2021
Pavement and
junction design
MODULE NAME: TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAYS
ASSIGNMENT TUTOR: DR ALEX APEAGYEI
MODULE CODE: EG6101
TERM 2
Shuaib Rasool
U1708936 | 2021
Table of Contents
Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................3
Part 1: PAVEMENT DESIGN...............................................................................................................................4
A) Design traffic in million standard axles (msa)......................................................................................4
B) The foundation comprising soil-cement sub-base...............................................................................6
C) hydraulically bound material (HBM) base layer..................................................................................7
D) Asphalt surfacing over the HBM base layers........................................................................................7
PART 2: JUNCTION DESIGN...............................................................................................................................8
A) Ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of each turning stream of traffic.........................................................8
i) A tidal split of 60/40 with the entry flows from the west and south dominant................................10
B) The average delay per arriving vehicle for the critical traffic stream obtained in (A)........................13
C) The adequacy of the existing junction to cope with the anticipated traffic due to the development
of the new residential, by providing low cost solutions that could be used to address congestion at
the junction. (roundabouts or traffic signals are not permitted).......................................................14
PART 3: Road safety assessment....................................................................................................................14
A) Assessment of the need of a controlled pedestrian crossing facility on the new highway................14
B) Expected number of annual accidents..............................................................................................15
C) The Reasonableness of the expected number of accidents determined using the COBA model......16
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................17
List of Tables
Table 1 showing the growth factors (G) for future traffic (CD 224,2020).........................................................4
Table 2 showing the wear factors for commercial vehicle classes and categories (CD 224,2020)...................4
Table 3 showing given traffic data for major road for various categories of commercial vehicles...................5
Table 4 showing the design traffic calculations................................................................................................5
Table 5. Showing the Peak-hour flow factors (O’Flaherty, Highways Vol.1, 1986)...........................................8
Table 6. Showing the geometric details of existing junction..........................................................................11
Table 7. Showing the RFC for tidal split 60/40 and the most critical stream..................................................12
Table 8. Queue length for each tidal split in its most critical case..................................................................13
Table 9. Delay for each tidal split in its most critical case...............................................................................13
Table 10. Showing the vehicular and pedestrian traffic data (7:00am-7:00pm).............................................14
Table 11. Showing the values of PV2............................................................................................................... 15
Table 12. Showing major-minor junction classification for accident estimation............................................15
i
List of Figures
Figure 1 Showing the foundation comprising soil-cement sub-base................................................................6
Figure 2 Showing a nomograph for determining the design thickness for flexible pavements traffic (msa)....7
Figure 3 Showing examples of hydraulic bound base materials.......................................................................7
Figure 4 – Showing the pavement layers..........................................................................................................7
Figure 5. Showing the Predicted 24-hour AADT flows in the design year (Apeagyei, A, 2021).........................8
Figure 6. Showing the AAHT of the designed junction.....................................................................................9
Figure 7. Showing the peak hour flow of designed junction............................................................................9
Figure 7. Showing the 60/40 tidal split with the entry flows from the west and south dominant.................10
Figure 8. Showing the 60/40 tidal split with the entry flows from the west and south dominant, with the
short-term variation factor applied................................................................................................................10
Figure 9. Showing the specified turning movements.....................................................................................10
Figure 10. Showing the direction of flows (Apeagyei A, 2021).......................................................................11
Figure 11. Showing the 60/40 tidal split with the turning movements applied..............................................11
Figure 12. 3-arm single carriageway...............................................................................................................16
ii
INTRODUCTION
A highway pavement is a structure that is constructed with various layers such as the following:
surfacing, subbase, base. The design of the highway pavement should allow for the loads of vehicles
to be diverted into the sub-grade (soil) which the pavement shall be built on. The quality of the
pavement should be adequate to provide skid resistance, have no deformities allowing a good
quality journey and low noise pollution. The lifespan of the pavement must be thought about
allowing it to meet its lifespan requirements in order to reduce the chances of earlier failure.
This projects’ main concerns will be the design of the pavement and junction for THAE Ventures new
residential estate development in the East Midlands. It will offer the pavement design solution for
the major highway to house the expected traffic created due to the residential developments’
deployment. It will also evaluate the traffic impact of the proposal on the area. This shall be done via
evaluating the capacity of the existing priority T-junction, in order to make room for traffic created
by the new development. Finally, the proposed junctions’ level of safety shall be measured, and
recommendations of necessary mitigation measures in terms of sustainability and congestion
prevention will be mentioned.
Within this proposal ALL calculations and assessments will be done using the standards set via
Highways Agency within the design manuals for roads and bridges (DMRB).
3
Part 1: Design of pavement
A) Design traffic in million standard axles (msa)
The design traffic shall be calculated by obtaining the values for growth factor (G) and the
wear factor (W). These can be found in DMRB, the values have been shown in table 1 and 2
below. (CD 224,2020)
Table 1. Showing the growth factors (G) for future traffic (CD 224,2020)
The project requirements are to assume that the pavement has a design life of 40 years,
hence the value for growth factor (G) will be 1.24 for OGV1 + PSV and 1.54 for OGV2.
Table 2. Showing the wear factors for commercial vehicle classes and categories (CD 224,2020)
As a new road is being constructed, we shall take WN values for the wear factors (CD
224,2020) as follows; 1.9 for OGV1 + PSV and 4.9 for OGV2 that can be seen in table 2.
4
Table 3. Showing given traffic data for major road for various categories of commercial vehicles
Additionally, the project brief gives the traffic data that must be applied within the calculations,
shown in table 3. The data for LGV is not needed according to DMRB (CD224, 2020). Data table 3 is
for 2-way AADT, hence all the numbers shall be divided by 2, resulting to 50 for PSV,250 for OGV1
and 700 for OGV2. The data calculated has been put into table 4.
Table 4. Showing the design traffic calculations
The data in table 4 was calculated via these formulas below.
Weighted annual traffic (Tc):
𝑇𝐶 = 365 × 𝐹 × 𝐺 × 𝑊 × 10−6
Design traffic (T):
𝑇 = ∑ 𝑇𝐶 × 𝑌 × 𝑃
For a single 2-lane (S2) the assumed proportion of commercial vehicles in heaviest loaded lane is
equal to 100%
5
B) The foundation comprising soil-cement sub-base
Figure 1. Showing the foundation comprising soil-cement sub-base
The subgrade stiffness modulus (MPa) for the foundation of the pavement is to be assumed as 50
MPa as stated in the project’s requirements. This has been circled at the bottom of the graph in
figure 1. Looking at the graph Aimed at Class 3 design an 822 soil-cement shall be used as the
msa value is 87, the layer thickness (mm) required is 280mm after being rounded off to the
nearest 10mm.
6
C) Hydraulically bound material (HBM) base layer
Figure 2. Showing a nomograph for determining the design thickness for flexible pavements traffic (msa)
Figure 3. Showing examples of hydraulic bound base materials
Figure 2 is used to obtain the asphalt surfacing thickness and for the HBM base by using the design traffic of
87msa. The thickness needed for asphalt is 180mm and for the HBM base category B shall be used as C12/15 is
used due to the design traffic exceeding 80msa and the coarse aggregate in all the asphalt materials shall contain
only crushed rock or slag as per CD226 requirements with the thickness of 200mm derived from the graph above.
D) Asphalt surfacing over the HBM base layers
The thickness for asphalt surfacing recommended on top of the HBM base is 180mm this
was found from the graph in part c. In Figure 4 below the sketch of the designed pavement
layers can be seen.
Asphalt – 180mm
HBM base layer – 200mm
Subbase (822 soil cement
Figure 4. Showing the pavement layers mixture) – 280mm
7
PART 2: Design of the junction
A) Ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of each turning stream of traffic
Table 5. Showing the Peak-hour flow factors (O’Flaherty, Highways Vol.1, 1986)
The flow factor for inter-urban roads is determined via the 50th highest hour. The flow factor that
shall be used is 2.891 shown in table 5 above.
Annual Average Hourly Traffic (AAHT) is calculated via the following formula:
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 (𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇)
𝐴𝐴𝐻𝑇 = 24
Figure 5. Showing the Predicted 24-hour AADT flows in the design year (Apeagyei, A, 2021)
8
The AAHT calculations
For 8400 vehicles a day:
8400
𝐴𝐴𝐻𝑇 = = 350 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
24
For 4000 vehicles a day:
4000
𝐴𝐴𝐻𝑇 = = 167 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
24
Figure 6 below showing the AAHT of designed junction.
Major road 2-lane single carriageway
350 vehicles/hour 350 vehicles/hour
Minor road 2-lane single carriageway
167 vehicles/hour
Figure 6. Showing the AAHT of the designed junction
Peak hour flow calculation
Peak hour flow is calculated by using the flow factor from table 5 and then multiplying it by
the AAHT values calculated above.
For 350 vehicles/hour:
350 × 2.891 = 1012 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
For 167 vehicles/hour
167 × 2.891 = 483 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
Major road 2-lane single carriageway
1012 vehicles/hour 1012 vehicles/hour
Minor road 2-lane single carriageway
483 vehicles/hour
Figure 7. Showing the peak hour flow of designed junction
9
i) A tidal split of 60/40 with the entry flows from the south and west dominant
In the application of a 60/40 tidal split, the flow entry’s that are dominant must be multiplied by
0.6 and the rest by 0.4, giving the following results:
Figure 7. Showing the 60/40 tidal split with the entry flows from the west and south dominant
Short term variations may be taken into consideration by utilising an hourly flow equal to 1.125
(DMRB, Volume 6.2.6). This value then needs to be multiplied with the flows above, giving the
traffic flow that can be seen in figure 8.
Figure 8. Showing the 60/40 tidal split with the entry flows from the south and west dominant, with the application of the short-term variation factor
The junctions turning movements are specified within the project brief and are shown in figure 9
below.
Figure 9. Showing the specified turning movements
10
Figure 10. Showing the direction of flows (Apeagyei A, 2021)
After the turning movements have been applied using figure 9, the resultant traffic flow is shown in
figure 11 below.
Figure 11. Showing the 60/40 tidal split with the turning movements applied.
The geometric details of the current junction have to be provided to calculate the capacity of the
junction. The values given in the project brief are shown below in table 6. (Apeagyei A, 2021)
Table 6. Showing the geometric details of existing junction
11
Equations to determine capacities and delays
To calculate the capacity and delays of the junction the formulas below shall be required. These
have been found in (DMRB, Volume 6.2.6, TD 42/95).
The values for D, E, F and Y in the formulas above are geometric factors that can be calculated
using the following formulas:
The results for the geometric factors are:
After the application of the formulae and using geometrical factors, the following data is found:
Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) can be calculated now, the results can be seen in table 7 below:
Table 7. Showing the RFC for tidal split 60/40 and the most critical stream
12
B) The average delay per arriving vehicle for the critical traffic stream obtained in (A)
Equations for determining delays
Tidal split 𝜌 q 𝜇 t L0 𝐹 𝐺 𝐃𝐭(𝐏𝐄𝐑 𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐓 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄)
60/40 0.83 245 296 1 0 22 491.4 4.6 Hours
Table 8. Queue length for each tidal split in its most critical case.
The obtained results must be then applied in the formula below, which gets the results for the time
delay per arriving vehicle:
Equations for determining delays
The calculated delay per turning vehicle and delay per unit time results are shown in table 9 below.
These have been calculated for the most critical case of the 60/40 tidal split.
Table 9. Delay for each tidal split in its most critical case.
13
C) The adequacy of the existing junction to cope with the anticipated traffic due to
the development of the new residential, by providing low cost solutions that
could be used to address congestion at the junction. (roundabouts or traffic
signals are not permitted)
Table 7 shows the ratio of flow to capacity, it is desirable to have an RFC of 0.85/85% or less (Apeagyei A,
2021), with the maximum RFC for the assumed tidal split of 60/40 being 83%, this shows that
the existing junctions design is adequate and can cope with the anticipated traffic, as the delay time per
arriving vehicle would be 1 min and 14 seconds that each vehicle would have to wait at the junction.
Therefore, this design will not impact the environment or safety excessively as queue times are reasonable.
Although the maximum RFC for the junction with tidal split of 60/40 is less than 0.85 the RFC is still
pretty close to this value and further delays at the junction can be reduced with the implementation
of a low-cost solution. A viable solution would be charging road users for usage during peak hours
this
solution is not to impede people’s ability to travel neither is it designed to create dramatic reductions in
total levels of road usage, its purpose is to promote an efficient level of road usage: where the benefits
derived from each individual journey are at least equivalent to the cost they impose. A mechanism of
charging encourages drivers whose journeys do not meet this criterion to choose alternatives such as bikes,
walking or car sharing etc this will reduce carbon emissions, only a small overall reduction is needed by a
pricing scheme to reduce the overall congestion and a discount can be provided to low income homes.
Another low-cost solution is providing bus services as this will reduced the number of users taking their
own vehicles on the road. People using the bus service will no longer have to park and further add to
congestion of roads. Applying parking time restrictions will also encourage users to take bus, thus further
reducing congestion in the inter-urban area and the junction.
PART 3: Road safety assessment
A) Assessment of the need of a controlled pedestrian crossing facility on the new highway
It is estimated that 50 percent of personal injury accidents within the UK occurred at urban road junctions. So
therefore, the needs of a controlled pedestrian crossing shall be investigated by using table 10 below. Using
the P and V values the PV2 value shall be determined and an average of the 4 highest PV2 values shall be taken
to determine the degree of conflict between the pedestrians and vehicles.
Table 10. Showing the vehicular and pedestrian traffic data (7:00am-7:00pm)
14
Table 11. Showing the values of PV2
Above the PV2 values have been calculated and the average of the 4 largest values are then taken:
6.3,6.2,6.8 and 6.8×107 giving the average value of degree of conflict between pedestrians and
vehicles which is 6.525×107.
A crossing is normally justified where the calculated value of PV² is equal to or greater than 1 x 108 on
an undivided road or 2 x 108 on a carriageway incorporating a staggered crossing. (Apeagyei A, 2021)
However, as PV2=6.525×107 this value is less than 1 x 108 and 2 x 108 therefore there will be no need
for a controlled pedestrian crossing on the new highway.
B) Expected number of annual accidents
Using the COBA model the expected annual number of accidents shall be calculated. The COBA model
comprises of two models used to forecast future accidents occurring within 20m of new or existing
junctions. These two models are known as cross-product and inflow model. The equations for the models
are given below.
Annual number of accidents = x (𝑓)𝑦
where f is a function of traffic flow (thousands of vehicles per annual average day), x and y vary
according to junction type.
Cross product = Q ∗ (ql + qr)
Inflow = Q + ql + qr
For a 3-arm single carriageway, the cross-product model shall be used with coefficients of x=0.195
And y=0.460 these values are collected from table 12 below.
Table 12. Showing major-minor junction classification for accident estimation
15
Annual number of accidents = x (𝑓)𝑦
𝑓 = (8.4 + 8.4) × 4.0 = 67.2
The expected annual number of accidents
= 0.195(67.2)0.460 = 1.35
Figure 12. 3-arm single carriageway
Using the COBA the expected number of annual accidents is 1.35
C) The Reasonableness of the expected number of accidents determined using the
COBA model.
Below is the data given in the project brief, and the formula below shall be used to calculate the
reasonableness of the expected number of accidents using the COBA model while assuming a 95% confidence
interval
𝑠
𝑎=𝑡×
𝑚×√𝑛
(The COBA manual, chapter 11, part 5,2020)
a= accuracy
m= mean
s= standard deviation
t= (Value of t is given in standard statistic textbooks and is 2.093 with 19 degrees of freedom)
n= Number of measurements
Given data
m=3
S= 0.4
t=2.093
n= 20
0.4
𝑎 = 2.093 ×
3×√20 𝑎 = 0.0624 𝑎 ≈ 6%
Only 6% more average accident measurements will be needed to achieve a satisfactory level of accuracy.
16
REFERENCES
17