13
61 7,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112 23,000 0.97 4 0.50 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
62
62 7,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 112 23,000 0.97 4 0.50 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00
63 8,000 9,000 9,000 12 26,000 4.02 3 0.91 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
64 6,000 8,000 8,000 7,000 112 29,000 2.58 4 0.25 0.91 0.91 0.50 0.00 0.00
65 9,000 13,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 113 64,000 43.73 5 1.55 8.13 11.35 11.35 11.35 0.00 840 4,840 5,840 5,840 5,840 0.55 7.13 10.35 10.35 10.35
66 9,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 112 46,000 21.03 4 1.55 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 3,840 3,840 0.55 7.13 4.67 4.67
67 9,000 10,000 11,000 11,000 112 41,000 11.72 4 1.55 2.50 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.00 840 1,840 2,840 2,840 0.55 1.50 2.83 2.83
68 7,000 8,000 11 15,000 1.42 2 0.50 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
69 8,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 113 46,000 9.02 5 0.91 2.50 2.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 1,840 1,840 840 840 1.50 1.50 0.55 0.55
70 9,000 13,000 13,000 12 35,000 17.82 3 1.55 8.13 8.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 4,840 4,840 0.55 7.13 7.13
71 8,000 10,000 11,000 11,000 112 40,000 11.08 4 0.91 2.50 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.00 1,840 2,840 2,840 1.50 2.83 2.83
72 9,000 11,000 11 20,000 5.39 2 1.55 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 2,840 0.55 2.83
73 5,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 112 19,000 0.44 4 0.11 0.25 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
74 7,000 9,000 9,000 8,000 8,000 122 41,000 5.44 5 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.91 0.91 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
75 9,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 122 66,000 51.08 5 1.55 15.48 11.35 11.35 11.35 0.00 840 6,840 5,840 5,840 5,840 0.55 14.48 10.35 10.35 10.35
76 5,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 122 27,000 0.83 5 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.00
77 8,000 9,000 11 17,000 2.47 2 0.91 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
78 7,000 8,000 11 15,000 1.42 2 0.50 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
79 8,000 9,000 11 17,000 2.47 2 0.91 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 0.55
80 5,000 7,000 11 12,000 0.61 2 0.11 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
81 7,000 9,000 9,000 12 25,000 3.61 3 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
82 7,000 9,000 9,000 12 25,000 3.61 3 0.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 840 840 0.55 0.55
83 6,400 8,000 8,000 12 22,400 2.16 3 0.34 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00
84 7,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 122 45,000 8.60 5 0.50 2.50 2.50 1.55 1.55 0.00 1,840 1,840 840 840 1.50 1.50 0.55
85 8,000 13,000 13,000 12,000 12,000 122 58,000 28.52 5 0.91 8.13 8.13 5.67 5.67 0.00 4,840 4,840 3,840 3,840 7.13 7.13 4.67 4.67
86 6,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 112 25,000 1.25 4 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
87 6,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 112 25,000 1.25 4 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00
TOTALS 617,100 816,940 716,840 580,780 166,100 8,100 817 336 57.86 273.59 242.48 173.97 68.33 0.97 12,960 154,520 142,600 105,500 39,080 0 8.86 202.18 182.10 125.10 54.25 0.00
Total Axles 336

Avg. Axles per Truck 3.86
Average VDF per Truck 9.39
Avg VDF per Truck represented by overloads 6.58
Avg VDF per Truck represented by loads up to 8160kg 2.81
63
Table 4.9: Equivalent Standard Axle Loading (ESAL) and Cumulative ESAL Projection over Design Period (10 – 20years)
Heavy Vehicles Daily ESAL Cumulative ESAL Projection (10years) Cumulative ESAL Projection (15years) Cumulative ESAL Projection (20years)
NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB
Lagos old Toll Gate 3,358 3,911 37,341 36,724 127,898,762.55 125,786,569.14 210,438,714.18 206,963,408.72 308,352,685.85 303,260,372.99
Isheri township 4,488 6,342 49,907 59,551 170,937,953.05 203,973,004.72 281,253,409.54 335,607,757.13 412,116,394.91 491,761,003.71
Ibafo township 3,514 4,072 39,076 38,236 133,840,456.11 130,964,691.77 220,214,902.21 215,483,252.45 322,677,587.28 315,744,371.98
Mowe township (RCCG vicinity) 3,411 4,455 37,930 41,832 129,917,414.85 143,282,834.44 213,760,111.39 235,750,955.22 313,219,479.28 345,442,332.31
Before Sagamu Interchange 3,108 3,723 34,561 34,959 118,376,817.75 119,740,065.69 194,771,746.18 197,014,771.33 285,396,113.05 288,682,784.11
After Sagamu Interchange 2,330 2,117 25,910 19,879 88,744,525.54 68,087,488.33 146,016,141.76 112,028,007.23 213,955,258.50 164,152,955.67
Ogere 1,856 2,283 20,639 21,437 70,690,918.20 73,426,422.23 116,311,570.43 120,812,442.37 170,429,596.47 177,024,656.49
Aramed Quarry 2,401 3,522 26,699 33,072 91,448,757.86 113,275,452.95 150,465,560.67 186,378,196.25 220,474,925.17 273,097,170.46
Ibadan old toll gate 2,900 2,354 32,248 22,104 110,454,559.68 75,709,942.15 181,736,828.80 124,569,640.54 266,296,244.48 182,530,022.51
TOTALS 27,366 32,779 304,310 307,795 1,042,310,166 1,054,246,471.42 1,714,968,985.15 1,734,608,431.24 2,512,918,284.98 2,541,695,670.23
AVERAGE 3,041 3,642 33,812 34,199 115,812,241 117,138,497 190,552,109 192,734,270 279,213,142.78 282,410,630.03
64
4.3 MATERIALS TEST
Results from the dynamic cone penetrometer test carried by the consultant shows that the
in-situ subgrade CBR ranges between 19% -50% as shown in Table 4.10. The least
subgrade CBR value in the distribution is 19%. Since it is the weakest part or the extreme
tail of the statistical distribution of strength that is important in design, this value
therefore becomes the design CBR value.
1. Soil materials from the road median sub soil after soaking for 48 hours had CBR
values between 9% and 37% between the Lagos-Ogere section and between 26%
and 90% at the Ogere- Ibadan section.
The soil materials fall in the A-2-4, A-2-6, A-2-7, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7-5, and
A-7-6 AASHTO soil groups.
The maximum dry density (MDD) varied between 1178 Kg/m3 and 2250 Kg/m3.
The optimum moisture content (OMC) values ranged between 8.79% and 28%.
2. The soil materials from the borrow areas had CBR values between 41% and 98%
in the unsoaked state and between 22% and 55% CBR value after soaking for 48
hours.
3. The results of the aggregate impact test carried out on 10mm-14mm sizes of the
rock samples obtained from the site was given as 27%
65
Table 4.10: DCP Test Results Showing In-situ Subgrade Strength on Lagos-Ibadan
Expressway
Chainage In-situ Subgrade Resilient Modulus

Test No (Km) Direction CBR % Mr (MPa)
0+900
1 RHS Northbound 44 453.2
0+905
2 LHS Southbound 24 247.2
12+500
12+502
20+000
20+001
30+000
30+001
40+000
40+001
10 LHS Southbound 50 515
50+000
50+001
60+150
60+155
70+150
70+151
80+040
80+050
90+100
90+105
99+900
21 RHS Northbound 50 515
99+910
Source: Design for the Reconstruction, Expansion and Modernization of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway.
Final Report: Vol 1- Main Report by Bi-Courtney Highway Services Ltd.
66
4.4 DESIGN
The projected cumulative ESAL over a design period of 20 years exceeded the limits of
all the design charts available. The design ESAL had to be scaled down to the 10th year
cumulative ESAL projection.
Using the following general input:
Design period = 10 years
Subgrade CBR = 19%
Current traffic = total ADT > 3 tons (number of heavy vehicles in the heavier direction) =
3,642 vpd
Existing daily ESAL = 34,199
Projected cumulative ESAL= 117,138,497
4.4.1 CBR method
Input:
Growth rate = 4%
Future traffic = 3642(1.04^10) = 5,392
Design traffic, using 0.8 lane distribution factor (for a 6 lane highway) = 0.8 (5,392) =
4313 vpd.
Material CBR Value %
Natural subgrade 19
Lateritic sub base (from borrow areas) 22
Aggregate base 27
67
Design curve from CBR design chart = chart F gives the thickness of each layer as
follows: Thickness above subgrade = 224mm (8.8in.)
Thickness above sub base = 203mm (8in.)
Thickness above base = 183mm (7.2in.)
91mm Surface 91mm

203mm
224m
m Base 112mm
Subbase 21mm
Figure 7: Sketch of the design thickness (not to scale)
Design thickness based on the FMWH&UD specifications; select either of the following
sections:
a. 100mm AC surface + 150mm of Base + 250mm of sub base

b. 75mm AC surface + 150mm Base + 300mm of sub base
To cater for the depth of surface, adopt option (a): 100mm AC surface + 150mm of Base
+ 250mm of sub base.
4.4.2 AASHTO Method

Input
Terminal serviceability Pt = 2.5
Projected daily ESAL = (117, 138, 49/365) = 32,093 (use maximum value on chart)
CBR =19%, Soil support value (SSV) = 6.8 (see appendix L)
Regional factor = 1.5
From nomograph (see Appendix M), weighted SN = 4.1
ADT > 5000, Pt 2.5 chart used (see appendix M)
1. Try minimum section (co-efficients from appendix S)
Leveling and top 2.5 x 0.42 = 1.05
Aggregate base 6 x0.14 = 0.84
68
Sub base 12 x 0.10 = 1.2
_______________
SN 3.07 (does not meet)
2. Increase Leveling, top and sub base

Leveling and top 3 x 0.42 = 1.26
Aggregate base 6 x 0.14 = 0.84
Sub base 15 x 0.10 = 1.5
________________
SN 3.6 (does not meet)
3. Increase leveling, top and sub base:
Leveling and top 3.7 x 0.42 = 1.554
Aggregate base 7 x 0.14 = 0.98
Sub base 16 x 0.10 = 1.6
___________________
SN 4.134 (OK)
Pavement thickness: 680mm
93.98mm (3.7in.)  100mm top course and leveling
177.8mm (7in.)  180mm aggregate base
406.4mm (16in.)  400mm granular sub base.
4.4.3 Asphalt Institute Method
Input
Subgrade CBR = 19%, Mr= 10.3 (19) = 195.7 MPa
Design ESAL = 1.17 x 108
69
Alternative designs
1. Full depth asphalt concrete pavement thickness (see appendix E)

475mm: 100mm asphalt concrete surface
375mm asphalt concrete base or emulsified asphalt base.
2. Pavement thickness with emulsified asphalt base (see appendices G-H )
a. Using emulsified asphalt base type II
475mm emulsified asphalt base
b. Using emulsified asphalt base type III
525mm emulsified asphalt base
3. Pavement thickness over untreated aggregate base (see appendices I-K)
a. Using 150mm aggregate base = 600mm
450mm asphalt concrete
150mm aggregate base
b. Using 300mm aggregate base = 725mm
425mm asphalt concrete surface
150mm aggregate base
150mm aggregate sub base
4.4.4 Overseas Road Note 31 (ORN 31) Method

Input
Design subgrade CBR = 19%, Subgrade class = S5 (see table 2.2)
ESAL = 117, 138, 270, traffic class = T8 (see table 2.5)
Alternative Designs
a. 450mm: 50mm flexible bituminous surface (see appendix Q)

150mm granular road base, GB1- GB3
125mm cement or lime stabilized road base1, CB1
125mm cement or lime stabilized road base 2, CB2
b. 450mm: 150mm bituminous surface (see appendix R)
70
150mm granular road base GB1 – GB3
150mm cement stabilized road base 2, CB2
c. 400mm: 150mm bituminous surface (see appendix O)
250mm granular road base GB1-GB3
100mm granular sub base GS
d. 375mm: 50mm flexible bituminous surface (see appendix P)
200mm bituminous road base RB
125mm granular sub base, GS.
4.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table 4.11: Summary of Design Thickness Results
Design Layer Thickness Total

Procedure Thickness
CBR 100mm AC surface + 150mm of Base 500mm
Method + 250mm of sub base.
AASHTO 100mm top course and leveling 680mm
method +180mm aggregate base + 400mm
granular sub base.
Asphalt
Institute
Method
Full depth asphalt 100mm asphalt concrete surface + 475mm
concrete pavement 375mm asphalt concrete base or
emulsified asphalt base.
Pavement using 100mm asphalt concrete surface + 575mm
Emulsified Asphalt 475mm emulsified asphalt base
Base Type II
Pavement using 100mm asphalt concrete surface + 625mm.
Emulsified Asphalt 525mm emulsified asphalt base
Base Type III
Pavement using 450mm asphalt concrete + 150mm 600mm
Untreated Aggregate aggregate base
Base (150mm)
Pavement using 425mm asphalt concrete surface + 725mm
Untreated Aggregate 150mm aggregate base +150mm
Base (300mm) aggregate sub base
Overseas
Road Note
71
31 Method
Alternative A 50mm flexible bituminous surface 450mm
+150mm granular road base +
125mm cement or lime stabilized
road base1 + 125mm cement or lime
stabilized road base 2.
Alternative B 150mm bituminous surface + 150mm 450mm
granular road base + 150mm cement
stabilized road base 2.
Alternative C 150mm bituminous surface + 250mm 400mm
granular road base + 100mm granular
sub base.
Alternative D 50mm flexible bituminous surface + 375mm
200mm bituminous road base
+ 125mm granular sub base.
4.6 DISCUSSION
1. The projected cumulative ESAL over a design period of 20 years exceeded the
limits of all the design charts available. The design ESAL had to be scaled down
to the 10th year cumulative ESAL projection.
2. The ORN 31 and AASHTO methods proved inadequate to determine appropriate
pavement thickness for Lagos – Ibadan expressway. This was because the design
ESAL (1.17 x 108) greatly surpassed the limits of the ESAL on the design charts.
3. Most of the pavement thicknesses obtained fall between 600mm-700mm.
This is excluding the thickness results from the CBR method, the full depth
asphalt concrete pavement (of the Asphalt Institute method) and the ORN 31
method. The variation in thicknesses is as a result of the varying material
composition of the different layers and their corresponding bearing capacities.
4. The CBR method proved grossly inadequate as it only takes into consideration the
subgrade strength and the traffic volume for design, unlike the other methods
which considered axle loadings and the cumulative repetition over the design
period. This resulted in under design of the pavement.
5. The Asphalt Institute’s design charts proved to be the only charts to give
admissible pavement thickness results for Lagos Ibadan Expressway.
72
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 SUMMARY
This study researched into how new and existing highways in Nigeria can be designed for
construction or reconstruction to check under design and premature distress and
accommodate the growing numbers of heavy vehicles. It presents an analysis of the
determination of the thickness of flexible pavement for Lagos- Ibadan Expressway as
designed using the CBR method, the AASHTO method, the Asphalt Institute’s method
and the Overseas Road Note 31 method.
The study involved the determination of traffic volume on Lagos- Ibadan Expressway,
axle load measurement of the vehicles and material testing and evaluation to determine
the different inputs to be used for the various design methods.
The results from a traffic study in 2009 showed that the average Annual Daily Traffic
(ADT) on the expressway was 37,996 vpd with about 19,369 vpd in the heavier direction.
Heavy duty vehicles constitute an average of 18.41% of the ADT with about 3,642vpd in
the heavier direction.
The axle load measurement showed that most of the heavy vehicles were overloaded
resulting in high vehicle damage factors of 11.12 and 9.39 for the northbound and
southbound vehicles respectively. The ESAL was determined to be 34,199 in the heavier
direction and projected to be 117,138,497 over a design period of 10 years at a 4%
growth rate, putting the traffic class as T8
Subgrade CBR was found to be 19%, putting the subgrade class as S5 sub base CBR was
found to be 22% and aggregate CBR assumed to be 80%
The summary of the pavement thicknesses obtained using the various methods of design
is shown in Table 4.11.
73
5.2 CONCLUSION
1. The prevailing method of pavement design in Nigeria is the CBR method.
Alternative methods available include the AASHTO method, the Asphalt
Institute’s method and the Overseas Road Note 31 methods.
2. No obvious trend of growth of vehicles could be determined from the historic
traffic data available, although results showed an increase in the percentage of
heavy duty vehicles from 13.5% to 18.41% between 1998 and 2009 showing a
high growth rate.
3. Most of the pavement thicknesses obtained fell between 600mm-700mm.
This is excluding the thickness results from the CBR method, the full depth
asphalt concrete pavement (of the Asphalt Institute method) and the ORN 31
method. The CBR method proved grossly inadequate and resulted in under design
as it only takes into consideration the subgrade strength and the traffic volume as
design inputs, unlike the other methods which considered axle loadings and the
cumulative repetition over the design period.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The CBR method of pavement design in Nigeria should be discontinued.
2. The other mechanistic or elastic layer theory methods of pavement design should be
adopted i.e., the AASHTO, Overseas Road Note 31 and Asphalt Institute’s methods
of design.
3. Regular (yearly) studies should be conducted to determine pavement performance
over the design period to check adequacy of design method used. This will also
facilitate a more appropriate method of design to be developed based on the peculiar
ecological and environmental nature of our sub-region.
4. The railway freight system should be developed to check the rising level of
overloaded heavy duty freight trucks.
5. The legal axle loading for heavy trucks should be enforced. This can be done using
weigh bridges at toll station. Faulting drivers should be heavily fined to curb the
trend.
74
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO (1986). Guide for design of pavement structures. Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Road Engineering for
Development. R. Robinson and B. Thagesen. Eds. 2nd ed. London: Spon Press. 2004.
Chapter 15: 284-305.
2. Abam, T. K. S., Osadebe, C.C. and Omange, G.N. (2004). Influence of geology on
pavement performance: A case study of Shagamu-Benin city road, south-western Nigeria.
Global Journal of Geological Sciences. 7.1: 17-24 in Abam, T. K. S., Ofoegbu, C. O.,
Osadebe, C.C. and Gobo, A. E. (2000). Impact of hydrology on the Port-Harcourt-
Patani-Warri road. Environmental Geology, 4.2:153-162.
3. Asphalt Institute (2008). Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets Manual Series No.
1(MS-1). 9th Ed Revisied. ISBN 978-1-934154-01-4.
4. Barber, E. S. (1946). Application of triaxial compression test results to the calculation of
flexible pavement thickness. Proceedings, Highway Research Board. 26-39 in Huang, Y.
H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chapter 1:2.
5. Bi-Courtney Highway Services Ltd. (2010). Design for the Reconstruction, Expansion
and Modernization of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. Final Report: Vol. 1-Main Report.
(unpublished work).
6. Corps of Engineers (1958). Engineering and Design-Flexible Pavements. EM-1110-45-
302 in Ekwulo, E. O. and Eme, D. B. (2009). Fatigue and rutting strain analysis of
flexible pavements designed using CBR methods. African Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology Vol. 3 (12). 412-421. ISSN 1991-637X © 2009 Academic
Journals. Retrieved May 21, 2011, from http://www.academicjournals.org/AJEST.
7. Highway Manual –Part 1 Design (1973). Federal Ministry of Works, Lagos in Ekwulo, E.
O. and Eme, D. B. (2009). Fatigue and rutting strain analysis of flexible pavements
designed using CBR methods. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
Vol. 3 (12). 412-421. ISSN 1991-637X © 2009 Academic Journals. Retrieved May 21,
2011, from http://www.academicjournals.org/AJEST.
8. Highway Research Board (1945). Report of committee on classification of materials for
subgrades and granular type roads. Proceedings, Highway Research Board. Vol.25, 376-
75
384 in Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall. Chapter 1:2.
9. Hogentogler, C. A., and C. Terzaghi. (1929). Interrelationship of load, road and subgrade.
Public Roads. 37-64 in Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed.
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Chapter 1: 2.
10. Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
11. Kansas State Highway Commission (1947). Design of flexible pavement using the triaxial
compression test. Bulletin 8; Highway Research Board in Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement
Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Chapter 1:2
12. Mahboub, K. C., and Little, D. N. (1990). An improved asphalt concrete mix design
procedure. Proceedings, Association of asphalt paving technologists Vol 59:138-175 in
Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall. Chapter 1:2
13. Mass Highway, 2006 edition. Pavement design. Chapter 9:1-28. Retrieved Feb 25, 2011,
from http://www.mhd.state.ma.us.pdf.
14. Mathew, T. V. and Krishna Rao, K. V. (2006). Flexible pavement design. Introduction to
Transportation Engineering. NPTEL May 24, 2006. Chapter 27:1-8. Retrieved Dec. 15,
2010, from http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.an/nptel.html
15. McLeod, N. W. (1953). Some basic problems in flexible pavement design. Proceedings,
Highway Research Board. 91- 118 in Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and
Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Chapter 1:2.
16. Osadebe, C.C. and Omange, G.N. (2005). Soil properties and pavement performance in
the Nigerian rainforest: a case study of Shagamu-Benin road, south-western Nigeria. Ife
Journal of Science 7.1:119-122.
17. Porter, O. J. (1950). Development of the original method for highway design:
Symposium on development of CBR Flexible Pavement Design for Airfields.
Transactions, ASCE. 461-467 in Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design.
2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Chapter 1:2.
76
18. Rolt, J. (2004). Structural design of asphalt pavements. Road Engineering for
Development. R. Robinson and B. Thagesen. Eds. 2nd ed. London: Spon Press. 2004.
Chapter 15: 284-305.
19. RRL, (1970). A guide to the structural design of pavement for new roads. Overseas Road
Note 29. Crowthorne: Road Research Laboratory.
20. Seeds, S.B. (2009). Flexible Pavement Design, Summary of the State of the Art. A2B03:
Committee on Flexible Pavement Design. 1-7. Retrieved Feb 25, 2011, from
http://www.trb.org/publications/millennium/00040.pdf
21. Steele, D. J. (1945). Application of the classification and group index in estimating
desirable sub-base and total pavement thickness. Proceedings, Highway Research Board.
388-392 in Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall. Chapter 1:2
22. Summers, C. J. (2000). Road pavement and foot way design. The idiots’ guide to
highways maintenance. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2010, from
http://www.highwaysmaintenance.com/design.htm.
23. Texas Department of Transport (2011). R- Value Design. Pavement design. Retrieved
Dec. 15, 2010 from, http://www.lrrb.org/apg/pavement_design.html.
24. Texas Department of Transport (2011). Stress distribution on a road pavement. Pavement
design. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2010 from,
http://www.onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/pdm/images/Figure12.2.jpg
25. The Minnesota Department of Transport (Mn/DOT) Geotechnical and Pavement Manual.
R-Value Design. Pavement design. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2010, from
http://www.lrrb.org/apg.
26. Toll, D. G. (1997a). History of Road Design. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2010, from
http://www.dur.ac.uk/des0www4/cal/roads/history/history.html.
27. Toll, D. G. (1997b). Pavement Design. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2010, from
http://www.dur.ac.uk/des0www4/cal/roads/pavdes.html.
28. Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) (1970). A Guide to the Structural
Design of Pavements for New Roads. Road Note 29, 3rd Ed. Department of Environ.
HMSO, London in Ekwulo, E. O. and Eme, D. B. (2009). Fatigue and rutting strain
analysis of flexible pavements designed using CBR methods. African Journal of
77
Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 3 (12). 412-421. ISSN 1991-637X © 2009
Academic Journals. Retrieved May 21, 2011, from
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJEST.
29. TRL (1993). A guide to the structural design of bitumen-surfaced roads in tropical and
sub-tropical countries. Overseas Road Note 31, 3rd Ed, Crowthorne: Transport Research
Laboratory in Road Engineering for Development. R. Robinson and B. Thagesen. Eds.
2nd ed. London: Spon Press. 2004. Chapter 15: 284-305.
30. TRL (2003). A guide to the structural design of bitumen-surfaced roads in tropical and
sub-tropical countries. Overseas Road Note 31, 4th Ed, Crowthorne: Transport Research
Laboratory.
31. U.S. Navy (1953). Airfield pavement, bureau of yards and docks.Technical Report.
NAVDOCKS TP-PW-4 in Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed.
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Chapter 1:2.
32. Witczak, M. W., K. Kalosh, T. Pellinen, M. El- Basyouny, and H. Von Quintus (2002).
NCHRP Report No 465, National Cooperative Highway Research Programme in Huang,
Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chapter 1:2.
78
APPENDIX A
Figure 8: Design Chart for Sub- Base
79
Appendix B
Figure 9: Design Chart for Rolled Asphalt Road base: Minimum Thickness of Surfacing
and Road base (base course)
80
Appendix C
Figure 10: Design Chart for Dense Macadam Road base: Minimum Thickness of Surfacing
and Road base (base course)
81
Appendix D: Flexible Pavement Design Curve (CBR)
Source: Highway Manual –Part 1 Design
82
Appendix E: Full Depth Asphalt Concrete Pavement Chart
Source: Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets Manual Series No. 1(MS-1).
83
Appendix F: Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type I Chart
84
Appendix G: Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type II Chart
85
Appendix H: Emulsified Asphalt Mix Type III Chart
86
Appendix I: Untreated Aggregate Base 150mm Thickness Chart
87
Appendix K: Untreated Aggregate Base 300mm Thickness Chart
88
Appendix L: Approximate Correlation between K, SSV, CBR and R-Value*
Source: AASHTO Interim Structural Pavement Design Procedure
89
Appendix M: Design Chart for Flexible Pavement Pt = 2.5
90
Appendix N: Key to Structural Catalogue
91
Appendix O: Granular Road base / Structural Surface
92
Appendix P: Bituminous Road base / Semi-Structural Surface
93
Appendix Q: Composite Road base / Semi-Structural Surface
94
Appendix R: Composite Road base / Structural Surface
95
Appendix S: Controls and Layer Co-efficients for AASHTO Design
96

Pavement Design in Nigeria - A Case Study

Enviado por

Dados do documento

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

Pavement Design in Nigeria - A Case Study

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PAVEMENT DESIGN IN NIGERIA: A CASE STUDY OF LAGOS-IBADAN

UNA, OTO-OBONG VICTORIA

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL

STUDENT SIGNATURE DATE

PROF. A. S. ADEDIMILA DATE

PROF. A. S. ADEDIMILA DATE

EXTERNAL EXAMINER DATE

To Almighty God, my Rock of Ages, for upholding me in wearying times.

To my parents for being a source of unending support.

I acknowledge my lecturers Prof. J. B. Adeyeri, Dr. A. S. Ogbiye, Dr. A. N. Ede, Dr. D. O.

Table of Contents vii

List of Tables xiii

List of Figures xiv

1.1.1 Methods of Pavement Design 1

1.2 Problem Analysis 2

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Research 2

1.4 Research Question 3

1.5 Scope of the Study 3

1.6 Significance of the Study 3

1.7 Definition of Terms 3

2.1 Historical Development of Roads 6

2.2 Pavement Types 6

2.3 Design Methods 7

2.3.1 Empirical Methods 7

2.3.2 Limiting Shear Failure Methods 8

2.3.3 Limiting Deflection Method 8

2.3.4 Regression Methods Based on Pavement Performance or Road Test 9

2.3.5 Mechanistic-Empirical Methods 9

2.4 Design Requirements 10

2.5 Flexible Pavements 12

2.5.1 Flexible Pavement Materials 15

2.6 Flexible Pavement Design 27

2.6.1 CBR Method 27

2.6.2 Overseas Road Note 29 28

2.6.2 R -Value Design 28

2.6.3 Full Depth Asphalt Pavement 32

2.6.4 The AASHTO Method 33

2.6.5 Asphalt Institute Design 35

2.6.6 Overseas Road Note 31 36

2.7.2 Other Pavement Concepts 41

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1.1 The Study Area 42

3.2 Research Design 42

3.2.1 Materials Evaluation 43

3.2.2 Traffic Count 44

3.2.3 Axle Load Surveys 44

3.3 Data Collection Instrument 45

3.4 Procedures for Processing Collected Data 45

3.5 Limitation of the Methodology 47

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.2 Traffic Engineering 48

4.2.1 Traffic History 48

4.2.2 Traffic Volume and Traffic Count Analysis 49

4.3 Materials Test 65

4.4.1 CBR method 67

4.4.2 AASHTO Method 68

4.4.3 Asphalt Institute Method 69

4.4.4 Overseas Road Note 31 (ORN 31) Method 70

4.5 Summary of Results 71

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECCOMMENDATIONS

Figure 8: Design Chart for Sub-Base 79

Figure 9: Design Chart for Rolled Asphalt Road base: Minimum

Flexible Pavement Design Curve (CBR) 82