Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26
GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF RIGID f PAVEMENTS FOR HIGHWAYS (First Revision) THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS 1991 IRC : 58-1988 IRC: 58-1988 MEMBERS OF THE HIGHWAYS SPECIFICATIONS & STANDARDS COMMITTEE, GUIDELINES 1. N. Sivagura ‘Addl, Director General. (Roads), Ministry of FOR (Convenor) Surface Transport (Roads Wing) 2. Arunachal ais Manager (Roads), Rail India Techn Sedma, ke Mame on ala Tete THE DESIGN OF RIGID 3. P.Rama Chandran Chief Engiocer, P-W.D., Kerala PAVEMENTS 4 VP. Cheat (Chief Eaginer (Civ), N.D.M.C., New Delt TOR S Dr.S. Reghava Chari Head, Transportation Engineer jonal Eagl- ome serie Cougs Warangal ne Setomal Raa 6. ALN. Choudbti (Chief Enginesr, P.W.D. Assam } HIGHWAYS 7 NM, Dango Director, Mabarasbtra Engineering Reseateh Tosttute 4 epee 8..NeB Desai Director, Gujarat Engineering Research Iastiute (First Revision) 9. M.P.Dhir Dinector, Central Road Research Knstieuts | 10. 1K, Dogaa Chick Bogineer (Mechanica, Ministry “of 8 : ‘Transport (Roads Wing) ence we D. Chiet Bagineer (Planning), Ministry of Sur Gupta Chit ipa (Planing), Ministry of Surface, Tran 12 Dr.A.K.Gupla Professor and Co-ordinator, Univerlty of Roorkee’ 43, 8.S.Das Gupta Sr, Bitumen Manager, Indian Oil. Corporation Lid. 14 RA. Goal Baogincer-ia-Chief, Haryana P.W.D., B&R. 15, Dr.L.R.Kadiyall 259 Mandakioi Gnclave, New Delhit10 019 16. V.P. Kemdar Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat, PLW.D. a9. PK, Lawrie ‘Chief Engineer (Roads), P.W.D. B.& R, Ralethan 18, V. Merani Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra (Ul) P.W D. 19., ALN. Nanda claChicumSecreary. to the Gove of 20. NCP. Muthanne — Raigieerin-Chief, Madhya Pradeah P.W.D. 2. T.K Natarajan Deputy Director, Central Road Research Instituto 22, ¥-R. Pholl Deputy Directo, Central Roud Research Inatiite 2 V, Raghevas Engiooerin-Chiet (0 & R), Andhra Pradesh P.W.D Published by 24, G, Ramaa Director (Civil Engloceting!, Bureau of Indian iaticde . THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS 25. Ravindra Kumar Director, U.P. Research Institute Jamnagar House, Shabjahan Road, 26. A. Sankaran (Calef Eagineer, C.P.W.D.,.New Delhi New Delhi-110 011 27, Dr. A.C.Sarma Deputy Director, Ceatral Road Research lonttute 1991 : 28, RK. Serena ‘Ghiot Engineer (Roads), Ministry of Surface Trane- Price Rs SD AB ort (Roads Wing) (Pius packing & posoze B.NSe0 Ghiet Engineer, (Retd), 12-4, Chitaranjan Park, ‘New Deli IRC : 58-1988 First published : July 1974 First Revision : June 1988 Reprinted : March, 1991 (Rights of Publication and of Translation are reserved) Printed at Sagar Printers & Publishers. New Delhi (1000 copies) IRC : 581988 CONTENTS Clause No. 1, Introduction 2. General 3. Design Parameters and Assessnient of their Design Value 4. Design of Slab Thickness 3. Design of Joints 6. Design of Reinforcement Appendices 1, Extract from IRC : 15-1981 “Standards Specifications and Code of Practice for Construction of Concrete Roads”—Preparation of Sub-grade and Sub-base 2. Logarithms 3. An Illustrative Example of Design of Stab Thickness 4. An Ilusteative Example of Design of Dowel Bars and Tie Bars 29 38 40 IRC : 81988 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF RIGID PAVEMENTS FOR HIGHWAYS 1, INTRODUCTION Guidelines for the Design of Rigid Pavements for High- ways were approved by the Cement Concrete Road Surfacing Committee in their meeting held at Chandigarh on the 11th March, 1973, These were approved by the Specifications & Standards Committee in their meeting held on 31st January and Ist February, 1974. The Guidelines were then approved by the Executive Committee and the Council in their meetings held on the Ist May and 2nd May, 1974 respectively. In view of the recent upward revision of the legal. limit on the maximum laden axle-loads of commercial vehicles from 8160,kg. to 10200 kg. (new legal_ maximum wheel load 5100 kg.), appropriate ‘modifications have become necesary in some sections of the Guidelines. ‘Accordingly, the Cement Concrete Road Surfacing Committee of the Indian Roads Congress in their 17th meeting held at Nagpur on 8th January, 1984 (personnel given below) considered and approved certain changes : KK. Nambiar i. Convenor YR. Phull ‘Member-Secretary HS. Bhat L. Shivalingaiah D.C. Chaturvedi N. Sivagure NC. Duggal K. Suryanarayana Rao OP. Gupta Director (CiviD 18.1. PK. Issac (G. Raman) PJ. Jagus D.G.B.R. (Maj. Gen, J.M. Rai) DP. Jain BT. Unwalla RS. Jindal Director General Cement Maj. Gen, RK. Kalra Research Institute of India P.V. Kamat (Dr. HC. Visvesvaraya) Dr. SK. Khanna Director, U.P. P.W.D. Research PJ. Mehta Institute (P.D. Agarwal) CB, Mathur City Engineer (Roads), Municipal D.C. Panda Corporation of Bombay A Rep. of CP.W.D. DG.RD) Exoffcio 1 IRC : 58-1988 The amendments were considered by the Specifications & Standards Committee in their meeting held at New Delhi on the 2ist August, 1985 and were returned back to Cement Concrete Road Surfacing Committee for further consideration. The draft was then finalised by Dr. M.P. Dhir Convenor and Shri $.S, Seehra Member- Secretary of the reconstituted Committee. The draft received from the Cement Concrete Road Surfacing Committee was reconsidered by the Highways Specifications & Standards Committee in their meeting held on 25th April, 1988 at New Delhi and approved. These amendments received ‘the approval of the Executive Committee and the Council in their meetings held on 26th April and 7th May, 1988 respectively. 2. GENERAL Rigid pavement design commenced with the classical analysis of Westergaard in 1926, Most of the subsequent work, till recently, aimed at modifications and adaptations of West: ergaard’s work either with a view to match better with the actual performance and test data, or simplify the analysis for easier design. Of late, there is a noticeable trend towards the development of ultimate load analysis in this field, and consequent upon the AASHO Road Test, attempts have been made also to apply the. serviceability-performance criteria to rigid pavement design. They are, however, still in a developing stage. Some of these methods take only traffic loads into account, ignoring such environmental factors as temperature changes in the pavement, which may substantially limit its load-carrying capacity. There are other factors, like impact, load repetitions, ete., the effects of which though understood qualitatively, are not’ yet conclusively established quantitatively. Nevertheless, for a rational design, their effects should be incorporated to the extent possible with the existing knowledge. It is with the objective of simplifying this task and to pro- mote the scientific design of rigid pavements that these guide- Tines have been drawn. 3. DESIGN PARAMETERS AND ASSESSMENT ‘OF THEIR DESIGN VALUE 3.1, Traffic Parameters 3.1.1. Design wheel load: The design wheel load should bbe the maximum wheel load of the predominant heavy vehicle 2 IRC : 58-1988 likely to use the pavement in the normal course, In case of public highways, it will obviously be governed by the prevailing Tegal limits on the maximum laden weight of commercial vehicles. It is currently taken at 5100 kg. In addition to the design wheel load, the maximum tyre inflation pressures for the vehicles should aiso be ascertained, so as to enable determination of tyre contact area through which the load is transmitted to the pavement. For most. commercial shway vehicles, this ranges from about 5.3 to 7.3 kg/em?. 3.1.2. Traffic intensity: Passage of traffic results in_re- petitive loading of the pavement, thereby inducing fatigue effects inthe concrete. These effects, while not_of much consequence in case of low traffic intensities because of considerable time lag between successive passes, assume greater importance in case of heavily trafficked pavements, as the fatigue strength of concrete reduces with increase in the number of load repetitions it is required fo sustain. While a rigorous approach would require the assessment of total number of design load repetitions during intended design life of a pavement including due allowance for lighter and heavier loads through the use of appropriate equivalency factors, 4 more practical approach isto classify the pavements, for the purpose of making fatigue allowance, according to traffic inten= sity range expected. Since traffic intensity is a growing phenomenon, the heavi- est intensity will occur at the end of the design life of a pave- ment. However, it is generally considered adequate if the traffic is projected to a period of 20 years after construction, since in the initial stages the traffic intensity will be much less than that at the end of the design life, For traffic prediction on main correlation may be adopted T=P (141)? sd) with 7=design traffic intensity in terms.of number of commer- cial vehicles (laden weight > 3 tonnes) per day, raffic intensity at last traffic count, wnnual rate of increase of traffic intensity, and umber of years since last traffic count and commis- sioning the new concrete pavement. 3 shways, the following c IRC : 58-1988. The traffic intensity P for assessment of design traffic inten- sity T should normally be a seven day average based on 24-hour counts, in accordance with IRC : 9-1972 : Traffic Census on Non- Urban Roads (First Revision). However, in exceptional cases, where such data are not available, an average of three day counts may be used as an approximation. Based on growth rate of traffic over the past few years, a value of 7.5 per cent is suggested for ‘r’ for rural roads for the time being, wherever actual data are not available. In case of new highway links, where no (raffic count data will be available, data from highways of similar classification and importance may be used to predict the design traffic intensity. ‘The pavement classification based on design traffic intensity, fuagested for adoption for rigid pavement design, is given in ‘able the end of design ite ous 15645 45-150 130-450, 450-1300 1500-4500 ‘Above 4500 and all expressway ammooe> 3.2. Environmental Parameters 3.2.1. Temperature differential: Temperature differential between top and bottom of concrete pavements is a function of solar radiation received by the pavement surface at the location, losses due to wind velocity, etc., and thermal diffusivity, of con- crete, and is thus affected by geographical features of the pavement location. As far as possible, values of actually anticipated tempera- ture differentials at the location of the pavement should be 4 IRC : 581988 adopted for pavement design. For this purpose, guidance may be had from Table 2. ‘Tanbe 2, ReconMENDID TeMPrnayoRe DIFIERENTIALS I CONCRETE ROADS i ‘Temp, diferentiat in ‘Cin | labs of thickness Zone States eo ——— | 10m | 15em| 20em | 25cm | 30em Rs 1 M3 158 UP, Rajasthan Gujarat, Haryana and North MP eicluding hilly resins and coastal areas U1, Bihar, West Bengal, Assamand M4 156 164 16.6158 Enstefn Orissa, excluding hilly regions and coastal MIT, Maharashtra, Kar MiP,, Andhra Pradesh, Western Orissa and North Madtas excluding hilly regions and sonstal areas IV. Kerala and South Madras, (132 «15.0, 164176 BL excluding lly regions and oastal areas V. Coastal areas bounded by hills 128 146 158 162 170 VI. Coastal areas unbounded by 136 «ISS :170«190 19.2 fils Note: The above mentioned table has been prepared on the basis of actual observations by Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi 1475 173 190 203. 210 3.2.2, Mean temperature cycles: Mean temperature cycles daily and annual of concrete pavements affect the maximum spacing of contraction and expansion joints in the pavement and design values for these factors would be required if it is desired to adopt the maximum safe spacing of expansion joints. However, these factors are dependent upon the geographical location of the pavement, and data thereon are generally not available readily. Somewhat conservative recommendations for maximuin expansion joint spacing have, therefore, been framed as guidelines on the basis of actual temperature data collected at selected locations in different parts of the country. 3.3, Foundation Strength and Surface Characteristics 3.3.1. Strength: The foundation strength, in case of rigid 5 IRC : 58.1988, pavements, is expressed in terms of modulus of subgrade reac- tion, K, which is defined as pressure per unit deflection of the foundation as determined by plate bearing tests. As the limiting design deflection for concrete pavements is taken at 1.25 mm, the K-value is determined from the pressure sustained at this deflection. As K-value is influenced by test plate diameter, the standard test is run with a 75 cm dia. plate, beyond which’ the effect of diameter has been found to be negligible. A frequency ‘of one test per km per lane is recommended. for assessment of K value, unless foundation changes with respect to subgrade soil type, of sub-base or the nature of formation (i.e, cut of fill) when Additional tests may be conducted. In case of homogeneous foundation, test values obtained with plates of smaller diameter may by converted to the standard 75 cm plate value by experimentally obtained correlations, c.g, Krs=0.5 Keo (2) with Kas and Kao as the K values obtained on 75 cm and 30 cm dia. plates respectively. However, in case of layered construc- tion, as in the case of sub-base, the tests with smaller plates give greater weightage to the stronger top layer, and direct conversion to 75 cm plate values by the above correlations somewhat over estimates the foundation strength, and such conversion’ must. be regarded as very approximate only. The subgrade soil strength, and consequently the strength of the foundation as a whole, is affected by its moisture content. The design strength obviously must be the minimum that will be available under the worst moisture conditions encountered. The ideal period for testing the foundation strength would thus be after the monsoons when the subgrade would have attained its highest moisture content. In case the tests have to be conducted at some other time, especially during the dry part of the year, allowance for loss in strength due to increase in moisture must be made. For this pur- Pose, an idea of the expected reduction in strength on saturation of the subgrade may be had from laboratory CBR tests on subgrade soil samples compacted at field density and moisture content and tested before and after saturation. An approximate idea of K value of a homogeneous soil subgrade may be had directly from its CBR value using Table 3. A. more elaborate procedure involves correlation through consolidation tests on unsoaked and soaked samples. valve (kglem®) 208 2.77 3.46 4, IRC : 58-1988 ‘TABLES APPROXIMATE K VALUE CORRESPONDING TO CBR VALUES 108 HoMoaenrous Sort Suanabes CBR value (%) 23 4 «5 7 «+10 2 50 10 As4 5.54 692 1383 22.16 The recommendations of IRC : 15-1981 shall_be followed and a K-value of less than 5.5 kg/em® tested on the subgrade shall not be permitted. In’ case of rocky subgrades with a K-value of 5.5 kg/em® and higher, the pavement may be laid directly thereon or after providing a levelling course, if required. In case of problematic subgrades such as clayey and expansive soils, ete., appropriate provisions shall be made for a blanket course in addition to the sub-base as per the relevant stipulations of IRC: 15-1981, reproduced in Appendix 1. 3.3.2. Foundation surface characteristics : The foundation surface characteristics, viz., its smoothness or roughness, deter- mine the extent of resistance to slab movement during expansion and contraction on account of foundation restraint, and affect Joint spacings. The maximum safe spacing increases with increase in surface roughness of the foundation in case of expansion joints, and decreases in case of contraction joints. For the purpose of determination of joint spacings, diffe- rent types of foundations generally adopted ‘may be classified nto three categories, viz., very smooth, smooth and rough, accor- ding to their surface characteristics, as given in Table 4. "As the foundations normally adopted in the country fall within the last two categories, only these two categories have been considered in formulating recommendations for expansion joint spacings. ate 4, CLAssICATION oF Dirrenanr TyPts OF rato Tama 4s CEMENT FOUNDATIONS ACCORDING TO THETE Sunrace Custactensrice Surface roughness ‘Type of foundation characteristics Very Smooth ‘Compacted sand and gravel. Smooth foundation u covered with waterproof paper moot Compacted sand, aravel and clinker, stabilised Smooth soil. PRough foundation covered with waterproof aver = Roveh Water-bound pacidam, soikgravel mix, rolled lean eonerete,lime-pozzslana concrete, ele. 7 IRC : 58-1988 3.4, Concrete Characteristics 3.4.1. Design strength: As stresses induced in concrete pavements are due either to bending or its prevention, their Gesign is necessarily based on the flexural. strength of concrete. For economical design, the design value adopted for flexural strength of pavement concrete should not be less than 40 kg/om®, This strength value, however, should. not be confused with the mix design strength. ‘The mix has to be so designed as to ensure the minimum structural strength requirements in the field with the desired confidence level. Thus if : 4 structural de value for concrete strength, = mix design value for concrete strength, 1 = tolerance factor for the desired confidence level, 2 = expected standard deviation of field test samples, based on a know. Fedge of the type of control, viz. very good, good or fair, feasible at Eee then s=3+40 @) so that to achieve the desired ininimum structural strength s in the field, the mix design in the laboratory has to be made for somewhat higher strength, s making due allowance for the type and extent of quality control feasible in the field. For pavement construction, the conerete mix should prefer- ably be designed and controlled on the basis of flexural strength. If that is not possible, correlation between flexural and compres sive strengths should be established on the basis of actual tests ‘on additional samples made for the purpose at the time of mix design. Quality control can then be exercised on the basis of compressive strength, so long as the mix materials and propor- tions remain substantially unaltered. Even though it is custo~ mary to assume 280 kg/cm? as compressive strength correspond- ing to 40 kg/cm? flexural strength, such general assumptions should be avoided as far as possible in view of the variety of factors which influence the correlation between the two strengths. For general guidance, the value of t and @ for concrete compressive strength value of 280 kg/em® are given in Table 5 for different degrees of quality control. For, design of cement concrete mix, IRC: 44-1972 Tentative Guidelines for Cement Conerete Mix Design for Road Pavements (for non-air entrained and continuously graded concrete) may be followed. 8 IRC : 58-1988, ‘Tane$, Conceere Mix Dsston Sraenorit ron DitFERrNt Dronees Sr Quaiiry Contaot, For STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALUE OF 380 kalsq. em Pon ConcRere Comenessive STRENO' T Degree of | Tolerance ‘Tolerance | Coeficient ealny” | “level” | “factor, Sonera | * Yerygood tinls 150 sood” Jin IS 150 fino 120 Very good quality control = Contcol with weigh Mebac“aghregates, oktore. determination of agerceaies, tc Rigid and eonstant supervision by the quality conrot team Good quality control : Contcol with weigh-batehing, use of Seeregates” moisture determination of aggregates, ete. Constant $uBertsion by the quality contol team. ‘Fair quality control: —Contcol_with volume-batching for aggregates. Fat ional Checking. of agarepate.mousture, Occasional supervision ‘Sy the quality control team, 3.4.2. Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio: The modulus of elasticity, E, and Poisson’s ratio, » of concrete are known fo vary with ‘concrete materials and strength. The, elastic modulus increases with increase in strength, and Poisson’s ratio Uecreases with increase in the modulus of elasticity. While it fs desirable. that the values of these parameters are ascertained experimentally for the concrete mix and materials actually to be Gsed at the construction, this information may not always be available at the design stage, In such cases, it is suggested that for design purposes, the following values may be adopted for concrete in the 38-42 kg/cm? flexural strength range Modulus of elasticity of concrete, E=3%10" kslem? Poisson's ratio, =015 3.4.3. Coefficient of thermal expansion: The coefficient of thermal expansion, a, of coneretes of the same mix proportions Varies with the type of aggregate, being in general high for sili- Ceous ‘aggregates, medium for igneous rocks and low for SElcareous ones. However, for design purposes, a value a— 10x 10°6/°C may be adopted in all cases. 4. DESIGN OF SLAB THICKNESS 4.1, Critical Stress Condition Concrete pavements in service are subjected to stresses due 9 IRC : $8-1988 to a variety of factors, acting simultaneously, the severest com- dination of which inducing the highest stress in the pavement will give the critical stress condition, The factors commonly considered for design of pavement thickness are traffic loads and temperature variations, as the two are additive. The effects of moisture changes and’ shrinkage, being generaily opposed to those of temperature and of smaller magnitude, would ordinarily relieve the temperature effects to some extent, and are not nor mally considered critical to thickness design. For purposes of analysis, three different regions are recog- nised in a pavement slab—corner, edge and interior—which react differently from one another’ to the effect of temperature differentials, as well as load application. ‘The conerete pavements undergo a daily cyclic change of temperature differentials, the top being. hotter than the bottom during day, and cooler during night. ‘The consequent tendency of the pavement slabs to warp upwards (top convex). during. the day and downwards (top concave) during the night, and re~ straint offered to this warping tendency by self-weight of the pavement induces stressses in the pavement, referred to com- monly as temperature stresses. These stresses are flexural in nature, being tensile at bottom during the day and at top during night. "As the restraint offered to warping at any section of the slab would be a function of weight of the slab upto that section, it is obvious that corners have very little such restraint. The restraint is maximum in the slab intefior, and somewhat. less. at the edge. Consequently the temperature stresses induced in the Pavement are negligible in the corner region, and maximum at the interior Under the action of load application, maximum stress is induced in the corner region, as the corner is discontinuous. in two directions. The edge being discontinuous in one direction only, has lower stress, while the least stress is induced in the interior where the slab is continuous in all directions. Further~ more, the corner tends to bend like a cantilever, giving tension at the top, interior like a beam giving tension at bottom. At edge, main bending is along the edge like a beam giving maxi- mum tension at bottom The maximum combined tensile stresses in the three regions of the slab will thus be caused when effects of temperature diffe. rentials are such as to be additive to the load effects. This would occur during the day in case of interior and edge regions, atthe 10 IRese.1s68 ime of maximum temperature differential in the slab. In the corner region, the temperature stress is negligible, but the load stress is maximum at night when the slab corners have a tendency to lift up due to warping and lose partly the foundation support. Considering the total combined stress for the three regions, viz., corner, edge and interior, for which the load stress decreases in that order while the temperature stress increases, the critical stress condition is reached in the edge region where neither of the load and temperature stresses are the minimum. It is, there- fore, felt that both the corner and the edge regions should be checked for total stresses and design of slab thickness based on the more critical condition of the two. 4.2. Calculation of Stresses 4.2.1. Edge stresses (a) Due to load: The load stress in the critical edge region may be obtained as per Westergaard analysis and modified by Teller and Sutherland from the following correlation (metric units) : 9=0.529 F(1+0.54 4) (4 Logie 1 +logiab— load stress in the edge region, kg/em?, Pa design wheel load, kg, pavement slab thickness, cm, Poisson's ratio for concrete, E=modulus of elasticity for concrete, kg/em’, Kereaction modulus of the pavement foundation, kglems, I=-radius of relative stiffness, em a cornice face) = Vee se radius of equiv. distribution of pressure 4048)...(4) with of afor-f-> 1.724 = VIGFFR—0.675 h for $< 1.724 sos) and a = radius of load contact, cm, assumed circular. The values of ? and 6 can be ascertained directly from Tables 6 and 7. For ready reference, 4-figure log tables are included in Appendix 2. u IRC : 8.1988 ‘Taste 6, RADIUS OF RELATIVE STIFFNESS, J, FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF Pavement SLAB THICKNESS, h, AND FOUNDATION REACTION Moputus, K, ron Coxcnere E = 3.0% 10" kglem* nae etree Radius of relative stiffaess ! (em) for different values of K (ke/em)* hom) | K=8 Ka10 K=30 1s oss S78 $4.08 48.86 41.09 16 6449 oo 56.76 51.29 43.31 " 6749 6281 39.40 53.67 45.6 18 mae 65.56 e201 56.03 4701 19 7336 68.28 6437 58.35 49.06 20 1624 70.95 67.10 60.63 50.99 2 79.08 B39 6.60 63.89 52.89 2 81.89 1620 72.08 65:3 “an B 84.66 78.80 432 671.33 56.62 4 ara 81.35 16.94 31 58.45 2s 90.13 83.88 932 71.68 60.28 ‘TaDLn 7, RADIUS oF Equtv. DistaiBvTIon oF Patssune SecTION, b, IN ‘TeaMs oF RADIUS OF CONTACT, a, AND SLAB THICKNESS, f alt yh ah bh 00 0225 10 0937 ou 0333 1 1.039 02 0.339 12 Ls. 03 0387 13 1250 oa 0.446 14 1388 05 0.508 ks 1470 06 0.580 Ls 1582 or 0.661 7 1.695 08 0747 Le ina 09 0.840 Sins ah IRC : $8198 (b) Due to temperature : The temperature stress at the criti: cal edge region may be obtained as per Westergaard analysis. using Bradbury's coefficient, from the following correlation ann MAL o with af = temperature stress in the edge region. Af = maximum temperature differential during day between top and bottom of the slab. a = coefficient of thermal expansion of conerete, Bradbury's coefficient, which can be ascertained directly trom Bradbury's chart against values of Litand WII, slab length, or spacing between consecutive con~ traction joints, W = slab width, and T= radius of relative stiffness, Values of the coefficient, C. based on the curves given in Bradbury's chart. are given in Tabie 8, ‘Tanur §, VALUrs oF Co-tssicusNT *C° aAstD On Brapauny’s CHART Lior Wit c ' 1.000 2 0.040 3 ow 4 oa 5 0.70 6 0920 7 030 8 hors > 0s 0 Los n 050) 12and above 1.00 B IRC : $8-1988 Au2.2. Corner stresses: The load stress in the corner region may be obtained as Per Westergaard’s analysis, as modified by Kelley, from the following correlation Bon(aey wt) oh= 3 Wwith als = load stress in the corner region, other notations ‘ing the same as in the case of the edge load stress formule, sThe temperature stress inthe corner region is negligible as the corners are relatively free to warp, and may be lente remai 4.3. Design Charts Figs. 1 and 2 give ready-to-use design charts for calculation of load stresses in the edge and corner regions of rigid paseo Edge load stress design parameters P5100 kg, a-=15 em Ba310* Kglemy $0 “s “ a % a 0 ; is. — 10 Edge load stress ole (kgicm*) tw 6890 Slab thickness, & (em) Fig. 1. Design chart for calculation of ‘edge load stress 4 ae IRC : s8-1988 Co-mer load stress design Eee3 10* kefem* y= 0.15 Ka304/on? eis Corner load stress fe (kg cm") m4 ie 18 30 22 29 Slab thickness, h (mm) Fig. 2. Design chart for calculation of corner load stress Slabs for the design wheel load of 5100 kg. Fig. 3 gives a design chart for calculation of temperature stresses in the edge region 4.4. Recommended Design Procedure Step 1: Stipulate design values for the various parameters. Step2: Decide joint spacing and land-widths (vide para 5.1). ‘Step 3 : Select tentative design thickness of pavement slab. Step. 4: Ascertain maximum temperature stress for the critical edge region from Equation (7) or Fig. 3. Step $: Calculate the residual available strength of concrete for supporting traffic loads. Step 6 : Ascertain edge load stress from Equation (4) or Fig. 1, and calculate factor of safety thereon. 15 IRC : 58-1988 keen) Edge temperature stress 40 as £096 Tempcasrune siasss peel Hs PARAMETERS: so | esas Hanae 25 20 1s ° 3 70 15 20 25. ‘Temperature diferent ¢ | #2 see ze a Shatell cured in wet condition shall e at lest 39kglem® at? days, for BE 22 38 R88 attache taas of rot seeccd. deh wil be about 43 em: pros | ga ee ~ | 32 See gg age a pavement thickness should be made up With Non-ron susceptible material. BE SN RRS S $2. For extreme conditions, such as thote prevailing in areas above an + | 88 age an gz Sh BE 2 aniwwe of 3000'm the Tundation ‘nay ‘be designed. lalvidually for sety BY S88 Qh 22% S28 GER 88 Ses focstion afer deternning the depth of fost ees Tinea tea for the tin ont ai + | 88 E88 Eq BRE 88 ERR Bs age raded gravel: Not_more than $ per, cent pasing 75 micron seve « | 38 eas ae Cee ee © Shastthy fader aot more than Liga init not move than 35. g SB G82 G8 S88 £8 See oe age i) Poorly sraded sands, senerally 100 per cent passing 4.75 mm a B58 39 83 Sere « | 88 S88 He SSE Bs see ee eRe «Max. 10 per cent passing 75 micron sieve 52 E82 23 S88 $2 885 25 699 Max. 5 per eent passing 50 micron sive (ci) Fine uniform sand, generally 100 per cent passing 425 micron a | £3 988 28 S88 ER gee ag gze Max 18 per cent pasting 75 micron seve | a a zie ah ad fax. 8 per cent ‘micron sive 28 95 38 28 $B per cent passing : ~ | $8 328 ARS 32 S8 52 $99 | | | ge ge BEE ag 8 ~ | 22 G88 82 BRE 8g 328 BE 298 : \ = 88g sz ey 58 BR x o | 3 B22 £2 ARE SN 958 82 599 | S2 SMe BE nee RA ANA AA RRR 28 oe ie le zie | g f: : ir ie : . ° | 88 S88 aG BBS 50 88 Sf 88a BE g 2H HE ~ | $5 Say 88 ERE ES 298 GE EEE BE | gl - #8 28 289 § g] "Se 288 9 EGE 5 298 48 EE FE | Eo | age 98 gg 2 85 882 ag 5| ° | 55 995 38 RHR G2 ERE 89 E8Y 28 | 8) . | age ae ae a3 888 By 5] -| gg sgn a9 Say GE BUS 98 HE BE “ 8 RE 98 828 93 99e £9 | ~ | 88 ERY 8% B8R #2 GEE G8 E85 22 : 2 4 HE £8 EE ts | - $8 #88 S08 EGE 82 G85 £8 208 2 » 25 853 8 Ne 88 « | #¢ S58 $B GBR HE OGY O9 EEE BB a| ~ | S88 28 E88 £8 BBE g #8 i) - | ee REE 98 abe 58 888 98 foe A] - | see oe ase en aa s 3) | G8 B82 59 GR a8 G82 28 EE EE i] >| #2 BRR Fe eg it é Ba ARR AR BRA SS e589 am 3 AAS BR FAA Ss SSy VE SBS ex Rez ve 8 IRC : 581988 TRC: 58-1988, 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 i 4 4 i ‘ i i 4 i 4 t i | th So. 3 |_| | coe co See se ane on nan an ane é i g Ble amen i E| = a. = ~ | HBG G2 E08 58 980 29 ORE 29 OE g]- | SER ER SER ER REEDED RE] ET EEE | | ~ | BR SE SOG GE NB ED GEE DEER] |B q S| -|aub ar sas ap eae were aee) |p BE ~ | RE a2 ERB 08 995 WG ORE OF BE + | 826 2 GEE EE URE ERE) | | i ~ | SER 9 288 £2 298 99 O82 EF BE | 3 2 _| «| $88 28 288 2 EG HE ae) | 3 A i) - | aE BE S43 82 998 ER HOE EB Sa - a | + | HES 5B HER #2 EYE 98 396 0 RR || A 3 RRR @z URS BE ESR Ra RS BR ERR | | 8% 888 88 S88 32 IRC : 581988 IRC : s8.1988 a) oe | | |G Ee oe ee eee ' Ble | eee ee eee en nnn on ann ee | ae | : Zia eee { : \ 1 ae | 7 ats 2 | a | > | RRR RR #8 S 53 ag | ” | SEB a # « | 88 32 £8 888 88 | ° | SBR 38 Bg 235 3 ~ | $8 S82 88 HE ARE 8 | ” | SRE ER RBS EE SR 88 | la AG HEE BE ~ | BRE ROBE SS ge8 Ee «| 8 ad S98 HR GRE 88 «| 888 2B SBS 2 | 3| ~ | 88 S828 ag8 2a ARE SH HEE BE >| «| S82 aR 88 8 8) _| og ge eg 988 a8 HEE HA SBE HE o) | ane aa aa 8 4 > | 8g S82 £8 SEE 2 BBE AR A Go| ARE BB Bee x = Ra NRA AS 3g a85 99 S89 A 8g 34 38 IRC: Se988 In | 908 98 7 i: oe é ie 2 Be | cos oo Ir = ge | wmn an noe wo eee RR Ben ne ig. ie. ar : . [is 2 $3 £88 58 8 lo 88 $62 2h 35 : 38 BEE BE ca i. | 88g 28 #88 aR a | ~ | 55g 29 ag SE 828 a "lose ze [= 53 889 25 ge ae ie & \ i | $38 3 . Sg S98 52 252 SE B88 88 |. | S88 88 z ri 98 008 G2 RBG Ge 285 83 | | «| BBS 3 | | - | $68 8 es 28 SE ee a2 282 25 |. 95 & 88 88 888 co o | B52 28 age q ee oe ARE RE RRR Be < aaa BS 58 IRC: 58-1988 Appendix 3 AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF DESIGN OF SLAB THICKNESS - Design Parameters Location of pavement Delhi Design wheel load p-=5100 ke Present trafic intensty=300 veh/day Design tyre pressure p=7.2 kaem* Foundation Strength k=6 kg/em* Conerete fiexural strength f= 40 kelem" Other concrete parameters E=30X10" kglem* ua0.15 =10x10-#*C Design Procedure Step 1. AS in para 1 above. ‘Step 2. Joint spacing and lane-widths Contraction Joint spacing L=4.5 m Lane width, W=3.5 m Step 3. Tentative design value of slab thickness, h=22 em Step 4. Temperature stress for edge region. () From Table 2 for 22 cm thick pavement slabs in Delhi max, Value of temperature differential, fabout 13.5°C (Gi) for h=22 em ; Em 3.0210 kglet From Table 6, 1=81.89 em 15.5, Wil=4.3 From Table 8, Cy=0.82, Cy 0.52 (ii) From Fig. 3, for C=0.82 and t=13.5 °C of e=160 kglem? Step 5. Residual concrete strength for supporting loads Sunfe Step 6. Load Stress for edge region From Fig. 1, for h=22 em, lem 234 kglem -40.0—16.0=24.0 kglem* 38 ‘Step 7. Available factor of safety on load steess jlolr = 921.031 2 0.K. Sil a Step 8 Corner load Stress From Fig. 2, ofo=26.8 kglem?