Devraj HDM Report

Pavement maintenance and management of State Highway SH-73 using HDM 4- A Case Study
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction of Pavement
1.2 Requirements of good pavement
1.3 Pavement maintenance and management
1.4 Introduction to HDM-4
1.5 About Belagavi city
1.6 Classification of Roads
1.7 Objectives of the Studies
1.8 Scope of Highway Engineering
2. Literature survey
2.1. Evaluating the effect of road improvements
2.2. Use of HDM 4 in evaluation of the pavements Standards
2.3. HDM-4 procedure
3. Methodology
4. Study area
4.1 General Description of the Study Area
4.2 Physical Characteristics
4.3 Location and Connectivity
4.4 Population and Vehicle Growth in India
5. Data collected
5.1Obtaining road profile
5.2 Midblock traffic survey
5.3 Calculation of AADT
6. Analysis
6.1Road network
6.2 Vehicle Fleets
6.3 Importing and Exporting Data
6.4 Project analysis
7. Results
7.1 Incremental NPV/cost ranking
8. Conclusions
References
.
List of Tables
Table No
1.1
1.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
Particulars
Road network in India
UDPFI Road Classification
Road inventory data for different road stretches
Equivalency Factors Suggested by IRC 106:1990
Traffic in terms of PCU for the 1 section
List of Figures
Figure No
Particulars
1.1
Cross section of flexible and rigid pavement
.
2.1
4.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
7.1
Serviceability index
Study area
Section 1. 4rd Gate to Bemco
3rd Gate to Bemco
Manikbagh Road (Old Dharwad Road)
Vehicle composition along 1st section
Vehicle composition along 2nd section
Vehicle composition along 3rd section
Creating road network
Creating vehicle fleet
Creating vehicle fleet attributes
Creating new project
Defining various sections
Normal traffic details
Section attribute details
Unconstrained project
CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION
Transportation contributes to the economic, industrial, social and cultural
development of any country. Transportation is vital for the economic development of any
region since every commodity produced whether it is food, clothing, industrial products or
medicine needs transportation at all stages from production to distribution. In the production
stage, transportation is required for carrying raw materials like seeds, manure, coal, steel etc.
In the distribution stage, transportation is required from the production centers namely farms
and factories to the marketing centers and later to the retailers and the consumers for
distribution. The inadequate transportation facilities retard the process of socio economic
development of the country. The adequacy of transportation system of a country indicates its
economic and social development.
1.1 Pavement
Basically, all hard surfaced pavement types can be categorized into two groups
Flexible pavement
Rigid pavement
.
The Cross section of flexible and rigid pavement is as shown in Fig 1.1
Fig 1.1 Cross section of flexible and rigid pavement
Flexible pavements are those, which have low or negligible flexural strength and
are rather flexible in their structural action under loads. The flexible pavement layers transmit
the vertical or compressive stresses to the
lower layers by grain to grain transfer through
the points of contact in the granular structure.

The rigid pavements are made of Portland cement concrete-either plain, reinforced or
Pre-stressed concrete. Rigid pavements are placed either directly on the prepared sub-grade
or on a single layer of granular or stabilized material. In rigid pavement, load is distributed by
the slab action, and the pavement behaves like an elastic plate resting on a viscous medium.
1.2 Requirements of good pavement:
An ideal pavement should meet the following requirements:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Long design life with low maintenance cost,

Produce least noise from moving vehicles,
Smooth surface to provide comfort to road users even at high speed,
Adequate coefficient of friction to prevent skidding of vehicles,
Structurally strong to withstand all types of stresses imposed upon it,
Sufficient thickness to distribute the wheel load stresses to a safe value on the subgrade soil,
Impervious surface, so that sub-grade soil is well protected.
1.3 Pavement maintenance and management

The Asphalt Concrete which is considered as the major pavement material for the
road transportation system is subjected to continuous deterioration with time due to traffic
loading and environmental conditions, it needs pavement maintenance management system
(PMMS) which should be capable for preserving the functional and structural conditions of
pavement layers by controlling the continuous distress experienced by the pavement.
Pavement maintenance management systems are designed to manage maintenance

and rehabilitation activities to optimize pavement condition with available funds. The use of
(PMMS) is becoming increasingly more prevalent due to benefits achieved. It considers
current and future pavement condition, priorities, funding, and can reduce pavement
deterioration, this helps maintain pavement structural capacity, and may extend pavement life
by slowing or limiting future pavement degradation. Pavement condition can be quantified by
the pavement condition rating (PCR) which rates the pavement according to the extent and
severity of distress types present. PCR ranges from 100 to zero (best to worst). A major goal
of PMMS is to keep pavement condition in the upper PCR range of 60-90 by limiting surface
structural degradation to keep down rehabilitation cost.
1.4 INTRODUCTION TO HDM-4

The Highway Design and Maintenance Standards Model (HDM-III), developed by
the World Bank, has been used for over two decades to combine technical and economic
appraisals of road projects, to prepare road investment programmes and to analyse road
network strategies. The International Study of Highway Development and Management
(ISOHDM) has been carried out to extend the scope of the HDM-III model, and to provide a
harmonised systems approach to road management, with adaptable and user-friendly software
tools. This has produced the Highway Development and Management Tool (HDM-4).
The scope of HDM-4 has been broadened considerably beyond traditional project
appraisals, to provide a powerful system for the analysis of road management and investment
alternatives. Emphasis was placed on collating and applying existing knowledge, rather than
undertaking extensive new empirical studies, although some limited data collection was
undertaken. Wherever possible, creative new approaches were developed for applying up-to
date knowledge to the technical problems and management needs of different countries.
When considering the applications of HDM-4, it is necessary to look at the highway
management process in terms of the following functions:
a. Planning
Planning involves the analysis of the road system as a whole, typically requiring the
preparation of medium to long term, or strategic, estimates of expenditure for road
development and preservation under various budget and economic scenarios. Predictions
may be made of road network conditions under a variety of funding levels in terms of key
indicators together with forecasts of required expenditure under defined budget heads.
b. Programming
Programming involves the preparation, under budget constraints, of multi-year road
work and expenditure programmes in which sections of the network likely to require
maintenance, improvement or new construction, are selected and analysed. It is a tactical
planning exercise. Ideally, cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken to determine the
economic feasibility of each set of works.
c. Preparation
This is the short-term planning stage where road schemes are packaged for
implementation. At this stage, designs are refined and prepared in more detail; bills of
quantities and detailed costing are made, together with work instructions and contracts.
Detailed specifications and costing are likely to be drawn up, and detailed cost-benefit
analysis may be carried out to confirm the feasibility of the final scheme.
d. Operations
These activities cover the on-going operation of an organisation. Decisions about the
management of operations are made typically on a daily or weekly basis, including the
scheduling of work to be carried out, monitoring in terms of labour, equipment and
materials,
1.5 About Hubli Lakshmeshwar Region
a. Physical Characteristics
Hubli Lakshmeshwar region is located at 15 013 N 750 47E. It has an average
elevation of 634 meters. The road proposed to be improved is part of MangsuliLaxshmeshwar State Highway(SH-73).
b. Location and Connectivity
The project road takes off from National Highway Hubli through Kundgol-Samshi
and ends (NH-4 ) near traverses at Laxshmeshwar . This road is an important connectivity
from Laxshmeshwar which is a major agriculture, producing center and Hubli a major
commercial hub. The length of road taken up for improvement is 42.80 Km.
c. Climatic Conditions
The region is well known for hot climate during almost in all the seasons. During
summer (March to June) season the climate is very hot compared to other seasons (even
.
up to 430C). While during other seasons the range of temperature lies between 30 0C to
350C.
The region experiences intermittent monsoon of low intensity during July to
September. The annual average rainfall is 980mm. Wind blowing is 2.2m/sec along
North-East direction.
Average humidity is having about 20% with the atmospheric
pressure of 1012 hPa.

It is essential to provide roads links between the villages and market centers. The
prosperity around the urban areas alone do not reflect the economic living condition of the
people of our country as a whole. Overall economic progress can be achieved, only if
reasonably adequate transport facilities are made available between the villages and other
district head quarters and commercial centers.
The road networks have also to be
supplemented with Express highways to keep pace with the requirement of uninterrupted
movement of fast vehicles along the arterial roads.
1.6 Classification of Roads
Indian roads are under 5 classifications defined by Ministry of Road Transport &
highway (MoRTH) viz, National Highways (N.H), State Highways (S.H), Major district road
(M.D.R), other district road (O.D.R) and Village road (V.R) as shown in Table 1.1.Urban
roads were not part of the formal classification until the year 2002, when the Ministry of
Road Transport & Highway recognised the urban roads require distinction, and began
classifying urban roads separately.
According to location (popularly known as I.R.C classification):

National highway (N.H)
State highway (S.H)
Major district road (M.D.R)
Other district road (O.D.R)
Village road (V.R)
Table 1.1 Road network in India
Category of road
Length in km
National highways
State highways
65,569
1,30,000
2
4
Major district, rural & urban 31,40,000

roads
Total road network
.
33,40,000
94
According to stations of strategic importance:

Class I road
Class II road
Class III road
According to traffic intensity:

Very heavy traffic roads (carry over 1524 M.T/day)
Heavy traffic roads (carry 1017-1524 M.T/day)
Medium traffic roads (carry 508-1016 M.T/day)
Light traffic roads (carry below 508 M.T/day)
Urban roads are broadly organized into five categories as shown in Table 1.2
Arterial
Sub-Arterial
Collector
Local
Sub-Local
Table 1.2 UDPFI Road Classification
Classification
Width
Arterial
Sub-arterial
50 to 60 m
30 to 40 m
Collector street
20 to 30 m
Local street
10 to 20 m
1. Arterial roads
The arterial road network should provide for uninterrupted flow of traffic radiating
out of the city and serve as connectivity to major activity hubs in the city and outside to the
highways. Continuity is essential and guidelines such as IRC, UDPFI recommend that arterial
roads should be spaced 1.5 km apart in CBD and at 8 km in sparsely developed outskirts of
the city. Although arterial network is for higher speed, the speed limits in the core city should
be regulated as per the need of the land use adjacent to the road.
Arterial roads serve high trip density corridors. Significant intra-urban travel such as
between central business district and outlaying residential areas, or b/w major suburban
centres takes place on this network. Roads connecting to National Highways, State
Highways, and ring roads would also be considered as arterial roads. Parking may be
.
restricted. Pedestrian and NMT facilities need to be separated from the main traffic and grade
separated crossing should be provided.
2. Sub arterial Roads
These are functionally similar to arterials with medium density traffic and lower speed
compared to arterial roads. These may have lower requirements for mass mobility and will
provide greater access than arterial streets. Sub-arterial streets may speed at 1-2 km distance
with spacing of intersections at 500 meter distance.
3. Collector Roads
Collector roads aggregate traffic from local roads network within residential
neighbourhoods, commercial roads, and industrial areas and link this traffic to sub arterial
roads. Full access may be allowed on the streets from abutting properties. Parking restrictions
may be applied during the peak hours. As collector streets connect with sub-arterial and
arterial streets. Some of the collector streets would carry higher volumes.
4. Local roads
These are primarily access networks for individual dwellings and residential
developments. Majority of trips in urban areas either originate from or terminate on these
streets. Local streets may be residential, commercial of industrial, depending on the
predominant use of the adjoining land. They must allow for streamlined parking and safe and
comfortably cyclist and pedestrian movement. Heavy traffic and commercial traffic is to be
restricted on local roads, adequate traffic calming measures designed for each stretch and
intersection.
5. Sub local streets/access streets (conservancies)
In many of the older parts of the city as well as some newly developed fringe areas,
residential roads are very narrow with only 2 to 3 m wide right-of-way. These roads however
form a very significant network of access to individual dwellings and pockets of dense
settlement in majority of old as well as some new residential layouts.
Sub-local streets is 2 to 5 m wide R-o-W, which shared access to pedestrian, bicycle
and vehicular access to two or three wheeler traffic, R-o-W width recommended is 3m.
1.7 Objectives of the Studies:
To evaluate vehicular characteristics
To determine the effect of road improvement on deterioration
.
To suggest the optimum maintenance required for the selected stretch

To compare and suggest the best alternative based on the economics
1.8 Scope of Highway Engineering:
It includes the study of following topics
Development, planning and location of roads.

Highway traffic performance and its control.
Materials required for their construction.
Maintenance, drainage of roads etc.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
To begin with the project it is more essential to have general and detailed information
regarding the subject content, strategic approaches, available research in the subject area,
interpreted results and drawn conclusions. Keeping the above in mind, a detail review was
conducted to know the available information in the subject, need to research, development
and improvement. It gives us an idea about the objective to be achieved for the present work
from the works which are already carried out. The brief details of the case studies which have
been referred for the present study are mentioned in the below paragraphs:
2.1 Evaluating the effect of road improvements
In this paper, a benefit-cost analysis framework is developed for an added bicycle
phase at an existing signalized intersection. The intersection operates with both high volume
levels of both vehicles and bicycles. As part of this study, traffic volume counts were
collected and average vehicle delays computed and extrapolated to represent a full year. The
costs and benefits included in the analysis were construction costs and changes in operating
costs, safety, and vehicle capacity. We find that the overwhelming benefits associated with
increased bicycle safety, which can be seen as a decrease in the number of bicycle-vehicle
conflicts, outweigh all costs and the benefits associated with increased vehicle delay.
Externalities such as the change in vehicle emissions are also examined but are not included
in the benefit-cost ratio. We find that the change in emissions associated with increased
vehicle delay is relatively minor. [1]
This paper presents a need-based methodology to prioritize and select highway projects for
improvement. This approach is based on developing a multi attribute need function that
quantifies relative concerns of a highway agency and the traveling public about various
physical and operational deficiencies on different highway segments. It is an effective
alternative to the traditional cost-benefit analysis. While the cost-benefit analysis may be
useful in evaluating a small number of project alternatives at a fixed location e.g., alternative
alignments for a single corridor, it has major limitations when applied to a large-scale e.g.,
state wide Highway construction program. This paper discusses some of the philosophical
and practical limitations of the cost-benefit analysis and how the need-based approach
overcomes these limitations. A successful implementation of the need-based approach to

Kansass state wide highway improvement program is also described. [2]
In this paper, the issue of whether a community should be bypassed often raises concerns
from community members, public officials, and other stakeholders. A bypass has substantial
potential impacts on affected communities, such as changes in travel patterns, the diversion of
heavy-truck traffic from congested city streets, and the opening up of new land for economic
development. Identifying these impacts and determining the extent to which they are due to
the presence of a bypass has posed a challenge to decision makers and researchers. This paper
describes an integrated approach to documenting and quantifying the impacts of bypasses on
small communities. The socioeconomic impacts on the community with the bypass were
documented in terms of the decisions made by public officials. These decisions were learned
through case study interviews and changes in employment in various industry sectors as
quantified by the development of random effects statistical models. The integrated approach
of combining case studies with advanced statistical methodologies was helpful in painting a
clearer picture of how communities with bypasses were affected. [3]
In this paper, In response to the growing importance of sustainable undertaking, purchasing
and building, designers, consultants and pavement managers now tend to make more rational
decisions than before when comparing the pros and cons of the construction, maintenance
and management of various types of road pavements. Asphalt and concrete pavements offer
specific advantages that need to be compared when selecting the most favorable option for
long-life pavements. Financial decisions can be based on life cycle cost. Life Cycle Cost
analysis is to arrive at such an economic equitable assessment of competing design
alternatives and it further useful for budget planning. The paper describes life cycle cost
analysis of the assets of road pavement by using present worth method. The information
regarding the user cost and vehicle operating cost as per IRC recommendation is also
discussed in detail. [4]
In this paper, a methodology for estimating road user costs of various competing alternatives
was developed. Also, software was developed to calculate the road user cost, perform
economic analysis and update cost tables. The methodology is based on the manual entitled
A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements which was
published in 1977 by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
The report contains procedures for the calculation of the road user costs, economic analysis
.
and updates of cost tables based on the latest Consumer Price Indices and Producer Price
Indices are available. The software application has been developed in Visual Basic 5, which
interacts with the cost tables, stored in MS-Excel workbooks, according to the user inputs.
The software application was later updated to Visual Basic 6 when it was installed at
WVDOH. The software application consists of two modules, Road User Cost Application
and Economic Analysis. Module 1 consists of two sub-modules, Road User Cost
Application and Update Cost Tables and Indices. The use of this software will allow
computation of the road user costs and economic analysis to be completed in a more efficient
manner and will assist the decision-makers in selecting the most desirable alternatives for
improvement and/or expansion of the highway system. [5]
A good road structure may help in reducing the number of accident. Wearing course is the top
layer of road structure which is the layer that exposed to the vehicle tires and environment.
The International Roughness Index (IRI) and Present Serviceability Index (PSI) are both
index that can be used as indicators of road roughness and serviceability. IRI was measured
by using the walking profilometer.PSI data was collected manually. Both IRI and PSI was
measured along the 100 m section of road. This study only focused on one type of road which
was asphaltic pavement located in UTM (University Teknologi Malaysia). The figure
showing serviceability index is as shown in Fig 2.1,(6 )
Fig 2.1 serviceability index
2.2 Use of HDM-IV in evaluation of the pavements

In this paper Road investment appraisal models have had difficulty incorporating the
effects of congestion on vehicle fuel consumption. The new Highway Development and
Management Model, HDM-4, incorporates the Australian Road Research Boards Model
ARFCOM to predict fuel consumption in combination with a simulated vehicle speed
profile. A key determinant of the simulated speed profile is acceleration noise (the standard
deviation of the second-by-second acceleration) which is in turn derived from the highway
volume capacity ratio. To investigate this further, detailed speed profiles were obtained for a
light passenger vehicle (a Toyota Kijang) and a medium truck on a 17 km congested road
close to Bandung in Java. In total 100,000 speeds and 10,000 fuel readings were measured
over 1000 km of test runs. Speed data were compared with predictions of the Indonesian
Highway Capacity Manual (IHCM) and observed fuel consumption data were compared with
ARFCOMs predictions. It was found that the IHCM model appeared to overestimate the
Kijangs speed although a close estimate of the trucks speed was obtained. Total observed
fuel consumption was found to be three per cent more for the truck and six per cent more for
the Kijang compared with ARFCOMs predictions. The data were analyzed in 30 second and
four minute intervals and it was found that multiple regression models were able to give good
explanations of the IHCM predicted speeds and of the ARFCOMs predicted fuel
consumption. However, only a very poor explanation of acceleration noise was found from
formulae based on the highway volume capacity ratio. In view of the promising results it is
proposed that relatively simple multiple regression models be used to predict fuel
consumption under congestion. [7]
In this paper the effect of maintenance on the lifecycle cost of the pavements considering
Indias road network, second largest road network in the world, is 3.3 million kilometers
long. Eighty one percentage of the total network comprises of low volume roads which are
termed as rural roads and forms part of the basic infrastructure required for the development
of rural areas in the country. The performance of these low volume roads has been lagging
behind due to improper design, construction practices and maintenance management.
Preventive maintenance is a systematic process of applying a series of maintenance
treatments over the life of the pavement to maintain the roads in good condition, to extend
pavement life and to minimize the life cycle cost. Much effort has not been taken for arriving
at the optimal treatment and timing of the preventive maintenance for the low volume road
.
network. Present study is aimed at developing pavement performance models and arriving at
the optimal maintenance treatment and its optimum time of application appropriate for rural
roads with particular reference to Kerala State in India. Optimal maintenance treatments to be
applied for the rural road network for varying levels of pavement condition were arrived at by
carrying out a strategy analysis using HDM-4. Maintenance treatments considered for the
analysis included shoulder maintenance, patching, fog seal, slurry seal, resurfacing with
premix carpet and also possible combinations of these treatments. [8]
Option evaluation systems (OESs) have been extensively used as an effective means to
support decision-making on investment and management of road asset in both developed and
developing countries over the last four decades. When carrying out the strategy analysis using
OESs with dynamic sectioning (called SDS), a nationwide network is typically subdivided
into several sub-networks due to administrative or technical needs. However, techniques for
doing SDS in such a case have not been well developed. Therefore, the objective of the paper
is to present a comprehensive procedure to carry out the SDS for a nationwide road network
including sound trade-off analyses of all constituent sub-networks. Although the Highway
Development and Management System (HDM-4) is used as an OES in the case study in this
paper, the proposed procedure is general enough to allow almost any OESs. [9]
The paper describes the new Highway Development and Management tools (HDM-4) which
has been developed to supersede the World Banks Highway Design and Maintenance
Standards Model (HDM-III). The new HDM-4 has a broader scope incorporating a wider
range of technical relationships with three dedicated applications tools for project level
analysis, road work programming under constrained budgets, and for strategic planning of
long term network performance and expenditure needs. In addition to updating the HDM-III
technical relationships for vehicle operating costs, and pavement deterioration for flexible
and unsealed pavements, new technical relationships have been introduced to model rigid
concrete pavement deterioration, accident costs, traffic congestion, energy consumption and
environmental effects.[10]
The Highway Design and Maintenance Standards Model (HDM-III), developed by the World
Bank, has been used extensively for the economic evaluation of road projects over a period of
approximately 15 years. The Highway Development and Management Tools (HDM-4) was
released early this year (2000) as the result of a process of upgrading and extension of the
HDM-III. Both these models were applied to a case study, the Nsoko-Maloma road in
.
Swaziland, in order to gain insight on the changes and improvements achieved in HDM-4.
The paper provides an overview of the development of the HDM-III and HDM-III Manager
(which was used for the analysis), and the improvements implemented in HDM-4. A
description of the case study and data required for the economic evaluation process are then
addressed. The output of the two models is compared. It is shown that with regard to the submodels the most important effect is the lowering of vehicle operating costs and the increase in
travel speed which result from the adjustment of the sub-models for the improvement in the
efficiency of motorized vehicles. The HDM-4 consequently produced lower values for the
benefit-cost ratio and internal rate of return on the case study. When compared to the
justification level, however, this reduction did not influence the economic viability of the
project. In conclusion the improvements of HDM-4 as observed in the analysis are
summarized. These are a modern-day programming style and wider options with regard to the
definition of the vehicle fleet, upgrading choices, pavement types, seal types and other
maintenance actions. [11]
Highway agencies around the world have changed their attention from design and
construction of new pavements to maintenance of already existing ones. Pavements must be
selected for maintenance when they are still effective, before the need is apparent to the
casual observers in order to avoid the rapid deterioration after a certain limit. The objectives
of this study are to highlight the present pavement maintenance practice around the world
with a particular attention to the maintenance trend in India and use Highway Development
and Management (HDM-4) for the maintenance of a test section in Mumbai Metropolitan
Region (MMR). This region has a humid, warm, and wet climate prevalent in the west coast
of India. The test section has seven layers and is a six lane divided highway. Condition
responsive maintenance has been carried out. Only cracking and roughness have been found
out to be critical out of eight deterioration models in HDM-4 for the analysis period of 15
years. The condition of the pavement has become equivalent to new one after maintenance.
[12]
Technical and economic efficiency demand setting of both the initial pavement design and
maintenance standards on the principle of minimization of total transport cost (sum of initial
construction, maintenance and user costs) by taking a life cycle cost approach (this problem
may be referred to as the unconstrained optimization problem). Initial construction,
maintenance and user costs are linked by two trade-off relationships. The first trade-off is
.
between the agency cost (initial construction cost plus maintenance cost) and user cost.
Higher agency cost results in better pavement serviceability i.e. lower roughness and as a
result lower user cost and vice versa. The second trade-off is within the agency cost. A given
pavement serviceability may be achieved either by spending more on the initial construction
and less on later maintenance or less on the initial construction and more on the later
maintenance. Thus, the solution of the unconstrained optimization problem requires a tool/
system that can predict pavement deterioration and improvement overtime as a function of
explanatory variables such as pavement strength, traffic, maintenance, etc., and predict the
road user and maintenance costs for different maintenance standards, and thus, take into
account the two trade-off relationships explicitly. Collaborative research undertaken by the
World Bank and other international organizations during the last three decades has produced
the Highway Development and Management (HDM-4) tool, which is a state of the art system
for road investment decision analysis based on the comparative evaluation of costs and
benefits of alternative investment strategies. Thus, HDM-4 can be used to establish both the
initial design and maintenance standard taking into account technical and economic
efficiency. Though the HDM system can be used to identify the optimal maintenance
standard, past experience suggests that examples of less than optimal maintenance abound in
developing countries because of several reasons but primarily because of a constrained
maintenance budget. Again technical and economic efficiency demand setting of both the
initial design and maintenance standard on the principle of minimization of total transport
cost for a given budget (this problem may be referred to as the constrained optimization
problem). The constrained problem is tackled in this paper with the objective of investigating
the influence of a less than optimal maintenance budget on agency cost (i.e. the sum of initial
construction and maintenance costs) for different traffic loadings. It was found that a less than
optimal maintenance budget favours building pavement with strength higher than the optimal
and the required strength increases monotonically with the reduction in maintenance budget.
Agency cost when plotted against maintenance cost, however, suggested a unimodal
relationship, and thus, the provision of higher pavement strength is feasible till a certain
reduction in the maintenance budget only. Moreover, the feasible range diminishes with the
decrease in traffic loading. Cutting the maintenance budget beyond that range would not save
agency cost even if higher pavement strength were provided. Thus, when confronted with a
less than optimal budget, road organization in developing countries can save agency cost by
building stronger pavements than optimal but it should be remembered that the provision of
extra strength is feasible only within a certain range. [13]
.
2.4 Standards
The standards for periodic maintenance and road improvement defined by the national
road authority require the following road works to be carried out:
2.4.1
Road improvement standards
Pave gravel roads with AADT greater than 150 vehicles per day.
Widen roads with peak volume to capacity ratio greater than 0.85.
2.4.2
Periodic maintenance standards
Reconstruct failed pavements with roughness greater than 9.5 IRI. Strengthen pavements
in critical condition with roughness greater than 5.0 IRI. Reseal pavements with observed
distress on more than 30% of the pavement surface area (that is, cracking, ravelling, potholes,
edge break, etc.). This includes preparatory works such as crack sealing, pothole patching and
edge repairs prior to the resealing.
2.4.3 Reactive and cyclic routine maintenance
Patching potholes, crack sealing and edge repairs as required. Drainage maintenance,
shoulder repairs, vegetation control, etc., specified as fixed costs per km per year.
2.5
The HDM-4 procedure required to priorities the candidate projects comprises the
following:
Import data from the Pavement Management System or use the HDM-4 Road
Network manager to create the candidate road sections.

Define the characteristics of the vehicles that use the road network. Specify traffic growth
rates. Assign the maintenance and improvement standards to the candidate road sections
together with the unit costs. Run the HDM-4 Programme Analysis application to determine
the road works required. The unconstrained work programme results give the total funding
required for the long list of candidate road sections. Carry out budget optimisation to
prioritise and select the short list of projects that can be carried out within the available
budget. Review reports of the analyses conducted.
CHAPTER - 3
METHODOLOGY
Volume studies will be carried out for the selected stretch at the identified points,
the collected data will be converted to Passenger Car Units along with this the
data pertaining to terrain condition, roughness value and characteristic
deflection will be obtained through various surveys. The obtained data will be fed
into the HDM 4 software and alternative will be provided
Volume count was done,
the collected data was converted in to passenger car unit (PCU). Terrain condition was
obtained with the help of Google earth. The data collected is further analysed with the help of
the software. The result are obtained in the form of graphs, after thorough analysis of these
graphs, various maintenance strategies are obtained. The various alternatives are compared.
The methodology adopted for the study is presented as a flow chart
FLOW CHART
Selection of Flexible Pavement Stretches due for Up Gradation
Reconnaissance Survey
Segmentation of Sections in to Sub Sections *Traffic Criteria
Preliminary Investigations
Field study
Traffic Survey
Benkelman Beam
Deflection Studies
Unevenness Studies
Secondary Data
International Roughness
Index
Income Data
Programme analysis
Using HDM-IV
1. Periodic treatment
2. Seasonal treatment
.
3. Road improvement
CHAPTER - 4
STUDY AREA
4.1. General Description of the Study Area
Lakshmeshwara is a town in Shirahatti taluk, Gadag district, in the Indian state of
Karnataka. It is about 50 km from Gadag and 55 km from Hubli. Lakshmeshwara is an
agricultural trading town. There are many important temples in this historic town, including
theShiva temple, the "Someshwara Temple". There are two historical Jain temples
(Sannabasadi and Shankabasadi) in the town, as well as its notable Jamma Masjid.
Lakshmeshwara is also home for many shrines, a dargah, the Kodiyellamma temple, the
Mukha Basavanna shrine, and a gigantic idol of Suryanarayana.
The existing road is having carriageway width of 3.75 mts to 5.50 mts As this road
passes through black cotton soil area, the road is in very much distressed condition. As per
the Feasibility Report, the present average Traffic on this road is 4984 PCU and the projected
traffic at 2030 will be around 16068 PCUs. The road and 7.00 mts carriageway with paved
shoulder of 2.00 mts in urban Laxshmeshwar town. The study area is as shown in Fig 4.1
Fig 4.1 Study area
4.2 Physical Characteristics

.
Hubli Lakshmeshwar region is located at 15 013 N 750 47E. It has an average

elevation of 634 meters. The road proposed to be improved is part of MangsuliLaxshmeshwar State Highway(SH-73).
4.3 Location and Connectivity
The project road takes off from National Highway Hubli through Kundgol-Samshi
and ends (NH-4 ) near traverses at Laxshmeshwar . This road is an important connectivity
from Laxshmeshwar which is a major agriculture, producing center and Hubli a major
commercial hub. The length of road taken up for improvement is 42.80 Km.
4.4 Climatic Conditions
The region is well known for hot climate during almost in all the seasons. During
summer (March to June) season the climate is very hot compared to other seasons (even
up to 430C). While during other seasons the range of temperature lies between 30 0C to
350C.
The region experiences intermittent monsoon of low intensity during July to
September. The annual average rainfall is 980mm. Wind blowing is 2.2m/sec along
North-East direction.
Average humidity is having about 20% with the atmospheric
pressure of 1012 hPa.
4.5. Population and Vehicle Growth in India

India is the second largest populated country in the world. The total urban population of
India burgeoned over the past five decades. In 1951 the population of the country was 360.11
million, which has increased to 1027 million in 2001. The annual rate of growth of motor
vehicle population in India has been about 10 percent during the last decade. The basic
problem is not the number of vehicles in the country but their concentration in a few selected
cities, particularly in metropolitan cities (million plus).
Although traffic volumes vary considerably on all pavement sections, but the
composition of the traffic in terms of the representative vehicles was found to be nearly the
same. These traffic compositions and annual growth rates have been assumed to be applicable
to all pavement sections included in the highway network under study.
CHAPTER - 5
TRAFFIC SURVEY
When it comes to transport planning, an essential basic requirement is obtaining a sound
understanding of the actual conditions on the ground in order to predict what the conditions
would be in the future. Often, the only way to achieve this is by obtaining an accurate
measure of traffic (vehicle/pedestrian) numbers. This is often expanded to encapsulate
vehicle types and speeds. If the objective requires more detailed data, then the journey length,
the purpose of the journey and the frequency of the journey may also need to be determined.
There are a variety of traffic survey or traffic counting methods used on UK traffic networks
ranging from manual counting, pneumatic road tubes and video cameras to emailed
questionnaires and telephone surveys. Modal Group are familiar with all types of traffic
surveys, but predominantly use camera technology as it offers a high level of accuracy
(99.6%) alongside the flexibility of getting quality data at awkward junctions and the like.
Unlike manually counted traffic surveys with staff counting on-site, a video survey can also
be used for other purposes such as looking at driver or pedestrian behaviour, determining
queue lengths or even identifying issues that may not be known.
Traffic Survey Purposes
Traffic surveys are used for a variety of purposes including helping to resolve national,
regional and local traffic issues. In particular, the data gathered plays a major role in
informing the decision making process in transport planning. This may include contributing
to projects related to the planning, construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure.
Importantly, with major investment apparently in short supply, traffic survey reports
influence investment in future infrastructure as well as making the best of our current road
networks. On a local level surveys are also utilised for smaller projects that may deal with
parking issues or the effectiveness of traffic calming measures in regards to road safety
issues.
On a small project surveys may only be required to determine vehicle 85th percentile speeds
and two-way link (road) counts. This would help determine such issues as visibility splays
and highway capacity and whether the development proposals would have an adverse affect
on the highway.
.
Larger development schemes would require much larger studies which may require turning
counts at a number of junctions, vehicle speed surveys, pedestrian desire line surveys, vehicle
queue surveys and even observing how often pedestrians cross at a crossing and the affect
that may have on vehicle flow. In some instances, particularly where there may be some new
road building (such as a bypass) origin and destination surveys may be required across the
study area, which typically can be carried out using number plate surveys at all entry and exit
points to the study area as well as within the study area at major intersections in order to track
individual car movements.
The Transport Monitoring Team carry out a wide range of transport surveys, including:
Types of traffic survey services:

Automated traffic survey
Manual traffic surveys
All movement junction surveys
Parking Surveys
Public transport surveys
Traffic speed surveys
Journey time surveys
Pedestrian count surveys
Travel interview surveys
Video surveys
This information is used for:
Development of local transport

schemes
Transport Assessments for new

development
Monitoring our Local Transport Plan.
CHAPTER - 6
DEFLECTION STUDY BY BENKLEMAN BEAM
Introduction
The performance of flexible pavements is
closely related to the elastic deflection of
pavement under the wheel loads. The
deformation or elastic deflection under a
given load depends upon surgrade soil
type, its moisture content & compaction,
the thickness and quality of the pavement
courses, drainage conditions, pavement
surface temperature etc.
The Benkelman Beam Deflection Method is thus widely used for Evaluation of
Structural Capacity of Existing Flexible Pavements and also for Estimation and Design of
Overlays for Strengthening of any weak pavement for Highways.
This method may probably provide relative idea of Structural Capacity of Existing
Flexible Pavements of State Highway SH-73 Improvement & Widening of Hubli
Lakshmeshwar Road Project in 4 different sections as specified below for confirmation of
PCN values obtained in these sections:
From ch: 0 10Km for full width of road.

From ch: 30 42.80Km for full width of road.
The results were obtained in terms of Characteristic Deflection in mm and shall mean that
higher the Characteristic Deflection, weaker is the pavement structure.
Experimental Set-up of Benkelman Beam Deflection Equipment
The arrangement was made for Benkelman Beam Deflection Test on road for Evaluation of
structural capacity of Existing Flexible Pavement. It was decided that 8 sets of observations
of the Benkelman Beam Deflection Test may be taken. It was also decided to collect the
sample of subgrade soil and moorum from three open pits to be excavated in three distinct
sections of road. Moisture Contents and PI values of the samples of subgrade soils, so
collected are to be used for computation of Rebound and Characteristic deflection.
All the procedure for conducting Benkelman Beam Deflection Test were followed as per the
guidelines given in IRC:81-1997.
The vehicle having 8170 kg rear axle load equally
distributed over the two wheels, equipped with dual tyres with 30-40 mm spacing have been
arranged. The tyre pressure of 5.60 kg/cm2was maintained. A mandral for making 45 mm
deep and 12.5 mm dia hole in the pavement for temperature measurement is made and
temperature
readings
were
taken
at
the
regular
interval
of
1.0
hr.
On the day of 29th May 2008, three sets of reading of Benkelman Beam Deflection on SH-73
from ch.0.0 Km to 42.80 Km were taken between 9.00 AM to 7.0 PM and tabulated in Tables
05, 06 and 07. The samples of subgrade soil and moorum were also collected from the same
section from open pit excavated at respective chainages and then sealed and labeled sent to
the laboratory for testing. On 30th May morning, 4thset of readings of Benkelman Beam
Deflection were taken on runway from the chainage 1400.0 m to 1585.0 m and tabulated in
Table no.08. During the 2ndhalf of the day i.e 4.0 PM to 8.00 PM, the remaining 4 sets of
Benkelman Beam Deflection readings were taken on the runway from ch.0.0 m to ch.1400.0
m and results are Tabulated in Table No-09, 10, 11 and 12. The samples of subgrade soils and
moorum were also collected from the respective both locations of the open pits excavated at
chainage 1510.0 m to 10.0 m (E) and chainage 500.0m to 18 (E) and then samples were
sealed and labeled sent to the laboratory.
BBD Results
Location
Ch:
0 - 10Km
Ch:
10-20Km
SH73
Ch:
20-30Km
Ch:
3042.90Km
Station, m Mean Std.Dev

1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
23000
24000
25000
26000
27000
28000
29000
30000
31000
32000
33000
34000
35000
36000
37000
38000
39000
40000
41000
42000
43000
BBD Results and Analysis

.
0.78
0.78
1.07
0.92
0.91
1.03
1.21
1.32
1.20
1.20
1.12
1.03
1.08
1.01
1.16
1.19
1.13
1.10
1.14
1.26
1.14
0.81
0.91
0.97
1.20
0.94
0.63
1.05
0.86
0.98
1.67
1.37
1.34
1.24
1.05
0.93
0.89
0.79
0.77
0.52
0.48
0.52
0.59
0.45
0.42
0.58
0.46
0.33
0.30
0.44
0.26
0.37
0.26
0.34
0.32
0.47
0.36
0.41
0.34
0.26
0.19
0.36
0.54
0.40
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.38
0.37
0.41
0.52
0.46
0.43
0.42
0.52
0.48
0.50
0.39
0.32
0.39
0.34
0.34
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.23
Characteristic
Deflection
1.68
1.62
2.23
1.84
1.57
1.64
2.09
1.85
1.94
1.72
1.81
1.67
2.02
1.73
1.97
1.87
1.65
1.48
1.86
2.34
1.95
1.43
1.52
1.57
1.95
1.68
1.46
2.08
1.77
1.85
2.51
2.40
2.29
2.23
1.83
1.56
1.68
1.46
1.44
0.97
0.89
0.88
1.05
Average Deflection (mm)
1.82
1.84
1.73
1.63
Benkelman Beam Deflection (BBD) technique is widely used all over the world for
Evaluation of structural capacity of Existing Flexible Pavements and also for Estimation and
Design of overlays for strengthening of any weak pavement. The various parameters like
pavement surface temperature, subgrade soil type, its moisture content and compaction, the
thickness and quality of pavement courses, drainage conditions and their influence on
pavement deflection and service behavior are also to be accounted properly while
computation of the characteristic and true deflections.
Conclusion
.
It may be noted that the existing pavement structure of SH-73 is required to sustain the
dynamic load of Aircraft of A319, A320 and CRJ-700 for only one flight per day at present. If
the flight frequency increases in future the same pavement crust thickness will not be able to
perform as seen from the values of the Characteristic Deflections varies from 1.77 mm to
3.114 mm unless appropriate actions for strengthening of pavement structure are being taken
as early as possible. If the overlay for strengthening National Highway/Expressway is to be
carried out for 10 to 100 msa, the thickness of overlay in mm in terms of Bituminous
Macadam varies from 120 mm to 250 mm as per IRC: 81-1997 for characteristic deflection
varies from 2.0 mm to 3.15 mm as obtained in this study. 70% of the design overlay thickness
is to be considered, if the BM is replaced by DAC/SDAC/DBM/AC/SDC as per IRC:81-1997
guide lines. It may be noted that the strengthening of any given pavement structure for the
applied wheel load varying from 0.1 to 100 msa become necessary when the characteristic
deflection
is
found
more
than
3.0mm
to
0.5mm
respectively.
It is also recommended that the characteristic deflections obtained in different section of

runway from Benkelman Beam Deflection Testing should be appropriately used for
strengthening the runway by providing suitable thickness of overlays as per the code of
design, or practice followed in the department of AAI as early as possible for the safety of
Flight Operation.
CHAPTER -7
UNEVENESS STUDY BY INTERNATIONAL ROUGHNESS INDEX
USING ROAD ROUGHOMETER
Pavement surface unevenness plays a pivotal role on roughness index of road which affects
on riding comfort ability. Comfort ability refers to the degree of protection offered to vehicle
occupants from uneven elements in the road surface. So, it is preferable to have a lower
roughness index value for a better riding quality of road users. Roughness is generally
defined as an expression of irregularities in the pavement surface which can be measured
using different equipments like MERLIN, Bump integrator, Profilometer etc. Among them
Bump Integrator is quite simple and less time consuming in case of long road sections. A case
study is conducted on State Highway SH-73 to determine roughness index (RI) using Bump
Integrator at the standard speed of 32 km/h.
PAVEMENT indices are the key measures for better understanding of the present condition,
serviceability and performance of the pavement. Roughness is widely regarded as the most
important measure of pavement indices which affects safety, comfort, travel speed, vehicle
operating costs etc. Therefore, it has been considered as one of the key factors to make a
decision for further road works. Recent literature regarding optimization of pavement
maintenance strategies also addresses roughness as an important indicator that affects
lifecycle costs of a road stretch. But evaluation of roughness of pavement surface is very
difficult as it also depends on the working principal or strategy of measuring instruments in
addition to the actual road surface conditions. Different instruments have been developed by
different agencies and standardized at different manner for the collection of pavement
roughness data. Among various instruments, Towed Fifth Wheel Bump Integrator is the most
popular equipment being used by several organizations in developing countries because it is
affordable, simple and quite easy to operate. It also needs less frequent maintenance and
calibration technique. But this instrument is standardized to a particular speed value of
32km/h. That means for accurate roughness result the surveyor have to drive this instrument
at a speed of 32km/h. If the speed changes from 32km/h, the instrument will show different
values of roughness and this value will not match with the actual profile of the road surface.
Thats why it is mandatory to maintain the constant speed of 32km/h throughout the road. But
sometimes it is not possible to retain this constant speed in field due to traffic variance, sharp
horizontal curve, steep gradient, narrow path etc. Somewhere it needs to increase or decrease
.
the vehicle speed while driving a long travel distance. Therefore, it becomes very essential to
negotiate this drawback of Bump Integrator instrument so that it may possible to evaluate the
RI value even it is operated in any speed other than its standard speed of 32km/h. Some
correlations between BI values of surface roughness at standard speed and BI values of
surface roughness at various speeds have been presented in this report
BUMP INTEGRATOR
It is an automatic Road Unevenness Recorder, an indigenous device developed by CRRI
(Central Road Research Institute). It comprises of a standard pneumatic wheel mounted
within a rectangular frame with single leaf spring on either side. Spring dashpots mounted on
the leaf spring provide damping for the suspension. An integrating unit is there which is
mounted on one side of the frame and integrates the unevenness in cm. For the measurement
it is towed by a jeep at a constant speed of 32km/h under standard tyre pressure of 2.1kg/cm2
along the designated wheel path. Bumps in cm and corresponding road length in terms of
wheel revolution pulses are displayed / recorded on a panel board. The wheel runs on the
pavement surface and the vertical reciprocating motion of the axle is converted into
unidirectional rotary motion by an integration unit. The accumulation of this unidirectional
motion is recorded by operating electronic sensors incorporated in the circuit, once for every
10mm of accumulated unevenness.
WORK METHODOLOGY
A dataset is required to test the BI value at different speeds. In this regard total 42.80Km
State Highway SH-73 (Mangsuli Lakshmeshwar stretch) of Hubli Gadag region of
Karnataka State is selected. Road is such way selected that other parameters which affects
roughness value and riding comfort ability such as soil characteristics, materials properties,
traffic condition, etc. are same for the selected four sections and each section should be
consists of noticeable surface undulations. During case study, it is noticed that the speed
change during BI test usually differs in between 20km/h to 50km/h due to traffic variance,
horizontal curve, steep gradient, narrow path etc. So, it is decided to conduct BI tests with
speeds varying from 20km/h to 50km/h with an increment of 5km/h and for correspondence
the standard speed value of 32km/h is also considered. For bump integrator reading, first the
total stretch is marked properly. Then at starting point i.e. at 0 distance, the BI reading is
adjusted to 0 cm. The instrument is driven over the stretch with a speed of 20km/h and after
crossing the end point marking; BI reading is taken and noted. The result of bump integrator
.
is generated in terms of count per km, which is the accumulation of the number of pulses in
the total stretch. Same test is repeated considering the speeds as mentioned above. During
analysis, BI values of 4 sections are used for developing the models and validating the
equations. Using SPSS software linear Regression analysis is done for developing correlation
models. Table I shows the result of BI tests at 20, 25, 30, 32, 35, 40, 45 and 50km/hr speed.
Some individual equations are developed with the BI value of standard speed of 32 km/h
against the BI values of above mentioned speeds. But it is required to generalize the
equations to expand the measuring area and for universal use of bump integrator instrument.
So, using multiple linear regression analysis by SPSS, a generalized model is developed. For
validation of the models, percentage error is calculated which may be regarded as reliable.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
It is observed that for every stretch, BI value at 20km/hr speed is highest conversely BI value
at 50km/hr is lowest. With the increase of speed, BI value is consequently decreasing. This
phenomenon can be focused to the fact that when the Bump Integrator wheel travels at higher
speed it tends to miss out micro and small distresses on the pavement surfaces, showing
lesser BI values. On the contrary, when it travels at lower speeds, it follows the actual profile
of the road surface and the wheel covers both micros as well as large scale irregularities and
hence indicates higher BI values. Graphs are plotted between the observed values taking
speeds as abscissa and corresponding BI values of roughness as coordinates. From the graphs
(Fig. 1) it is observed that for all operating speeds, BI values forms almost distinct straight
lines with a descending order slope. Table II shows the equations at corresponding speeds
with satisfactory R2 values. The generalized equation derived by multiple linear regression
analysis is established between the observed BI values at standard speed as the dependent
variable and the observed BI values at a particular speed of operation as the independent
variable and that particular speed as another independent variable (1).
(BI) 32 = 0.956(BI)V + 0.842V - 25.544 (R2 = 0.958)
(1)
where,
(BI) 32 = BI value at standard operating speed of 32 km/hr.
(BI)V = BI value at Operating speed V.
For validation of these equations, BI values at 32km/hr are calculated using the individual
equations as well as the generalized equation. The percentage of error is calculated for both
cases following (2).
V = Operating speed in km/hr.
.
% Deviation = {(observed(BI) 32 Calculated (BI) 32)} x 100
(2)
(observed(BI) 32)
It may be observed from Table III that there was not much variation between the BI values
with those of the predicted values using individual and generalized equations. The Mean
percentage error of the values with the developed individual and generalized equations were
-2.219 and -2.439 respectively. Thus the equations were found to be satisfactory for
predicting BI values when the data could not be collected at standard operating speed of
32km/hr. Also it was observed that the individual equations were more accurate than the
generalized equation.
Subject: Measurement of the Un-Eveness Index Values for the road project.
TEST DATE:
27-12-2015
Road Name:
Hubli to Lakshimashwar
.
Machine No.:
Start S.No.:
End S.No.:
VEC-96
1
428
Calibration Eq.:
S.N
o
Date
27-121
2015
27-122
2015
27-123
2015
27-124
2015
27-125
2015
27-126
2015
27-127
2015
27-128
2015
27-129
2015
27-1210
2015
27-1211
2015
27-1212
2015
27-1213
2015
27-1214
2015
27-1215
2015
27-1216
2015
27-1217
2015
27-1218
2015
27-1219
2015
27-1220
2015
27-1221
2015
27-1222
2015
23
27-12-
Y=0.8075X+690.71
Total
Dist
Dis.
Start Location:
End Location:
Road type:
Side:
Weather:
Bumps
100
100
15
100
200
16
100
300
12
100
400
12
100
500
14
100
600
14
100
700
14
100
800
12
100
900
14
100
1000
14
100
1100
14
100
1200
13
100
1300
13
100
1400
14
100
1500
14
100
1600
15
100
1700
12
100
1800
16
100
1900
13
100
2000
100
2100
15
100
100
2200
2300
16
14
UIV
150
0
160
0
120
0
120
0
140
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
140
0
140
0
140
0
130
0
130
0
140
0
140
0
150
0
120
0
160
0
130
0
900
150
0
160
0
140
1
428
Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete
LHS, First Point
DRY
Cal.UI
Typ
V
IRI Avg.
e
1901.9
1667.
6
2.64 79
b
1982.7
1
2.75
b
1659.7
1
2.31
b
1659.7
1
2.31
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1659.7
1
2.31
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1740.4
6
2.42
b
1740.4
6
2.42
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1821.2
1
2.53
b
1901.9
6
2.64
b
1659.7
1
2.31
b
1982.7
1
2.75
b
1740.4
6
2.42
b
1417.4
6
1.97
b
1901.9
6
2.64
b
1982.7
1
2.75
b
1821.2 2.53
b
Qualit
y
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
S.N
o
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
100
2400
15
100
2500
12
100
2600
11
100
2700
14
100
2800
10
100
2900
11
100
3000
12
100
3100
12
100
3200
13
100
3300
14
100
3400
14
100
3500
14
100
3600
12
100
11
Dist
3700
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
3800
11
100
3900
12
100
4000
11
100
4100
11
100
4200
12
100
4300
10
100
4400
12
100
4500
11
100
4600
10
100
100
4700
4800
10
12
0
150
0
120
0
110
0
140
0
100
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
140
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
110
0
UIV
110
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
100
0
120
0
110
0
100
0
100
0
120
0
1
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1821.2
1
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1821.2
1
1821.2
1
1821.2
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
.
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-12-
100
4900
11
100
5000
11
100
5100
11
100
5200
12
100
5300
14
100
5400
13
100
5500
12
100
5600
10
100
5700
100
5800
10
100
5900
12
100
6000
12
100
6100
12
100
6200
11
100
6300
10
100
6400
10
100
6500
11
100
6600
12
100
6700
12
100
6800
12
100
6900
12
100
7000
12
100
7100
12
100
7200
12
100
7300
12
100
100
7400
7500
13
12
110
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
140
0
130
0
120
0
100
0
900
100
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
100
0
100
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
120
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1821.2
1
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1417.4
6
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1659.7
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
76
77
78
79
80
S.N
o
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
.
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
100
7600
13
100
7700
11
100
7800
12
100
7900
11
100
11
Dist
8000
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
8100
11
100
8200
11
100
8300
10
100
8400
11
100
8500
11
100
8600
11
100
8700
11
100
8800
11
100
8900
11
100
9000
11
100
9100
11
100
9200
12
100
9300
11
100
9400
10
100
9500
10
100
9600
12
100
9700
13
100
9800
14
100
9900
13
100
10000
13
0
130
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
UIV
110
0
110
0
100
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
100
0
100
0
120
0
130
0
140
0
130
0
130
0
1
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1821.2
1
1740.4
6
1740.4
6
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
S.N
o
124
125
126
.
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-12-
100
10100
12
100
10200
12
100
10300
11
100
10400
11
100
10500
100
10600
12
100
10700
11
100
10800
12
100
10900
11
100
11000
12
100
11100
12
100
11200
13
100
11300
11
100
11400
100
11500
12
100
11600
12
100
11700
13
100
11800
14
100
11900
15
100
12000
16
100
12100
11
100
12200
11
100
11
Dist
12300
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
12400
13
100
100
12500
12600
14
15
120
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
900
120
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
110
0
900
120
0
120
0
130
0
140
0
150
0
160
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
UIV
130
0
140
0
150
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1417.4
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
1417.4
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1821.2
1
1901.9
6
1982.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1740.4
6
1821.2
1
1901.9
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
1708.
2.42 97
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.42
GOOD
2.53
2.64
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
100
12700
15
100
12800
15
100
12900
16
100
13000
15
100
13100
14
100
13200
12
100
13300
16
100
13400
16
100
13500
16
100
13600
13
100
13700
10
100
13800
12
100
13900
12
100
14000
14
100
14100
15
100
14200
14
100
14300
12
100
14400
12
100
14500
12
100
14600
12
100
14700
13
100
14800
12
100
14900
12
100
15000
12
100
100
15100
15200
12
13
0
150
0
150
0
160
0
150
0
140
0
120
0
160
0
160
0
160
0
130
0
100
0
120
0
120
0
140
0
150
0
140
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
6
1901.9
6
1901.9
6
1982.7
1
1901.9
6
1821.2
1
1659.7
1
1982.7
1
1982.7
1
1982.7
1
1740.4
6
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1821.2
1
1901.9
6
1821.2
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
2.42
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
S.N
o
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
.
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-12-
100
15300
13
100
15400
12
100
15500
15
100
15600
16
100
15700
11
100
15800
11
100
15900
12
100
16000
11
100
16100
12
100
16200
11
100
16300
11
100
16400
11
100
16500
15
100
11
Dist
16600
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
16700
12
100
16800
11
100
16900
10
100
17000
11
100
17100
12
100
17200
13
100
17300
14
100
17400
15
100
17500
14
100
17600
12
100
100
17700
17800
16
15
130
0
120
0
150
0
160
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
150
0
110
0
UIV
120
0
110
0
100
0
110
0
120
0
130
0
140
0
150
0
140
0
120
0
160
0
150
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1901.9
6
1982.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1901.9
6
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1821.2
1
1901.9
6
1821.2
1
1659.7
1
1982.7
1
1901.9
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.75
2.64
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
100
17900
13
100
18000
12
100
18100
15
100
18200
16
100
18300
14
100
18400
15
100
18500
10
100
18600
14
100
18700
10
100
18800
13
100
18900
12
100
19000
11
100
19100
11
100
19200
10
100
19300
11
100
19400
10
100
19500
11
100
19600
12
100
19700
15
100
19800
16
100
19900
12
100
20000
100
20100
11
100
20200
100
100
20300
20400
12
11
0
130
0
120
0
150
0
160
0
140
0
150
0
100
0
140
0
100
0
130
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
100
0
110
0
100
0
110
0
120
0
150
0
160
0
120
0
900
110
0
900
120
0
110
0
6
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1901.9
6
1982.7
1
1821.2
1
1901.9
6
1498.2
1
1821.2
1
1498.2
1
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1901.9
6
1982.7
1
1659.7
1
1417.4
6
1578.9
6
1417.4
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1621.
2.19 76
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
2.19
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
205
206
207
208
209
S.N
o
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
.
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-12-
110
0
100
0
100
0
110
0
110
0
100
20500
11
100
20600
10
100
20700
10
100
20800
11
100
11
Dist
20900
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
21000
11
UIV
110
0
100
21100
900
100
21200
700
100
21300
900
100
21400
100
21500
10
100
21600
10
900
100
0
100
0
100
21700
100
21800
14
100
21900
16
100
22000
16
100
22100
15
100
22200
13
100
22300
15
100
22400
14
100
22500
14
100
22600
13
100
22700
11
100
22800
11
100
100
22900
23000
10
10
900
140
0
160
0
160
0
150
0
130
0
150
0
140
0
140
0
130
0
110
0
110
0
100
0
100
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1578.9
6
1417.4
6
1255.9
6
1417.4
6
1417.4
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1417.4
6
1821.2
1
1982.7
1
1982.7
1
1901.9
6
1740.4
6
1901.9
6
1821.2
1
1821.2
1
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.74
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
2.08
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
S.N
o
253
254
255
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
0
100
23100
900
100
23200
900
100
23300
100
23400
10
100
23500
11
100
23600
10
100
23700
10
100
23800
11
100
23900
10
100
24000
12
100
24100
11
900
100
0
110
0
100
0
100
0
110
0
100
0
120
0
110
0
100
24200
100
24300
10
100
24400
10
900
100
0
100
0
100
24500
900
100
24600
900
100
24700
100
24800
11
100
24900
13
100
25000
12
100
25100
11
100
10
Dist
25200
Total
Dis.
900
110
0
130
0
120
0
110
0
100
0
Bumps
100
25300
11
100
100
25400
25500
11
10
UIV
110
0
110
0
100
0
1
1417.4
6
1417.4
6
1417.4
6
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1417.4
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1417.4
6
1417.4
6
1417.4
6
1578.9
6
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
Cal.UI
V
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.19
GOOD
2.19
2.08
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
.
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-12-
100
25600
12
100
25700
10
100
25800
13
100
25900
11
100
26000
11
100
26100
11
100
26200
11
100
26300
15
100
26400
15
100
26500
10
100
26600
15
100
26700
15
100
26800
11
100
26900
11
100
27000
15
100
27100
10
100
27200
12
100
27300
11
100
27400
15
100
27500
15
100
27600
12
100
27700
10
100
27800
10
100
27900
13
100
28000
12
100
100
28100
28200
12
11
120
0
100
0
130
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
150
0
150
0
100
0
150
0
150
0
110
0
110
0
150
0
100
0
120
0
110
0
150
0
150
0
120
0
100
0
100
0
130
0
120
0
120
0
110
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1901.9
6
1901.9
6
1498.2
1
1901.9
6
1901.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1901.9
6
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1901.9
6
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
2.19
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
S.N
o
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
100
28300
12
100
28400
11
100
28500
13
100
28600
13
100
28700
15
100
28800
12
100
28900
16
100
29000
14
100
29100
12
100
29200
13
100
29300
15
100
29400
12
100
11
Dist
29500
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
29600
12
100
29700
10
100
29800
12
100
29900
11
100
30000
11
100
30100
13
100
30200
13
100
30300
14
100
30400
16
100
30500
16
100
100
30600
30700
15
15
0
120
0
110
0
130
0
130
0
150
0
120
0
160
0
140
0
120
0
130
0
150
0
120
0
110
0
UIV
120
0
100
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
130
0
130
0
140
0
160
0
160
0
150
0
150
0
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1740.4
6
1740.4
6
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1982.7
1
1821.2
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1740.4
6
1740.4
6
1821.2
1
1982.7
1
1982.7
1
1901.9
6
1901.9
6
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1668.
2.42 54
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
2.64
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
.
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-12-
100
30800
12
100
30900
10
100
31000
12
100
31100
12
100
31200
12
100
31300
11
100
31400
11
100
31500
11
100
31600
10
100
31700
12
100
31800
11
100
31900
15
100
32000
11
100
32100
10
100
32200
11
100
32300
12
100
32400
13
100
32500
12
100
32600
12
100
32700
15
100
32800
15
100
32900
12
100
33000
13
100
33100
15
100
33200
11
100
100
33300
33400
12
13
120
0
100
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
100
0
120
0
110
0
150
0
110
0
100
0
110
0
120
0
130
0
120
0
120
0
150
0
150
0
120
0
130
0
150
0
110
0
120
0
130
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1901.9
6
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1901.9
6
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1901.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
2.42
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
335
336
337
338
S.N
o
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
100
33500
15
100
33600
13
100
33700
12
100
11
Dist
33800
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
33900
15
100
34000
14
100
34100
12
100
34200
11
100
34300
12
100
34400
13
100
34500
15
100
34600
11
100
34700
12
100
34800
14
100
34900
15
100
35000
12
100
35100
13
100
35200
11
100
35300
10
100
35400
12
100
35500
10
100
35600
15
100
35700
12
100
100
35800
35900
11
12
0
150
0
130
0
120
0
110
0
UIV
150
0
140
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
130
0
150
0
110
0
120
0
140
0
150
0
120
0
130
0
110
0
100
0
120
0
100
0
150
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
6
1901.9
6
1740.4
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1901.9
6
1821.2
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1901.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1821.2
1
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
2.64
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
S.N
o
382
383
384
385
.
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-12-
100
36000
15
100
36100
16
100
36200
13
100
36300
10
100
36400
10
100
36500
10
100
36600
11
100
36700
12
100
36800
11
100
36900
10
100
37000
10
100
37100
10
100
37200
15
100
37300
10
100
37400
10
100
37500
11
100
37600
11
100
37700
11
100
37800
12
100
37900
12
100
38000
13
100
15
Dist
38100
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
38200
12
100
38300
11
100
100
38400
38500
15
12
150
0
160
0
130
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
150
0
100
0
100
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
150
0
UIV
120
0
110
0
150
0
120
1901.9
6
1982.7
1
1740.4
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1901.9
6
1498.2
1
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1901.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1901.9
6
1659.7
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
2015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
130
0
150
0
100
38600
11
100
38700
11
100
38800
12
100
38900
13
100
39000
15
100
39100
100
39200
12
100
39300
13
100
39400
10
100
39500
14
100
39600
15
100
39700
100
39800
12
100
39900
11
100
40000
100
40100
12
100
40200
10
900
120
0
100
0
100
40300
800
100
40400
100
40500
13
900
130
0
100
40600
900
100
40700
100
40800
13
100
40900
11
100
100
41000
41100
12
13
900
130
0
110
0
120
0
130
0
800
120
0
130
0
100
0
140
0
150
0
800
120
0
110
0
1
1578.9
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1901.9
6
1336.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1498.2
1
1821.2
1
1901.9
6
1336.7
1
1659.7
1
1578.9
6
1417.4
6
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1336.7
1
1417.4
6
1740.4
6
1417.4
6
1417.4
6
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
2.42
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
S.N
o
425
426
427
428
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
Date
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
27-122015
TEST DATE:
Machine No.:
Start S.No.:
End S.No.:
100
41200
100
41300
10
100
41400
100
41500
12
100
41600
10
100
41700
11
100
41800
15
100
41900
12
100
42000
12
100
42100
13
100
42200
11
100
42300
13
100
11
Dist
42400
Total
Dis.
Bumps
100
42500
14
100
42600
15
100
42700
16
100
42800
16
28-12-2015
VEC-96
428
1
Calibration Eq.:Y=0.8075X+690.71
S.N
Dis
o
Date
t
Total Dis.
28-1210
428
2015
0
100
28-1210
427
2015
0
200
28-1210
426
2015
0
300
425
28-1210
400
.
800
100
0
900
120
0
100
0
110
0
150
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
110
0
130
0
110
0
UIV
140
0
150
0
160
0
160
0
Road Name:
Start Location:
End Location:
Road type:
Side:
Weather:
Bumps
16
14
15
14
UIV
160
0
140
0
150
0
140
1336.7
1
1498.2
1
1417.4
6
1659.7
1
1498.2
1
1578.9
6
1901.9
6
1659.7
1
1659.7
1
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
1740.4
6
1578.9
6
Cal.UI
V
1821.2
1
1901.9
6
1982.7
1
1982.7
1
1.86
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
b
Typ
e
GOOD
Qualit
y
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
IRI
Avg.
Hubli to Lakshmeshwar
428
1
Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete
RHS, First Point
DRY
Cal.UI
Typ
V
IRI
Avg
e
1982.
1616.9
71
2.75
1
b
1821.
21
2.53
b
1901.
96
2.64
b
1821. 2.53
b
Qualit
y
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
424
423
422
421
420
419
418
417
416
415
414
413
412
411
410
409
408
407
406
405
404
403
402
401
400
399
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
500
16
600
16
700
11
800
12
900
16
1000
13
1100
14
1200
14
1300
12
1400
12
1500
15
1600
10
1700
10
1800
11
1900
10
2000
11
2100
2200
10
2300
2400
10
2500
10
2600
2700
12
2800
11
2900
3000
10
10
0
160
0
160
0
110
0
120
0
160
0
130
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
120
0
150
0
100
0
100
0
110
0
100
0
110
0
900
100
0
900
100
0
100
0
900
120
0
110
0
100
0
100
0
21
1982.
71
1982.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1982.
71
1740.
46
1821.
21
1821.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1901.
96
1498.
21
1498.
21
1578.
96
1498.
21
1578.
96
1417.
46
1498.
21
1417.
46
1498.
21
1498.
21
1417.
46
1659.
71
1578.
96
1498.
21
1498.
21
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
2.08
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
398
S.N
o
397
396
395
394
393
392
391
390
389
388
387
386
385
384
383
382
381
380
379
378
377
376
375
374
.
28-122015
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
10
0
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
3100
10
Total Dis.
Bumps
3200
11
3300
10
3400
3500
10
3600
13
3700
11
3800
11
3900
12
4000
10
4100
11
4200
13
4300
11
4400
14
4500
13
4600
14
4700
14
4800
12
4900
12
5000
12
5100
15
5200
10
5300
10
5400
5500
10
12
100
0
UIV
110
0
100
0
900
100
0
130
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
100
0
110
0
130
0
110
0
140
0
130
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
150
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
120
1498.
21
Cal.UI
V
1578.
96
1498.
21
1417.
46
1498.
21
1740.
46
1578.
96
1578.
96
1659.
71
1498.
21
1578.
96
1740.
46
1578.
96
1821.
21
1740.
46
1821.
21
1821.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1901.
96
1498.
21
1498.
21
1498.
21
1659.
2.08
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg
373
372
371
370
369
368
367
366
365
364
363
362
361
360
359
358
357
356
355
S.N
o
354
353
352
351
350
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
0
110
0
5600
11
5700
5800
12
5900
6000
15
6100
6200
10
6300
12
6400
11
6500
10
6600
10
6700
11
900
100
0
120
0
110
0
100
0
100
0
110
0
6800
900
6900
800
7000
7100
11
7200
10
7300
10
900
110
0
100
0
100
0
7400
900
71
1578.
96
1417.
46
1659.
71
1417.
46
1901.
96
1417.
46
1498.
21
1659.
71
1578.
96
1498.
21
1498.
21
1578.
96
1417.
46
1336.
71
1417.
46
1578.
96
1498.
21
1498.
21
1417.
46
Total Dis.
Bumps
7500
12
7600
12
7700
12
7800
7900
12
12
UIV
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
Cal.UI
V
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
900
120
0
900
150
0
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg
349
348
347
346
345
344
343
342
341
340
339
338
337
336
335
334
333
332
331
330
329
328
327
326
325
324
323
.
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
8000
12
8100
12
8200
12
8300
11
120
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
8400
800
8500
8600
12
800
120
0
8700
8800
12
8900
14
9000
14
9100
12
9200
11
9300
13
9400
12
9500
14
9600
9700
12
9800
14
9900
10
10000
900
120
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
110
0
130
0
120
0
140
0
900
120
0
140
0
100
0
10100
11
10200
11
10300
12
900
110
0
110
0
120
0
10400
900
10500
10600
9
13
900
130
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1336.
71
1336.
71
1659.
71
1417.
46
1659.
71
1821.
21
1821.
21
1659.
71
1578.
96
1740.
46
1659.
71
1821.
21
1417.
46
1659.
71
1821.
21
1498.
21
1417.
46
1578.
96
1578.
96
1659.
71
1417.
46
1417.
46
1740.
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
2.42
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
1.97
2.19
1651.6
4
322
321
320
319
318
317
316
315
314
313
312
S.N
o
311
310
309
308
307
306
305
304
303
302
301
300
299
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10700
10
10800
11
10900
11
11000
10
11100
12
11200
11
11300
12
11400
12
11500
12
11600
13
11700
13
Total Dis.
Bumps
11800
15
11900
16
12000
15
12100
14
12200
13
12300
15
12400
14
12500
15
12600
16
12700
11
12800
11
12900
13000
11
14
0
100
0
110
0
110
0
100
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
130
0
46
1498.
21
1578.
96
1578.
96
1498.
21
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1740.
46
1740.
46
UIV
150
0
160
0
150
0
140
0
130
0
150
0
140
0
150
0
160
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
140
0
Cal.UI
V
1901.
96
1982.
71
1901.
96
1821.
21
1740.
46
1901.
96
1821.
21
1901.
96
1982.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1578.
96
1821.
21
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
2.53
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg
298
297
296
295
294
293
292
291
290
289
288
287
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
276
275
274
273
272
.
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
13100
14
13200
13
13300
13
13400
11
13500
16
13600
16
13700
14
13800
11
13900
12
14000
11
14100
12
14200
12
14300
11
14400
14500
12
14600
10
14700
12
14800
12
14900
12
15000
12
15100
11
15200
12
15300
11
15400
11
15500
15600
15700
11
11
140
0
130
0
130
0
110
0
160
0
160
0
140
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
900
120
0
100
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
900
110
0
110
1821.
21
1740.
46
1740.
46
1578.
96
1982.
71
1982.
71
1821.
21
1578.
96
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1417.
46
1659.
71
1498.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1417.
46
1578.
96
1578.
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.19
2.19
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
271
270
269
S.N
o
268
267
266
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
15800
11
15900
11
16000
11
Total Dis.
Bumps
16100
11
16200
11
16300
14
16400
14
16500
11
16600
11
16700
12
16800
11
16900
17000
12
17100
11
17200
11
17300
11
17400
11
17500
12
17600
14
17700
14
17800
12
17900
12
18000
18100
12
12
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
UIV
110
0
110
0
140
0
140
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
900
120
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
96
1578.
96
1578.
96
1578.
96
Cal.UI
V
1578.
96
1578.
96
1821.
21
1821.
21
1578.
96
1578.
96
1659.
71
1578.
96
1417.
46
1659.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1578.
96
1578.
96
1659.
71
1821.
21
1821.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg
247
246
245
244
243
242
241
240
239
238
237
236
235
234
233
232
231
230
229
228
227
226
S.N
o
225
224
223
.
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
18200
10
18300
11
18400
11
18500
10
18600
12
18700
12
18800
11
18900
11
19000
10
19100
12
19200
12
19300
12
19400
12
19500
11
19600
11
19700
13
19800
12
19900
11
20000
12
20100
11
20200
13
20300
12
Total Dis.
Bumps
20400
12
20500
20600
16
14
100
0
110
0
110
0
100
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
100
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
130
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
130
0
120
0
1498.
21
1578.
96
1578.
96
1498.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1498.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1740.
46
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1578.
96
1740.
46
1659.
71
UIV
120
0
160
0
140
Cal.UI
V
1659.
71
1982.
71
1821.
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.31
GOOD
2.75
2.53
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
2.42
1764.6
9
2.31
IRI
Avg
222
221
220
219
218
217
216
215
214
213
212
211
210
209
208
207
206
205
204
203
202
201
200
199
198
197
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
20700
16
20800
11
20900
11
21000
13
21100
11
21200
12
21300
12
21400
11
21500
12
21600
14
21700
14
21800
12
21900
13
22000
13
22100
12
22200
11
22300
12
22400
14
22500
14
22600
13
22700
16
22800
15
22900
12
23000
12
23100
23200
11
12
0
160
0
110
0
110
0
130
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
130
0
130
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
140
0
140
0
130
0
160
0
150
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
21
1982.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1740.
46
1578.
96
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1821.
21
1821.
21
1659.
71
1740.
46
1740.
46
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1821.
21
1821.
21
1740.
46
1982.
71
1901.
96
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
2.75
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
196
195
194
193
192
191
190
189
188
187
186
185
184
183
S.N
o
182
181
180
179
178
177
176
175
174
173
172
.
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
23300
14
23400
13
23500
12
23600
13
23700
14
23800
15
23900
16
24000
12
24100
15
24200
16
24300
16
24400
14
24500
15
24600
14
Total Dis.
Bumps
24700
14
24800
16
24900
16
25000
15
25100
15
25200
14
25300
13
25400
16
25500
12
25600
25700
13
12
140
0
130
0
120
0
130
0
140
0
150
0
160
0
120
0
150
0
160
0
160
0
140
0
150
0
140
0
1821.
21
1740.
46
1659.
71
1740.
46
1821.
21
1901.
96
1982.
71
1659.
71
1901.
96
1982.
71
1982.
71
1821.
21
1901.
96
1821.
21
UIV
140
0
160
0
160
0
150
0
150
0
140
0
130
0
160
0
120
0
130
0
120
Cal.UI
V
1821.
21
1982.
71
1982.
71
1901.
96
1901.
96
1821.
21
1740.
46
1982.
71
1659.
71
1740.
46
1659.
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.53
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg
171
170
169
168
167
166
165
164
163
162
161
160
159
158
157
156
155
154
153
152
151
150
149
148
147
146
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
25800
12
25900
12
26000
16
26100
14
26200
12
26300
12
26400
12
26500
12
26600
13
26700
14
26800
12
26900
10
27000
12
27100
14
27200
14
27300
13
27400
13
27500
12
27600
11
27700
12
27800
15
27900
15
28000
14
28100
14
28200
28300
14
15
0
120
0
120
0
160
0
140
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
140
0
120
0
100
0
120
0
140
0
140
0
130
0
130
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
150
0
150
0
140
0
140
0
140
0
150
0
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1982.
71
1821.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1740.
46
1821.
21
1659.
71
1498.
21
1659.
71
1821.
21
1821.
21
1740.
46
1740.
46
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1901.
96
1901.
96
1821.
21
1821.
21
1821.
21
1901.
96
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
2.64
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
145
144
143
142
141
140
S.N
o
139
138
137
136
135
134
133
132
131
130
129
128
127
126
125
124
123
122
121
.
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
28400
15
28500
15
28600
13
28700
11
28800
11
150
0
150
0
130
0
110
0
110
0
28900
900
Total Dis.
Bumps
29000
15
29100
12
29200
16
29300
16
29400
11
29500
15
29600
16
29700
12
29800
14
29900
13
30000
15
30100
14
30200
11
UIV
150
0
120
0
160
0
160
0
110
0
150
0
160
0
120
0
140
0
130
0
150
0
140
0
110
0
30300
800
30400
30500
12
30600
12
30700
30800
15
13
800
120
0
120
0
150
0
130
1901.
96
1901.
96
1740.
46
1578.
96
1578.
96
1417.
46
Cal.UI
V
1901.
96
1659.
71
1982.
71
1982.
71
1578.
96
1901.
96
1982.
71
1659.
71
1821.
21
1740.
46
1901.
96
1821.
21
1578.
96
1336.
71
1336.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1901.
96
1740.
2.64
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.64
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
2.42
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg
2.64
2.53
1667.9
1
97
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
S.N
o
Date
Dis
t
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99
98
0
120
0
140
0
140
0
120
0
130
0
130
0
130
0
120
0
120
0
140
0
130
0
130
0
140
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
30900
12
31000
14
31100
14
31200
12
31300
13
31400
13
31500
13
31600
12
31700
12
31800
14
31900
13
32000
13
32100
14
32200
12
32300
12
32400
11
32500
32600
10
32700
12
900
100
0
120
0
32800
900
32900
900
33000
33100
11
33200
10
900
110
0
100
0
46
1659.
71
1821.
21
1821.
21
1659.
71
1740.
46
1740.
46
1740.
46
1659.
71
1659.
71
1821.
21
1740.
46
1740.
46
1821.
21
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1417.
46
1498.
21
1659.
71
1417.
46
1417.
46
1417.
46
1578.
96
1498.
21
Total Dis.
Bumps
UIV
Cal.UI
V
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
IRI
Avg
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
.
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
33300
900
33400
800
33500
800
33600
33700
10
900
100
0
33800
900
33900
34000
10
900
100
0
34100
800
34200
34300
12
34400
13
700
120
0
130
0
34500
34600
11
34700
12
34800
13
34900
11
35000
12
35100
12
35200
13
35300
12
35400
12
35500
12
35600
12
35700
13
35800
35900
13
12
900
110
0
120
0
130
0
110
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
130
0
120
1417.
46
1336.
71
1336.
71
1417.
46
1498.
21
1417.
46
1417.
46
1498.
21
1336.
71
1255.
96
1659.
71
1740.
46
1417.
46
1578.
96
1659.
71
1740.
46
1578.
96
1659.
71
1659.
71
1740.
46
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1740.
46
1740.
46
1659.
1.97
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.86
GOOD
1.74
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.42
2.31
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
S.N
o
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
36000
12
36100
11
36200
13
36300
12
36400
12
36500
13
36600
12
36700
14
36800
12
36900
11
37000
11
37100
12
37200
14
37300
12
37400
14
37500
12
Total Dis.
Bumps
37600
14
37700
12
37800
11
37900
38000
11
38100
10
38200
38300
9
11
0
120
0
110
0
130
0
120
0
120
0
130
0
120
0
140
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
140
0
120
0
140
0
120
0
UIV
140
0
120
0
110
0
900
110
0
100
0
900
110
0
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1740.
46
1659.
71
1659.
71
1740.
46
1659.
71
1821.
21
1659.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1659.
71
1821.
21
1659.
71
1821.
21
1659.
71
Cal.UI
V
1821.
21
1659.
71
1578.
96
1417.
46
1578.
96
1498.
21
1417.
46
1578.
96
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.53
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
1.97
2.19
b
b
GOOD
GOOD
IRI
Avg
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
.
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-12-
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
38400
11
38500
12
38600
12
38700
12
38800
12
38900
11
39000
14
39100
14
39200
16
39300
16
39400
16
39500
13
39600
12
39700
12
39800
11
39900
12
40000
11
40100
11
40200
10
40300
11
40400
14
40500
16
40600
16
40700
15
40800
16
40900
41000
15
18
110
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
140
0
140
0
160
0
160
0
160
0
130
0
120
0
120
0
110
0
120
0
110
0
110
0
100
0
110
0
140
0
160
0
160
0
150
0
160
0
150
0
180
1578.
96
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1821.
21
1821.
21
1982.
71
1982.
71
1982.
71
1740.
46
1659.
71
1659.
71
1578.
96
1659.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1498.
21
1578.
96
1821.
21
1982.
71
1982.
71
1901.
96
1982.
71
1901.
96
2144.
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.08
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
2.98
b
b
GOOD
AVERA
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
S.N
o
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
Date
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
28-122015
Dis
t
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
41100
15
41200
16
41300
11
41400
11
41500
11
41600
12
41700
15
41800
13
Total Dis.
Bumps
41900
14
42000
13
42100
12
42200
14
42300
11
42400
42500
15
42600
16
42700
16
42800
15
0
150
0
160
0
110
0
110
0
110
0
120
0
150
0
130
0
UIV
140
0
130
0
120
0
140
0
110
0
900
150
0
160
0
160
0
150
0
21
1901.
96
1982.
71
1578.
96
1578.
96
1578.
96
1659.
71
1901.
96
1740.
46
Cal.UI
V
1821.
21
1740.
46
1659.
71
1821.
21
1578.
96
1417.
46
1901.
96
1982.
71
1982.
71
1901.
96
GE
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
Typ
e
Quality
2.53
GOOD
2.42
GOOD
2.31
GOOD
2.53
GOOD
2.19
GOOD
1.97
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.75
GOOD
2.64
GOOD
IRI
Avg
CHAPTER - 8
DATA COLLECTED
5.1 Obtaining road profile like Curvature, Rise and fall:
We have taken a stretch of every 10.0 km of SH-73 (State Highway) road,
mentioned as part of Mangsuli-Laxshmeshwar State Highway(SH-73), from Hubli to
Lakshmeshwar for 42.80 Km length stretch only. The Sections are demarked as
Section 1, Section -2, Section -3 and Section -4 as shown in figures 5.1 - 5.4
respectively. The road profiles like curvature, rise and fall and elevation are obtained
from Google earth.
Fig 5.1 SECTION-1 (For 10 Km)
Fig 5.2- SECTION-2(For 10 Km)
Fig 5.3-SECTION -3 (For 10.0 Km)
Fig 5.4-SECTION -4 (For 12.8 Km)
Road inventory data for different road stretches are as shown in table 5.1
Table 5.1: Road inventory data for different road stretches
Section
ID
Length
(Km)
Curvature
(Deg/Km)
Surface
material
No
of
lanes
Shoulder
width
(m)
Speed
limit
(Kmph)
Altitude
(mt)
Rise &
Fall
(m/km)
10
Carriage
Way
width
(mt)
5.00
1.9
60
623
142.3
10
5.50
2.1
60
632
26.55
10
5.50
1.1
60
632
41.57
12.8
5.00
0.86
Bituminous
concrete
Bituminous
concrete
Bituminous
concrete
Bituminous
concrete
60
661
80.00
5.2 Midblock traffic survey:
Traffic survey is conducted on the selected road on selected week days i.e., Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, for peak hours i.e., from morning 8-12 and evening 4-8. The
traffic volume is calculated for the selected sections separately. We have considered 8 types
of vehicles car, bus, LCV, truck, tractor, two wheeler and auto rickshaw. PCU (passenger car
unit) is calculated for the road using the equivalency factors given in the IRC 106:1990 as
shown in table 5.2
Table 5.2 Equivalency Factors Suggested by IRC 106:1990
Sl.No
Equivalency Factors
5%
10%
Vehicle Class
Two wheelers, Motor cycle
0.5
0.75
Passenger Car, Van
1.0
1.0
Auto Rickshaw
1.2
2.0
Light Commercial Vehicle
1.4
2.0
5
6
7
8
Truck or Bus
Hand cart
Pedal cycle
Tractor with Trailer
2.2
2.0
0.4
4.0
3.7
3.0
0.5
5.0
The maximum peak hour traffic is calculated for the section and PCU is calculated by
multiplying the traffic volume by expansion factors for the vehicles given in IRC 106- 1990
and the maximum PCU value for the section 1, section 2, section 3 & section 4 is calculated
as shown in table 5.3 to 5.6 respectively. The traffic volume composition adopted for this
study is given in the Figure 5.7 to 5.10
5.3 Calculation of AADT:
Average Annual daily traffic (AADT) is calculated using the formula as given below:
AADT=
Total PCU*10*1.05,
Where 1.05 is Expansion Factor
The average annual daily traffic for the section is calculated by multiplying the passenger car
unit by 10 to convert it into average daily traffic and ADT is multiplied with expansion factor
to get average annual daily traffic for the section.
vehicles
No.
2 wheelers
Truck
Tractor
Car
Bus
Auto Rickshaw
Mini Bus
800
50
30
200
30
20
15
114
PCU factor from

IRC 106
0.5
3
4.5
1
3
2
2
5
AADT=
Total PCU*10*1.05 =
PCU
(No.*PCU
factor)
400
150
135
200
90
40
30
AADT
AADT
%
0.69869
0.043668
0.026201
0.174672
0.026201
0.017467
0.0131
69.87
4.37
2.62
17.47
2.62
1.75
1.31
1045
10972.5
Table 5.3 Traffic in terms of PCU for the section-1
Figure 5.7 Vehicle composition along section-1
vehicles
2 wheelers
Truck
Tractor
Car
Bus
Auto Rickshaw
Mini Bus
No.
PCU factor
from IRC 106
710
0.5
55
3
40
4.5
175
1
30
3
20
2
12
2
1042
AADT= Total PCU*10*1.05 =
PCU
(No.*PCU
factor)
355
165
180
175
90
40
24
1029
10804.5
AADT
AADT
%
0.681382
0.052783
0.038388
0.167946
0.028791
0.019194
0.011516
68.14
5.28
3.84
16.79
2.88
1.92
1.15
Figure 5.8: Vehicle composition along section-2
vehicles
2 wheelers
Truck
Tractor
Car
Bus
Auto Rickshaw
Mini Bus
No.
PCU factor
from IRC 106
760
0.5
50
3
32
4.5
165
1
25
3
17
2
13
2
1062
PCU
(No.*PCU
factor)
380
150
144
165
75
34
26
974
10227
AADT
AADT
%
0.715631
0.047081
0.030132
0.155367
0.02354
0.016008
0.012241
71.56
4.71
3.01
15.54
2.35
1.60
1.22
vehicles
2 wheelers
Truck
Tractor
Car
Bus
Auto Rickshaw
Mini Bus
No.
PCU factor
from IRC 106
720
0.5
55
3
40
4.5
180
1
30
3
20
2
15
2
1060
PCU
(No.*PCU
factor)
360
165
180
180
90
40
30
1045
10972.5
AADT
AADT
%
0.679245
0.051887
0.037736
0.169811
0.028302
0.018868
0.014151
67.92
5.19
3.77
16.98
2.83
1.89
1.42

AADT for the 4 sections are as follows:
Section 1 10972
Section 2 10804.5
Section 3 10227
Section 4 10972.5
CHAPTER - 9
ANALYSIS
6.1 ROAD NETWORK
Road Networks provides the basic facilities for storing characteristics of one or more road
sections. It allows users to define different networks and sub-networks, and to define road
sections, which is the fundamental unit of analysis. The data entities supported within the
road network are:
6.1.1
Sections
Sections are the lengths of road over which physical characteristics are reasonably constant.
6.1.2
.
Links
Comprise one or more sections over which traffic is reasonably constant. This is provided for
purposes of compatibility of the network referencing system with existing pavement
management systems.
6.1.3
Nodes
Intersections which connect links or other points at which there is a significant change in
traffic, carriageway characteristics, or administrative boundaries. All network data is entered
using the Road Network folder, and facilities are also available for editing, deleting and
maintaining this data. A project named road network is created including all the 3 section of
the roads as shown in figure 6.1
Fig 6.1 creating Road network
6.2 Vehicle Fleets
Vehicle Fleets provide facilities for the storage and retrieval of vehicle characteristics
required for calculating vehicle speeds, operating costs, travel time costs and other vehicle
effects. The method used to represent a vehicle fleet is considerably more adaptable with no
limit on the numbers or types of vehicles that can be specified. Motorcycles and nonmotorized vehicles are included. Multiple vehicle fleet data sets can be set up for use in
different analyses, with a wide range of default data provided as shown in figure 6.2 - 6.3.
.
Fig 6.2 creating vehicle fleet
Fig 6.3 creating vehicle fleet attributes
6.3 Importing and Exporting Data
The data required for HDM-4 analyses can be imported from existing data sources such
as pavement management systems (PMS), highway information systems, etc. The data import
into HDM-4 (as well as the export from HDM-4) is organized according to the data objects
described above (that is, road networks, vehicle fleets, maintenance and improvement
standards, HDM Configuration). The physical attributes of the selected data objects must be
exported to a data exchange file format defined for HDM-4. This permits all data required by
HDM-4 to be imported directly from any database.
6.4 PROGRAMME ANALYSIS
This deals primarily with the prioritisation of a defined long list of candidate road projects
into a one-year or multi-year work programme under defined budget constraints. The
selection criteria will normally depend on the maintenance, improvement or development
standards that a road administration may have defined. Examples of selection criteria that
may be used to identify candidate projects include:
Periodic maintenance thresholds (for example, reseal pavement surface at 20%
damage). Improvement thresholds (for example, widen roads with volume/capacity ratio
greater than 0.8). Development standards (for example, upgrade gravel roads to sealed
pavements when the annual average daily traffic exceeds 200 vehicles per day). The above
examples do not imply firm recommendations to be used by road authorities. The screen
shots showing creating new programme, defining various sections, normal traffic details,
section attribute details are as shown in fig 6.4 to 6.7 respectively.
Fig 6.4 creating new programme
The selected road stretch is included in the program analysis for the maintenance and
management. The created road network and vehicle fleet is included in the program
details. The out currency is chosen as dollar and the discount rate is assigned to be
10%.
Fig 6.5defining various sections
Under program details AADT values are fed for the sections and the vehicles are
selected and the initial composition of the total traffic volume is calculated and the
annual increase of 7.5% is considered annually.
Fig 6.6 normal traffic details
Under standard specification base alternatives and various other alternatives are
assigned for the maintenance and improvements are suggested. In base alternatives
maintenance measures such as 50 mm overlay, patching and cracking are selected.
Improvement measure such as 1 m widening is provided for 1 st alternative along with
some maintenance. 2 m widening and addition of one more lane is provided as
improvement measure for 2nd and 3rd alternative respectively. Certain maintenance
measures are also suggested.
Fig 6.7 section attribute details
CHAPTER 10
RESULTS
Program analysis is carried out to obtain the results as shown in figures 7.1,7.2,7.3 and 7.4
respectively A graph of average roughness vs time (in years) is obtained. Life cycle analysis
is performed and various maintenance and improvements are evaluated and are assigned for
the road during the design period of the road also the economic evaluation is done.
Fig 7.1 unconstrained project
Due to periodic improvement and maintenance of the roads design Speed also
increases.
7.1 Incremental
NPV/cost ranking
If the problem to be solved is too large for total enumeration, the incremental benefit/cost
method offers an alternative. It involves searching through investment options on the basis of
the incremental NPV/cost ratio of one alternative compared against another. The aim is to
select options successively with the largest incremental NPV/cost ratio, since this attempts to
maximise the NPV for any given budget constraint. Under economic indicators summary,
NPV/cost ratio is calculated. And the best economic alternative is selected for the road.
CHAPTER 11
Conclusions
Based on the analysis conducted for various road improvements, 1m widening is
found to be the most beneficial.

From the analysis, responsive maintenance is found to be more logical as we are
considering the amount of damage that the pavement has undergone.

Due to road improvement the speed on the roads has also increased
Some of the important factors that HDM 4 takes in to account include the effect of
road improvement or maintenance, the effect of deterioration of the pavement and the
effect of change in vehicle dynamics on the vehicle operation cost

IRC method of economic evaluation mainly concentrates on finding the congestion
factors to replicate the effect of congestion on the vehicle operation cost and also a
limit has been laid down that the congestion factor cannot be less than one and cannot
be greater than 2.
Based on the various improvement and maintenance strategies suggested like
rout+SD+50mm overlay, patching and crack sealing, rout+50mm overlay, the
software gave result as alternative 3 is the best choice.

For all the 3 sections alternative 3 is the most feasible one which includes
improvement strategies like lane addition (2 lanes) and maintenance strategies like
patching and crack sealing, root+50mm over lay.
REFERENCES
1. Matthew J. Korve1 and Debbie A. Niemeier, Benefit-Cost Analysis of Added Bicycle
Phase at Existing Signalized Intersection, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.
128, No. 1, January 1, 2002.
2. Ram B. Kulkarni, Deb Miller, Rosemary M. Ingram, Chi-Wah Wong and Julie
Lorenz, Need-Based Project Prioritization: Alternative to Cost-Benefit Analysis,
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 2, March 1, 2004.
3. Coray Davis and Manoj K. Jha , Modeling the Effects of Socioeconomic Factors in
Highway Construction and Expansion, , Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.
135, No. 12, December 1, 2009.
4. Amminudin
bin
ab.
Latif,
Relationship
between
International
Roughness Index( IRI) and Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

5. John L. Hine, Harlan Pangihutan Sinaga, Arfcom, Speed Profiles and Fuel
Consumption: Results from a Congested Road in Java, International Division
Transport Research Laboratory, 2002
6. Dinh Van Hiep, Koji Tsunokawa, Methodological Development of Strategy Analysis
for a Nationwide Road Network: Option Evaluation Systems with Dynamic
Sectioning, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8,
2010.
7. H.R. Kerali, J.B. Odoki, D.C. Wightman and E.E. Stannard, Structure Of The New
Highway Development and Management Tools (Hdm-4), 4th International Conference
on Managing Pavements, 1998.
8. P A Pienaar, A T Visser, L Dlamini, A Comparison of the HDM-4 with the HDM-III
on A Case Study in Swaziland, 5th International Conference on Managing Pavements,
2001
9. Daba S. Gedafa, Present Pavement Maintenance Practice: A Case Study for Indian
Conditions Using HDM-4, Fall Student Conference, Midwest Transportation
Consortium, November 15, 2006.
10. Ul-Islam, R. and Tsunokawa, K. ,Investigation of the Effects of Over Designing
Pavements on Total Agency Cost using HDM-4, 6th International Conference on
Managing Pavements, 2004
11. Kadiyali L.R., Road User Cost Study, Objectives and methodology, Indian highways,
New delhi, 1979.
12. Swaminathan C.G. and L.L.kadiyali, Road User Cost study- vol 44-1, journal of
Indian roads congress, new dehli, 1983.
13. Road User Cost Study, final report, Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi,
1982.
14. Kadiyali, L.R., Quantification of road user benefits and their application to Highway
Economic Analysis and Highway Planning in India, Ph.D Thesis submitted to the
kakatiya university. Warangal, 1985.
15. Manual of Economic Analysis for Highway Projects, Indian Roads Congress, New
Delhi, 1995.
16. Study for updating Road user Cost Data, prepared for the MIN. of Surface
Transportation, L.R. Kadiyali and associates, New Delhi 1992.

Devraj HDM Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Devraj HDM Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pavement maintenance and management of State Highway SH-73 using HDM 4- A Case Study

Fig 1.1 Cross section of flexible and rigid pavement

lower layers by grain to grain transfer through

the points of contact in the granular structure.

Long design life with low maintenance cost,

1.3 Pavement maintenance and management

Pavement maintenance management systems are designed to manage maintenance

1.4 INTRODUCTION TO HDM-4

The region experiences intermittent monsoon of low intensity during July to

Average humidity is having about 20% with the atmospheric

pressure of 1012 hPa.

The road networks have also to be

According to location (popularly known as I.R.C classification):

Major district, rural & urban 31,40,000

According to stations of strategic importance:

According to traffic intensity:

To suggest the optimum maintenance required for the selected stretch

Development, planning and location of roads.

overcomes these limitations. A successful implementation of the need-based approach to

Fig 2.1 serviceability index

2.2 Use of HDM-IV in evaluation of the pavements

Road improvement standards

Periodic maintenance standards

Network manager to create the candidate road sections.

Volume count was done,

4.2 Physical Characteristics

Hubli Lakshmeshwar region is located at 15 013 N 750 47E. It has an average

The region experiences intermittent monsoon of low intensity during July to

Average humidity is having about 20% with the atmospheric

pressure of 1012 hPa.

4.5. Population and Vehicle Growth in India

Types of traffic survey services:

Manual traffic surveys

All movement junction surveys

Public transport surveys

Traffic speed surveys

Journey time surveys

Pedestrian count surveys

Travel interview surveys

This information is used for:

Development of local transport

Transport Assessments for new

Monitoring our Local Transport Plan.

From ch: 0 10Km for full width of road.

The vehicle having 8170 kg rear axle load equally

Station, m Mean Std.Dev

BBD Results and Analysis

Average Deflection (mm)

It is also recommended that the characteristic deflections obtained in different section of

% Deviation = {(observed(BI) 32 Calculated (BI) 32)} x 100

Fig 5.1 SECTION-1 (For 10 Km)

Fig 5.2- SECTION-2(For 10 Km)

Fig 5.3-SECTION -3 (For 10.0 Km)

Fig 5.4-SECTION -4 (For 12.8 Km)

Two wheelers, Motor cycle

Passenger Car, Van

Light Commercial Vehicle

Where 1.05 is Expansion Factor

PCU factor from

Table 5.3 Traffic in terms of PCU for the section-1

Figure 5.7 Vehicle composition along section-1

Table 5.4 Traffic in terms of PCU for the section-2

Figure 5.8: Vehicle composition along section-2

Table 5.5 Traffic in terms of PCU for the section-3