ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME - PACKAGE 3 INTERIM ... · ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME -...

ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMME - PACKAGE 3

INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN

AND COST CHARTS

PERKERETAAPIAN INDONESIA KE DEPAN NASKAH ANTARA MENUJU NASKAH AKHIR RENCANA INDUK PERKERETAAPIAN NASIONAL

INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN AND COST CHARTS

ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMME PACKAGE 3

ACTIVITY NO. 201

November 2010

INDONESIA

INFRASTRUCTURE

INITIATIVE

INDONESIA INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE

This document has been published by the Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative (IndII), an Australian Government funded project designed to promote economic growth in Indonesia by enhancing the relevance, quality and quantum of infrastructure investment.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australia Indonesia Partnership or the Australian Government. Please direct any comments or questions to the IndII Director, tel. +62 (21) 230-6063, fax +62 (21) 3190-2994. Website: www.indii.co.id.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report has been prepared by Cardno Emerging Markets in Association with ARRB, who are engaged under IndII, funded by AusAID, as part of the Directorate General of Highways (DGH) Road Sector Development Programme. Edward James was the principal author.

Any errors of fact or interpretation of previous studies under IndII Road Sector Development Programme are solely those of the author.

Ed Vowles, Team Leader

Jakarta, November 2010

Document Control: Interim pavement design and cost charts (Deliverable 3)

Version Date Author Reviewer

Name Initials Name Initials

#2 March 2011 Edward James

Ed Vowles

© IndII 2010

All original intellectual property contained within this document is the property of the Indonesia

Infrastructure Initiative (IndII). It can be used freely without attribution by consultants and IndII partners in

preparing IndII documents, reports designs and plans; it can also be used freely by other agencies or

organisations, provided attribution is given.

Every attempt has been made to ensure that referenced documents within this publication have been

correctly attributed. However, IndII would value being advised of any corrections required, or advice

concerning source documents and/ or updated data.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... IV

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN CHARTS .................................................... 2

CHAPTER 3: ASSUMPTIONS AND CAUSAL FACTOR TREATMENTS ............................... 4

3.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................... 4

3.2 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ................................................................... 4

3.3 OVERLOADING ................................................................................ 4

3.4 CAUSAL FACTOR CORRECTIONS ........................................................... 5

3.4.1 Climate factor (CF1) ................................................................ 5 3.4.2 Asphalt fatigue (CF2) .............................................................. 6

3.5 SUPPLEMENTARY COST STUDIES .......................................................... 7

3.5.1 Drainage ................................................................................. 7 3.5.2 Sealed shoulders .................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 17

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Pavement Design Charts .................................................................................. 2 Table 3.1: Climate Zone Causal Factors (CF1) .................................................................... 5 Table 3.2: Asphalt Fatigue Causal Factors (CF2) ................................................................ 6

iii

LIST OF DESIGN CHART

Design Chart 1: Foundation Design for Flexible and Rigid Pavement ............................... 8 Design Chart 2: New Flexible Pavement ........................................................................... 9 Design Chart 3: Rigid Pavement - Legal Loading ............................................................. 10 Design Chart 4: Rigid Pavement - Overloaded Case ....................................................... 11 Design Chart 5: Design Chart 5 - Reconstructed Pavement (for existing flexible

pavements with granular bases) ........................................................... 12 Design Chart 6: Minimum Existing Pavement Foundation for Chart 5 Pavement .......... 13 Design Chart 7: Asphalt Overlay ..................................................................................... 14

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials AC Asphaltic Concrete AC c Fine graded Asphaltic Concrete AC f Coarse Graded asphaltic Concrete AC BC Asphaltic Concrete Binder Course AC WC Asphaltic Concrete Wearing Course AMP Asphalt Mixing Plant ARRB Australian Road Research Board Austroads Association of Australian and New Zealand Road Transport and Traffic

Authorities BP 07C Heavy Loaded Roads II Project Lohbener, West Java BPJT Toll Road Regulatory Agency CBR Californian Bearing Ratio CCF Cumulative Causal Factor CESA Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axles CF Causal factor: factor causing a reduction in pavement performance that

is not addressed by current Indonesian pavement design practice CIRCLY Australian Mechanistic Design Software Program used by Austroads 2004 CTB Cement Treated Base DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer DED Detail Engineering Design DG Director General DGH Directorate General of Highways EA Executing Agency EBL 01 EINRIP Project Tohpati, Bali EINRIP Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Project ESA Equivalent Standard Axle FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer FY Fiscal Year Gol Government of Indonesia HDM Highway Design Model HRODI Hot Rolled Sheet Road Overlay Design System Indonesia HRS Hot Rolled Sheet HVAG Heavy Vehicle Axle Group IDPL Infrastructure Development Policy Loan IndII Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative IRI International Roughness Index IRMS Indonesian Road Management System Km Kilometre LCC Life Cycle Cost LMC Lean Mix Concrete LSF Load Safety Factor (concrete pavement) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEF Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

v

MoF Ministry of Finance MPW Ministry of Public Works MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework ORN Overseas Road Note PANTURA North Java Corridor (Jakarta – Surabaya) PBB Performance Based Budgeting PBC Performance Based Contracting PC Procurement Committee PPC Project Preparation Consultant PPK Pejabat Pembuat Komitment RDS Road Design System RF Reliability factor SAMI Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer SMA Split Mastic Asphalt SMEC Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation SGx Subgrade Class TFAC Technical and Financial Audit Consultant TLD Traffic Load Distribution Factor TOR Terms of Reference TRL Transport Road Laboratory (UK) VDF Vehicle Damage Factor

INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN AND COST CHARTS ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME PACKAGE 3 ACTIVITY NO. 201

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The interim pavement design matrices presented in this report are designed to facilitate whole-of-life analysis of a comprehensive range of designs and causal factors.

The designs have been developed using the methods stated in Table 2.1 but generally satisfy several applicable design methods (DGH 2002, 2003 and 2005, Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] 93, Austria’s 2008 [2010 now issued]) as appropriate).

Catalogues of standard design solutions are planned for the proposed Pavement Design Guideline Supplements and additional Guideline Modules. The final form of the design catalogues will depend on the warrants determined from the “Whole-of-Life” analyses and may therefore differ from the matrices presented here.

The solutions are to be considered as interim because the form of the solutions catalogues to be presented in the Guideline Supplements will differ from these solutions and will be influenced by:

a) The pavement life cycle cost (LCC) investigation outcomes (deliverable 4)

b) Design input parameters and causal factor refinements that are still under investigation

Information on the basis for proposed changes in design approach is provided by the report “National Roads Pavement Design Guidelines and Practice Review.”

The Charts presented here therefore are not intended for field use. They represent interim solutions to facilitate the life cycle cost analysis and warrant selection process required by Activities 3 and 4 of the project Terms of Reference (ToF).

2 INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN AND COST CHARTS

ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME PACKAGE 3 ACTIVITY NO. 201

CHAPTER 2: INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN CHARTS

A set of 7 Pavement Design Charts has been developed for Indonesian conditions to support the life cycle cost design investigation. These cover the range of solutions proposed for the Design Guideline Supplements. The charts provided are described in Table 2.1. Each solution provided by Charts 2–5 and 7 includes an associated cost for input to life cycle cost analyses.

Table 2.1: Pavement Design Charts

Chart Title Purpose Design Reference Suggested Treatment

in Whole-of-Life Analysis

1 Foundation design for flexible and rigid pavement

Describes sub-grade improvement and capping requirements for both flexible and rigid pavement so reduces the complexity of Charts 2–5

Association of Australian and New Zealand Road Transport and Traffic Authorities (Austroads) 2008

Omit since the foundation structure is common to all solutions

2 New flexible pavement

Incorporates all surfacing types and both granular and cemented bases using limit points based on least direct cost and established performance limits –extensions beyond these limits can be investigated when appropriate

DGH 2002 Secondary overload factors can be input via the Cumulative Causal Factor multiplier (CCF). Suggested values are provided in Section 3.4. The final Design Catalogues will include rigorous analyses

3 Rigid pavement – legal loading

Rigid pavement cost for four cases

DGH 2003 This solution cannot be used in Indonesia due to chronic overload. It is provided for use in analysis of overload costs

4 Rigid pavement - overloaded

The impacts of overloading of rigid pavement are complex and require a full design analysis

DGH 2003 Dowelled joints and tied shoulders are clearly the most cost effective for the overloaded case – other options need not be considered further

5 Reconstructed pavement

Standard solutions Austroads 2008

Chart 6 applies but need not be considered for the whole-of-life analysis


3

CHAPTER 2: INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN CHARTS

Chart Title Purpose Design Reference Suggested Treatment

in Whole-of-Life Analysis

6 Minimum substructure for recycled pavement

Describes the minimum existing substructure required for Chart 5 solutions. When the substructure is not present Chart 5 does not apply - a full analysis is required

Austroads 2008 Not relevant to the life cycle cost analysis

7 Overlay solutions

Provides overlay solutions and costs, and structural design trigger deflections

DGH 2005, Asphalt Institute, Austroads 2008

Use of 5th power traffic analysis is recommended for asphaltic concrete (AC) solutions but not for Hot Rolled Sheet (HRS)



CHAPTER 3: ASSUMPTIONS AND CAUSAL FACTOR TREATMENTS

The following simplifying assumptions have been made to limit the number of possible solutions and the consequent complexity of the life cycle cost analyses.

3.1 GENERAL

a) Asphalt types service ranges and layer thickness ranges are as defined by the DGH General Specification (refer to Chart 2)

b) Granular layer thicknesses have been constrained by the 200mm maximum rule relating to compaction and by an additional rule that for best field compaction, the minimum layer thickness should be not less than four times the maximum particle size. (There is a case for providing finer graded aggregate base A to reduce segregation issues and to permit lower cost solutions.)

c) The “Traffic” axis of Charts 1, 2, 5, and 6 represents both legally loaded and overloaded fleets. When comparing overloading and legally loaded cases, equivalent “weight-of-goods-transported” traffic values must be used. Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axles (CESA) values are 4th power in all cases to avoid confusion. Causal factors (CF) including load related effects not addressed by the 4th power rule are included by means of a Cumulative Causal Factor (CCF).

3.2 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY

Construction quality is addressed by the reliability factor imbedded in both AASHTO and Austroads based design methods. Current construction quality in Indonesia requires a much larger reliability factor adjustment than is currently provided.

Construction quality has impacts that are so great that the problem must be addressed directly, rather than through design process adjustments.

3.3 OVERLOADING

The technical costs of overloading are largely captured by the CESA value if determined using realistic vehicle damage factors and by causal factors (CF; e.g. CF 2).

The safety related costs of overloading are not captured by this approach and must be addressed separately. This issue should be the subject of a separate report.


5


3.4 CAUSAL FACTOR CORRECTIONS

A number of causal factors affecting pavement performance but not addressed by standard design procedures were identified by the report “National Roads Pavement Design Guidelines and Practice Review.” The most significant of these factors are addressed in the Charts by the Cumulative Causal Factor (CCF) multiplier applied to the standard CESA value in Charts 1, 2, 5, and 6, where

CCF = CF1xCF2xCF3 x........

The impact of a range of causal factors can be addressed in this manner without extending the complexity of the cost analysis programme. It is suggested that only two factors, climate and asphalt fatigue, need to be considered in the life cycle cost analysis.

The benefits of good drainage and shoulder sealing are too complex to be addressed by the CCF approach and will be investigated separately.

Other causal factors described in “National Roads Pavement Design Guidelines and Practice Review” Section 4, such as the impact of multi axle groups on soft sub-grades, are considered not to justify inclusion in the life cycle cost analysis. They will be addressed in the Design Supplements as necessary.

3.4.1 Climate factor (CF1)

This factor represents the time during which the sub-grade is at elevated moisture content.

Proposed Climate Factors are as provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Climate Zone Causal Factors (CF1)

Zone Description Example

Locations Rainfall

(mm/annum)

Period

Sub-grade Wet

(based on rain >80mm/month

(months))

Provisional Design Life

Causal Factor (CF1)

I Tropical, sub-humid with strongly seasonal rainfall

Flores, Palu <1400 6 1

II Tropical, sub-humid with seasonal rainfall

Sumbawa, Bali

1400–1800 7 1.2

III Tropical humid with seasonal rainfall

Jakarta, Bandung

1900–2300 8 1.3



Zone Description Example

Locations Rainfall

(mm/annum)

Period

Sub-grade Wet

(based on rain >80mm/month

(months))

Provisional Design Life

Causal Factor (CF1)

IV

Tropical, per humid with year round rainfall and high humidity and/or moisture surplus

Some mountainous areas

>2300 12 2

3.4.2 Asphalt fatigue (CF2)

It is widely accepted that asphalt fatigue develops according to a 5th power rule (Shell 1978). This effect is not significant for countries with predominantly legally loaded vehicles but is highly significant for Indonesia.

New pavements and reconstructed pavements

The factor represents the ratio of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) calculated using a 5th power rule to the same calculation using a 4th power rule.

Asphalt overlay (CF 2overlay)

The multiplier of 1.8/1.2=1.5 is proposed for asphaltic concrete to convert Australian (4th power based, legally loaded) solutions to the Indonesian case. Hot Rolled Sheet Road Overlay Design System Indonesia (HRODI) was developed for HRS asphalts and Indonesian conditions and arguably therefore is already calibrated for the Indonesian overloading case.

Table 3.2: Asphalt Fatigue Causal Factors (CF2)

Legal Loading (provisional)

Overloading (normal case Indonesia)

New, reconstructed and recycled pavements 1.21 1.8

AC overlays 1 1.5

HRS overlays 0.7 1

1 Reasonable degree of legal loading target = typical Australian “legal” loading correction factor


7


3.5 SUPPLEMENTARY COST STUDIES

The following two issues will be addressed by specific studies. Their impacts cannot be adequately described by causal factor type adjustments.

3.5.1 Drainage

The problem of drainage impact on sub-grade strength is addressed within DGH 2002 and by AASHTO 93 by an “m” factor adjustment to granular layer thickness. However low “m” values (an extreme “m” value of 0.4 is provided by AASHTO for saturation greater than 25 percent of service life), although clearly warranted by some field conditions in Indonesia, are rarely used in practice. The problem is addressed by some other Guidelines (British Highway Agency) by an adjustment to the presumptive value adopted for sub-grade bearing capacity. This approach may have benefit for Indonesia because it is more intuitive than the “m” value approach. The cost of poor drainage determined by the “m” factor adjustment, is too great for poor drainage solutions to be adopted except in exceptional circumstances. Comprehensive drainage solutions will therefore be advocated by the Supplementary Guidelines.

3.5.2 Sealed shoulders

Shoulder sealing has several significant benefits. Technical benefits include a reduction in the moisture content variation in the sub-grade which reduces movement of expansive sub-grades and increases the effective bearing capacity of all sub-grades. The safety and user benefits, particularly for motorcyclists, un-motorised vehicles and pedestrians, are obvious.

Appropriate warrants for shoulder sealing will be determined.



Design Chart 1: Foundation Design for Flexible and Rigid Pavement

Sub-grade

Strength Class

Characteristic Sub-grade Bearing

Capacity

(90 percentile, 4 day soak, 95%

standard compaction CBR)

TRAFFIC CLASS (106 CCFxCESA)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11

<0.3 0.3–0.5 0.5–1 1–2 2–2.5 2.5–5 5–10 10–30 30–50 50–100 100–200

LAYER THICKNESS (mm)

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N

Sub-grade improvement

(stabilisation or selected

embankment material)

SG6 ≥6 No improvement required

SG5 5 100 100 100 100 100

SG4 4 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 200 200 200

SG3 3 200 150 150 150 200 200 250 250 250 300 300

SG2.5 2.5 250 175 175 200 225 250 300 300 300 325 350

SG2 2 300 200 200 250 250 300 350 350 350 350 400

Capping layer SG1(5) <2 (6) Provisional (2),(3) 1200mm granular capping (or 800mm geo-grid)


9


Design Chart 2: New Flexible Pavement

TRAFFIC CLASS

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11

Effective Design Life (106 CCFxCESA)

<0.3 0.3–0.5 0.5–1 1–2 2–2.5 2.5–5 5–10 10–30 30–50 50–100 100–200

Preferred Surfacing Type

HRS, SS, surface dress, penmac or

lasbutag HRS AC f AC c

AC c 2 but consider rigid pavement

(Chart 4)

Base Type Granular Base A Cement Treated Base A (subject to contractor resource availability)

PAVEMENT LAYER THICKNESS (mm)

ST

RU

CT

UR

E N

EW

FL

EX

IBL

E P

AV

EM

EN

T

Bitumen bound layers

HRS WC 30 30

HRS Base 35 35

Surface dressing 20

AC f WC 40 40 40 40

AC f binder 60 60 60 60

AC C WC 40 40 40 40 40

AC C binder 60 60 60 60 60

AC Base 60 140 75 3 75 75 125 160 240

CTB, granular

base

CTB 200 200 200 200 200 200

Base A 150 150 150 150 150 150

Base B3 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Structure Unit Price

Rp/m2 112,500 172,538 185,038 260,000 341,000 449,000 423,750 423,750 423,750 491,250 538,500 658,500

2 The lesat cost solution may be dowelled Rigid pavement (refer DESIGN CHARTS 3 and 4

3 Consider omission or reduction if sub-grade is stabilised or if an improved sub-grade with CBR≥5 percent is provided



Design Chart 3: Rigid Pavement - Legal Loading

(NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN INDONESIA - SEE OVERLOADED CASE)

1. JOINTED AND DOWELLED, LSF 1.1

Traffic volume medium Heavy

Heavy vehicle axle groups 4.3x106 43x106

Tied shoulders Yes Yes

Rigid base (mm) 200 215185

LMC sub-base (mm) 150 150

Granular base on sub-grade CBR 6 (mm) 150 150

Structure unit price : (Rp/m2) 382,500 405,000

2. PLAIN CONCRETE, JOINTED, UNDOWELLED, LSF 1.1

Traffic volume Medium Heavy

Heavy vehicle axle groups 4.3x106 43x106

Tied shoulders Yes Yes

Rigid base (mm) 215 230

LMC sub-base (mm) 150 150

Granular base on sub-grade CBR 6 (mm) 150 150

Structure unit price : ( Rp/m2) 405,000 427,500


11



Design Chart 4: Rigid Pavement - Overloaded Case

1. JOINTED AND DOWELLED

Traffic volume Intermediate Heavy

CESA (4th power) 50x106 500x106

Approx equivalent in terms of goods transported legally loaded HVAG

4.3x106 43x106

Tied shoulders Yes No Yes No

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE (mm)

Rigid base 265 330 295 415

LMC sub-base 150 150 150 150

Granular base on sub-grade CBR 6 150 150 150 150

Cost Rp/m2 525,000 622,500 570,000 750,000

2. PLAIN CONCRETE, JOINTED, UNDOWELLED

Traffic volume Intermediate Heavy

CESA (4th power) 50x106 500x106

Approx equivalent in terms of goods transported legally loaded HVAG

4.3x106 43x106

Tied shoulder Yes Yes

Rigid base 360 410

LMC sub-base 150 150

Granular base on sub-grade CBR 6 150 150

Cost Rp/m2 667,500 742,500



Design Chart 5: Design Chart 5 - Reconstructed Pavement (for existing flexible pavements with granular bases)

TRAFFIC CLASS

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11

Corrected cumulative standard axles for design

life (106 CCFxCESA) <0.3 0.3–0.5 0.5–1 1–2 2–2.5 2.5–5 5–10 10–30 30–50 50–100 100–200

Preferred surfacing type HRS, SS, surface dress, penmac or lasbutag

HRS ACf AC c

Base type Granular Recycled

PAVEMENT LAYER THICKNESS (mm)

bitumen bound layers

HRS WC 30 30

HRS Base 35 35

Surface dressing 20

AC f WC 40 40 40

AC f binder 60 60 60

AC C WC 40 40 40 40 40

AC C binder 60 60 60 60 60

AC f binder first layer 60 75 75 75 75 75 90

cement treated base, granular

base

Recycled base (CTB)(2) 225 225 225 250 275 300 300

Base A 150 150 200 200

Reconstruction structure unit price Rp/m2

77,500 135,000 147,500 185,000 328,500 348,750 348,750 361,250 373,750 386,250 406,500

PROVINCIAL AND KABUPATEN ROAD MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING

13


Design Chart 6: Minimum Existing Pavement Foundation for Chart 5 Pavement

Existing Sub-grade Strength

Class

Existing Sub-grade Bearing Capacity

(90 percentile minimum, 4 day

soaked, 95% standard compaction

CBR)

TRAFFIC CLASS (106 CCFxCESA)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11

<0.3 0.3–0.5 0.5–1 1–2 2–2.5 2.5–5 5–10 10–30 30–50 50–100 100–200

Minimum thickness of existing granular and selected embankment pavement layers beneath CHART 5

reconstructed or recycled pavement - other rules apply (mm) (1)

Existing Sub-grade

SG6 ≥6 150 150 200 200

SG5 5 150 150 200 200

SG4 4 250 250 300 300 100 100 150 150 200 200 200

SG3 3 350 300 350 350 200 200 250 250 250 300 300

SG2.5 2.5 400 325 375 400 225 250 300 300 300 325 350

SG2 2 450 350 400 450 250 300 350 350 350 350 400

SG1 <2 1500 1425 1475 1500 1325 1350 1400 1400 1400 1425 1450



Design Chart 7: Asphalt Overlay

CCFxCESA (106)

and Asphalt

Type

Benkelman Beam

Deflection (mm)

Overlay (mm)

Cost Rp/m2

CCFxCESA (106)

and Asphalt

Type

Benkelman Beam

Deflection (mm)

Overlay (mm)

Cost Rp/m2

0.5

(HRS)

1.5 Not

required

1.0

HRS

1.3 Not

required

1.8 30 45,000 1.5 30 45,000

2.0 30 45,000 1.8 40 58,751

2.3 35 52,500 2.0 55 85,313

2.5 45 68,935 2.3 70 108,742

3.0 7068 101,531 2.5 85 129,700

3.0 110 165,967

2

(ACf)

0.8 Not

required

5

(ACf)

0.8 Not

required

1.0 40 54,000 1.0 40 54,000

1.3 50 70,200 1.3 50 70,200

1.5 85 114,075 1.5 85 114,075

1.8 110 149,175 1.8 110 149,175

2.0 140 184,275 2.0 140 184,275

2.4 165 224,640 2.4 165 224,640

3.0 200 270,000 3.0 200 270,000

10

(ACc)

0.8 not

required

30

(ACc)

0.5 40 54,000

1.0 40 54,000 0.8 100 135,000

1.3 65 87,750 1.0 150 202,500

1.5 100 131,625

1.3 190 256,500

1.8 145 192,375 1.5 220 297,000

2.0 150 201,825 1.8 240 324,000


15


CCFxCESA (106)

and Asphalt

Type

Benkelman Beam

Deflection (mm)

Overlay (mm)

Cost Rp/m2

CCFxCESA (106)

and Asphalt

Type

Benkelman Beam

Deflection (mm)

Overlay (mm)

Cost Rp/m2

2.3 170 228,150 2.0 270 364,500

2.4 180 242,190 2.3 290 391,500

2.5 230 310,500 2.5 300 405,000

50

(ACc)

0.5 60 81,000

100

(ACc)

0.5 80 108,000

0.8 120 162,000 0.8 150 202,500

1.0 170 229,500 1.0 200 270,000

1.3 210 283,500 1.3 230 310,500

1.5 240 324,000 1.5 260 351,000

1.8 260 351,000 1.8 290 391,500

2.0 290 391,500 2.0 310 418,500

2.3 310 418,500 2.3 330 445,500

2.5 320 432,000 2.5 350 472,500

200

(AC c)

0.5 100 135,000

Note:

Red cells in Chart 7 indicate possible trigger points to be verified by life cycle cost analysis. Low values indicate possibility to defer rehabilitation. High values indicate that reconstruction solutions are likely to be of more cost effective than overlay. The triggers might provide useful guidance for planning and design decisions when defined quantitatively by whole-of-life analysis.

0.8 180 243,000

1.0 220 297,000

1.3 260 351,000

1.5 290 391,500

1.8 320 432,000

2.0 340 459,000

2.3 360 486,000

2.5 380 513,000



Chart 1

1. For embankment not built under the same contract and all at grade and cutting areas - see Specifications for sub-grade improvement of new embankments

2. Treat top of cap as CBR 2.5 and provide sub-grade improvement layer as for SG2.5

3. Add micro-pile treatment if DCP depth to CBR 2 insitu exceeds 3m (geotechnical investigation required)

4. Void

5. Laboratory CBR is not applicable. See Foundation Module

6. Commonly alluvial silty clay <1 percent CBR insitu when saturated, normally consolidated

Chart 2

1. See CHART 1 for Foundation Structure

2. DGH Specification rules for layer thickness and material type are satisfied

3. AC Base thickness determined to limit crack propagation. Consider SAMI to reduce AC Base thickness requirement

4. Solutions generally satisfy AASHTO, Austroads 2008, CIRCLY and ORN 31 design rules

Chart 5 and 6

1. Charts 5 and 6 provide a basis for preliminary design of recycled pavements. Solutions require an adequate sub-base and sub-grade platform. Refer to Chart 6 for minimum values.

2. The recycled base thickness chosen depends on a number of practical constraints including existing asphalt thickness, proposed treatment width and ratio of new materials required


17

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

Charts 1–7 together with causal factor adjustments provided by Section 3.4, permit life cycle cost analysis of most pavement design cases. Appropriate cost analyses will provide a basis for determination of design life, selection of new construction or rehabilitation type and other warrants.

ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME - PACKAGE 3 INTERIM ... · ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME -...

Documents

Transcript of ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME - PACKAGE 3 INTERIM ... · ROAD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME -...