final ppt on life cycle cost analysis
DESCRIPTION
life cycle cost analysis of flexible and regid pavement.TRANSCRIPT
UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF Dr. P. NANJUNDASWAMY
1
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT – A CASE
STUDY
Presented byBharath Kumar. M
Hanumantha MMamatha S
Pooja SVijaya Kumar A C
IntroductionObjectives RBI Grade 81Laboratory studiesPavement design Life cycle cost analysis Results and Discussion
2
Contents
3
Introduction
Project location
5
Objectives of the project
To identify the design requirements for the proposed upgradation of project road.
To evaluate the effect of RBI grade 81 chemical on CBR property of subgrade soil.
To develop electronic spread sheets for designing flexible and rigid pavements for high volume roads as per IRC guide lines using Microsoft excel.
6
To design both flexible and rigid pavement structure on treated and untreated subgrade soil as per IRC guidelines using the developed spread sheet.
To perform the life cycle cost analysis for economic evaluation of alternative designs considered
Methodology
Collection of data with respect to present and future traffic scenario on the project road.
Collection of subgrade soil samples from various locations and to evaluate the basic properties needed for classification on and design requirements.
Formulate the procedure for designing flexible and rigid pavement as per the present IRC guidelines and automate the design process by implementing the procedure in an electronic spread sheet (Microsoft Excel).
Implement the process of life cycle cost analysis in an electronic spread sheet for choice of alternative pavement solutions on the basis of economic consideration.
9
RBI Grade 81
10
Composition of RBI Grade 81
Contents Percentage
Ca 25-45
S 5-15
Si 5-20
K 0-5
Mg 0-10
Al 0-5
Fe 0-5
Zn 0-2
Cu 0-2
Mn 0-2
11
Laboratory Studies
Grain size distribution analysis as per IS 1498 : 1970
Atterberg’s limits as per IS 2720 (Part V ) 1985
Modified proctor compaction test as per IS 2720 (part Vlll)
California bearing test as per IS 2720 (Part XVl)
12
Tests conducted
Gradation results of untreated subgrade soil
13
No. Chainage
Wet sieve analysis
%Gravel %Sand %Silt & clay
1 127-120 2 75.00 23.00
2 128-530 0.40 71.80 27.80
3 129-120 4.80 76.40 18.80
4 132-500 4.80 54.80 40.40
5 134-000 19 80.20 0.80
14
Atterberg’s limits of untreated subgade soil
No Chainage LL(%) PL(%)
1 127-120 35.00 21.00
2 128-530 Non plastic soil Non plastic soil
3 129-120 27.50 19.00
4 132-500 33.00 18.00
5 134-000 46.50 23.00
Soil classification of untreated subgrade soil
Chainage Type of soil
127-120Clayey sand (SC)
128-120Clayey sand (SC)
129-120Clayey sand (SC)
132-500Clayey sand (SC)
134-00Well graded sand(SW)
16
Moisture density test results of untreated subgrade soils
No. ChainageCompaction Test
OMC (%) MDD (gm/cc)
1 127 - 120 12.50 2.085
2 128 - 530 08.30 2.265
3 128 - 120 09.33 2.060
4 132 - 500 11.30 2..230
5 134 - 000 10.50 2.240
17
CBR Test results of untreated subgrade soils
No Chainage CBR(%)
1 127 - 120 4
2 128 - 530 14
3 128 - 120 13
4 132 - 500 7
5 134 - 000 5
CBR Test results of stabilized subgrade soil using RBI grade 81
Chainage % of Stabilizer Curing period CBR (%)
127-120
4
3days
29
6 36
134-000
2
3days
20
4 28
DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT AS PER
IRC 37-2011(DRAFT CODE)
Flexible pavement design thickness of untreated subgrade soil
CHAINAGE 127-120 128-530 129-120 132-500 134-00
CBR(%) 4 14 13 7 5
TOTAL THICKNESS
770 590 590 645 720
WEARING COURSE(mm)
50 50 50 50 50
BINDER COURSE(mm)
140 90 90 115 120
GRANULAR BASE(mm)
250 250 250 250 250
GRANULAR SUBBASE(mm)
330 200 200 230 300
Flexible pavement design thickness of treated subgrade soil
CHAINAGE 127-120 134-000
% of stabilizer 4 6 2 4
Effective CBR (%) 13 16 14 15
TOTAL THICKNESS
590 590 590 590
WEARING COURSE(mm)
50 50 50 50
BINDER COURSE(mm)
90 90 90 90
GRANULAR BASE(mm)
250 250 250 250
GRANULAR SUBBASE(mm)
200 200 200 200
Design of Rigid pavement as per IRC 58-2010
Rigid pavement design thickness for untreated sub grade soil
Chainage CBR (%) K(Mpa) Thickness(m)
127-120 4 35 0.3
128-120 14 60 0.29
129-120 13 59 0.29
132-500 7 48 0.3
134-00 5 42 0.3
Chainage % of
StabilizersCBR(%)
Effective CBR
K(Mpa)Thickness
(m)
127-120
4 29 15 61 0.28
6 36 16 63 0.28
134-00
2 20 14 60 0.28
4 28 17 63 0.28
Pavement design thickness for treated subgrade soil
LCCA OF FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT
Rate adopted for LCCA
Pavement crust Rate /cu m (Rs)
BC 4762
DBM 4144
WMM 750
GSB1 720
Prime coat 16
Tack coat 10
PQC 3932
DLC 1563
RBI grade 81 30
Total life cycle Cost Estimate for Rigid pavement
Life cycle cost cost (Lakhs)
Initial cost 11789750
Maintenance cost
Joint seal 682500
Concrete spalling 33600
Texturing 640000
Total 12505850
RESULTS
By addition RBI grade 81 to the untreated subgrade soil at 2%, 4% & 6% increases the CBR value by 300%, 600% & 800% respectively.
In case of Flexible pavement due to increase in the CBR value of subgrade soil the pavement thickness decreases by 23% from 770mm to 590 mm.
In case of Rigid pavement due to increase in the CBR value of subgrade soil the pavement thickness decreases by 7% from 300mm to 280mm.
In LCCA the cost of Flexible pavement is 46% more compare to rigid pavement for untreated soil.
In LCCA the cost of rigid pavement decreases 26% as compare to flexible pavement for treated soil for treated soil
CONCLUSSION By using small dosage of RBI grade 81, there is substantial increase in the CBR value of subgrades soil and also there will be considerable amount of reduction in pavement thickness, therefore usage of chemical stabilizer, RBI 81 proves to be highly cost effective.
For both the untreated and treated cases the total life cycle cost of rigid pavement is less compared to flexible pavement, so rigid pavement is more economical.
Life cycle cost analysis is more scientific approach for the economic evaluation of alternative design solution and for choosing the best alternative.
REFERENCESIRC: 37-2011(draft), Indian road congress methods of design for flexible pavement “Guidelines for the Design of flexible pavements”. IRC: 58 -2010, Indian road congress “Guidelines for the Design of Rigid pavements”.IS: 2720-Part5 (1980), Indian standard methods of test for soils: Determination of Atterberg Limit, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.IS: 2720-Part4 (1980), Indian standard methods of test for soils: Determination of Grain Size Analysis, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. IS: 2720-Part16 (1980), Indian standard methods of test for soils: Determination of CBR values for 4 days soaked soil, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS: 1498(1970), Indian standard methods of test for soils: Determination of Soil Classification, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.IS: 2720-Part8 (1970), Indian standard methods of test for soils: Determination Dry density of Soil, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Kadiyali L.R, (2011), Highway Engineering, 8 th Edition, Inc. New Yark.Khanna S.K., C.E.G.Justo (1971), Highway Engineering, 9th Edition, Nem Chand & Bros, Civil Lines, Roorkee 247 667 India.Khanna S.K., C.E.G.Justo (1971), Highway material testing, 9th Edition, Nem Chand & Bros, Civil Lines, Roorkee 247 667 India.Steven M.Waalkes, Life Cycle Cost Analysis: A Guide for Comparing Alternate Pavement designs, American Concrete pavement Association, Illinois
THANK YOU