CTSB & GSB Comparision Reg.

Authority: Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
Authority’s Representative: CE, NH Wing, Patna, Bihar

PIU Head: EE, NH Division, NH-106, Madhepura
Authority’s Engineer: LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd
EPC Contractor: IL&FS Engg and Construction Co. Ltd
CEMENT TREATED GRANULAR SUB BASE
AS PER SCHEDULE B
Clause 5.1:
•Pavement design shall be carried out in accordance with Section 5 of the
Manual (Two Lane Manual) in consideration to minimum design period and
design traffic as per Clause 5.3.1 Clause 5.3.2.
•No mention of pavement crust.
GUIDELINES
•IRC:SP:89-2010: Guidelines for Soil and Granular Material Stabilization
using Cement, Lime & Fly Ash and
•Section 403 of MoRTH
EPC Contractor’s Proposal with CTSB
Chainage MSA to be BC DBM WMM CTSB Total Proposed
designed Design
MSA
From km 55+000 10 30 50 150 200 430 10
to km 106+000
From km 0+000 25 30 50 150 200 430 25
to km 55+000
EPC Contractor’s Proposal with GSB
Chainage MSA to be BC DBM WMM GSB Total
designed
From km 55+000 10 40 50 250 200 540
to km 106+000
From km 0+000 to 25 40 90 250 200 580
km 55+000
ADVANTAGES
•Soil and related materials are made stronger and made durable by mixing
with a stabilizing agent.
•Criteria are to improve the engineering properties of soils and granular
materials used for pavement base course, sub base courses and sub
grades.
•Effectiveness of Stabilization: Pavement design is based on the
premise that minimum specified strength will be achieved for each layer of
material in the pavement system.
•As the quality of granular layer is increased, the ability of that layer to
distribute the load over a greater area is generally increased so that a
reduction in the required thickness of the pavement layers may be
permitted.
•Quality improvement achieved through stabilization include better
gradation, reduction in PI or swelling potential and increase in durability
and strength. In wet weather stabilization may also be used to provide a
working platform for construction operations.
ADVANTAGES
•Environmental pollution will reduce due to less burning of bitumen for CTSB
pavement when compared to conventional GSB method
•Environmental pollution due to reduction in dust will be minimized as there will
be less crushing of rocks for CTSB when compared to conventional GSB
method.
•Stabilization can enhance the properties of Road materials and give pavement
layers the following attributes:
•A substantial proportion of their strength is retained even after they become
saturated with water.
•Surface deflection is reduced.
•Resistance to erosion is increased.
•Materials in the supporting layer cannot contaminate the stabilized layer.
•The elastic moduli of granular layers constructed above stabilized layer are
increased.
•Thickness reduction: The strength and stiffness of the granular layer can be
improved through the use of stabilizing agent to permit a reduction in design
thickness of the stabilized material compared with an un stabilized material.
DISADVANTAGES
•Machinery used in stabilization is much more costly than the machinery used
in conventional sub base course.
•In stabilized layer 7 days curing period is a must whereas in conventional sub
base course the succeeding layers can be constructed immediately after
construction of the layer complete. Hence time is a measure factor for
construction of stabilized layer.
•Construction of stabilized layer disrupts in absence of supply of stabilizing
agent.
•The rate of progress for CTSB layer when compared to GSB layer is found to
be at low pace and it requires more nos. of CTSB laying machine to achieve at
par output of GSB.
POSSIBLE PROBLEMS
•Traffic, thermal and shrinkage cracks can cause stabilized layers to
•crack.
•Crack can reflect through the surfacing and allow water to enter the pavement
structure.
•If carbon dioxide has access to the material, the stabilization reactions are
reversible and the strength of the layers can decrease.
•The construction operation requires more skills and control than for equivalent
un-stabilized materials.
GSB & CTSB – sample comparison
– laying rate comparison
GSB CTSB
Length 3030 m 3058 m
No. of Days 14 22
Av. Output/Day 217 m 139 m
Minimum no. of CTSB Machine required to
2 Nos.
achieve at par progress of GSB
– material comparison
GSB CTSB
without Paved without Paved with Paved
Shoulder Shoulder Shoulder
Length 1 km 1 km 1 km
Aggregate 6301.08 MT 5512 MT 4825.72 MT
Water 340.258 KL 361.758 KL 324.996 KL
Cement NIL 125.8 MT 112.06 MT
GSB vs CTSB – savings
CTSB Witho ut GSB Witho ut % CTSB With GSB %

Sl
De sc riptio n Unit Pa ve d Pa ve d Exc e ss/ Sa ving Exc e ss/ Pa ve d WithPa ve d Exc e ss/ Sa ving Exc e ss/
No
Sho ulde r Sho ulde r Sa ving Sho ulde r Sho ulde r Sa ving
1 2 3 4 5 6 = (5-4) 7 = 6/ 5 8 9 10 = (9-8) 11
A Fo r 10 MSA
1 Ag g re g a te MT 8732.83 12122.25 3389.42 27.96% 11049.37 14523.42 3474.05 23.92%
2 Ce me nt MT 112.06 0.00 -112.06 -100.00% 125.80 -125.80 -100.00%
3 Bitume n MT 64.40 72.87 8.47 11.63% 92.00 104.10 12.11 11.63%
B Fo r 25 MSA
1 Ag g re g a te MT 8732.83 12800.13 4067.30 31.78% 11049.37 15491.82 4442.45 28.68%
2 Ce me nt MT 112.06 -112.06 -100.00% 125.80 -125.80 -100.00%
3 Bitume n MT 64.40 104.05 39.66 38.11% 92.00 148.65 56.65 38.11%

CTSB & GSB Comparision Reg.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CTSB & GSB Comparision Reg.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CTSB & GSB Comparision Reg.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Authority: Ministry of Road Transport & Highways

Authority’s Representative: CE, NH Wing, Patna, Bihar

CTSB Witho ut GSB Witho ut % CTSB With GSB %

You might also like