Highway Design Project

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering

Semester 07

Group No: 1B

Bachelor of Science of Engineering (Honours)

Department of Civil Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Moratuwa
Sri Lanka

September 2020
 Group No: 1B
Group Members:
• 160045X : Athapaththu A.H.A.P.N.
• 160053U : Bamunuarachchi B.A.S.N.
• 160057K : Bandara G.R.D.N.
• 160058N : Bandara G.R.D.P.
• 160059T : Bandara G.R.U.C
• 160063B : Bandaranayake S.S

Instructed by :

i
 Office use only:

Checked By Marks (%) Remarks

(Signature)

Total

Final Marks

ii
 Declaration

We hereby declare that the project titled “Highway Design Project” which is being submitted
as a project of the Highway Engineering module of the 7th semester to the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Moratuwa is an authentic record of our genuine work done under
the Guidance of Prof. W. K. Mampearachchi and Dr. H. R. Pasindu of the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Moratuwa.

Date: 30.09.2020

iii
 Preface

This project report details the design of the Piliyandala-Maharagama Highway of about 1.1 km
road segment. This report primarily consists of the practical work such as reconnaissance
survey, road safety audit, traffic count; in situ field testing such as DCP test; laboratory testing
such as CBR Test.

Further the theoretical work such as highway capacity, design work such as the geometric
design of the road and pavement design are included in the report. Also, this report states the
environmental, social aspects of the design along with a road survey audit and future variations
in the design.

This project has helped us to enhance our knowledge in the aspects of highway engineering
and road design and further it helped us to identify the areas of application of theory in practical
field work.

iv
 Acknowledgement

We would like to express our gratitude towards everyone who helped us in making this project
a success.

We would like to express my special gratitude to Prof. W.K. Mampearachchi and Dr. H. R.
Pasindu, lecturers in charge of the module of Highway Engineering for their guidance and
support given throughout this project. Their constant supervision helped us to clarify our doubts
and helped us in completing the project.

We would like to thank the instructor in-charge for our group, Mr. Ishara Pradeep for their kind
corporation, support and advices. We are highly indebted to for his guidance. We would also
like to thank all the instructors involved with our project.

Our special thanks and appreciation also go to everyone who worked hard developing this
project and willingly helping with their abilities.

v
Table of Contents

Part A ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Road Safety Audit .............................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2
2. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ................................................................... 3
3. Capacity Design .................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Survey Location ............................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Traffic Count .................................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Vehicle Composition ....................................................................................................... 7
3.5 PCU Conversion .............................................................................................................. 9
3.6 15-year Demand ............................................................................................................... 9
3.7 Growth Factor ................................................................................................................ 10
3.8 Traffic Count in Passenger Car Unit .............................................................................. 10
3.9 Traffic Count in both Directions in passenger car units ................................................ 11
3.10 Calculation of Analysis Flow Rate (Vp) ...................................................................... 12
3.11 Determination of Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................... 13
3.12 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 15
4. DESIGN ESAL VALUE .................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Traffic class calculation ................................................................................................. 17
4.3 ESAL values for various vehicle Categories ................................................................. 17
4.4 Sample calculation for Light Good Vehicles ................................................................. 19
5. Pavement Design .............................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Determination of CBR (using CBR test)................................................................... 21
5.2 Calculation ................................................................................................................ 21
5.3 Bearing Ratio ................................................................................................................. 25
5.4 Bulk Density .................................................................................................................. 26
5.5 Moisture Content ........................................................................................................... 27
5.6 Dry Density .................................................................................................................... 27
5.7 Results ............................................................................................................................ 28
5.8 CBR (using dynamic cone penetration test) .................................................................. 29
5.9 Pavement Design Based on TRL Overseas Road Note 31 ............................................ 31
5.10 Pavement Design Verification with CIRCLY Software .............................................. 34

vi
6. Geometric Design ................................................................................................................ 41
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 41
6.2 Design of Proposed Road Segment................................................................................ 42
6.3 Drainage Design............................................................................................................. 43
6.4 Sight distances ............................................................................................................... 46
6.5 Road Alignment ............................................................................................................. 48
6.6 Problems identified in the road section and proposed geometric solutions ................... 49
7. Cost Estimation................................................................................................................... 1
Part B ......................................................................................................................................... 1
8. DISCUSSION FOR 20 YEAR DESIGN PERIOD ............................................................ 1

vii
List of Figures

Figure 3.1-Stretch of Road section & surveying Location ........................................................ 5

Figure 3.2-15 min Vehicle Composition Towards Maharagama............................................... 7
Figure 3.3-Vehicle composition towards Maharagama ............................................................. 7
Figure 3.4-15 Min Vehicle Composition Towards Piliyandala ................................................. 8
Figure 3.5- Vehicle composition towards Piliyandala ............................................................... 8
Figure 5.1-CBR Test - Stress vs Penetration - 10 blows per layer .......................................... 22
Figure 5.2-CBR Test - Stress vs Penetration - 25 blows per layer .......................................... 23
Figure 5.3-CBR Test - Stress vs Penetration - 56 blows per layer .......................................... 24
Figure 5.4- Cumulative Penetration vs Total Number of Blows, Loaction 1 .......................... 29
Figure 5.5- Layer Selection According to RN 31 .................................................................... 31
Figure 5.6-Pavement Layer Thickness .................................................................................... 31
Figure 5.7- Particle size distribution for road base .................................................................. 32
Figure 5.8- Atterberg Limit values for sub base ...................................................................... 32
Figure 5.9-Particle size distribution for sub base material ...................................................... 33
Figure 5.10-TLD file import to CIRCLY 7.0 .......................................................................... 39
Figure 5.11-Layer properties and thickness ............................................................................. 40
Figure 5.12-Analysis Results ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 6.0.1-Geometry of the selected segment ...................................................................... 41
Figure 6.0.2-Catchment Area ................................................................................................... 44
Figure 6.0.3-Cross Section of the proposed road ..................................................................... 45
Figure 6.0.4-Geometric Design................................................................................................ 46
Figure 6.0.5- - Existing road centerline and geometrical unsatisfied section .......................... 49
Figure 6.0.6-lateral clearance ................................................................................................... 50
Figure 6.7-Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................. 54

List of Tables
Table 3.1- Traffic Count Piliyandala to Maharagama Direction ............................................... 6
Table 3.2- Traffic Count Maharagama to Piliyandala ............................................................... 6
Table 3.3-PCU Factors............................................................................................................... 9
Table 3.4- Growth factors ........................................................................................................ 10
Table 3.5-Growth Factors According to RDA ......................................................................... 10
Table 3.6-Traffic Count in Piliyandala to Maharagama direction for PCU ............................ 10
Table 3.7-Traffic Count in Maharagama to Piliyandala direction for PCU ............................ 11
Table 3.8- Traffic Count in Both Directions in PCU ............................................................... 11
Table 3.9- Present Condition of the road Section.................................................................... 12
Table 3.10- At the end of the Design Period ........................................................................... 12
Table 3.11- LOS Classification................................................................................................ 14
Table 4.1-ESAL values for various vehicles ........................................................................... 17
Table 4.2-ESAL values for Piliyandala to Maharagama direction .......................................... 18
Table 4.3-ESAL values for Maharagama to Piliyandala direction .......................................... 18
Table 4.4- Growth Factors for the Vehicle types ..................................................................... 19

viii
Table 4.5-CNSA values for Piliyandala – Maharagama .......................................................... 20
Table 4.6- CNSA values for Maharagama to Piliyandala........................................................ 20
Table 5.1-Calculated results for 10 blows per layer ................................................................ 22
Table 5.2-Calculated results for 25 blows per layer ................................................................ 23
Table 5.3-Calculated results for 56 blows per layer ................................................................ 24
Table 5.4-Moisture Content of Sample.................................................................................... 27
Table 5.5- Final Results ........................................................................................................... 28
Table 5.6- CBR value for each layer ....................................................................................... 30
Table 5.7-Axle Grouping ......................................................................................................... 34
Table 5.8-Traffic data used for the load calculation ................................................................ 35
Table 5.9-Axle loads used for the Traffic Load Distribution (All the loads are in tonnes) ..... 35
Table 5.10-Grouping of Axle loads distribution ..................................................................... 36
Table 5.11-Traffic Load distribution ....................................................................................... 36
Table 5.12-Damage Exponent ................................................................................................. 37
Table 5.13-Axle Group loads ................................................................................................... 37
Table 5.14- ESA....................................................................................................................... 38
Table 6.1- Runoff Coefficient .................................................................................................. 43
Table 6.0.2-Improvements to radius of curvature .................................................................... 49
Table 6.0.3-Super elevation requirements of curves ............................................................... 50
Table 6.0.4Checking for lateral clearance existing radius-...................................................... 51
Table 6.0.5-Areas Needed to be Cleared ................................................................................. 51

ix
Highway Design Project Group 1B

PART A
1. ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

1.1 Introduction

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 2

Highway Design Project Group 1B

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 3

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3. CAPACITY DESIGN

3.1 Introduction
The traffic flow has increased enormously due to rapid growth of vehicle ownership and increment
of population in the urban areas of Sri Lanka. The traffic management becomes very difficult due
to higher growth rate of vehicles and non-availability of sufficient space in urban area. It leads to
congestion, excessive delay and accidents on urban roads. Capacity is a key parameter for planning,
design and operation of any type of urban road. Capacity is the maximum traffic flow that can be
accommodated in a highway facility during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic
and control conditions. (HCM 2000)

Road capacity is generally determined by the procedures set out in the Highway Capacity Manual.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published in the United States by the National Academies of
Science's Transportation Research Board in year 2000 had widely accepted by many countries.
According to the capacity manual there are several factors that affect the highway capacity. Which
are; base conditions, roadway conditions, traffic condition, vehicle composition, directional and
lane distribution, etc.

But for Sri Lankan context, it is not ideal to use united states’ highway capacity manual guidelines.
There are several reasons why this does not apply to Asian countries such as Sri Lanka, especially
in the design of 2 or even four lane roads as Piliyandala – Maharagama road (B367) in this case to
be considered,

• Vehicle Composition: Heterogeneous nature of traffic with the presence of three-wheelers,

motor bikes, etc. where United States’ traffic flow is mainly consists of cars.
• Geometric and land uses
• Major roads giving direct access that reduces mobility

Hence base capacity cannot be obtained for this road using the HCM guideline and for this case it is
done considering the empirical study on capacity evaluation (Jayaratne and Pasindu 2019) for
multilane roads under heterogeneous traffic conditions

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 4

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.2 Survey Location

• Road Name – Piliyandala - Maharagama Road

• Date of the survey – 2020/03/13
• Time – 15:20:00 to 16:50:00
• Location: 6.8095754N 79.9377856E

Survey Location

Figure 3.1-Stretch of Road section & surveying Location

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 5

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.3 Traffic Count

Piliyandala to Maharagama Direction

Table 3.1- Traffic Count Piliyandala to Maharagama Direction

Towards Maharagama
Time (p.m.)
Vehicle Type 3.20 - 3.35 - 3.50 - 4.05 - 4.20 - 4.35 -
3.35 3.50 4.05 4.20 4.35 4.50
Motorcycle 31 30 27 40 41 41
Three-Wheeler 21 19 23 24 27 26
Car 19 18 18 18 17 20
Van 3 3 5 3 3 8
Medium Bus 0 0 0 0 0 1
large Bus 3 2 3 3 1 3
Light freight Vehicle 5 4 8 3 7 6
Medium freight Vehicle 2 0 2 3 3 7
Large Lorry 2 0 2 0 1 0
Multi Axle 0 0 1 0 1 0
Tractor 1 1 0 0 0 0
Total 87 77 89 94 101 112

Maharagama to Piliyandala Direction

Table 3.2- Traffic Count Maharagama to Piliyandala

Towards Piliyandala
Time (p.m)
Vehicle Type 3.20 - 3.35 - 3.50 - 4.05 - 4.20 - 4.35 -
3.35 3.50 4.05 4.20 4.35 4.50
Motorcycle 36 40 47 43 34 24
Three-Wheeler 27 21 22 25 29 19
Car 20 14 14 14 22 14
Van 1 3 0 0 0 4
Medium Bus 0 0 0 0 0
large Bus 3 2 2 1 2 3
Light freight Vehicle 2 4 6 0 6
Medium freight Vehicle 3 2 3 8 3 2
Large Lorry 0 2 0 3 5 1
Multi Axle 0 0 0 0 0
Tractor 0 1 0 0 1
Total 92 89 94 94 102 67

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 6

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.4 Vehicle Composition

Piliyandala to Maharagama Direction

15 min Vehicle Composition Towards Maharagama

45
40
35
No. of vehicles

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3.20 - 3.35 3.35 - 3.50 3.50 - 4.05 4.05 - 4.20 4.20 - 4.35 4.35 - 4.50
Timr

Motor Cycle Three Wheeler Car Van

Medium Bus large Bus Light Goods Vehicle Medium Goods Vehicle
Large Lorry Multi Axle Tractor

Figure 3.2-15 min Vehicle Composition Towards Maharagama

Vehicle composition towards Maharagama

3.04% 0.89%
0.36%
5.89% 0.36%
2.68%
0.18%
4.46%
37.50%

19.64%

25.00%
Motor Cycle Three Wheeler Car Van
Medium Bus large Bus Light Goods Vehicle Medium Goods Vehicle
Large Lorry Multi Axle Tractor

Figure 3.3-Vehicle composition towards Maharagama

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 7

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Maharagama to Piliyandala Direction

15 Min Vehicle Composition Towards Piliyandala

50
45
40
No. of vehicles

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3.20 - 3.35 3.35 - 3.50 3.50 - 4.05 4.05 - 4.20 4.20 - 4.35 4.35 - 4.50
Time

Motor Cycle Three Wheeler Car Van

Medium Bus large Bus Light Goods Vehicle Medium Goods Vehicle
Large Lorry Multi Axle Tractor

Figure 3.4-15 Min Vehicle Composition Towards Piliyandala

Vehicle composition towards Piliyandala

2.04% 0.00%
3.90% 0.37%
3.35%
2.42%
0.00% 41.64%
1.49%
18.22%

26.58%

Motor Cycle Three Wheeler Car Van

Medium Bus large Bus Light Goods Vehicle Medium Goods Vehicle
Large Lorry Multi Axle Tractor

Figure 3.5- Vehicle composition towards Piliyandala

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 8

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.5 PCU Conversion

PCU factors are obtained from the paper “Evaluation of Level of Service for two-lane roads in Sri
Lanka” (Jayaratne and Pasindu 2019)

The study is conducted for two lane road traffic operations, covering 14 locations including Colombo,
Gampaha, Kaluthara, Matale and Anuradhapura under congested and uncongested flow conditions.
Lane width of the road sections considered is 2.2m-4m. Maharagama – Piliyandala road has similar
characteristics. Therefore, it would be viable to follow this paper for future decision making regarding
the assignment.

Assumptions
1. In the study design road section has been considered as a flat terrain even though there are few
mildly rolling parts. Compared to the total length of the road section these parts are assumed to
be negligible.

2. Since the study has considered small and large busses together, even though traffic data was
collected separately, PCU factor for small busses is assumed as 1.2 (PCU factor of Vans) .

3. Since the study has not considered multi axle vehicles, PCU factor was assumed to be similar to
large busses (4.1)

Table 3.3-PCU Factors

Vehicle Motorc 3- Car Van Freight Vehicle Minibu Larg Tract

Type ycle wheel Light Medi Heav Multi s e Bus or
er um y -axle
PCU 0.2 0.6 1 1.2 1.2 3.2 3.2 4.1 1.2 4.1 1.5
Factors

3.6 15-year Demand

A design life of 15 years is selected for the construction of road section and drainage facilities. To
design the road, it is required to predict vehicle demand for the road section at the end of design
period using present data. To calculate the predicted vehicle demand below mentioned equation was
used

𝑬𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑽𝒆𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒍𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕

= 𝑽𝒆𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒍𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑷𝒆𝒂𝒌 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒓 × (𝟏 + 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒘𝒕𝒉 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓)𝟏𝟓

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 9

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.7 Growth Factor

According to study Effectiveness of Traffic Forecasting on Pavement Designs for Sri Lankan Roads”
(Mampearachchi and Gunasinghe 2011) .growth factors mentioned in table 3.4 were identified.

Table 3.4- Growth factors

Motorc 3wheele Car Van Goods Vehicle Mini Large Tract

ycle r bus Bus or
Light Mediu Heav Multi
m y -axle
G.F.’ 5 5 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 12.2 6 2.4 0.05
s(%)

RDA has predicted 5.0% of growth factors for all vehicles. Hence growth factors of all the vehicles
were taken as 5%

Table 3.5-Growth Factors According to RDA

Motorc 3whe Car Van Goods Vehicle Mi Large Tra

ycle eler Lig Mediu Heav Multi- nib Bus ctor
ht m y axle us
G.F.’s(%) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3.8 Traffic Count in Passenger Car Unit

Piliyandala to Maharagama Direction

Table 3.6-Traffic Count in Piliyandala to Maharagama direction for PCU

Towards Maharagama
Time
Vehicle Type 3.20 - 3.35 - 3.50 - 4.05 - 4.20 - 4.35 -
3.35 3.50 4.05 4.20 4.35 4.50
Motorcycle 6.2 6 5.4 8 8.2 8.2
Three-Wheeler 12.6 11.4 13.8 14.4 16.2 15.6
Car 19 18 18 18 17 20
Van 3.6 3.6 6 3.6 3.6 9.6
Medium Bus 0 0 0 0 0 1.2
large Bus 12.3 8.2 12.3 12.3 4.1 12.3
Light Freight Vehicle 6 4.8 9.6 3.6 8.4 7.2
Medium Freight Vehicle 6.4 0 6.4 9.6 9.6 22.4
Large Lorry 6.4 0 6.4 0 3.2 0
Multi Axle 0 0 4.1 0 4.1 0
Tractor 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 0
Total 74 53.5 82 69.5 74.4 96.5

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 10

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Maharagama to Piliyandala Direction

Table 3.7-Traffic Count in Maharagama to Piliyandala direction for PCU

Towards Piliyandala
Time (p.m)
Vehicle Type 3.20 - 3.35 - 3.50 - 4.05 - 4.20 - 4.35 -
3.35 3.50 4.05 4.20 4.35 4.50
Motorcycle 7.2 8 9.4 8.6 6.8 4.8
Three-Wheeler 16.2 12.6 13.2 15 17.4 11.4
Car 20 14 14 14 22 14
Van 1.2 3.6 0 0 0 4.8
Medium Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0
large Bus 12.3 8.2 8.2 4.1 8.2 12.3
Light Freight Vehicle 2.4 4.8 7.2 0 7.2 0
Medium Freight Vehicle 9.6 6.4 9.6 25.6 9.6 6.4
Large Lorry 0 6.4 0 9.6 16 3.2
Multi Axle 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tractor 0 1.5 0 0 1.5 0
Total 68.9 65.5 61.6 76.9 88.7 56.9

3.9 Traffic Count in both Directions in passenger car units

Table 3.8- Traffic Count in Both Directions in PCU

Time (p.m)
Vehicle Type 3.20 - 3.35 - 3.50 - 4.05 - 4.20 - 4.35 -
3.35 3.50 4.05 4.20 4.35 4.50
Motorcycle 13.4 14 14.8 16.6 15 13
Three-Wheeler 28.8 24 27 29.4 33.6 27
Car 39 32 32 32 39 34
Van 4.8 7.2 6 3.6 3.6 14.4
Medium Bus 0 0 0 0 0 1.2
large Bus 24.6 16.4 20.5 16.4 12.3 24.6
Light freight Vehicle 8.4 9.6 16.8 3.6 15.6 7.2
Medium Freight 16 6.4 16 35.2 19.2 28.8
Vehicle
Large Lorry 6.4 6.4 6.4 9.6 19.2 3.2
Multi Axle 0 0 4.1 0 4.1 0
Tractor 1.5 3 0 0 1.5 0
Total 142.9 119 143.6 146.4 163.1 153.4

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 11

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.10 Calculation of Analysis Flow Rate (Vp)

Assumption
The peak 15-min flow rate in the section considered (from 4.20 p.m. - 4.35 p.m.) is the peak flow for
the entire year
Present Condition
Table 3.9- Present Condition of the road Section

Vehicle Type Peak 15 min

flow rate
Motorcycle 15
Three-Wheeler 33.6
Car 39
Van 3.6
Medium Bus 0
large Bus 12.3
Light Goods Vehicle 15.6
Medium Goods 19.2
Vehicle
Large Lorry 19.2
Multi-Axle 4.1
Tractor 1.5
Total 163.1

𝑫𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝑷𝒆𝒂𝒌 𝑯𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 = 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (V𝒑) = 163.1 × 4 = 652.4
At the end of the Design Period (15 years)

Table 3.10- At the end of the Design Period

Vehicle Type Peak 15 min Growth

Peak 15-min flow rate
flow rate Factor
after 15 years (pc/15
min)
Motorcycle 15 5 31.18
Three-Wheeler 33.6 5 69.85
Car 39 5 81.08
Van 3.6 5 7.48
Medium Bus 0 5 0.00
large Bus 12.3 5 25.57
Light Goods Vehicle 15.6 5 32.43
Medium Goods Vehicle 19.2 5 39.92
Large Lorry 19.2 5 39.92
Multi-Axle 4.1 5 8.52
Tractor 1.5 5 3.12
Total 163.1 339.07
𝑫𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝑷𝒆𝒂𝒌 𝑯𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 = 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 (V𝒑) = 339.07 × 4 = 1356.28

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 12

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.11 Determination of Level of Service (LOS)

Level of Service is a qualitative measurement where capacity is more focused on the quantity of the
particular road. For a given road or facility, capacity could be constant. But actual flow will be
different for different days and different times in a day itself. The intention of LOS is to relate the
traffic service quality to a given flow rate of traffic. Highway capacity manual (HCM) of USA
provides some procedure to determine level of service. It divides the quality of traffic into six levels
ranging from level A to level F. Level A represents the best quality of traffic where the driver has
the freedom to drive with free flow speed and level F represents the worst quality of traffic (Kyte et
al. 1996). Typically, three parameters are used under this and they are.

• Average travel Speed (ATS)

• Percentage Time Spent Following (PTSF)
• Percent of Free Flow Speed (PFFS)

HCM (1994) studied that at an even split in each direction the capacity of a two-lane road under
ideal condition is 2800 passenger car units per hour (PCU/h). It reduces to 2000 PCU/h when all
traffic is in one direction only. The capacity has now been revised to 3200 PCU/h in the 2000 edition
of HCM. It is assumed that the capacity is nearly independent of the directional distribution of traffic
on the facility. (Chamath and Kumaratunga 2018)

Speed – density variation: 𝒖 = 36.5 – 0.136K

Free-flow speed (FFS) = 36.5km/h
The speed (U) vs. flow (Q) model was developed based on Greenshields’s model.
Speed – flow variation: Q = 268.38U - 7.35U2

For uncongested flows, Volume to Capacity ratio (v/c) can be used to determine Level of Service
(LOS). The study has determined the v/c ratios corresponding to different levels of service for two
lane roads in Sri Lanka. Therefore, LOS can be determined by referring to the following table,

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 13

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Table 3.11- LOS Classification

LOS Traffic Condition V/C

A Free Flow <0.16
B Reasonably free flow 0.16-0.59
C Stable Flow 0.59-0.86
D Approaching unstable flow 0.86-0.96
E Unstable flow 0.96-1, >1

Assumptions

• Since the two-lane roads in Sri Lanka are non-standard, the capacities differ. Therefore, as
an approximation of the speed-flow curves, it is assumed that the ratio of capacities of 2
roads is proportional to the ratio of free flow speeds.
• The v/c ratios determined in the research are valid for the entire design period in the road
section considered.

According to the (Rushan Jayasinghe et al., 2016) for a two-lane road with an average lane width of
3.1m, capacity can be calculated as 2448𝑝𝑐𝑢/ℎ𝑟. For the given road section, its average lane width
can be considered as 2.5m. Therefore, assuming a capacity value of 2448𝑝𝑐𝑢/ℎ𝑟 is a bit over-
conservative. Given the situation, consider 80% of the given capacity for present condition
evaluations. Hence, capacity for the present condition for two-lane road becomes, 𝟏𝟗𝟓𝟗𝒑𝒄𝒖/𝒉𝒓.

Present Condition

652.4
LOS= = 0.33 (LOS B)
1959

End of the Design Period

1356.28
LOS= =0.692 (LOS C)
1959

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 14

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.12 Conclusions
➢ As per the calculations, Current Capacity is adequate for the 15-year design period. Hence, road
improvement is not needed.

➢ But the traffic survey was conducted between 3.20p.m. – 4.35p.m. which is not a true indicator
of peak flows.

➢ According to the residents, peak condition generally occurs between 5.00 p.m.-7.00 p.m. and road
is congested with vehicle resulting in low average speeds given the lane widths of survey section
is modest at best.

➢ Therefore, to improve the mobility for both riders and ensure safety of pedestrians, this road
section needs to be improved

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 15

Highway Design Project Group 1B

4. DESIGN ESAL VALUE

4.1 Introduction

A road pavement is a structure consisting of superimposed layers of processed materials above the
natural soil sub-grade. The main purpose of a pavement is to distribute the applied vehicle stresses to
the sub-grade without causing bearing failure. The pavement structure should be able to provide a
surface of acceptable riding quality, adequate skid resistance, favourable light reflecting
characteristics, and low noise pollution.

There are two types of pavements generally used: flexible pavements and rigid pavements. Improper
design of pavements leads to early failure of pavements affecting the riding quality. In this design, a
flexible pavement is designed.

Design was done in accordance with “TRL Overseas Road Note 31” manual. For design of the
pavement structure, it is necessary to determine the traffic class and the subgrade strength class. To
determine the subgrade strength class, DCP test and CBR test was carried out and to determine the
traffic class, traffic survey was done. Following characteristics have to be in a good pavement design,

• Sufficient thickness to distribute the wheel load stresses to a safe value on the sub-grade soil
• Structurally strong to withstand all types of stresses imposed upon it
• Adequate coefficient of friction to prevent skidding of vehicles
• Smooth surface to provide comfort to road users even at high speed
• Produce least noise from moving vehicles
• Dust proof surface so that traffic safety is not impaired by reducing visibility
• Impervious surface, so that sub-grade soil is well protected
• Long design life with low maintenance cost

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 16

Highway Design Project Group 1B

4.2 Traffic class calculation

This traffic class calculation is carried out to select a suitable pavement type. In this calculation, axle
loads from Motor cycle, three wheel, Car and Van are negligible. Therefore, for ESAL calculations,
only Large bus, Light good vehicle, Medium good vehicles and Large Lorries are considered
𝟒.𝟓
𝑨𝒙𝒍𝒆 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅(𝒕)
𝑬𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑺𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒆 𝑨𝒙𝒍𝒆 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 = ∑ ( )
𝟖. 𝟏𝟔

4.3 ESAL values for various vehicle Categories

Table 4.1-ESAL values for various vehicles

Vehicle type ESAL values

Medium Bus 0.013
large Bus 0.400
Light Goods Vehicle 0.321
Medium Goods Vehicle 3.181
Large Lorry 3.181
Multi Axle 8.090

(Mampearachchi,W & H. Gunasinghe, P. (2016). Effectiveness of Traffic Forecasting on Pavement

Designs for Sri Lankan Roads.)
The traffic survey was done from 3.20 pm. to 4.50 pm. Piliyandala to Maharagama direction peak
hour was 3.50 p.m. to 4.50 p.m. and Maharagama to Piliyandala peak hour was 3.35 pm. to 4.35 pm.
Peak hour traffic data was used to calculate the total ESAL (Equivalent Standard Axel Load) value
for both directions.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 17

Highway Design Project Group 1B

• Piliyandala – Maharagama

Table 4.2-ESAL values for Piliyandala to Maharagama direction

Vehicle type Vehicles ESAL values Total

Medium Bus 0 0.013 0.000
large Bus 7 0.400 2.800
Light Goods Vehicle 16 0.321 5.136
Medium Goods Vehicle 16 3.181 50.896
Large Lorry 10 3.181 31.810
Multi Axle 0 8.090 0.000
Total 49 90.640

• Maharagama to Piliyandala

Table 4.3-ESAL values for Maharagama to Piliyandala direction

Vehicle type Vehicles ESAL values Total

Medium Bus 1 0.013 0.013
large Bus 10 0.400 4.000
Light Good Vehicle 24 0.321 7.704
Medium Good Vehicle 15 3.181 47.715
Large Lorry 3 3.181 9.543
Multi Axle 2 8.090 16.180
Total 55 85.155

The above calculated values are the ESAL values per lane per hour. To convert MCC (Manual
classified count) to ADT, above values needs to be multiply by 10 (RDA design manual) and to
determine EASL value per lane per year, multiply previous value by 365. Growth Factors for vehicle
types are shown in Table 4.4

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 18

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Table 4.4- Growth Factors for the Vehicle types

Vehicle type Growth factors (%)

Motorcycle 5.00
Three-wheeler 5.00
Car 5.00
Van 5.00
Medium Bus 5.00
large Bus 5.00
Light Goods Vehicle 5.00
Medium Goods Vehicle 5.00
Large Lorry 5.00
Multi Axle 5.00

4.4 Sample calculation for Light Good Vehicles

Consider medium good vehicle from Piliyandala to Maharagama direction

• Total ESA value per lane per hour = 7.704

• Total ESA value per lane per day = 7.704 × 10 = 77.04
• Total ESA value per lane per year = 77.04 × 365 = 28119.6
• Growth rate = 5.00 %
• The design years = 15

𝐩 ((𝟏+𝐫)𝐧 )−𝟏)
𝐂𝐮𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 N𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 S𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 A𝐱𝐥𝐞 =
𝐫

Where;

p - Average no. of standard axles/day for 1st year after construction

r - Growth rate

n - Design life

𝑝 ((1+𝑟)𝑛 )−1) 28119.6 ((1+0.05)15 )−1)

CNSA = = = 606,780.577
𝑟 0.05

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 19

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Table 4.5-CNSA values for Piliyandala – Maharagama

Vehicle type Growth ESAL ESAL ESAL CNSA for
factors (%) hourly daily annual 15 years
Medium Bus 5.00 0.013 0.13 47.45 1023.903
large Bus 5.00 4 40 14600 315047.028
Light Goods Vehicle 5.00 7.704 77.04 28119.6 606780.577
Medium Goods 5.00 47.715 477.15 174159.75 3758117.24
Vehicle
Large Lorry 5.00 9.543 95.43 34831.95 751623.448
Multi Axle 5.00 16.18 161.8 59057 1274365.23
Total 85.16 851.55 310815.75 6706957.426

Total CNSA = 6.71 × 106

Traffic class – T6 (since the 15 years CNSA value is in between (6×106 – 10×106)
(“Overseas Road Note 31 - Guide to Bituminous Pavement Design | Road | Traffic,” n.d.)

Table 4.6- CNSA values for Maharagama to Piliyandala

Vehicle type Growth ESAL ESAL ESAL CNSA for

factors (%) hourly daily annual 15 years
Medium Bus 5.00 0 0 0 0

large Bus 5.00 2.8 28 10220 220532.92

Light Goods Vehicle 5.00 5.136 51.36 18746.4 404520.384

Medium Goods 5.00 50.896 508.96 185770.4 4008658.389

Vehicle
Large Lorry 5.00 31.81 318.1 116106.5 2505411.493

Multi Axle 5.00 0 0 0 0

Total 90.64 906.42 330843.3 7139123.186

Total CNSA = 7.14 × 106

Traffic class – T6 (since the 15 years CNSA value is in between (6×106 – 10×106)
(“Overseas Road Note 31 - Guide to Bituminous Pavement Design | Road | Traffic,” n.d.)

From the results for both directions, Traffic Class = T6

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 20
Highway Design Project Group 1B

5. PAVEMENT DESIGN

5.1 Determination of CBR (using CBR test)

The California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR) is a simple experiment which is used to find the bearing
capacity of a material by comparing with that of a well-graded crushed stone. It is primarily intended
for, but not limited to, evaluating the strength of cohesive materials having maximum particle sizes
less than 19 mm (0.75 in.) (AASHTO, 2000). The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) was developed by
California division of highways as a method of classifying and evaluating soil-sub-grade and base
course materials for flexible pavements. This test is broadly used in the industry for various types of
work such as determination of CBR of pavement subgrade, subbase, and base course material from
the laboratory compacted specimens. In this test we specifically use sample of optimum moisture
content and a specified dry unit weight.

5.2 Calculation

Sample Stress calculation,

49.63 2
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛 = 𝜋 × ( ) = 1932.21 𝑚𝑚2 = 2.99 𝑖𝑛2
2

1 𝑘𝑁 = 224.81 𝑙𝑏𝑓
224.81
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝑝𝑠𝑖) = 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑘𝑁) ×
2.99

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 21

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Calculated stresses and Stress Vs. Penetration graph,

• 10 blows per layer

Table 5.1-Calculated results for 10 blows per layer

Penetration (in) Divisions Load (kN) Stress (psi)

0 0 0 0.00
0.025 12 0.262 19.70
0.050 21 0.452 33.98
0.075 27 0.584 43.91
0.100 31 0.672 50.53
0.125 38 0.826 62.10
0.150 44 0.954 71.73
0.175 48 1.038 78.04
0.200 52 1.124 84.51
0.300 71 1.532 115.19
0.400 90 1.95 146.62
0.500 110 2.38 178.95

STRESS VS. PENETRATION

200.00

180.00

160.00

140.00
STRESS ON PISTON (PSI)

120.00

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
PENETRATION OF PLUNGER(INCH)

Figure 5.1-CBR Test - Stress vs Penetration - 10 blows per layer

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 22

Highway Design Project Group 1B

• 25 blows per layer

Table 5.2-Calculated results for 25 blows per layer

Penetration (in) Divisions Load (kN) Stress (psi)

0 0 0
0
0.025 28 45.56
0.606
0.050 43 70.15
0.933
0.075 58 94.44
1.256
0.100 73 118.5
1.576
0.125 86 140
1.862
0.150 98 159.25
2.118
0.175 108 175.64
2.336
0.200 122 198.64
2.642
0.300 169 280.15
3.726
0.400 211 356.69
4.744
0.500 254 435.03
5.786

STRESS VS. PENETRATION

500

450

400

350
STRESS ON PISTON (PSI)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
PENETRATION (IN)

Figure 5.2-CBR Test - Stress vs Penetration - 25 blows per layer

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 23

Highway Design Project Group 1B

• 56 blows per layer

Table 5.3-Calculated results for 56 blows per layer

Penetration (in) Divisions Load (kN) Stress (psi)

0 0 0 0
0.025 61 1.321 99.32
0.05 108 2.336 175.64
0.075 158 3.462 260.3
0.1 215 4.84 363.91
0.125 257 5.858 440.45
0.15 290 6.65 500
0.175 331 7.562 568.57
0.2 381 8.662 651.27
0.3 500 11.27 847.36
0.4 610 13.67 1027.81
0.5 733 16.469 1238.26

STRESS VS. PENETRATION

1400

1200

1000
STRESS (PSI)

800

600

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
PENETRATION (IN)

Figure 5.3-CBR Test - Stress vs Penetration - 56 blows per layer

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 24

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.3 Bearing Ratio

𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 0.1 𝑜𝑟 0.2 𝑖𝑛

𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 100 ×
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑒
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 1000 𝑝𝑠𝑖 (0.1 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛) 𝑜𝑟 1500 𝑝𝑠𝑖 (0.2 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

10 blows per layer

53.67
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (0.1 𝑖𝑛) = 100 × = 5.367
1000
84.87
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (0.2 𝑖𝑛) = 100 × = 5.658
1500

25 blows per layer

118.50
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (0.1 𝑖𝑛) = 100 × = 11.85
1000
198.64
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (0.2 𝑖𝑛) = 100 × = 13.24
1500

56 blows per layer

363.91
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (0.1 𝑖𝑛) = 100 × = 36.39
1000
651.27
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (0.2 𝑖𝑛) = 100 × = 43.42
1500

In all the 3 cases, Bearing ratio (0.2 in) > Bearing ratio (0.1 in). Therefore, the tests have to be done
again and take the higher of the 2 ratios as the CBR values (from the 2nd tests). However, due to the
time constraints this is not possible. Therefore, it was assumed that the tests were done for a second
time and the same results were obtained. This allows the use of Bearing ratio (0.2 in) as the CBR.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 25

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.4 Bulk Density

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 =
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝑀𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 − 𝑀𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
=
𝑀𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 2
𝜋×( ) × (𝑀𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 − 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐)
2

1 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 = 0.062 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡, 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡3 (𝑝𝑐𝑓)

1. 10 blows per layer

12.4035 − 8.1055
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2 𝑘𝑔/𝑚𝑚3
152.23
𝜋×( 2 ) × (177.35 − 62)
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2047.20 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 = 126.93 𝑝𝑐𝑓

2. 25 blows per layer

12.5549 − 8.1190
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2 𝑘𝑔/𝑚𝑚3
151.45
𝜋×( 2 ) × (176.25 − 62)
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2127.06 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 = 131.88 𝑝𝑐𝑓

3. 56 blows per layer

12.8435 − 8.1055
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2 𝑘𝑔/𝑚𝑚3
152.23
𝜋×( 2 ) × (177.35 − 62)
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2256.77 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 = 139.92𝑝𝑐𝑓

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 26

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.5 Moisture Content

𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 − 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑟𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = × 100%
𝑊𝑒𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒

Table 5.4-Moisture Content of Sample

Mass of Wet soil mass Dry soil

Moisture
the with mass with
Group Container W1- W2 W2- W3 Content
Container container (g) container(g)
(%)
(g) (W3) (W1) (W2)

1 31.03 131.97 122.10 9.87 91.07 10.84

1
2 30.74 133.89 124.01 9.88 93.27 10.59
Average Moisture Content 10.72
1 30.7 92.19 86.84 5.35 56.14 9.53
2
2 29.58 93.78 87.92 5.86 58.34 10.04
Average Moisture Content 9.79
1 28.85 128.87 119.97 8.9 91.12 9.77
3
2 29.19 129.21 119.75 9.46 90.56 10.45
Average Moisture Content 10.11

5.6 Dry Density

𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 =
1 + 𝑀𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡

1. 10 blows per layer

126.93
Dry density of soil = 1+0.1072 = 114.64 𝑝𝑐𝑓

2. 25 blows per layer

131.88
Dry density of soil = 1+0.0979 = 120.12 𝑝𝑐𝑓

3. 56 blows per layer

139.92
Dry density of soil = 1+0.1011 = 127.07 𝑝𝑐𝑓

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 27

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.7 Results
Corrected CBR values with Dry density.

Table 5.5- Final Results

10 blows 25 blows 56 blows

Dry density (pcf) 114.64 120.12 127.07

CBR value (%) 5.6% 13.4% 43.6 %

CBR vs Dry density

50

45

40

35

30
CBR (%)

25

20

15

10

0
114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128
Dry density (pcf)

95 % of maximum dry density = 127.07 × 95% = 120.71

CBR value corresponding to the 95% of maximum dry density = 16%

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 28

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.8 CBR (using dynamic cone penetration test)

The DCP is an instrument designed for the rapid in-situ measurement of the structural properties of
existing road pavements constructed with unbound materials. It is also used for determining the in-
situ CBR value of compacted soil sub-grade beneath the existing road pavement. The DCP uses an
8kg weight dropping through a height of 575 mm and a 60" cone having a diameter of 20mm.
Continuous measurements can be made down to a depth of 800 mm. Where pavement layers have
different strengths, the boundaries can be identified, and the thickness of the layers determined. Test
results can be correlated to California Bearing Ratios, in-situ density, resilient modulus, and bearing
capacity

Sample Calculation

CBR values for Location-01,

Cumulative Penetration vs Total Number of Blows

0
-100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cumulative Penetration

-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-900
No of Blows

Figure 5.4- Cumulative Penetration vs Total Number of Blows, Loaction 1

For Layer-01,
Gradient = [65-0] / (2-0) = 32.5 mm/blow
Equation for relationship between DCP slope and CBR using the model derived by Kleyn and Van
Harden.
Log CBR = 2.628 – 1.273 Log (DCP); where DCP = penetration mm/blow
Log CBR = 2.628 – 1.273 Log (32.5)
CBR = 5.05%

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 29

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Table 5.6- CBR value for each layer

Total No. Cumulative Layer Gradient CBR (%)

of blows penetration (mm)

0 0 1 32.5 5.05
1 -33
2 -65
4 -90 2 11.57 18.81
9 -146
10 -182
11 -222 3 33.5 4.86
12 -249
14 -280
16 -316 4 18 10.72
18 -352
19 -375
20 -405
21 -436
22 -459
23 -489
5 39.18 3.98
24 -538
25 -581
26 -619
27 -664
28 -719
29 -783

Overall results
Location 01 Location 02 Location 03
Layer 01 5.05 10.003 14.75
Layer 02 18.81 5.292 35.92
Layer 03 4.86 7.237 27.48
Layer 04 10.72 2.981 13.33
Layer 05 3.98 2.227 10.79

Due to the less accuracy of DCP test (in-situ test) compared to CBR test (laboratory test), the CBR
values derived from it will not be used in the design.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 30

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.9 Pavement Design Based on TRL Overseas Road Note 31

From the CBR test, the CBR value of subgrade is founded that 16%.

CBR value of the subgrade lies within the range of,

15 % < 16 % < 29 %
Based on the TRL Overseas road note 31 our Subgrade strength class is “S 5”
From the 15 years CNSA analysis, Traffic class is “T 6”
For the design of Granular Road base / Structural Surface, from the chart 5

Figure 5.5- Layer Selection According to RN 31

Design layer thickness and material,

Flexible Bituminous Surface thickness of 100 mm

GB1 – GB3 - Granular Road Base thickness of 200 mm

GS - Granular Subbase thickness of 100 mm

Figure 5.6-Pavement Layer Thickness

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 31

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Material Properties
Granular Road Base (GB1, A)
Dense graded, unweathered crushed stone and non-plastic parent fines. The fine fraction should be
non-plastic for this material. The in situ dry density of the placed material should be a minimum of
98 per cent of the maximum dry density obtained in the British Standard (Heavy) Compaction Test,
4 5 kg rammer, or the British Standard Vibrating.

Grading limits for GB1, A are provided in overseas road note 31, table 6.2,

Figure 5.7- Particle size distribution for road base

Sub-Bases (GS)

Materials which meet the recommendations of Tables 6.6 and 6.7 will usually be found to have
adequate bearing capacity specified in road note 31

Figure 5.8- Atterberg Limit values for sub base

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 32

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Figure 5.9-Particle size distribution for sub base material

Flexible Bituminous Surface

Bituminous surface constructed with a wearing course laid on a basecourse for 100mm thickness.
Additional stiffening through the ageing and embrittlement of the bitumen must be prevented by
applying a surface dressing.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 33

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.10 Pavement Design Verification with CIRCLY Software

CIRCLY is a software for the mechanistic analysis and design of road pavements based on Austroads
guidelines. In our project, it was used to verify the results obtained from the pavement design based
on RN 31

Table 5.7-Axle Grouping

Axle Group Type Configuration

Single axle / single tire (SAST)
-1-

Single axle / dual tires(SADT) -2-

Tandem axle / single tires(TAST) -11-

Tandem axle / dual tires (TADT) -22-

Triaxle / dual tires (TRDT) -222-

Quad-axle / dual tires (QADT)

-2222-

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 34

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Data Used for the CIRCLY Analysis

Table 5.8-Traffic data used for the load calculation

Vehicle type Vehicle Configuration Vehicle Type Vehicles

Medium Bus -11- 1 0

large Bus -12- 2 7
Light Goods Vehicle -11- 3 16
Medium Goods Vehicle -12- 4 16
Large Lorry - 12- 5 10
Multi Axle -122- 6 0
Total 49

Table 5.9-Axle loads used for the Traffic Load Distribution (All the loads are in tonnes)

SAST SADT
4.00 1.37 5.96
3.10 0.92 2.71
3.41 1.45 2.67
3.95 1.61 4.61
3.86 5.32 4.43
3.71 3.21 3.09
1.68 3.27 1.86
0.74 3.64 1.27
0.63 3.32 6.62
0.79 2.51 1.86
0.77 3.03 0.66
0.73 4.87 6.65
0.82 2.78 1.23
1.06 3.26 2.19
0.56 3.21 1.04
0.53 2.72 7.81
0.85 0.35 2.43
0.23 0.52 1.36
0.35 0.45 1.21
0.66 0.54 1.29
0.12 0.52 1.23
1.02 0.56 7.42
0.63 1.05 5.10
1.76 0.56 3.07
4.91 0.22 4.39
1.68 0.75 3.48
1.06 0.25 3.53
2.51 0.25 4.87
1.80 0.36 5.51
3.18 0.25 2.85

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 35

Highway Design Project Group 1B

1.43 1.03 2.78

2.17 0.52 1.81
2.09 2.78

Table 5.10-Grouping of Axle loads distribution

• Load Average SAST SADT

group group load Total no of % Total no of %
• kN vehicles vehicles
0-5 2.5 10 15.3846154 0 0
5--10 7.5 20 30.7692308 1 3.030303
10--15 12.5 8 12.3076923 7 21.21212
15--20 17.5 4 6.15384615 3 9.090909
20--25 22.5 3 4.61538462 2 6.060606
25--30 27.5 4 6.15384615 5 15.15152
30--35 32.5 8 12.3076923 4 12.12121
35--40 37.5 5 7.69230769 0 0
40--45 42.5 0 0 2 6.060606
45--50 47.5 2 3.07692308 2 6.060606
50-55 52.5 1 1.53846154 2 6.060606
55-60 57.5 0 0 1 3.030303
60-65 62.5 0 0 1 3.030303
65-70 67.5 0 0 1 3.030303
70-75 72.5 0 0 1 3.030303
75-80 77.5 0 0 1 3.030303
Total 65 100 33 100
65×100 33×100
Percentage of SAST = = 0.663265 Percentage of SADT = = 0.336735
98 98

Table 5.11-Traffic Load distribution

Load SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT QADT

2.5 0.102041 0 0 0 0 0
7.5 0.204082 0.010204 0 0 0 0
12.5 0.081633 0.071429 0 0 0 0
17.5 0.040816 0.030612 0 0 0 0
22.5 0.030612 0.020408 0 0 0 0
27.5 0.040816 0.05102 0 0 0 0
32.5 0.081633 0.040816 0 0 0 0
37.5 0.05102 0 0 0 0 0
42.5 0 0.020408 0 0 0 0
47.5 0.020408 0.020408 0 0 0 0
52.5 0.010204 0.020408 0 0 0 0
57.5 0 0.010204 0 0 0 0
62.5 0 0.010204 0 0 0 0
67.5 0 0.010204 0 0 0 0
72.5 0 0.010204 0 0 0 0
77.5 0 0.010204 0 0 0 0

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 36

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Calculation of Traffic Multipliers

In CIRCLY, The Traffic Multipliers are defined in the Austroads Pavement Design Guide (2010) as
SAR/ESA for each distress type, where SAR are standard axle repetitions. The multipliers to take
account of the material type and the actual traffic mix. Multipliers are calculated separately for each
layer, using their damage exponents for each type of damage. These values are illustrated below.

Table 5.12-Damage Exponent

Damage Type Damage exponent

Overall Pavement Damage (empirical) 4
Asphalt 5
Cemented Material 12
Subgrade 7

As discussed earlier, Austroads defines several axle groups. An axle group load, which causes same
damage as standard axle, has been assigned to each axle group in order to calculate the ESA and SAR
values.

Table 5.13-Axle Group loads

Axle Group Type Load (kN)

single axle / single tires (SAST) 53
single axle / dual tires (SADT) 80
tandem axle / single tires (TAST) 90
tandem axle / dual tires (TADT) 135
triaxle / dual tires (TRDT) 181
quad-axle / dual tires (QADT) 221

Equation used to calculate tge ESA Values.

𝑨𝒙𝒍𝒆 % 𝑨𝒙𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝟒

𝑬𝑺𝑨 = 𝒙𝑺𝑨𝑺𝑻 𝒂𝒙𝒍𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒙 ( )
𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝑨𝒙𝒍𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 37

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Table 5.14- ESA

SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT QADT

Axle Group 53 80 90 135 181 221
Load (kN)
Axle Load SAST SADT TAST TADT TRDT QADT
2.5 5.05162E-07 0 0 0 0 0
7.5 8.18362E-05 7.88E-07 0 0 0 0
12.5 0.000252581 4.26E-05 0 0 0 0
17.5 0.000485157 7.01E-05 0 0 0 0
22.5 0.00099431 0.000128 0 0 0 0
27.5 0.002958429 0.000712 0 0 0 0
32.5 0.01154234 0.001112 0 0 0 0
37.5 0.012786907 0 0 0 0 0
42.5 0 0.001626 0 0 0 0
47.5 0.013166638 0.002536 0 0 0 0
52.5 0.009824437 0.003785 0 0 0 0
57.5 0 0.002723 0 0 0 0
62.5 0 0.003801 0 0 0 0
67.5 0 0.005172 0 0 0 0
72.5 0 0.006883 0 0 0 0
77.5 0 0.008987 0 0 0 0
ESA 0.052093141 0.037579 0 0 0 0

The total ESA value by adding them all together = 0.089671656 (This Value is checked with Circly
software).
Estimate NDT (cumulative number of heavy vehicle axle groups) value

1. Design period= 15 years

2. Annual Average Daily Traffic – AADT= 5457.6 vehicle /day
Heavy vehicles: Medium goods vehicle, Large lorry and multi axle vehicles
3. percentage of heavy vehicles (%HV) = 26*100/379=6.86%
4. Lane Distribution Factor (LDF)= 1.0
5. Growth factor= 5%
6. Heavy vehicle Cumulative Growth Factor – CGF= 21.58

(𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝑹)𝒑 − 𝟏
𝑪𝑮𝑭 = , 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑹 > 𝟎
𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝑹
. Where;
• R = Annual heavy vehicle growth rate (%)
• P = Design period (years)

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 38

Highway Design Project Group 1B

7. The average number of axle groups per heavy vehicle 𝑵𝑯𝑽𝑨𝑮𝒔 = 2.00
8. Direction factor= 1.0
9. cumulative number of heavy vehicle axle groups:

𝑵𝑫𝑻 = 𝟑𝟔𝟓 𝒙 𝑨𝑨𝑫𝑻 𝒙 𝑫𝑭 𝒙 %𝑯𝑽 𝒙 𝑵𝑯𝑽𝑨𝑮𝒔 𝒙 𝑳𝑫𝑭 𝒙 𝑪𝑮F

= 365 × 5457.6 ×1.0×0.0686×2.0×1.0×21.58
= 5897936.85

Proposed Layer Combination

According to Road note 31, selected layer combination was,
1. Flexible bituminous layer= 100 mm.
2. Granular road base= 200mm
3. Subbase= 100mm
4. Sub grade

Material Properties
1. Asphalt= Aggregate (Maximum 20 mm), C60/70 bitumen
2. Granular road base= minimum CBR 85% (ICTAD)
3. Subbase= minimum CBR 30% (ICTAD)
4. Sub grade= CBR 16% (CBR test)

Proposed layer combination is checked with Circly 7.0 software.

Reliability= 95%

Figure 5.10-TLD file import to CIRCLY 7.0

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 39

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Figure 5.11-Layer properties and thickness

Figure 5.12-Analysis Results

CDF (Cumulative damage factor) of all layers, were less than 1. Hence, the Pavement has excess
capacity with 95% reliability.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 40

Highway Design Project Group 1B

6. GEOMETRIC DESIGN
6.1 Introduction
The geometric design of roads is the branch of highway engineering concerned with the positioning
of the physical elements of the roadway according to standards and constraints. The basic objectives
in geometric design are to optimize efficiency and safety while minimizing cost and environmental
damage. Geometric design also affects an emerging fifth objective called liveability, which is defined
as designing roads to foster broader community goals, including providing access to employment,
schools, businesses and residences, accommodate a range of travel modes such as walking, bicycling,
transit, and automobiles, and minimizing fuel use, emissions and environmental damage. Therefore,
the objective of geometric design is to provide optimum efficiency in traffic operation and maximum
safety at reasonable cost. The planning cannot be done stage wise in this case like that of a pavement
but must be done well in advance.

The main components that will be discussed are,

• Cross section elements

• Stopping sight distance (SSD)
• Passing sight distance (PSD)
• Minimum radius and other characteristics of circular curves, lateral clearance
• Super elevation and Super elevation development length
• Horizontal Alignment
• Vertical Alignment

End Point

Starting

Figure 6.0.1-Geometry of the selected segment

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 41

Highway Design Project Group 1B

6.2 Design of Proposed Road Segment

• Carriageway

The Carriageway is the surface of the road on which vehicles are expected to run. Since lane width
was not considered as an input in the Capacity Design, a carriageway with two lanes of 3.3 m lane
width was selected as per AASHTO Green Book to cater to an urban area with restriction (Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001). A cross fall of 2.5% was used as per general
practice.

• Shoulders and Sidewalks

The Shoulder width is measured from edge of the carriageway to the edge of the usable formation. Shoulders
must be freely available for vehicles in an emergency. Since any foot cycles were not observed in the area, a
separate cycle lane was not provided. Although it is not very recommended to use shoulders for parking for
extended durations, it is safer than parking vehicles on the carriageway which is currently happening in front
of commercial centres, supermarket, and restaurants in the road section.

Shoulder is designed with a width of 1.8 m and a slope of 4.5% (Usual practice to add 2% to cross
fall). There is a separate sidewalk of width 2 m provided for pedestrians. It is raised from the shoulder
and has a Kerb.

• Drains and Pedestrian walkway

Drainage design is needed in the highway design mainly to accommodate in the rainy season. Lack
of good drainage can lead to the ingress of water into the road structure, leading to damages of the
road. Improper design of drainage will cause collection of water on roadside leading to accidents. In
countries like Sri Lanka, the water falling on the entire catchment area has to be accounted. Culverts
were present only in some places and a majority has been damaged.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 42

Highway Design Project Group 1B

6.3 Drainage Design

Drainage design is needed to be considered in highway design in order to facilitate the water flow
mainly during rainy seasons. Lack of proper drainage system.

Figure 6.2- Area

Design Drainage Flow Rate

Q = KCIA
Where, Q = Estimated peak runoff rate (m3/s)
C = Run off coefficient
I = Average rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
A = Catchment area (ha)
K = Constant equal to 1 in English units and 1/360 in metric units
Runoff Coefficient

Table 6.1- Runoff Coefficient

Nature of surface Runoff coefficient

Asphaltic area 0.9
Roof area 0.85
Grass area 0.2

Source: “Highway Engineering” (Wright & Dixon, 2009)

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 43
Highway Design Project Group 1B

Assuming,
• Asphaltic area = 5% of the catchment area
• Roof area = 55 % of the catchment
• Grass area = 40 % of the catchment
Runoff coefficient – 0.05*0.9 + 0.55*0.85 + 0.4*0.2 = 0.5925
Assuming,
• Design Rainfall = 1 hr
• I = 42.17 mm/h for 20-year design period for Colombo (Ratnasingam,
Perera, & Wikramanayake, 2014)

Catchment Area

Figure 6.0.2-Catchment Area

Catchment area = 175362 m2

Catchment area = 175362x10-4 Ha
Assuming 4 cross drains in the area,

Design Flow Rates

Considering the selected catchment area,

Q = CIA/360
Q = 0.5925 ×42.17 × (175362x10-4) / 360 × 4
Q = 0.30 m³/s

Assuming equal distribution to both sides, Q = 0.15 m³/s

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 44

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Using Manning’s Equation,

Q = A5/3× S1/2/ (n × P2/3)

Where,
Q = Flow rate in m3/s
A = Cross sectional area
S = Bed slope
P = Wetted perimeter
n = Manning’s coefficient

Assuming an optimum rectangular drain,

Let, Depth = h and width = w
For an optimum rectangular section, h = w/2
Hence, A = h × w,
P = 2h + w
Assuming bed slope = 5%
n = 0.013
Assuming Width of drain = 0.6 m
Depth =0.3 m

Cross Section of the Proposed Road

Lane width
Shoulder 3.3 m 3.3m
Side walk width
width 1.8m
1.8m
2.0m
2.0m

0.3m Drain depth

0.4m
0.6m
Drain width

Figure 6.0.3-Cross Section of the proposed road

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 45

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Figure 6.0.4-Geometric Design

6.4 Sight distances

Sight distance is the distance which a driver can see ahead at any specific time. Sufficient distance
should be allowed for a driver to perceive/react and stop, swerve when necessary.

Stopping sight distance (SSD)

For safety, should provide sight distance of sufficient length so that drivers can control the operation
of their vehicles to avoid striking an unexpected object in the traveled way.

𝑡𝑟 𝑣 𝑣2
𝑆𝑆𝐷 = +
3.6 254 × (μ + 0.01G)

Where,

tr = perception/reaction time = 2.5 s (AASHTO)

V = design speed= 50km/h
μ = coefficient of longitudinal friction = 0.35 for design speed of 50 km/h (AASHTO)
G = longitudinal grade as a percentage (Assume 3%)
2.5 ∗ 50 502
𝑆𝑆𝐷 = +
3.6 254 × (0.35 + 0.01 ∗ 3)

SSD = 60.624 m

SSD = 66 m is used in the design (Exhibit 3-2, Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 2001)

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 46

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Decision sight distance (DSD)

SSD is the distance sufficient allowing drivers to reasonably competent and alert to come to a hurried
stop under ordinary circumstances. It May be inadequate when drivers must make complex or
instantaneous decisions, when information is difficult to perceive or when unexpected or unusual
maneuvers are required. Critical Locations where there is a likelihood for error in either information
reception, decision-making, or control actions Some of desirable locations are interchange &
intersection locations, change in cross sections and areas of visual noise.

Assume, avoidance maneuver D: speed/path / direction change on sub urban road-t varies between
12.1s and 12.9s

Decision sight distance (for 50 km/h) = 170m (Exhibit 3-3, Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2001)

Passing sight distance (PSD)

Vehicle needs adequate sight distance to overtake a vehicle.

Dpassing = d1 + d2 + d3 + d4

d1 = distance traveled during P/R time to point where vehicle just enters the right lane

𝑡1 𝑎𝑡1
𝑑1 = (𝑢 − 𝑚 + )
3.6 2

Where,

t1 = time for initial manoeuver (sec)

u = average speed of passing vehicle (km/h)
a = acceleration (km/h/s)
m = difference between speeds of passing and passed vehicle

d2 = distance travelled by vehicle while in right lane

d3 = clearance distance varies from 33 to 90 m

d4 = distance travelled by opposing vehicle during passing manoeuver

Passing sight distance for bituminous and concrete pavements (50km/h) = 280m

(Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001)

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 47

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Continuation sight distance

This feature must be satisfied to make sure driver can get a decision whether to overtake or not while
he has come to the other lane.

Continuation sight distance= 130m (Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
2001)

6.5 Road Alignment

Horizontal Alignment

Design has to be based on appropriate relationship between design speed with the road curvature and
their relationship with side friction and super elevation.

Minimum radius of curvature

𝑣2
𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛 =
127(𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 )

Maximum super elevation rate, emax = 0.06

Maximum side friction factor, fmax = 0.17 (for bituminous surface and for 50km/h)
(Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001)
502
𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛 =
127(0.06 + 0.17)
Rmin = 86 m

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 48

Highway Design Project Group 1B

6.6 Problems identified in the road section and proposed geometric solutions

2 5
3

1
4

Figure 6.0.5- - Existing road centerline and geometrical unsatisfied section

Existing road geometry was modelled using Civil 3D software package and the minimum radius of
curvature to be maintained was 90 m; which is more than the theoretical value calculated above
(86m). Image shows the warning signs appeared in the road alignment where the requirements are
not being satisfied.

Table 6.0.2-Improvements to radius of curvature

Number Chanage Existing Radius (m) Proposed Radius(m)

1 1+42.97 16.374 110.7
2 3+32.36 28.337 200
3 5+31.73 54.06 86
4 6+07.00 18.6 86
5 8+00.00 49.5 104

Super elevation required for new curves

𝑣2
𝑒 = 127∗ 𝑅 − 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 49

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Table 6.0.3-Super elevation requirements of curves

Curve number Super elevation required

1 0.016
2 Minus
3 0.035
4 0.049
5 Minus

Maximum super elevation for a flat terrain built up or open area = 6% (RDA). This criterion is
satisfied in all the curves.

Lateral clearance
In order to provide the safe horizontal sight distance, lateral clearance should be maintained. Lateral
clearance is decided based on the stopping sight distance

Figure 6.0.6-lateral clearance

Where,
R = Radius of the road
n = w/2 = Distance from the road centerline to center of the inside lane = 1.25 m (Existing lane width
≈ 2.5 m)
S = Sight distance measured along the curve = 66 m (SSD for 50 km/h)

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 50

Highway Design Project Group 1B

δ = Half the angle subtended by the line of sight

m = Offset distance from the road centerline to the line of sight obstruction

𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛿 = (𝑅−𝑚) / (𝑅−2𝑛)

𝑆 = 2𝛿 (𝑅−𝑛)

Table 6.0.4Checking for lateral clearance existing radius-

Curve no Radius of Existing lane 𝛿 (rad) Cos(𝛿) m

existing width
curvature (R)
1 16.374 2.5m 2.18 -0.57 24.28
2 28.337 2.5m 1.22 0.34 19.55
3 54.060 2.5m 0.62 0.81 12.30
4 18.600 2.5m 1.90 -0.32 23.75
5 49.500 2.5m 0.68 0.78 12.84
After improving the roadway geometry,
Clearance = 3.3 + 1.8 (shoulder length) +2.0 (sidewalk) + 0.225 (kerb) = 7.325 m

Therefore, still the existing clearance is not satisfactory.

Areas Needed to be Cleared

Table 6.0.5-Areas Needed to be Cleared

Curve no Existing m Clearance

needed
1 7.325 7.60
3 7.325 9.92
4 7.325 9.92
5 7.325 8.34

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 51

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Super Elevation Development Length

The length of roadway required to achieve the change in cross slope from normal cross slope to super
elevation is defined as the super elevation development length. The amount of super elevation is
chosen primarily on the basis of safety. Comfort and appearance also matter when designing the super
elevation.

The super elevation that is applied to a horizontal curve should take into account the following,

1. Stability of high laden commercial vehicles

2. Stability of vehicle loads

3. Difference between inner and outer formation level, especially in flat terrain

4. Length available to introduce the necessary super elevation

Super Elevation Runoff Section

Length of roadway needed to accomplish a change in outside-lane cross slope from zero to full super
elevation.

3.6𝑒
𝐿𝑟 = ( )𝛼
𝐺

e - Full super elevation (%) = 6%

G - Relative gradient (%)
𝛼 - Adjustment factor
G = 0.65 (for 50km/h speed)
𝛼 = 1 (and for two lane undivided highway, AASHTO)

Therefore, super elevation development length required for all the locations,

3.6 ∗ 6
𝐿𝑟 = ( )∗1
0.65

Lr = 33.23 m

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 52

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Tangent Runout Section

Length of road way needed to accomplish a change in outside-lane cross slope from normal to zero.

𝑒𝑁𝐶 × 𝐿𝑟
𝐿𝑡 =
𝑒𝑑

Where,

eNC= normal cross slope rate (%) = 2.5%

ed = design super elevation rate = 6 %
Lr = minimum length of super elevation runoff (result is the edge slope is same as for runoff segment)
2.5×33.23
𝐿𝑡 = = 13.84 m
6

Again,

Super elevation development length on tangent = Lt + 2/3 Lr

Super elevation development length on curvature = Lr/3
Lr = 33.23 m

Lt = 13.84 m

Super elevation development length on tangent = 36 m

Super elevation development length on curvature = 11 m

Vertical Alignment

The elevation difference between the highest and lowest points in the road section is about 19.6 m.
Vertical alignment is considered under gradient and stopping sight distance criteria.

For a flat terrain, maximum gradient = 6-8%. Minimum gradient for drainage = 0.3% for an urban
area. Both the existing and proposed profiles satisfy these criteria.

Rate of vertical curvature for a design speed of 50 km/h and considering the SSD criteria (K) = 7

(Exhibit 3-76, Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001).

This criterion is violated in a few locations as shown.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 53

Highway Design Project Group 1B

Figure 6.7-Vertical Alignment

PVI station PVI elevation K value

0+773.27 96.624 19.126

0+819.83 96.721 10.013

In Proposed road K (SSD) = 7 is satisfied but K (Headlight sight Distance) and K (PSD) = 30 not
satisfied
So, in the design should not allowed passing in that area and have to put streetlight in night times.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 54

Highway Design Project Group 1B

7. COST ESTIMATION

Item Description Unit Quantity Rate Amount

Bill No. 01 - Preliminary General

1.1 surveys and Investigations

1.1.2 Surveying, taking cross section

1.1.2.1 Levelling Chaining and Pegging and establish benchmarks on km 1 4,813.00 4,813.00
Concrete rock or pegs and Checking back levels
1.1.2.2 Surveying including fixing pickets & taking angles km 1 4,813.00 4,813.00

1.1.2.3 Supply of labor for chaining and cutting Pages and Pegging km 1 2,407.00 2,407.00

1.1.2.4 Changing traverse lines and taking off-sets km 1 6,417.00 6,417.00

1.1.3 Zebra barricading tape (polythene) Lm 500 10 5,000.00

1.2 Timber posts horizontal etc.(for barricading work in 4 linear meters) Items 25 374 9,350.00

Water for general purpose liter 250 1.15 287.50

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 1

Highway Design Project Group 1B

1.3 Land acquisition Perches 80 800,000 64,000,000.00

Total for bill No.1 64,033,087.50

Bill No. 02 site clearing

2.1 Clearing and grubbing m2 600 45 27,000.00

2.2 Removal of Existing Structures and Obstructions

2.2.1 Demolishing Dry coursed masonry including stacking or loading m3 50 5042 252,100.00

2.2.2 Demolishing reinforced concrete and debris cleared m3 500 6065 3,032,500.00

Total for bill No.2 3,311,600.00

Bill no.03 - Earth work

3.1 Roadway excavation

3.1.1 Roadway excavation-ordinary soil m3 6875 1,275.00 8,765,625.00

3.1.2 Roadway Excavation - Ordinary soil for line drain including m3 500 1,688.00 844,000.00
Levelling and ramming bottom, Exc. material Deposited within 25m
or as Directed.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 2

Highway Design Project Group 1B

3.1.3 Trimming, levelling and compaction of original ground/subgrade to m2 8000 105 840,000.00
95% STD Density (including roller hire)

3.2 Earth filling and compaction

3.2.1 Approved soil spread & rolled including roller hire charges, fuel & m3 2645 529 1,399,205.00
watering

3.2.2 Approved soil spread & rolled in strips where average width is less m3 600 620 372,000.00
than 1.2 meters for road widening including roller hire charges, fuel
& watering (Loose volume) (including roller hire )
3.2.3 Approved soil spread & compacted in 150 to 225 mm thick layers m3 3200 721 2,307,200.00
using machine rammer at narrow places (Loose volume)

Total for bill No.3 14,528,030.00

Bill No.04 - subbase and base

4.1 Granular road pavement

4.1.1 Dry bound macadam spread, water & comp. 50-25 mm aggregate & m3 2500 6,307.00 15,767,500.00
filling void store fusel with crusher fines by rolling with vibrating roller
to form a Dry bound macadam base (Loose volume)

4.1.2 Dense graded agg. base (Agg. basecourse) spreading water and comp. m3 3500 3490 12,215,000.00
graded 37.5 mm agg to form a Dense agg. Base using machinery
including motor grader & roller hire charges. (Loose volume)

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 3

Highway Design Project Group 1B

4.1.3 Dense graded agg. base [ABC], spreading watering and Compacting m3 600 4686 2,811,600.00
graded 37.5 mm aggregate to form a Dense aggregate base in strips ,
avg width not exceeding 1.2m for road widening (Loose volume)
(including hire charges)
4.1.4 Scarify and Remove existing bituminous layer m2 6600 79 521,400.00

Total for bill No. 4 31,315,500.00

Bill No. 05 Surface applications, Surface dressings and surfacing

5.1 Prime cost

5.1.1 Prime coat with emulsion/cold bitumen (CSS1) using 1ltr/sq.m m2 3150 146 459900
including blinding with sand at the rate of 250 sq.m/cu.m and brushing
cleaning and moistening road surface : (including cost of emulsion)
5.2 Bituminous surface
5.2.1 Asphalt concrete surfacing material binder 60/70 bitumen @ 4.7% Mix M.ton 500 8,790 4395000

5.2.2 Lay and compact asphalt premix using paver(Cost of premix, and M.ton 500 1,813 906500
premix transport to site paid separately)

5.2.3 Double bituminous surface treatment with hot bitumen m2 4000 279 1116000
(Manual)including internal transport (Binder and aggregate paid
separately)
[SSCM505.1-.5and table 505.1] including roller hire)
5.3 Sidewalk

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 4

Highway Design Project Group 1B

5.3.1 Supply & paving 60mm thick Rectangular (Approx.. Size m2 1500 3,197 4795500
210mm*110mm) coloured precast interlocking paving blocks of
15N/mm2 compressive strength, on 2" thick compacted Quarry dust
laid on top of a levelled and well compacted earth subbase for the low
volume traffic areas.
Total for Bill No.05
11672900

Bill No.06 Drainage construction

6.1.1 precast concrete slabs on foot walks including av.40mm thick 1:3 m2 450 2,224 1000800
cement mortar bedding
(Cost of slabs & transport paid separately)

6.1.2 Standard road kerb 125x250x900 G25 concrete Nr 2000 760 1520000

6.2.1 Fabricate & lay tor steel as reinforcement (Including transport & kg 8120 324
wastage)

6.2.2 Cleaning desilting existing side drains and leadup drains to proper L.m 500 50 25000
shape and gradient and transport of excavated materials from roadside
up to 100m
6.3.1 Supplying & fixing 25mm thick planks of class II timber as shuttering, m2 1200 1,355
including removing [1008.3(b)]

6.3.2 Supplying & fixing class ii timber bearers, joists, Etc. including Cu.dm 20 75 1500
Dismantling in shuttering (SSCM 1008.3 (a))

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 5

Highway Design Project Group 1B

6.3.3 Mixing & laying using concrete mixture, cement concrete m3 700 17,809
1:3:6(19mm) using crusher run aggregate ( Incl. transport of aggregate
and piling)
6.3.3 Allow for water for mixing by machine m3 700 27 18900

Total for bill No.6 2566200

Bill No.07 Incidental Construction

7.1.1 Kilometre post (Standard) Nr 1 4642 4642

7.1.2 Whitewashing two coats k.m. stones inc. numbering and Tar skirting. Nr 2 1015 2030

7.1.3 Road marking standard pedestrian crossing, using thermo plastic paint Lm 60 793 47580
(White), inclusive barricading. (Paint materials & reflective glass
beads to pay separately)
7.2.1 Painting 2 coats continuous centreline, 100mm wide with enamel paint Lm 1000 176 176000

7.2.2 Cleaning and painting 1 coat on notice board Nr 9 457 4113

7.2.3 Total for bill No.7 234365

Bill No. 08 Day works

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 6

Highway Design Project Group 1B

8.1 Labour

8.1.1 Supply of skilled 'B' grade labour Days 10 2,520 25200

8.1.2 Labour Skilled 'B' Days(8hrs 275 2,100 577500

)

8.1.3 Labour semi-skilled Days(8hrs 785 2,100 1648500

)
8.1.4 Labours unskilled Days(8hrs 945 1,900 1795500
)
8.2 Construction Equipment

8.2.1 Motor grader (120-140hp) Day 105 57,126 5998230

8.2.2 Pneumatic road roller(8-10tons) hours 760 4,181.00 3177560

8.2.3 Backhoe loader (JCB) Day 18 26,453 476154

8.2.4 Vibrator roller (1/2,1 ton) Day 12 6,903.00 82836

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 7

Highway Design Project Group 1B

8.2.5 Vibrating rammer (60kg) Day 21 3,929.00 82509

8.2.6 Asphalt paver (wheel) hours 12 8,761.00 105132

8.2.7 Bitumen distributor 750 liters Hours 5 1,702.00 8510

8.2.8 Air Compressor 250 CFM hours 12 2,620.00 31440

8.2.9 Concrete mixture with Load Cell weigh batcher 14/10* Day 36 12027 432972

8.2.1 Water bowser (6000liters) day 80 21605 1728400

0
8.2.1 Do-by hired Lorry/ Tripper/ Dump truck(exceeding 10km) km/m3 100 25 2500
1

0
8.2.1 Material Transport by Lorry/Tripper/Dump truck(exceeding km/m3 12 26 312
2 10km)

Total for bill No.8 16173255

Total cost 143,834,937.50

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 8

Highway Design Project Group 1B

PART B
8. DISCUSSION FOR 20 YEAR DESIGN PERIOD

Impact on Highway Capacity and LOS

Capacity is a key parameter for planning, design, and operation of any type of urban road. Capacity
is the maximum traffic flow that can be accommodated in a highway facility during a given time
period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Capacity can be reduced due to
reduction in lane width, heavy vehicle composition, driver population, presence of signal lights and
environmental conditions. Level of Service is a qualitative measurement where capacity is more
focused on the quantity of the particular road. Level of service (LOS) is a mechanism used to
determine how well a transportation facility is operating from a traveller’s perspective.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 1

Highway Design Project Group 1B

WORK DISTRIBUTION:

INDEX NAME WORK DISTRIBUTION

160045X Athapaththu A.H.A.P.N. Cost Estimation

160053U Bamunuarachchi B.A.S.N. Capacity Calculation

Discussion for 15 years
160057K Bandara G.R.D.N. EASL value calculation,
Geometric Design
160058N Bandara G.R.D.P. Cost Estimation
160059T Bandara G.R.U.C EASL value calculation,
Geometric Design
160063B Bandaranayake S. S Environmental and Social Impact,
Drainage Design

All of the group members contributed to the safety audit.

CE 4042 – Highway Engineering 2