Pavement Design

1 Pavement Design
A road pavement is a structure consisting of superimposed layers of specially selected materials sitting
on the subgrade (instu soil), whose primary function is to distribute the applied vehicle loads to the
subgrade to levels that will not damage the instu material. The design therefore comprised
establishment of layer thicknesses and their respective suitable materials.
The design process involved the following:
Establishment of subgrade material properties including strength;
Establishment of the expected vehicle load repetitions over the design period;
Establishment of the climatic conditions under which the pavement will operate;
Determination of the different layer thicknesses;
Design of the surface layer.
1.1 Subgrade properties

Samples of subgrade material were collected and taken to the material laboratory to establish their
properties. Tests conducted on the samples included: Atterberg limits to determine the consistency of
the material and these included tests like Plasticity test, Liquid limit, Plasticity index and Shrinkage limit;
California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Compaction test and Gradation test.
Whereas all these tests are important in understanding the behavior of the material, for purposes of this
design, only the Atterberg limits and CBR shall be considered in the classification of the subgrade.
In tandem with the laboratory tests, instu tests were conducted to establish the instu strength of the
subgrade in terms of CBR using a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Table 1 -1 present a summary of
the test results for the subgrade material. The detailed results are attached as appendix 1.
Table 1-1: Summary of Subgrade Test results
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS OF THE SUBGRADE MATERIAL

District Laboratory Tests DCP Results
th
Gomba Test Max Min Average SD 10 Percentile Test Max Min Average SD 10th Percentile
PI 19 8 15.44 2.5 11.6
CBR 32 8 18.1 6.48 12 CBR 50 4 37 15 13
SN 2.27 0.13 1 0.54 0.19
SNP 3.15 1.27 2.7 0.32 2.27
Kayunga PI Only one point shows PI, suggesting the material is sandy
CBR 22 5 12.33 5.96 5 CBR 50 9 31 16 9
SN 1.46 0.24 0.69 0.39 0.13
SNP 2.82 1.81 2.39 0.28 1.85
Kasese PI 16 10 13 2.1 -
CBR 31 24 27 2.7 - CBR 50 17 27 9 20
SN 1.95 0.56 1.31 0.38 0.55
SNP 2.91 2.3 2.59 0.2 2.31
Mayuge PI 28 16 20.17 3.76
CBR 28 7 17.14 4.1 7 CBR 50 12 40 12 27
SN 1.72 0.27 1.16 0.42 0.26
SNP 3.04 2.46 2.81 0.18 2.52
From the results, it can be observed that the PI is less than 30% for all the sites. This means that the
subgrade material is not very sensitive to moisture changes. Accordingly, there is no need for subgrade
improvement.
The difference between the laboratory CBR values and the instu CBR values for Gomba, Kayunga and
Kasese was very close showing not much difference between the soaked CBR and the Instu CBR. This
confirms the fact that the material is not very sensitive to moisture variation. Accordingly, the CBR values
obtained using the DCP were confidently adopted for design. However, for Mayuge, there is a big
difference between the 10th Percentile values of the Laboratory and the instu test. There is a high risk
using the 10th Percentile value from the DCP test. Accordingly, the minimum value of the instu test was
adopted for design.
Therefore, the CBR values shown in Table 1 -2 were adopted for subgrade classification.
Table 1-2: Design CBR value and Subgrade Class
Site /District Subgrade CBR Value for Design (%) Design Subgrade Class
Gomba 13 S4
Kayunga 9 S4
Kasese 20 S5
Mayuge 12 S4
1.2 Traffic Projection

In order to establish the anticipated number of traffic load repetitions over the entire design period, a
traffic projection was conducted. This involved:
Conduction of traffic count to establish the current level of traffic;
Calculation of the daily equivalent standard axles (DESA);
Selection of the design period and traffic growth rate;
Estimation of the Million Equivalent Standard Axle(MESA), which is the projection of traffic repetitions;
and
Determination of the design traffic class.
1.2.1 Traffic count

Traffic counts were conducted by counting the number of vehicles within the different vehicle classes for
a period of 5 consecutive days 12 hours each day. Whereas the recommended period for traffic count is
7 days, because of the low level of traffic on these roads, a 5 day count was deemed sufficient. The 12
hour count was converted to a 24 hour count using a factor of 1.33 as recommended in the district road
manuals.
The average daily 24 hour count was determined for each vehicle class. This was later multiplied by the
Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) factor for each vehicle class. The ESA factors used were adopted from
TRH16 of 1991. The factors in the Construction manual for volume roads were considered to be too high
for the type of vehicles using these roads and could easily lead to an over design. Table 1 -3, Table 1 -4,
Table 1 -5 and Table 1 -6 show the summary of the results of the traffic count.
Mayuge Site
Table 1-3: Traffic Summary for Mayuge site
Vehicle category Total 5 day 12 Total 5 day 24 Hours = Average 24 Hour ESA Factors Daily ESA per
Hours (5D12H) (5D12H*1.33) Count vehicle class
Bicycles 511 679.63 135.926 0 0
Motorcycles 2,183 2903.39 580.678 0 0
Passenger cars 61 81.13 16.226 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 61 81.13 16.226 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.15 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 0 0 0 0.15 0
Medium Truck 85 113.05 22.61 0.7 15.827
Large Truck 2 Axle 0 0 0 0
3 – axle truck 0 0 0 1.7 0
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 2 2.66 0.532 0.3 0.1596
2-axled trailer 0 0 0 0
Total Daily Equivalent Standard Axle (DESA) 15.9866
Kayunga Site
Table 1-4: Traffic Summary for Kayunga site
Vehicle category Total 5 day Total 5 day 24 Average 24 ESA Factors Daily ESA per
12 Hours Hours = Hour Count vehicle class
(5D12H) (5D12H*1.33)
Bicycles 1,455 1935.15 387.03 0 0
Motorcycles 1,549 2060.17 412.034 0 0
Passenger cars 24 31.92 6.384 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 23 30.59 6.118 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.15 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 10 13.3 2.66 0.3 0.798
Medium Truck 18 23.94 4.788 0.7 3.3516
3 – axle truck 0 0 0 1.7 0
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 1 1.33 0.266 0.3 0.0798
Kasese Site
Table 1-5: Traffic Summary for Kasese site
Vehicle category Total 5 day Total 5 day 24 Average 24 ESA Daily ESA per
12 Hours Hours = Hour Count Factors vehicle class
(5D12H) (5D12H*1.33)
Bicycles 54 71.82 14.364 0 0
Motorcycles 1896 2521.68 504.336 0 0
Passenger cars 43 57.19 11.438 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 8 10.64 2.128 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.3 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 27 35.91 7.182 0.15 1.0773
Medium Truck 0 0 0 0.7 0
3 – axle truck 0 0 0 1.7 0
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 0 0 0 0.3 0
Gomba
Table 1-6: Traffic Summary for Gomba site
Vehicle category Total 5 day 12 Total 5 day 24 Hours Average 24 ESA Daily ESA per
Hours (5D12H) = (5D12H*1.33) Hour Count Factors vehicle class
Bicycles 732 973.56 194.712 0 0
Motorcycles 3554 4726.82 945.364 0 0
Passenger cars 229 304.57 60.914 0 0
Pick-up/4-wheel 391 520.03 104.006 0 0
drive
Small bus 0 0 0 0.15 0
Bus/coach 0 0 0 0.73 0
Small truck 0 0 0 0.3 0
Medium Truck 116 154.28 30.856 0.7 21.5992
Large Truck 2 Axle 1 1.33 0.266 1.52 0.40432
3 – axle truck 1 1.33 0.266 1.7 0.4522
4 – Axle Truck 0 0 0 1.8 0
5 - axle 0 0 0 2.2 0
6- Axle 0 0 0 3.5 0
Tractor 8 10.64 2.128 0.3 0.6384
1.2.2 Design period and growth rate

According to the construction manual for low Volume sealed roads of 2019 and the flexible pavement
design manual 2010 both of the Ministry of Works and Transport, the design period for these types of
roads is 10 years.
The recommended traffic growth rate is a factor of the country’s GDP which has been on average
between 4.5% and 6.5% for the past ten years. Accordingly, a rate 5.5% growth rate was adopted for the
projection of future traffic.
1.2.3 Traffic projection

Projected future traffic was estimated using the formula:
Where:
A = Total ESA / day (DESA)
R = Traffic growth rate
x = design life in years
y = number of years before start of design life
For this design, y was taken to be one (1) year. Accordingly, Table 1 -7 presents the projected traffic in
the different districts.
Table 1-7: Projected Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle
Site DESA (A) Growth Rate Projected Traffic

(R) (CESA)
Mayuge 15.9866 5.5 79261.19
Kayunga 4.2294 5.5 20969.27
Kasese 1.0773 5.5 5341.228
Gomba 23.09412 5.5 114500.1
To check the sensitivity of the projected traffic with the changes in traffic growth rate, a sensitivity
analysis was conducted for different traffic growth rate up to 10% and the results are presented in Table
1 -8.
Table 1-8: Traffic projections for the different traffic growth rates
SITE TRAFFIC PROJECTION AT DIFFERENT GROWTH RATES

Growth rate 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Mayuge 72859 74930 77063 79261 81526 83860 86264 88741 91293 93922 96631 99422 102296
Kayunga 19276 19823 20388 20969 21568 22186 22822 23477 24152 24848 25565 26303 27063
Kasese 4910 5049 5193 5341 5494 5651 5813 5980 6152 6329 6512 6700 6894
Gomba 105252 108243 111325 114500 117772 121143 124616 128195 131881 135680 139593 143624 147776
According to design traffic classes for low volume roads as presented in Table 1 -9, it can be noted that
for Mayuge site, from the growth rate of 4% to 9.5%, the projected traffic falls within one band (0.01 –
0.1). For Kayunga, from 4% to 10% growth rate, the projected traffic is within one traffic class (0.01 – 0.1)
while for Kasese, from 4% to 10 % growth rate, the projected traffic is within the same traffic class (<
0.01). And likewise for Gomba, from 4% to 10% growth rate, the traffic falls within the same class (0.1 –
0.3).
This implies that slight changes in traffic growth rate do not significantly affect the design traffic class
adopted for design.
Table 1-9: Design Traffic Class
Traffic Classes (ESA x 106)
TLC1 TLC2 TLC3 TLC4 TLC5
< 0.01 0.01 - 0.1 0.1 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0
1.2.4 Distribution of traffic

According to the Pavement manual of Ministry of Works and Transport of 2010, the traffic distribution
factor which depends on the width of the road must be factored in. For a road of width between 4.5 and
6 m, a distribution factor of 0.8 is recommended. However for Kasese where the carriageway is likely to
be less than 4.5m due to the hilly terrain, a factor of 2 was adopted.
Accordingly after factoring, the design traffic classes shown in were adopted for design.
Table 1-10: Design Class for the different districts
Site Design MESA Design Traffic Class

Mayuge 0.06 TLC2
Kayunga 0.02 TLC2
Kasese 0.01 TLC2
Gomba 0.09 TLC2
1.3 Climatic assessment

The climate of the regions where the roads are located was assessed in terms of their Weinert Number
Value. The Weinert is related to the mean annual rainfall as per Table 1 -11. Generally, the climate of
Uganda according to https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/uganda is described as warm, with
average temperatures ranging between 20 °C and 25 °C (68 °F and 77 °F), and annual rainfall ranging
between 900 and 1,500 millimeters. Accordingly, from the table, the Weinert Number is between 2 and
4.
Table 1-11: Indicative Weinert Number values
Weinert Thornthwaite Moisture Typical Mean Annual

Description
N Value Index, Im Rainfall (mm)
Arid 5+ <-40 <250
Semi-arid 4 to 5 -20 to -40 250-500
Semi-arid to Sub-tropical
2 to 4 -20 to +20 500-1000
(Savanna)
Humid Tropical (Equatorial) <2 +20 to +100 >1000
Rational Road Drainage Design R6990 – TRL PR/INT/244/2002
1.4 Materials
1.4.1 Gravel
Gravel samples were collected and taken to the Central Material Laboratory for testing to establish their
properties. Test results are not yet ready. However, in the proximity of some sites, there are gravel
sources that had been tested before in the previous works. These sources are in Mayuge, Kasese and
Kayunga and the test results are presented in Table 1 -12.
Table 1-12: Test results of Gravel
Heavy Compaction
3 Point Soaked CBR
Properties
District Sample Identification
MDD OMC PI (%) No of Blows Degree of CBR (%)
3
(mg/m ) Compaction (%)
Kasese KIRAMBAILO B/P 3 + 10 88 10
500 LHS ROAD SIDE 2.19 8 17 30 96 36
65 101 57
B/P 4+700 LHS O/S 10 87 6
4.0Km 2.16 10 19 30 97 34
65 102 52
B/P 4+700 LHS O/S 2.1 11 17 10 89 7
5.0Km 30 97 30
65 103 43
Kayunga RUGASA B/P,11+600 0//S 10 89 11
3Km RHS 2.14 11 17 30 97 40
65 103 57
Mayuge MAYUGE B/P 10 88 7
2.07 10 21 30 96 29
65 102 40
According to specification, the recommended field compaction densities for the Subbase course and
Base course are 95% and 98% respectively. Accordingly, the CBR values shown in Table 1 -13 were
adopted for design.
Table 1-13: Design CBR for the pavement layers
Site Design CBR (Subbase) Design CBR (Base

Course)
Mayuge 30 40
Kayunga 30 50
Kasese 30 50
Gomba - -
1.4.2 Aggregates
Aggregates are needed in the construction of the surface. Samples were collected and testing is ongoing.
1.4.3 Bitumen
Bitumen acts like a binder as well as a sealant in the construction of the surface. The common types of
bitumen used are Pen grade 80/100, Cutback MC 3000, MC 70 and MC 30, and Bitumen Emulsions K1-60
and K1-70.
For surface dressing, K1-70 is preferred to K1-60 because it has a low rate of flow.
1.5 Design of pavement layers
1.5.1 Catalogue Method

Pavement layers were selected using Table 1 -15 for a combination of Subgrade classes and Traffic class.
The summary of the design parameters is as presented in the Table 1 -14.
Table 1-14: Design Parameters
Site Weinert number Subgrade Class Traffic Class

Mayuge <4 S4 TLC2
Kayunga <4 S4 TLC2
Kasese <4 S5 TLC2
Gomba <4 S4 TLC2
Table 1-15: Design Catalogue

SG CBR
<0.01 0.01-0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.5-1.0
150 G60 150 G60 150 G60 175 G80 200 G80
S2 (3-4%) 150 G15 125 G30 150 G30 175 G30 175 G30
150 G15 175 G15 175 G15 200 G15
125 G65 150 G60 150 G60 175 G60 200 G80
S3 (5-7%) 150 G15 100 G30 150 G30 150 G30 150 G30
100 G15 150 G15 150 G15 150 G15
175 G40 150 G60 150 G60 175 G60 200 G80
S4 (8-14%)
120 G30 200 G30 200 G30 200 G30
175 G40 125 G60 150 G60 175 G60 175 G80
S5 (15-29%)
125 G30 150 G30 150 G30 150 G30
S6 (>30%) 150 G40 150 G60 175 G60 175 G60 200 G80
Hence, the pavement layers for the different sites are as presented in Table 1 -16.
Table 1-16: Pavement Layer thicknesses
Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

Pavement Base 150 G60 150 G60 125 G60 150 G60
Structure Subbase 120 G30 120 G30 125 G30 120 G30
1.5.2 Structural number method

The structural Number method is based on the formula:
SN = a1D1 + a2D2M2 +a3D3M3

Where:
SN is the design Structural number of the structure;
a1, a2 and a3 are layer coefficients for the surface, base and Subbase respectively;
M2, and M3 and drainage factors; and
D1, D2 and D3 are layer thicknesses (inch).
For a pavement that will be exposed to saturation condition of less than 25%, M 2 and M3 = 1. For thin
surfaces that don’t have significant structural contribution, a 1D1 = 0.
There for the formula reduces to:
SN = a2D2 +a3D3
The values of a2 and a3 are selected from Table 1 -17 according to the properties of the layer material.
Table 1-17: Layer coefficients
Layer Type Condition Coefficient

Surface treatment ai = 0.2
ai = (29.14 CBR - 0.1977 CBR2 +
Default
0.00045 CBR3) 10-4
CBR > 100% a2 = 0.145
CBR = 100% a2 = 0.14
CBR = 80%
Granular unbound With a stabilised layer
a2 = 0.135
roadbase underneath
With an unbound
a2 = 0.13
granular layer underneath
CBR = 65% a2 = 0.12
CBR = 55% a2 = 0.107
CBR = 45% a2 = 0.1
Marshall stability = 2.5 MN ai = 0.135
Bitumen treated
gravels and sands
Equation ai = 0.075 + 0.039 UCS – 0.00088(UCS)2
Cemented3 CB 1 (UCS = 3.0 – 6.0 MPa) ai = 0.18
CB 2 (UCS = 1.5 – 3.0 MPa) ai = 0.13
aj = -0.075 + 0.184(log10 CBR) –
Equation
0.0444(log10 CBR)2
Granular unbound CBR = 40% a3 = 0.11
sub-bases CBR = 30% a3 = 0.1
CBR = 20% a3 = 0.09
CBR = 15% a3 = 0.08
CBR = 10% a3 = 0.065
Cemented (UCS = 0.7 – 1.5 MPa) ai = 0.1
For a pavement structure consisting of subbase and base whose materials have CBR of 30 and 50
respectively, a3 =0.1 and a2 =0.103.
The design SN for a combination of traffic class and subgrade class was determined from Table 1 -18.
Table 1-18: Structural Numbers for the different Traffic and subgrade Class combinations

< 0.01 0.01 – 0.1 0.1 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0
S1 (<3%) Special subgrade treatment required
S2 (3-4%) 1.05 1.7 1.95 2.05 2.30
S3 (5-7%) 0.95 1.45 1.70 1.85 2.1
S4 (8-14%) 0.8 1.25 1.55 1.65 1.85
S5 (15-29%) 0.7 1.0 1.25 1.35 1.5
S6 (>30%) 0.6 0.7 0.85 0.95 1.0
For Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba with traffic class TLC2 and Subgrade Class S4, SN = 1.25 while for
Kasese with traffic class S5 and subgrade class S4, SN = 1.0.
Therefore the equations are:
1.25 = 0.103D2 + 0.1D3, for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba; and
=0.103D2 = 0.1D3 for Kasese.
Assuming a Subbase thickness D3 = 125mm (5inch);
D2 = 7.3 Inch (185mm) for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba

D2 = 4.8 inch (122 mm) for Kasese
Hence, the pavement structures are as presented in Table 1 -19.
Table 1-19: Pavement layer structure
Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

Pavement Base 185 G50 185 G50 125 G50 185 G50
Structure Subbase 125 G30 125 G30 125 G30 125 G30
1.5.3 Comparison of designs

The pavement structure in Table 1 -16 developed using catalogue method has thinner layers than the
pavement structure in Table 1 -19 developed using structural number but requires high quality material
that may not be readily available.
To achieve the specification for the pavement structure in Table 1 -16, the material must be improved by
chemical stabilization. In the absence of good quality lime for chemical stabilization, the design in Table
1 -19 provides a better option.
The other advantage with the pavement structure in Table 1 -19 is that the pavement crown is raised
farther above the side drain invert hence providing a better environment condition for the pavement.
Therefore, the design in Table 1 -19 was adopted.
Diagrammatically, the pavement structures are illustrated in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2
185mm, G50
125mm, G30
Figure 1-1: Pavement Structure for Mayugea, Kayunga and Gomba
125mm, G50
125mm, G30
Figure 1-2 : Pavement Structure for Kasese

1.6 Surface Design
1.6.1 Definition of surfaces
A surface is the top most layer of the pavement which directly receives the load from vehicle tires.
Surfaces can be categorized as structural or non structural depending on its functions. Most of the low
volume road surfaces are thin in nature and hence non structural. The different types of surfaces for low
volume roads include: Double Surface Dressing, Single surface Dressing, Single Surface Dressing with
Sand Capping, Otta seal either double or single, thin premix and Sand seals.
1.6.2 Identification of appropriate surfaces

Choice of which surface to apply was done using the chart presented in It can be noted that the
selection of the surfaces depends on a number of factors such as traffic level, service life requirement,
impact of traffic turning action, gradient, material quality, pavement and base quality and suitability for
labour based method.
Surfaces such as SS- Sand Seal, SIS-Slurry Seal and CS-Cape Seal were not considered in this design. The
choice of surface for each road was done by considering the different factors and identifying surfaces
suitable in the given condition.
The identification of the seals is presented in Figure 1 -3: Suitable Sealing Options for different
environment. In the figure, the surfaces suitable for a given condition are indicated in bold letters while
those which are less suitable are indicated but not bolded. Seals that are not suitable have not been
included. The most preferred options are indicated at the bottom of the table in the order of preference
depending on how frequent they appear in the table.
For all the roads, the most appropriate options were found to be Double Otta Seal, and Single Otta Seal
plus Sand Seal. Single Surface Dressing was found as the less preferred.
Figure 1-3: Suitable Sealing Options for different environment

However, it can be noted that the chart shown in Figure 1 -3: Suitable Sealing Options for different
environment is not exhaustive. Seals such as SCS+SS- Single Surface Dressing plus Sand Seal and Premix
are not captured. Further, the chart considers SCS and DCS as less suitable for execution using labour-
based methods and instead preference is given to DOS-Double Otta Seal. But experience has shown
otherwise. Otta Seal involve use of hot bitumen which is considered unsafe for application using labour
based methods.
In addition, Otta Seals require rolling for longer periods of time; moreover, using pneumatic rollers which
are not readily available to most local contractors. So, the choice of DOS and SOS+SS as the most suitable
for contractors with low experience and capacity as presented in the chart is misguiding.
Therefore, for this design, the options selected for the different sites are presented in Table 1 -21.
Table 1-20: Appropriate Sealing options of the different sites
Road names and their appropriate types of surfaces

Parameter Degree Bufulubi - Kyando Nawanyago - Kisozi Kyerima - Nakaseeta - Nyaruzigati - Kyapa - Kitabu
-Buyemba (Mayuge) (Kamuli) Lukoonda (Kayunga) (Kasese)
Short
Service life Medium
Long DOS, DCS, SOS+SS DOS,DCS, SOS+SS DOS,DCS, SOS+SS DOS,DCS,SOS+SS
Light SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS
Traffic Level Medium DCS, DOS, SOS+SS
Heavy DOS, DCS, SOS+SS
Low SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS
Impact of traffic
Medium DCS, SOS+SS, DOS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS
turning action
High
Mild SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS SCS, DOS,DCS, SOS+SS
Gradient Moderate DOS, DCS, SOS+SS
Steep DOS
poor
Material Quality Moderate DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS
Good
Poor
Pavement Quality Moderate DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS DCS, SOS+SS, DOS, SCS
Good
Suitability for labour-based methods DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS DOS, DCS, SCS, SOS+SS
Low DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS
Contractor Moderate
experience/ capability
High
Maintenance Low DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS DOS, SOS+SS
capability Moderate
High
Appropriate Options in order of most
DOS, SOS+SS, DCS, DOS, SOS+SS, DCS DOS, SOS+SS, SCS DOS, SOS+SS, SCS
preference
Table 1-21: Adopted Sealing Options for the different sites
SN District Name of Road Sealing Option

1 Mayuge Bufulubi – Kyando - Buyemba SCS+SS
2 Gomba Kifampa - Kisozi SCS+SS
3 Kayunga Lukoonda - Lugasa SCS+SS
4 Kasese Nyaruzigati – Kyapa - Kitabu SCS+SS
Premix
Where SCS+SS = Single Surface Dressing plus Sand Seal
1.6.3 Design of Single of Single Surface Dressing plus Sand Seal

Surface dressing is a seal comprising of a layer of single size aggregates (uniform aggregates) laying on a
layer of bitumen. The bitumen acts as a sealing membrane preventing surface water from infiltrating into
the base. The aggregates protect the layer of bitumen from being removed by vehicle tyres and also
protect the bitumen from direct sun rays. The design process involves establishment of the different
properties of the aggregates such as gradation, flakiness Index, crushing value etc.
For this design however, since the test results for aggreagtes were not available, here, only
recommendation for the type of materials has been presented.
1.6.4 Aggregates
Aggregates for use must meet the specification presented in Table 1 -22.
Table 1-22: Specification for Aggregates
Test Sieve Nominal Size of Aggregates (mm)

(mm) 20 14 10 6.7
26.5 100 - - -
20 85-100 100 - -
14 0-30 85-100 100 -
10 0-5 0-30 85-100 100
6.7 - - 0-5 85-100
4.75 - - - 0-40
2.36 - - - 0-5
0.425 (fines) < 0.5 <0.5 < 0.5 <2
0.075 (dust) < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 <1
Max. Flakiness
20 25 25 30
Index
AADT >1000vpd AADT <1000vpd
10% FACT (dry)
Min =160KN Min =120KN
10% FACT
Minimum 75% of dry 10% FACT
(wet)
Aggregates for Single Surface Dressing shall be 14mm nominal complying with the grading requirement
presented in Table 1 -22. Aggregate application rate shall be determined after establishing the actual
gradation curve for the aggregates to be used. However, for bidding purposes, a spread rate of 12
litres /m2 has been adopted.
The material for Sand Seal shall comply with the grading requirement for aggregates of nominal size
6.7mm. The application rate for Sand will be taken to be 10 litres /m 2.
1.6.5 Bitumen
There are different types of bitumen that can be used. For the options adopted, only bitumen emulsions
K1-70 and cutback bitumen MC30 shall be used for the seal and priming respectively. Bitumen shall be
applied in two layers. The application rates provided here are for bidding purposes only but the actual
application rate shall be determined after testing the aggregates. Table 1 -23 gives the summary of the
application rates of both aggregates and bitumen.
Table 1-23: Application rates for bitumen and aggregates
Surfacing type Binder type Application rate of Application rate of binder

aggregate
Single surface Cationic emulsions K1- 1st layer: 1st application before spreading
dressing 70, 14mm aggregate @ aggregate 1.0 L/m2
13L/m2
2nd Layer: 2nd application after spreading 1st layer
6.7mm aggregate /Sand of aggregate - 1.4 L/m2
@ 10L/m2
1.6.6 Cold Premix

A cold premix is a mixture of aggregates and bitumen. Aggregates used must be well graded with size
range from 0 – 14mm. the grading requirement of the aggregates is presented in Table 1 -24.
Table 1-24: Grading requirement for aggregates for premix
Sieve size (mm) Coarse Fine

20 100
14 80 – 100 100
5 54 – 72 62 – 80
2.36 42 – 58 44 – 60
1.18 34 – 48 36 – 50
0.6 26 – 38 28 – 40
0.3 18 – 28 20 – 30
0.15 12 – 20 12 – 20
0.075 6 – 12 6 – 12
Bitumen Content (80/100) by weight of
aggregate 5 – 7% 5.5 – 7.4%
Thickness (mm) 40 – 50 30 – 40
The recommended bitumen is K160 at application rates shown in the table. As a guide, if it is assumed
that the density of the aggregate is 1550kg/m 3 and the bitumen content is 7%, then the application rate
per square metre for a premix of 25mm is estimated as follow:
Weight of aggregate in 1m2 = 0.025 x 1 x 1550kg =38.75kg
Weight of bitumen is 7% of the weight of aggregates = 0.07 x 38.75 =2.7125kg
This is the weight of the residual bitumen. If the bitumen emulsion has 60% of residual bitumen, the
weight of bitumen emulsion is 2.7125/0.6 = 4.52kg/m 2.
Therefore the application rate per square meter is 4.52.
Appendix
Traffic Count Data
Table 1: Data for the traffic count carried out on Buyemba – Kyando Road in Mayuge District 24 th to 28th Jun 2019
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count Average 12 hour
over 12 count
Hours
Bicycles 98 93 107 141 72 511 42.5
Motorcycles 257 437 366 747 376 2,183 181.91
Passenger cars 00 23 13 19 06 61 5.08
Pick-up/4-wheel drive 07 36 00 15 03 61 5.08
Small bus 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00
Small truck 00 00
Medium Truck 19 24 22 14 06 85 7.08
Large Truck 2 Axle 00 00
3 – axle truck 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00
5 - axle 00 00
6- Axle 00 00
Tractor 02 02 0.167
2-axled trailer 00 00
Table 2: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kyerima – Naseeta – Lukonda Road in Kayunga District 24 th to 28th Jun 2019
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Average 12 hour
Over count
12
Hours
Bicycles 261 260 401 323 210 1,455 121.25
Motorcycles 263 233 490 356 225 1,549 129.08
Passenger cars 4 6 4 7 3 24 02
Pick-up/4-wheel drive 2 4 4 7 6 23 1.92
Small bus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Small truck 02 00 00 10 00 10 0.833
Medium Truck 02 03 04 03 06 18 1.50
Large Truck 2 Axle 00 00
3 – axle truck 00 00
5 - axle 00 00
6- Axle 00 00
Tractor 01 00 01 04 00 06 0.5
2-axled trailer
3-axled trailer
4-axled trailer
Table 3: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kifampa - Kisozi Road in Gomba District 24 th to 28th Jun 2019
At chainage 0+000
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count Average 12 hour
over 12 Hours count
Bicycles 103 155 178 149 147 00 00 732 61
Motorcycles 497 801 806 779 671 00 00 3554 296.17
Passenger cars 14 20 76 65 54 00 00 229 19.08
Pick-up/4-wheel drive 16 33 113 121 108 00 00 391 32.58
Small bus 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00
Small truck 00 00
Medium Truck 06 09 42 34 25 00 00 116 9.67
Large Truck 2 Axle 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 01 0.083
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 01 0.083
5 - axle 00 00
6- Axle 00 00
Tractor 04 04 00 00 08 0.67
Table 4: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kifampa – Kisozi Road in Gomba District 24 th to 28th Jun 2019
At chainage 3+000
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count over Average 12 hour
12 hours count
Bicycles 115 160 150 207 183 00 00 815 67.92
Motorcycles 486 399 466 393 350 00 00 2094 174.5
Passenger cars 5 10 10 08 41 00 00 74 6.17
Small bus 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00
Small truck 00 00 00 00
Medium Truck 21 08 10 03 03 00 00 45 3.75
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00 00 00
5 - axle 00 00 00 00
6- Axle 00 00 00 00
Tractor 00 00 06 00 00 00 00 06 0.5
Table 5: Data for the traffic count carried out on Kifampa – Kisozi Road in Gomba District 24 th to 28th Jun 2019
At Chainage 8+400
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Count Over Average 12 hour
12hours count
Bicycles 162 143 160 118 77 00 00 660 55
Motorcycles 246 262 244 182 261 00 00 1195 99.58
Passenger cars 30 44 36 37 02 00 00 149 12.42
Small bus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Small truck 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Medium Truck 02 01 03 12 02 00 00 20 1.67
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00 00 00
5 - axle 00 00 00 00
6- Axle 00 00 00 00
Tractor 00 00 00 00
Table 6: Data for the traffic count carried out on Nyaruzigati – Kyapa - Kitabu Road in Kasese District 25 th to 28th Jun 2019
Vehicle category Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Total Average 12 hour
Count count
Over 12
hours
Bicycles 08 11 14 07 14 00 00 54 4.5
Motorcycles 412 389 362 422 311 00 00 1896 158
Passenger cars 14 11 07 09 03 00 00 43 3.58
Small bus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Bus/coach 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Small truck 03 04 02 07 11 00 00 27 2.25
Medium Truck 00 00 00 00
3 – axle truck 00 00 00 00
4 – Axle Truck 00 00 00 00
5 - axle 00 00 00 00
6- Axle 00 00 00 00
Tractor 01 03 02 00 00 00 00 00
Appendix 2 Laboratory Results for subgrade material

UK DCP V3 .1
DCP Secti on Properti es Report
Project Name: BUFULUBI-KYANDO-BUYEMBA ROAD (5.6Km) IN MAYUGE DISTTRICT
Nu mber of Tests: 2 3 Loc ati on: All Te sts
Se ction Sta rt End Le ngth (k m) Tes ts Par ame ter Ma xim um Minimum Mea n SD 10 th %ile
1 0.00 0 5.33 0 5.33 0 23 CBR (Ba se) % 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (Su b-ba se )% 91 13 42 24 14
CBR (Su bg ra de ) % 50 12 40 12 27
SN 1 .7 2 0 .2 7 1.16 0.42 0.26
SNP 3 .0 4 2 .4 6 2.81 0.18 2.52
Surfa ce Thi ckn es s (mm) 0 0 0 0 --
Bas e Thi ckn es s (mm) 0 0 0 0 --
Sub -ba se Thi ck ne ss (mm) 4 55 87 28 8 10 0 --
Pav em en t Th i ckn ess (m m) 4 55 87 28 8 10 0 --
Re po rt Da te : 1 6-J ul-20 19 Pa ge 1 o f 1
DCP Results
UK DCP V3 .1
Tests Summary Report
Project Name: BUFULUBI-KYANDO-BUYEMBA ROAD (5.6Km) IN MAYUGE DISTTRICT
Te st Deta il s Upper Lay ers Te st Laye rs Pav em entStre ngth
No. Te st Date Chainage Loca tion Offs et Surfac e Ty pe Surfa ce Bas e Ty pe Ba se Sub-ba se Subgrade SN SNP
(k m) (m) Mois ture Thic knes s Thick ne ss CBR (%)
(mm ) (mm)
1 04 -Jul -19 0 .0 00 Carria ge way -- Un pa ved 0.51 (Dry ) -- -- 37 7 16 1 .6 7 2 .7 3
2 04 -Jul -19 0 .2 50 Carria ge way 1 .3 0 Un pa ved 0.51 (Dry ) -- -- 27 7 50 0 .8 0 2 .6 2
9 04 -Jul -19 2 .0 00 Carria ge way 1 .5 0 Un pa ved 0.51 (Dry ) -- -- 87 41 0 .2 7 2 .4 7
UK DCP V3 .1
DCP Secti on Properti es Report
Pr oject Nam e:KISOZ I-KIF AMPA ROADI N KAYUNGA DISTRICT
1 0.00 0 17 .7 80 17 .7 80 73 CBR (Ba se) % 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (Su b-ba se )% 1 12 9 42 25 14
CBR (Su bg ra de ) % 50 4 37 15 13
SN 2 .2 7 0 .1 3 1.00 0.54 0.19
SNP 3 .1 5 1 .2 7 2.70 0.32 2.27
UK DCP V3 .1
Project Name: KISOZI-KIFAMPA ROADI NKAYUNGA DISTRICT
(mm ) (mm)
12 07 -Jul -19 2 .7 50 Carria ge way -- Un pa ved 0.51 (Dry ) -- -- 30 50 0 .1 3 2 .3 3
24 07 -Jul -19 5 .7 50 Carria ge way 1 .5 0 Un pa ved 0.51 (Dry ) -- -- 87 50 0 .3 0 2 .5 8
UK DCP V3 .1 Tests Summary Report
No. Te st Date Chainage Loca tion Offs et Surfac e Ty pe Surfac e Bas e Ty pe Ba se Sub-ba se Subgrade SN SNP
(k m) (m) Moisture Thic knes s Thick ne ss CBR (%)
(mm ) (mm)
31 07 -Jul -19 7 .5 00 Carria ge way 1 .5 0 Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 26 7 23 1 .0 7 2 .6 6
32 07 -Jul -19 7 .7 50 Carria ge way -- Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 77 50 0 .3 4 2 .6 2
34 07 -Jul -19 8 .2 50 Carria ge way -- Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 10 7 50 0 .4 4 2 .7 1
39 07 -Jul -19 9 .5 00 Carria ge way 1 .5 0 Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 67 27 0 .2 1 2 .2 3
41 07 -Jul -19 1 0.00 0 Carria ge way -- Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 28 2 20 1 .1 2 2 .5 8
42 07 -Jul -19 1 0.25 0 Carria ge way 1 .5 0 Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 29 2 31 1 .2 0 2 .8 1
45 07 -Jul -19 1 1.00 0 Carria ge way -- Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 97 50 0 .4 3 2 .7 0
50 07 -Jul -19 1 2.25 0 Carria ge way 1 .5 0 Un pa ved 0 .5 1 (Dry) -- -- 99 48 0 .3 0 2 .5 6
UK DCP V3 .1
No. Te st Date Chainage Loca tion Offs et Surfac e Ty pe Surfac e Bas e Ty pe Ba se Sub-ba se Subgrade SN SNP
(k m) (m) Moisture Thic knes s Thick ne ss CBR (%)
(mm ) (mm)
72 07 -Jul -19 1 7.78 0 Carria ge way -- Un pa ved 0 .3 7 (Very Dry) -- -- 20 7 50 0 .8 9 2 .9 5
UK DCP V3 .1 DCP Secti on Properti es Report

Pr oject Nam e: KYERIMA -NAKASET A RO AD (4 .0Km)I N KAYUNGA DISTRICT

1 0.00 0 4.20 0 4.20 0 18 CBR (Ba se) % 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (Su b-ba se )% 37 8 16 8 8
CBR (Su bg ra de ) % 50 9 31 16 9
SN 1 .4 6 0 .2 4 0.69 0.39 0.13
SNP 2 .8 2 1 .8 1 2.39 0.28 1.85
UK DCP V3 .1 Tests Summary Report
Project Name: KYERIMA -NAKASETA ROAD (4.0Km) I N KAYUNGA DISTRICT
(mm ) (mm)
UK DCP V3 .1 DCP Secti on Properti es Report

Project Name: NYARUZIGATI-KYAPA-KITABU ROAD ROAD (3.3Km) IN KASESE DI STRICT
1 0.75 0 3.25 0 2.50 0 11 CBR (Ba se) % 0 0 0 0 0
CBR (Su b-ba se )% 38 14 25 8 14
CBR (Su bg ra de ) % 50 17 27 9 20
SN 1 .9 5 0 .5 6 1.31 0.38 0.55
SNP 2 .9 1 2 .3 0 2.59 0.20 2.31
Sub -ba se Thi ck ne ss (mm) 5 21 1 43 36 0 10 4 --
Pav em en t Th i ckn ess (m m) 5 21 1 43 36 0 10 4 --
UK DCP V3 .1
Project Name: NYARUZIGATI-KYAPA-KITABU ROAD ROAD (3.3Km) IN KASESE DI STRICT
(mm ) (mm)

Pavement Design

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pavement Design

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 Pavement Design

The design process involved the following:

Establishment of subgrade material properties including strength;

Determination of the different layer thicknesses;

Design of the surface layer.

1.1 Subgrade properties

Table 1-1: Summary of Subgrade Test results

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS OF THE SUBGRADE MATERIAL

Table 1-2: Design CBR value and Subgrade Class

1.2 Traffic Projection

Conduction of traffic count to establish the current level of traffic;

Calculation of the daily equivalent standard axles (DESA);

Selection of the design period and traffic growth rate;

Determination of the design traffic class.

1.2.1 Traffic count

Table 1-3: Traffic Summary for Mayuge site

Table 1-4: Traffic Summary for Kayunga site

1.2.2 Design period and growth rate

1.2.3 Traffic projection

Table 1-7: Projected Cumulative Equivalent Standard Axle

Site DESA (A) Growth Rate Projected Traffic

SITE TRAFFIC PROJECTION AT DIFFERENT GROWTH RATES

Table 1-9: Design Traffic Class

Traffic Classes (ESA x 106)

TLC1 TLC2 TLC3 TLC4 TLC5

1.2.4 Distribution of traffic

Table 1-10: Design Class for the different districts

Site Design MESA Design Traffic Class

1.3 Climatic assessment

Table 1-11: Indicative Weinert Number values

Weinert Thornthwaite Moisture Typical Mean Annual

Table 1-12: Test results of Gravel

Table 1-13: Design CBR for the pavement layers

Site Design CBR (Subbase) Design CBR (Base

1.5 Design of pavement layers

1.5.1 Catalogue Method

Table 1-14: Design Parameters

Site Weinert number Subgrade Class Traffic Class

TLC1 TLC2 TLC3 TLC4 TLC5

Table 1-16: Pavement Layer thicknesses

Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

1.5.2 Structural number method

SN = a1D1 + a2D2M2 +a3D3M3

There for the formula reduces to:

Layer Type Condition Coefficient

TLC1 TLC2 TLC3 TLC4 TLC5

1.25 = 0.103D2 + 0.1D3, for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba; and

=0.103D2 = 0.1D3 for Kasese.

Assuming a Subbase thickness D3 = 125mm (5inch);

D2 = 7.3 Inch (185mm) for Mayuge, Kayunga and Gomba

Hence, the pavement structures are as presented in Table 1 -19.

Table 1-19: Pavement layer structure

Site/District Mayuge Kayunga Kasese Gomba

1.5.3 Comparison of designs

Therefore, the design in Table 1 -19 was adopted.

Figure 1-1: Pavement Structure for Mayugea, Kayunga and Gomba

Figure 1-2 : Pavement Structure for Kasese

1.6.2 Identification of appropriate surfaces

Figure 1-3: Suitable Sealing Options for different environment

Table 1-20: Appropriate Sealing options of the different sites

Road names and their appropriate types of surfaces

Table 1-21: Adopted Sealing Options for the different sites

SN District Name of Road Sealing Option