Chapter 4:
Methodology of Traffic Analysis and Pavement Evaluation
4.1. Data Collection Methods
A systematic methodology was adopted to gather reliable data for both traffic
performance and pavement condition. The collection phase was divided into two
streams—traffic surveys and pavement condition assessments—conducted over a study
stretch of 20 km along NH-17 (between Guntur and Vijayawada).
4.1.1. Traffic Volume Counts
Manual Classified Counts (MCC) were carried out at 5 strategic mid-block locations
and 3 major intersections for 7 consecutive days, covering both AM (07:00–11:00) and
PM (16:00–20:00) peak periods.
Table 4.1: Sample Daily Traffic Volume (in PCU) at Location 1
11
Table 4. 1 Weekly Traffic Volume Trend – Location 1
Vehicle Type Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
2-Wheelers 3200 3300 3350 3400 3550 4100 4300
Cars/LMVs 2800 2900 3000 3100 3150 3500 3700
Buses 420 430 445 450 460 490 510
Trucks/LCVs 900 950 960 980 1000 1100 1200
Agricultural Veh. 300 320 310 330 340 350 360
Total (PCU) 7620 7900 8065 8260 8500 9540 10070
Figure 4. 1 A bar graph showing total daily PCUs for each day.
4.1.2. Origin-Destination (OD) Surveys
OD surveys were conducted using roadside interviews at toll booths and rest points,
sampling approximately 800 vehicles. Key data points collected included:
12
Trip purpose (commute, freight, leisure)
Vehicle occupancy
Start and end locations
Table 4. 2 OD Survey Summary – Vehicle Purpose and Occupancy
Trip Purpose % Share Average Occupancy
Commute 42% 1.8
Freight 35% 1.2
Leisure 15% 3.5
Other 8% 2.1
4.1.3. Turning Movement Surveys
Turning movement counts were done at three major junctions, covering left-turn, right-
turn, and through movements. Data was used to evaluate intersection performance and
delay characteristics.
Refer Figure 4.2: Turning Movement Diagram – Junction A (Pie Chart)
4.1.4 Speed and Delay Studies
Floating car method was employed over 4 different time slots in a day to measure:
Average journey speed (km/h)
Average delay time (min/km)
Causes of delay (intersections, congestion, road condition)
Table 4. 3 Speed and Delay Summary
Time Slot Average Speed Delay Time Primary Delay Reason
(km/h) (min/km)
7–9 AM 34 1.6 Congestion at junctions
12–2 PM 42 1.1 Mixed traffic interference
4–6 PM 30 2.2 Market area bottlenecks
8–10 PM 40 0.9 Road surface defects
4.2. Tools, Standards, and Guidelines Used
To maintain the quality and reproducibility of results, all procedures aligned with the
following:
Table 4. 4 Standards and Guidelines Used
Standard/Tool Purpose
IRC 64-1990 Traffic volume capacity analysis
IRC 81-1997 Pavement strengthening based on BBD values
IRC SP 19, SP 84 Geometric and cross-section standards
IRC 88-2010 Road safety audits and hazard assessments
HDM-4 Pavement life-cycle cost and condition modeling
13
Excel, QGIS, HDM-4 Data analysis, mapping, and visualization
All collected data was entered in Excel, plotted using charts, and analyzed for patterns.
QGIS was used for mapping junctions, turning proportions, and spatial distribution of
pavement distress.
4.3. Traffic Flow Characterization Techniques
The traffic behavior over space and time was characterized by:
4.3.1. Hourly and Weekly Variations
Hourly data showed two distinct peaks (morning: 8–10 AM, evening: 5–7 PM).
Weekly variation indicated weekends had 15–20% higher traffic due to leisure trips.
4.3.2. PCU Conversion
Vehicle counts were converted to PCUs using IRC recommended factors:
Table 4. 5 PCU Factor
Vehicle Type PCU Factor
Car/LMV 1.0
Bus 2.5
Truck 3.0
2-Wheeler 0.5
Tractor 4.0
4.3.3. Directional Distribution
The corridor showed a directional split of 52% (Up Direction) and 48% (Down
Direction), indicating a fairly balanced flow, suitable for planning bi-directional
improvements.
4.3.4. Vehicle Composition
Freight vehicles (trucks + LCVs) constituted 22% of the traffic, buses 6%, 2-wheelers
38%, and LMVs 30%. This composition emphasizes the need for stronger pavements
and segregated NMT lanes.
4.4. Pavement Evaluation Techniques
4.4.1. Surface Distress Survey
Visual surveys identified the following types of distresses:
Longitudinal and transverse cracks
Alligator cracking
Rutting (depth >10 mm in 18% of surveyed segments)
Potholes (identified at 21 locations)
4.4.2. Structural Strength via BBD
14
