Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

60 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology
Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible
Pavements and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
Yasodhara Vegesana1
| P.S.Nadiu2
| PMS Satish Kumar2
1PG Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management , Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh, India.
2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
3Head of the Department, Department of Civil Engineering, Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
To Cite this Article
Yasodhara Vegesana, P.S.Nadiu and PMS Satish Kumar, “Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements and
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis”, International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology, Vol. 03, Issue 10, October
2017, pp: 60-71.
Using geotextiles in between the pavement layers (generally at the interface of subgrade and sub-base) to
stabilize weak subgrades has been a well-accepted practice over the past few decades. However, from an
economical point of view, a complete life cycle cost analysis (LCCA), which includes not only costs to
agencies but also costs to users, is urgently needed to assess the benefits of using geotextile in flexible
pavement. Two comparative methods were used to quantify the improvements of using geotextiles in
pavements. One is Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) and the other is Economic Analysis. LCCA is a tool
which is generally used after the agency has taken decision to implement the project and seeking to
determine the most cost-effective means to accomplish the project’s objectives. Unlike LCCA, EA considers
the benefits of an improvement as well as its costs and therefore can be used to compare design
alternatives that do not yield identical benefits, as well as to compare projects that accomplish different
objectives.
In this study, a comprehensive life cycle cost analysis framework was developed and used to quantify the
benefits of using geotextile at subgrade level in economic terms. For this, a case study of Dhanbad city in
Jharkhand was selected where six roads of different hierarchy are being developed with World Bank
funding. As per the soil and material investigations, the CBR value of existing subgrade soil was 4%.
However, after using geotextile at subgrade level the equivalent strength was found to be around 8%.
Forming both as two alternative case scenarios, both Economic Analysis (using HDM - IV developed by the
World Bank) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis was conducted. The study concludes that geotextile layer plays
a key role in increasing the pavement CBR value from 4% to 8%. Additionally, it also results in economic
benefits as increase of average 1%-1.5% in EIRR value can be noted as compared to the pavement without
geotextile layer. The results of LCCA shows that initial construction cost of the alternative with 4% CBR
(without geotextile layer) as well as life cycle cost is more than the corresponding cost for the second
alternative with 8% CBR (with geotextile layer).Hence, the second alternative (CBR 8% - with geotextile
layer) is recommended based on both Economic Analysis as well as LCCA. Hence, for an optimum road
flexible pavement design with geotextile incorporated in the system, a life cycle cost analysis that includes
user cost as well as economic analysis must be performed.
Keywords: HDM (Highway Development and Maintenance), CBR, Geotextiles, LCCA (Life Cycle Cost
Analysis).
ABSTRACT
Available online at: http://www.ijmtst.com/vol3issue10.html
International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology
ISSN: 2455-3778 :: Volume: 03, Issue No: 10, October 2017

Yasodhara Vegesana, P.S.Nadiu and PMS Satish Kumar : Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements and
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
Copyright © 2017 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology
All rights reserved.
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Road transportis vital to economic enhancement, trade and social integration. Reduction in transportation
costs may lead to economies of scale which can be exploited in form of extension and specialization of
market. Efficient transport and logistic systems have become an absolute imperative in the delivery chain
due to global competition. Roadways is a form transport has earned increasingly higher share (among other
transport modes) of both passenger and freight traffic due to factors such as accessibility, flexibility of
operations, door-to-door service and reliability.
As per the latest available data, Road transport has emerged as the dominant segment in India’s
transportation sector with a share of 4.5%of India’s GDP in 2005-06. During 2000-01 to 2005-06, the road
transport sector GDP grew at annual average of 9.5% which was much higher than the overall GDP growth
of 6.5%. Robust growth in road transport has been attained despite significant barriers to inter-State
freight and passenger movement compared to inland waterways, railways and air which do not face
rigorous enroute checks/barriers.
The present scenario in India demands maximum transit facilities to be developed at a low cost within
shortest feasible time. India being predominantly rural in nature, road links are found to have distinct
advantage over other modes of communication. However, economy, time, environmental constraints and
several other factors make a highway professional’s job more challenging in delivering a safe and
cost-effective road network to its users. One of the major problems faced by the engineers in highway
construction, in plains and coastal areas of India is the presence of soft/loose soil at ground level.
1.2 Study Area
The selected project is being undertaken by Government of Jharkhand through Jharkhand Urban
Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO) who intends to develop urban infrastructure in
different towns of the State including Dhanbad. Dhanbad is one of the largest industrial towns of
Jharkhand and is known as the Coal Capital of India, with nearly half of area under Dhanbad Municipal
Corporation (DMC) is allocated for coal mines. This project is being funded by World Bank. Part of proceeds
of a proposed Loan from the World Bank is meant for the development of roads, and other urban
infrastructure of Dhanbad. This project is conceived in two phases. As mentioned in the scope of study,
this study focuses only in the roads selected for development in Phase 1. The roads included in Phase 1 of
the Project are listed in Table 1.1. Map showing all the project roads is given in Figure 1.1.
Table I.1: Details of Project Roads
Road
ID
Road Name
Length
(km)
Existing
Configuration
Proposed Configuration
Phase 1
11A
Kanko Chowk - Vinod Vihari
Chowk
11.700 2 Lane
4 Laning with Cycle Track and Service
Roads
11B
Vinod Vihari Chowk -
Memco Gol Building Chowk
8.291 2 Lane
4 Laning with Cycle Track and Service
Roads
12
Bekar Bandh Chowk -
Gandhi /Combined
Building Chowk
0.585 2 Lane
4 Laning with Cycle Track and
Auto-rickshaw Lane
13
Birsa Munda Chowk (NH
32)- Purana Bazar Chowk -
Jorapathak Chowk -
Dhansar Chowk
1.861 2 Lane 4 Laning + Hawker Zone
14
Jharia Market Road (No. 4
Main Road)
0.924
Intermediate
Lane
2 Lane + Hawker Zone
15
Telipada Mode (NH32) -
Telipada - Law College Mode
1.210 Single Lane 2 Lane
16 Hatia Mode (NH 32) - Hatia - 4.787 Single 2 Lane + Hawker Zone

Road
ID
Road Name
Length
(km)
Existing
Configuration
Proposed Configuration
ROB - Old Railway Station -
Purana Bazar Chowk
/Intermediate
Lane
Total Length (Km) 29.358
’
Figure 1.1 Map Showing Location of Project Roads
1.3 Pavement Design
Pavement costs about half of civil works and hence adequate emphasis was given to the pavement and
subgrade investigations. And options analysis was carried out to find out the cost-effective pavement
option for the project roads.
The existing CBR values of soil samples collected from surrounding areas of project influence area was
found to be 4%. After due consideration, the Design Subgrade CBR is taken as 8% (with use of geo-textile
layer between the interface of subgrade and subbase), design period as 15 years for asphalt pavement, and
30 years for concrete pavement.
Concrete pavement requires PQC 280 mm for Road 11 and 250 mm for all other roads supported on 150
mm DLC and 150 mm GSB.
Pavement layer thickness charts given in IRC 37–2012 from Plate no. 1 to Plate no. 20 have been referenced
for pavement Design and are presented in Table 1.2
Table I.2: Pavement Design for New Construction /Widening Section
S. No Road ID
Design CBR,
(%)
Traffic
(msa)
Pavement Composition
BC DBM WMM GSB
1 11 8 40 40 90 250 200
2 12 8 20 40 80 250 200
3 13 8 20 40 80 250 200
4 14 8 20 40 80 250 200
5 15 8 20 40 80 250 200
6 16 8 20 40 80 250 200
7 Service Road 8 10 40 60 250 200
8 Cycle Track 8 - - 80 / 90 250 200
Source: Vasuprada Consultants LLP, New Delhi
1.4 Objectives
The main aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using geotextiles (the most used
geosynthetic in pavements) at the subgrade level in pavement.
 For achieving the above-mentioned aim, fulfilment of following objectives is imperative.
 To investigate the improvement of the pavement system due to the use of geotextiles;
 To carry out Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Economic Analysis for an alternative case scenario of using
geotextiles in subgrade layer as oppose to typical pavement design for selected case study; and
 To carry out sensitivity analysis to examine the influence of several cost parameters on the case
study in both base and alternative scenario.

2. LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 Existing Literature
The first state of the art volume on use of Geosynthetics in India-Experiences and potential was brought
out by the Central Board of Irrigation and Power in 1989 by Mr. Rao and Saxena. This was a
compilation of the field trails in the country, which helped other engineers to gain confidence in the use of
Geotextiles. [1]
Ghosal and Som (1989) have reported the first major use of a non-woven fabric in a heavy-duty
construction yard in Haldia. It has been found to decrease the pavement thickness to the extent of 30%. [2]
The focus of discussion in the 3-day National workshop on Engineering with Geosynthetics, organized in
the Delhi chapter of the Indian Geotechnical society by Venkatappa Rao and Raju in 1990. [3]
Aziz et al, 1994, who also reported substantial increase in the CBR values of a clayey subgrade, when
compacted with two layers of JGT interposed within the soil at varying Moisture Contents. [4]
The various causes of Erosion and different Geo synthetics solutions available are detailed in “Erosion
Control With Geo synthetics” published by the CBIP, Venkatappa Rao, 1995. [5]
Use of Geogrids in a flexible pavement overlay is found to improve the overall behavior. Non -Woven
Geotextiles and bi-oriented geogrids have been successfully utilized in Maharashtra (1997) in the state
Highways by the PWD for strengthening the road pavements in Black Cotton soils. [6]
The Four R’s – Restoration, resurfacing, recycling and reconstruction. Each of the four types of
rehabilitation measures and treatments are presented in a paper which is published by Hall, 2001 [7]
Jute Geotextile is a fabric which is ground in abundance in Iriclia. It also displays some advantageous
intrinsic properties like high tenacity, non-toxicity, biodegradability etc. had also been found to be
ecofriendly by Chattopadhyay et al, 2003. [8]
LCCA is an analysis technique used to evaluate long term economic efficiency and is a decision support
tool from several commutative alternatives it includes all current and further cost associativewhich is given
by (FWHA ,2002; Hass et al., 1993; Hickas Epps 2002). [9]
2.2 Present Study
This study focusses on assessing the cost effectiveness using geotextile in pavement layer, preferably at
subgrade. This study follows the methodology of reviewing existing literature and recent works being
conducted in this research area. For this, existing work in the form of written journal articles, books and
manuals were studies as a part of literature study. Once this was done, Objectives, Research Methodology,
Scope of Study and limitation work defined for this study which is discussed. After formulating, objectives,
it was decided to take an ongoing case study and apply the acquired knowledge to strengthen the study of
pavement using Geotextile layer.
3. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
3.1 Geosynthetics
Geosynthetics is a planar product which is manufactured from polymeric material and used with soil, rock,
earth or other geotechnical engineering related material as an integral part of a man-made project,
structure, or system (ASTM Committee D35 on Geosynthetics).
The main functions of geosynthetics in the pavement industry are separation, reinforcement, filtration, and
drainage. The major product uses in this area are geotextiles, geogrids, geosynthetic clay liners,
geo-composites, and geonets. The main purpose of using geosynthetic materials is to have better
performance and to save money.
Functions and Applications of Geosynthetic
Geosynthetics serve the following principal functions (refer Figure 3. 1)
i) Separation - in which a geosynthetic placed between two dissimilar geotechnical materials, prevents
intermixing;
ii) Filtration - in which a geotextile allows passage of fluids from a soil while simultaneously preventing
the uncontrolled passage of soil particles;
iii) Drainage - in which a geosynthetic may collect and transport fluids in its own plane;
iv)Reinforcement - in which, a geosynthetic resists stresses and contains deformations in geotechnical
structures by the tensile characteristics; and
v) Barrier - in which a geosynthetic acts as a barrier to liquid/gas.
In addition, geotextiles serve the following functions:

vi)Protection or cushioning - in which a geotextile serves as a localized stress reduction layer to prevent
or reduce damage to a given surface or layer; and
vii) Surficial erosion control - in which a geotextile may prevent the surface erosion of soil particles due
to surface water run-off and/or wind forces.
Figure 0.1: Various Applications of Geo-synthetics
Table 0.1: Geosynthetic Application Summary
Application Primary Function Products
Subgrade/Pavement
Stabilization
Separation
Reinforcement
Filtration
Geotextile/geogrid
Railroad Track-bed
Stabilization
Drainage
Separation
Filtration
Geotextile/geogrid
Asphalt Overlay
Stress relieving layer
Water proofing
Geotextile/geogrid
Soil Reinforcement
Embankment
Reinforcement Geotextile/geogrid
Steep Slopes Reinforcement Geotextile/geogrid
Verticals Walls Reinforcement Geotextile/geogrid
Subsurface Drainage
(French drains)
Filtration
Fluid transmission
Prefabricated drainage
Composites
Erosion Control Filter
Filtration
Separation
Geotextile
Surface Erosion Control
Turf reinforcement Erosion control mats
Fabric forming mats
Canal/pond lining Moisture barrier Geomembrane
Landfills
Separation
Filtration
Drainage
Reinforcement
Barrier
Geotextiles/geogrids/
Geomembranes/
Geosynthetic clay liners
Geomembrane protection Protection/cushion Geotextile
Pavement
The conventional way of constructing a road in an area having very soft subgrade is to spread a carpet of
unbound aggregate over soft deposit to act as a load dispersing medium, when forming a roadway to keep
distress within tolerable limits. When a wheel load traffics over such an unprotected formation soil it
imposes dynamic stress. When shear strength of the subgrade is inadequate then this ongoing trafficking
will initiate a bearing capacity failure by creating progressively deeper ruts.

This causes subsequent losses on original fill thickness with a portion of the underlying soil being squeezed
upwards into the voids of the granular fill and some of the aggregate penetrating into the subgrade. If this
contamination remains unattended then ultimately a stage is reached when the fill diminishes in thickness
to such a degree that unacceptable rutting occurs and the formation can no longer serve as trafficable one.
Figure 0.2: Schematic diagram showing beneficial effect of using Geosynthetic
Extensive studies are being carried out in laboratory and semi-infinite model pavement to study the role of
geosynthetic in pavements and overlays and are continuing in several institutions around the world.
3.2 Types of Geosynthetics and its manufacturing methods
Information on different varieties of geosynthetics that are in use and its manufacturing methods as
compiled by Rao, 2007 are explained below. Geosynthetic is defined by the International Geosynthetic
Society as a planner, polymeric (synthetic or natural) material that are synthesized for use in contact with
soil/rock and/or any other geotechnical material in civil engineering applications. It is a generic term
which includes:
 Geotextiles;
 Geogrids;
 Glasstex;
 Geonets;
 Geomembranes;
 Geo-composites;
 Prefabricated vertical drain (PVD);
 Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL); and
 Geomat
3.3 Use of Natural Geo-textile in Civil Engineering applications
With the growing awareness of using environment friendly products wherever possible natural geotextile
made of jute and coir is now becoming very prospective for road construction in our country.
3.4 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
In the National Council of Highway Research Programs (NCHRP) Synthesis of Highway Practice, Peterson
(1985) defined LCCA as follows: To evaluate the economics of a paving project, an analysis should be made
of potential design alternatives, each capable of providing the required performance. If all other things are
equal, the alternative that is the least expensive over time should be selected. According to FHWA
recommendations, an analysis period of at least 35 years should be used. The different economic indicators
commonly used in the LCCA procedure are present worth (PW), method (of benefits, costs, benefits and
costs-NPV), equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC), internal rate of return (IRR), and the benefit cost ratio
(BCR).
3.5 Agency Cost
Agency cost typically consists of fees for initial preliminary engineering, contract administration,
construction supervision, construction, maintenance and rehabilitation, and costs associated with
administrative needs (FHWA, 1998). When considering agency costs, routine annual maintenance costs
and sink value are usually neglected. Because sink value does not affect decision making and routine
maintenance costs when discounted to the present value, the cost differences will have a negligible effect
on the net present value (NPV).
3.6 User Cost
According to FHWA Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design (1998), user cost is usually classified into
two categories: (i) normal operation user cost, and (ii) work zone user cost. The normal operation user cost

reflects highway user costs related to using a facility during free construction, maintenance, and/or
rehabilitation activities that restrict the capacity of the facility. This type of user cost is a function of
different pavement performance (roughness) of the facility. Another type of user cost is referred to as work
zone user cost, which is associated with using a facility during construction, maintenance, and/or
rehabilitation activities that restrict the capacity of the facility and disrupt the normal traffic flow.
3.7 User Delay Cost
Generally, travel time costs vary by vehicle class, trip type (urban or interurban) and trip purpose (business
or personal). The work zone user delay costs may be significantly different for different rehabilitation
alternatives, depending on traffic control plans associated with the alternatives. Therefore, the work zone
delay costs should take into consideration not only average daily traffic volumes but also daily and hourly
variations in traffic volume. The NCHRP Project 7-12, “Microcomputer Evaluation of Highway User
Benefits,” recommends a typical traffic volume distribution value for urban or rural roadways.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 General
In the present study, following tests were conducted on a natural soil obtained from the surrounding area
of project roads. Liquid and plastic limits were conducted on the sample based on IS: 2720 (Part- V)- 1970.
Tests have been conducted on two soil sample.
Particle size distribution of both soil samples was determined as per the procedure outlined in IS Code
2720, part- 4, 1987. Specific gravity of the soil specimens was determined by making use of the density
bottle and as per the procedure out lined in IS 2720, part 3, sec1, 1980. The specific gravity value reported
in the test results is the average of three specimen of each soil sample.
4.2 Economic Analysis
Economic analysis, or cost-benefit analysis as it is also known, is to weigh the project benefits and costs to
the society at large. And then decide whether investing on the project is worth or an alternative investment
will give more benefits to the economy. Findings of the economic analysis carried out for all six road is
presented in this chapter. This section is followed by traffic forecast, which essentially represents the
demand side of the road infrastructure.
Table 0.1: Standard load (kg) for respective penetration of plunger (mm)
Penetration of plunger (mm) Standard load (kg)
2.5 1,370
5 2,055
7.5 2,630
10 3,180
12.5 3,600
Table 0.2: Average Annual Daily Traffic (motorised, in VPD)
Vehicle Type
Road ID - Sections
11 - I* 11 - II** 12 13 14 15 16
Two-Wheeler 4,967 4,856 16,244 10,698 6,677 3,809 6,178
Three-Wheeler 883 1,093 9,905 4,279 4,633 254 883
Car 3,201 3,642 10,697 4,493 1,499 914 1,236
LCV 221 364 792 214 136 51 88
2 Axle Truck 442 486 395 642 136 0 88
3 Axle Truck 442 728 390 856 273 51 177
Multi Axle Truck 221 121 402 214 0 0 88
Mini Bus 110 243 397 0 136 0 88
Bus 221 364 396 0 136 0 0
Tractor 331 243 0 0 0 0 0
Total 11,039 12,140 39,619 21,396 13,627 5,078 8,826
Source: Traffic Analysis by Vasuprada Consultants LLP
Note: Road ID 11 is divided into two sections for Economic Analysis. These sections are:
* 11-1: Kanko Chowk (Km 0.000) to Vinod Vihari Chowk (Km 11.700); and
**11-2: Vinod Vihari Chowk (Km 11.700) to Gol Building Chowk (Km 19.991).

Table 0.3: Traffic (motorised) composition
Vehicle Type
Road ID - Section
11 - I* 11 - II** 12 13 14 15 16
Two-Wheeler 45% 40% 41% 50% 49% 75% 70%
Three-Wheeler 8% 9% 25% 20% 34% 5% 10%
Car 29% 30% 27% 21% 11% 18% 14%
LCV 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
2 Axle Truck 4% 4% 1% 3% 1% 0% 1%
3 Axle Truck 4% 6% 1% 4% 2% 1% 2%
Multi Axle Truck 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Mini Bus 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Bus 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Tractor 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Traffic Analysis by Vasuprada Consultants LLP
Overall, passenger vehicles are predominant (83%), and non-motorised traffic is around (6%) on the project
roads. Primarily due to all six roads being in Urban/Built Up Area, motorcycles accounts for more than
50% of total traffic.
Vehicle occupancy (persons traveling in or on a vehicle) at an aggregate level of project roads is as follows
and are plausible in the Indian context:
 37, buses;
 3.1, cars and taxis (4W);
 23, mini buses;
 6, auto-rickshaws (3W); and
1.6, Scooters (2W).
Table 0.4: Shadow Exchange Rate Factor
Fiscal Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Exports 14,660 16,343 19,050 18,963 17,164 18,523
Imports 23,455 26,692 27,154 27,371 24,903 25,774
Total Trade 38,115 43,035 46,204 46,334 42,067 44,297
Tax on Imports 1,391 1,586 1,674 1,933 2014 2232
Tax on Exports 103 63 77 85 69 68
Net Trade Taxes 1,288 1,523 1,597 1,848 1,945 2,164
SERF 1.034 1.035 1.035 1.040 1.046 1.049
Average SERF 1.040
Table 0.5: Vehicle and Tyre Prices (Financial Cost) Costs
Vehicle Base Type
New
Vehicle
Price (Rs)
New Tyre
Price (Rs)
Overhead
(Rs)
Vehicle
Utilization
(km/year)**
Hours
/year
Tyre
Life
(km)
Car/Jeep/Van
Medium
Car
7,20,000 3,000 16,524 34,900 698 53,840
Mini Bus Mini Bus 12,00,000 6,000 27,540 45,000 1,125 41,983
Bus
Medium
Bus
23,00,000 16,000 52,785 76,911 1,923 55,290
Light Goods
Vehicle
LGV 8,10,000 6,000 18,590 41,881 1,047 41,983
Medium Truck
2- Axle
Truck
18,00,000 15,000 41,310 1,00,909 2,523 74,666
Heavy Truck
3- Axle
Truck
28,50,000 17,000 65,408 1,00,909 2,523 74,666
Very Heavy Multi Axle 35,00,000 17,000 80,325 90,114 2,253 56,000

Truck Truck
Tractor
Agricultural
Tractor
8,00,000 16,000 18,360 20,940 700 --
3-Wheeler
Auto
Rickshaw
3,00,000 950 6,885 23,000 550 --
2-Wheeler Motor Cycle 62,000 1,100 1,423 9,000 200 --
Source: Vehicle and tyre prices, maintenance labor wages are based on market survey, and overhead as 3%
of new vehicle prices. Vehicle utilization are based on "CRRI: Development of Road User Cost models for
Highway Speed Corridors, September 2014". Number of hours per year based on vehicle utilization and
assumed speeds.
Table 0.6: Financial Costs of Crew Wages and Maintenance Labor
Vehicle Base Type Crew Wages (Rs/hr) Maintenance Labour (Rs/hr)
Car/Jeep/Van Medium Car 36 45
Mini Bus Mini Bus 56 45
Bus Medium Bus 75 60
Light Goods Vehicle LGV 56 45
Medium Truck 2- Axle Truck 94 75
Heavy Truck 3- Axle Truck 94 75
Very Heavy Truck Multi Axle Truck 100 80
Tractor Agricultural Tractor 36 45
3-Wheeler Auto Rickshaw 36 45
2-Wheeler Motor Cycle 0 45
Source: Crew Wages and maintenance labour are based on market Survey
Table 0.7: Financial and Economic Costs of Fuel
A: Price Build-up of Petrol at Delhi with effect from 3rd September 2017
S. No. Elements Unit Cost
1 C&F (Cost & Freight) Price of Gasoline (Petrol) BS III equivalent $/bbl. 65.48
2 Average Exchange Rate Rs/$ 64.08
3 Refinery Transfer Price (RTP) on landed cost basis for BS IV Petrol
(Price Paid by the Oil Marketing Companies to Refineries)
Rs/Ltr 26.65
4 Price Charged to Dealers (excluding Excise Duty and VAT) Rs/Ltr 30.05
5 Add: Specific Excise Duty @ Rs. 21.48/Ltr Rs/Ltr 21.48
6 Add: Dealer Commission Rs/Ltr 3.24
7 Add: VAT (including VAT on Dealer Commission) applicable for Delhi
@ 27%
Rs/Ltr 14.78
8 Retail Selling Price at Delhi- (Rounded) Rs/Ltr 69.55
Economic Price Rs/Ltr 30.05
B: Price Build-up of Diesel at Delhi with effect from 3rd September 2017
S. No. Elements Unit Cost
1 C&F (Cost & Freight) Price of Diesel III equivalent $/bbl. 63.61
2 Average Exchange Rate Rs/$ 64.08
3 Refinery Transfer Price (RTP) on landed cost basis for BS IV Petrol
(Price Paid by the Oil Marketing Companies to Refineries)
Rs/Ltr 26.00
4 Price Charged to Dealers (excluding Excise Duty and VAT) Rs/Ltr 29.31
5 Add: Specific Excise Duty @ Rs. 17.33/Ltr Rs/Ltr 17.33
6 Add: Dealer Commission Rs/Ltr 2.17
7 Add : VAT (including VAT on Dealer Commission) applicable for Delhi
@ 16.75% + Pollution Cess of Rs 0.25/Ltr
Rs/Ltr 8.47
8 Retail Selling Price at Delhi- (Rounded) Rs/Ltr 57.28
Economic Price Rs/Ltr 29.31
Source: Indian Oil Corporation website (www.iocl.com/Products/) accessed on 3rd September 2017

5. APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY
5.1 Methodology
The methodology followed on how theprocess of effectiveness of Geotextiles in flexible pavements is
analyzed is presented in Figure 5.1.
Figure 0.1: Methodology
5.2 Compaction
The compaction characteristic curve obtained from light compaction is shown in graph (Figure 5.23). It
shows the optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (Ƴd). Practically it is not possible to
remove 100% air voids from the soil and hence the soil is partially saturated in OMC as well as on dry and
wet of OMC. Compaction Characteristics of soil samples are presented in Table 5.6. The formula for
calculation maximum dry density is given as follows:
Table 0.1: Compaction Characteristic
Description Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6
Weight of Mold (g) 3,735 3,735 3,735 3,735 3,735 3,735
Weight of Mold + Soil (g) 5,509 5,646 5,731 5,754 5,749 5,749
Weight of Soil (g) 1,774 1,911 1,996 2,019 2,014 2,014
Wet Density (g/cc) 1.77 1.91 2.00 2.02 2.01 2.01
Container No. 154 44 42 53 202 169
Weight of Container (g) 66.09 69.72 66.32 65.52 67.77 70.63
Weight of C + Wet Soil (g) 127.00 122.26 135.00 121.85 129.20 115.85
Weight of C + Dry Soil (g) 121.59 116.83 126.94 114.15 120 108.48
Weight of Wet Soil (g) 60.91 52.54 68.68 56.33 61.43 45.22
Weight of Dry Soil (g) 55.50 47.11 60.62 48.63 52.23 37.85
Weight of Moisture (g) 5.41 5.43 8.06 7.70 9.20 7.37
Moisture Content (%) 9.75 11.53 13.30 15.83 17.61 19.47
Dry Density (g/cc) 1.62 1.71 1.76 1.74 1.71 1.69
5.3 Result of Sample with Geotextile
The compaction characteristic curve obtained from light compaction is shown in graph (Table 5.8).
Table 0.2: Compaction Characteristics
Description Units 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Mold (g) 3,726 3,726 3,726 3,726 3,726
Weight of Mold + Soil (g) 5,619 5,690 5,768 5,754 5,747
Weight of Soil (g) 1,893 1,964 2,042 2,028 2,021
Wet Density (g/cc) 1.89 1.96 2.04 2.03 2.02
Container No. 13 116 62 104 143

Description Units 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Container (g) 66.41 68.77 71.05 68.56 68.08
Weight of C + Wet Soil (g) 162.51 146.82 158.72 140.48 148.60
Weight of C + Dry Soil (g) 155.95 140.33 150.11 131.8 138.48
Weight of Wet Soil (g) 96.10 78.05 87.67 71.92 80.52
Weight of Dry Soil (g) 89.54 71.56 79.06 63.24 70.40
Weight of Moisture (g) 6.56 6.49 8.61 8.68 10.12
Moisture Content (%) 7.33 9.07 10.89 13.73 14.38
Dry Density (g/cc) 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.78 1.77
Figure 0.2: CBR value vs Dry Density - without geotextile
5.4 Project Costs
The total project cost for economic analysis purposes include:
 Construction costs along with centages (environmental mitigation costs, supervision charges,
agency costs etc.) and physical contingencies, and LARR Costs; but
 Excludes fiscal contingencies.
5.5 Cost Benefit Analysis
The construction and LARR costs will be incurred as follows:
2018, 40%; and
2019, 60%.
5.6 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
The two project alternatives considered for this project were compared in Economic Analysis and initial
LCCA was conducted to decide on the option of using Rigid and Flexible pavement for the project. The
result of initial LCCA is presented in the following sub section.
6. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Geotextiles have been used in pavements to either extend the service life of the pavement or to reduce the
total thickness of the pavement system. However, the economic benefits of using this material are still not
clear. In general, most of the geotextile related life cycle cost analysis studies only account for agency costs.
In this study, a comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis of geotextile stabilized pavements, including initial
construction, future maintenance, rehabilitation, and user costs is considered.
In this study, a comprehensive life cycle cost analysis and economic analysis framework was developed and
used to quantify the economic and social benefits. A 20year (plus 2 years construction period) analysis
cycle was used to compute the cost-effectiveness ratio for the design methods. The costs which were
considered in the LCCA and economic analysis process include agency costs and user costs.
Findings and Conclusions
A comprehensive economic analysis framework has been developed in this study to evaluate the economic
benefit of using geotextiles in pavement. The resulting benefit has been quantified in terms of an economic
internal rate of return. The findings in this study are limited to the design features, unit costs and
performance models assumed in this analysis. Once the economic analysis was done, LCCA was also

conducted to strengthen the case of use of geotextile in Pavement layer at subgrade level. Both the
economic analysis and LCCA have shown that the use of geotextile is better both from the point of view of
increasing the strength of Pavement as well as cost effectiveness.
Recommendations for Future Work
This study is mainly intended to propose a cost-effectiveness analysis framework that can be used to
operate similar analyses. It presented a framework on how to quantify engineering benefits into economic
benefits by performing economic analyses. Included in this study are models that predict pavement
performance, suggest rehabilitation designs, and predict user costs and accident rates at work zones.
This model need to be improved by using more reliable parameters and be calibrated to specific local
conditions. This is especially applicable to the pavement performance models.
REFERENCES
[1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO. Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures. AASHTO, Washington, DC, 1993.
[2] ASTM (1994), Annual Books of ASTM Standards, American Society Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Volume 4.08 (1), Soil and Rock, Volume 4. No. (8), Soil and Rock, Geosynthetics, Volume 7, No. 1,
Textiles.
[3] Abdullah, A. B. M., A Hand book of Geotextiles Particularly natural geotextiles from jute and other vegetable fibers,
FAO-2000
[4] Gregory, R. N., Barry, C. R., Geotextiles in Transportation Applications, Featured Short Course, 1998
[5] IRC 37:2001; Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements.
[6] Koerner, R. M., Designing with Geosynthetics, Third edition, Prentice Hall, 1993.
[7] Rankilor, P. R., Membranes in Ground Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981
[8] Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1967.
[9] Beg M.A., Zhang Z., and Hudson W.R. (1998). “A Rational Pavement Type
Selection Procedure” Report No:FHWA/TX-04/0-1734-S, Austin, TX
[10]Berthelot et al. (1996). “Mechanistic-Probabilistic Vehicle Operating Cost
Model” Journal of Transportation Engineering Vol:122 No:5, pp 337-341
[11] CDOT (2000). “Life Cycle Cost Analysis State-of-the-Practice” Report No:CDOT-R1-R-00-3, Colorado Department
of Transportation, Aurora, CO
[12] Chacko G.K. (1991) “Decision-making under uncertainty: an applied statistics approach” Praeger, New York
[13]Christensen P.N., Sparks, G.A., and Kostuk K.J. (2005). “A method-based
survey of life cycle costing literature pertinent to infrastructure design and renewal” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 32: 250–259,Saskatoon, Canada
[14]Cross S.A., and Parsons, R.L. (2002). “Evaluation of Expenditures on Rural Interstate Pavements in Kansas”, 81th
Annual TRB Meeting, Washington, DC
[15]Daniels G., Stockton W. R., and Hudley R. (2000). “Estimating Road User Costs Associated with Highway
Construction Projects-Simplified Method” In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1732, Washington DC, 2000, pp. 70-79
[16] Danish Road Institute (2002). “Economic Evaluation of Pavement Maintenance, PAV-ECO” Report 114, Denmark
[17] Dewan, S.A., and Smith R. E. (2002). “Estimating International Roughness
Index from Pavement Distress to Calculate Vehicle Operating Costs for the San Francisco Bay Area”. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1816, pp. 65-72, Washington, DC
[18]FHWA (1999). “Asset Management Primer”, Office of Asset Management, Washington, DC
[19] FHWA (2003). "Economic Analysis Primer", Office of Asset Management, Washington, DC
[20]FHWA (2004). “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, RealCost User Manual” Office of Asset Management, Washington, DC

Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

Similar to Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Effectiveness of using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology