21.07.chapter 6

Project: Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study and preparation of Detailed Project 1 of 37
Report for construction of 4 lane flyover at Mission Charali, Tezpur, Junction point Date: July. 2020
of NH-52 (New NH-15), NH-37-A (New NH-715) and other urban arterial Road under Revision: R0
SOPD
Document: 1920-031/TRB/FSR/REP-01
Development Proposal
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 6
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
6.1 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
6.2 General Concept
After review of the prevalent IRC codes, MORT&H standards, norms and specifications are
formulated for the design basis to be adopted for the project corridor. These standards have
been framed to establish uniformity in improvement and satisfy requirement of different
stretches of the corridor. However, the proposed improvement facilities will be
accommodated within ROW.
6.3 Geometric Improvement
6.3.1 Codes and Guidelines
Indian Roads Congress (IRC) publications (listed in Table 6.1), will generally be used for
geometric design, traffic signs and safety aspects. The specification for works will be the
“MORTH Specifications for Roads and Bridge Works”. However, wherever, the IRC
publications are silent, other Indian/ International standards or specialist literatures shall be
referred.
Table 6.1 : List of IRC Codes to be Adopted for Design
Sl.
Description Design Code/Standard
No
i) IRC-38:1988 - Guidelines for design of Horizontal Curves
ii) IRC-SP-23:1993 – Vertical Curves for Highways
iii) IRC-SP-90:2010 – Manual for grade separator & elevated

structure.
Geometric Design &
1 iv) IRC-SP-73:2018 - Manual of Specifications & Standards
Capacity Standards
for two Laning of Highway through Public Private
Partnership
v) IRC:86-2018- Geometric Design Standards for Urban
Roads and Streets
vi) IRC-SP-84:2019 - Manual of Specifications & Standards
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sl.
Description Design Code/Standard
No
for four Laning of Highway through Public Private
Partnership
i) IRC-65:1976 – Recommended Practice for Traffic Rotaries
ii) IRC-92:1985 - Guidelines for Design of Interchanges in

Urban Areas
Junctions / iii) IRC-93:1985 – Guidelines on Design & Installation of Road
2 Intersections / Traffic Signals
Interchanges iv) IRC-SP-41:1994 – Guidelines on Design of at Grade
Intersections in Rural and Urban Areas
v) IRC 62: 1976- Guidelines for Control of Access on
Highways
i) IRC-31:1969 – Route Marker Signs for State Routes
ii) IRC-67:2012 – Code of Practice for Road Signs
3 Traffic Signs
iii) IRC-79:1981 – Recommended Practice for Road
Delineators
i) IRC-35:2015 – Code of Practice for Road Markings, Road
4 Road Markings
Delineators
i) IRC-103:2012 – Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities
5 Safety Measures ii) IRC-SP-44:1996 – Highway Safety Code

iii) IRC-SP-55:2014 – Guidelines for Safety in Construction
Zones
6 Specifications i) MORTH Specifications for Roads and Bridge Works (5th
Revision 2013)
6.3.2 Design Standards for at Grade Road Works
IRC: SP: 73-2019 “Manual of specifications &standards for two laning of highways
through public private partnership” has been followed for various design aspects.
However the project traverse through built up area of Tezpur town, IRC: 86-2018-
“Geometric Design Standards for Urban Roads and Streets” has also been followed.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Speed
The terrain of proposed project stretch is considered as plain. The flyover portion will be
designed at 60 kmph (restricted) and for the at grade portion, approach Speed at 60 kmph
and
design Speed for various elements of intersection at 30 to 50 kmph as it is passing through
built up stretch.
Right of Way
As per IRC SP 73:2018, a minimum Right of way (ROW) of 30 m should be available for
development of 2-Lane highway. But to accommodate 4-Lane Flyover approach with 6.0m
service road (excluding Kerb shyness) minimum 35.5 m ROW is required. Efforts shall be
made to accommodate the entire proposal flyover and at grade improvement) within the
EROW.
Horizontal Alignment
The horizontal alignment should focus on safety, smooth flow, and naturally blend with
topography. Aspects like curve radius, transitions, set back distance, super elevation having
major impact on safety will be emphasized.
Vertical Alignment
The vertical alignment of road plays vital role in minimizing accidents particularly in night
driving conditions. Major controlling factors for vertical alignment are gradient and sight
distance.
During Inception stage of the project, it was found that the project stretch is full of Army
land and built up and there is also a restriction on terminal points of the flyover due to
presence of junction . To meet this restrictions, maximum longitudinal gradient is kept 3.3% .
Summary of Design Standards
The geometric design standards adopted for this project are summarized and given in Table
6.3.
Table 6.3: Geometric Design Standards

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sl.
Description At grade Development Flyover
No.
1 Design Speed Approach Speed =60
kmph
Design Speed for various 60 kmph (restricted)
elements of intersection
= 30 to 50 kmph
2 Roadway Lane width 3m 3.5m
3 Footpath width (Either side) 2.5 m (including 1.5 m NA
footpath cum covered
drain and 1 m utility
space)
4 Cross slope for C/W 2.5% 2.5%
5 Carriageway width 2x6.5(including kerb 2 X 7.0
shyness)
6 Kerb shyness 2 X 0.25 NA
7 Paved shoulder NA NA
8 Sight Distance: Speed(km/hr) Speed(km/hr)
100 80 60 40 100 80 60 40
Desirable (intermediate) 360 360 m
m
Minimum (stopping) 180 180 m
m
9 Super elevation:
Maximum SE 7% 7%
10 Rate of change of Super 1 in 150 1 in 150
elevation
11 Radius of Horizontal Curve:
Desirable minimum radius 400 m 400 m
Absolute minimum radius 250 m 250 m
12 Vertical Gradient (Plain and Rolling terrain)
Ruling Gradient 2.5% 2.5%
Limiting Gradient 3.3 % 3.3%
13 Min. vertical clearance to NA 5.5 m
soffit over road
6.3.3 Design Standard for Structures
General 6 lane configurations for Flyovers/ Elevated corridors as per IRC: SP:87-2013:

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a) Codes & Standards
The design of various components of the bridge in general will be based on provisions of
IRC/ IS Codes. Wherever IRC codes are silent, reference will be made to other Indian/
International codes and standards. The list of IRC Codes (latest revisions) given below
will serve as a guide for the design of structures.
IRC: 5-2015: Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section I – General Features of Design.
Section-II – Loads and Stresses.
Section-VI – Composite Construction.
Section-VII – Foundation and Substructure.
IRC: 83-2015 (Part II): Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section IX - Bearings, Part II: Electrometric Bearings.
IRC: 83-2018 (Part III): Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section IX - Bearings, Part III: POT, POT-CUM-PTFE, Pin and
Metallic Bearings.
IRC: 87-2011: Guideline for Formwork, Falsework and Temporary Structures.
IRC: 112-2011: Code of Practice for Concrete Road bridges.
IRC: SP: 114-2015: Guideline for Seismic Design of Road Bridges.
(b) Loading
(i) Dead Load (DL)
Dead Load calculations will be made by adopting unit weights as per IRC: 6-2017.
(ii) Super Imposed Dead Load (SIDL)
Unit weight for superimposed dead load will be in conformity with IRC: 6-2017.
For calculating the dead weight due to wearing coat, thickness of 65mm will be
assumed.
(iii) Carriageway Live Load (LL)
Details of IRC Live Loads as per IRC :6 2017 clause 204 shall be adopted for

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
design. Live Load combination as per table 6 & 6A of IRC :6 2017 for the
considered carriage way width is as for 3 Lane configuration. 3 lanes of Class A
or 1 lane of Class A + 1 lane of 70R for 2x3 lane configuration, conforming to IRC
6-2017 shall be considered in the analysis. Class 70R Track, 40 Ton Bogie load of
“L”, “M”, “N” type as well as Class-A axel load will be considered in the analysis.
Special vehicle (SV) loading shall be considered as per Clause 204.5 of IRC 6-2017
in the analysis under live load.
Dispersion of live load for design of deck slab is to be calculated as per Annexure
B-3 of IRC: 112 -2011 & IRC: 21-2000. Pedestrian live load of 500 Kg/m 2 shall be
considered for Footpath (if applicable).
(iv) Differential Shrinkage and Creep
For differential shrinkage and creep stress calculations, parameters will be

considered as per IRC: 112 -2011.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(v) Earth Pressure Load
Coefficient of Earth pressure at Rest condition, at Active condition and at Passive

condition will be considered as per Amendment to IRC: 6 -2017.
(vi) Live Load Surcharge
Live Load surcharge equivalent to 1.20 meters height of earth-fill will be

considered as per IRC: 6-2017.
(vii) Seismic Loads
The structures in the project stretch falls in Zone III as per IRC: SP: 114 2015 and
seismic loads will be considered accordingly. Basic horizontal and vertical seismic
coefficient will be considered as per IRC: 6 – 2017 & IRC: SP: 114 2015, in the

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
design of all substructures and foundations. Importance factor will be
considered as 1.2 as per Codal provision.
(viii) Temperature Load
Temperature gradient load as per IRC: 6-2017 will be considered in design of

superstructure.
Coefficient of thermal expansion is considered as 12 x 10 -6/C as per IRC: 6-2017.

Poisson’s Ratio = 0.15 and Modulus of Elasticity is taken as per IRC: 112-2011.
Temp Rise Case Temp Fall Case
17.8 oC 10.6oC
h1 h1
h2 h2
h3
h3 0.80C h4
2.1 oC 6.6oC
Design Temperature Differences for Concrete Bridge Deck
(c) Durability Considerations
(i) Material and Cover
Grade of Concrete
 RCC Deck slab over PSC I Girder : M45

 PSC I girder/ PSC Box girder : M45
 RCC Pier & PSC Pier Cap : M45
 Pile, pile cap : M35
 Crash Barrier : M40

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Approach slab : M30
 RCC Retaining wall / RCC Wing Wall : M30
 PCC levelling course : M15
 Pier Cap, Pier : M45
 Bearing Pedestal : M40
 Strands Details (Super Structure & Substructure) : 19 T 13 & 27 T 13
Reinforcement Steel
HYSD bars (Grade Fe 500) conforming to IS: 1786 - 2008 shall be provided.
Cover
The minimum cover to reinforcement shall be determined from the

recommendations of IRC: 112-2011 taking into account the local environmental
conditions. The increase in detailed cover compared with the nominal cover as
specified in the above code allows for assessed variation in construction tolerance.
Following clear cover shall be adopted for various components considering
environmental exposure condition as Moderate.
Element Clear Cover to Reinforcement
Superstructure - 40mm
Crash Barrier - 50mm
Substructure - 50mm
Foundation - 75mm
(ii) Soil Properties
Density of soil used for back filling will be taken as 2.0 t/cum for dry &
compacted condition as per IRC: 6 - 2017. Corresponding shear parameters may
be taken are C = 0 and Ø = 30o.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(iii) Expansion Joints
Strip Seal type of expansion joint will be proposed for PSC Box, PSC I-Girder, RCC
Deck Slab superstructure. Mastic Asphalt Filler Type expansion joint will be
proposed for Solid Slab type superstructure. Compressible Fibre Type expansion
joint will be proposed for RCC Box type structure.
(iv) Bearings
Elastomeric bearings with arrester control in both directions or POT-PTFE/

Spherical bearing will be used for all girder bridges i.e. PSC Box girder, PSC I
girder, Steel Composite Plate Girder, Steel composite Box Girder type bridges.
For solid slab type superstructure bridges tar paper will be used as bearing.
(v) Drainage Provisions
Drainage spouts will be placed not greater than 5m center to center. Down take
pipes will be provided to dispose the water below soffit of the superstructure.
Structural Analysis, Design and Construction
(a) Precast Post Tensioned I Girder Superstructure
Method of Analysis for Longitudinal Girders
The analysis of the Precast Post-tensioned I Girder for longitudinal flexure shall be
carried out using grillage model on STAAD Pro/MIDAS software on the following
basis:
 Full superstructure will be modelled as grillage beam with longitudinal and
transverse members.
 Members along the longitudinal Direction shall be along the longitudinal beam
and at the ends of deck slab. End longitudinal members will act as dummy
member.
 Transverse members of the grillage other than the cross – diaphragm shall be
modelled as slab elements. Cross girders will be modelled as Cross frame
element.
 Section property of longitudinal girders with effective flange width and short/
long term effects as mentioned in IRC:22 - 2015 will be considered for analysis.
Dummy longitudinal members will be given negligible property. Property of slab
element will be given to transverse members except cross girders, where

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
property of Cross frame element Section will be given. Negligible property be
assigned against the member so that they do not carry any torsional moment.
 Construction stages such as PSC I Girder only property with self-weight of girder
and green concrete weight of deck also considered in analysis.
 Dead load on grillage will be put through “self-weight” command in
STAAD/MIDAS on longitudinal members. No dead load will be put on transverse
member. SIDL will be placed on long grillage member as UDL. If Crash barrier,
Railing, Footpath load does not come directly under any long member, total load
will be divided to equivalent load to the nearest two members or will be
transferred to nearest long girder with equivalent load and moment.
 Different live load case will be created according to the number of lanes and
possible combination of loads as per IRC:6-2017 and will run the load through
the span of the bridge to get BM and SF diagram for outer and inner girder
separately.
 Tabulation of moments and shear at different section will be done in excel sheet
for DL, SIDL and Live load. Live load will be multiplied by impact factor & lane
reduction factor. Construction stage, Service stage and Ultimate stage value of
moments and shear will be calculated from individual loads as per load
combination given in IRC:6-2017.
 Temperature stress, stress check at SLS as well as at construction stages will be
done by in house excel sheet or given as input in MIDAS software model as per
IRC:22 – 2015 and IRC:24 - 2010.
 Ultimate capacity of PSC girder/ RCC girder at different section in flexure shall be
checked as per IRC:112-2011.
 The stress and crack width for RCC T girder at different section shall be checked
as per IRC:112-2011.
 The stress and crack width for PSC girders with 1.1 & 0.9 times of pre-stressing
force at service stage at different section shall be checked as per IRC:112-2011.
Method of Analysis for Cross Diaphragm
The analysis of the Cross Diaphragm shall be carried out using same grillage model
on STAAD Pro/MIDAS on the following basis:
 The intermediate cross diaphragm shall be designed as truss elements

supported on the longitudinal girders.
 The end cross diaphragm shall be designed for the jack up position
Sequence of Construction for Post Tensioned Girder

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Cast the girder in situ or on ground at the side of the structure.
 First stage Pre-stressing of cables shall be done after 14 days of the casting or
after a concrete has attained strength of 40 Mpa whichever is later and second
stage Pre-stressing of cables shall be done after 28 days of the casting or after a
concrete has attained strength of 45 Mpa whichever is later.
 Launch the girder at position upon substructure.
 Erect staging and shuttering for RCC deck slab supported from bottom bulb of
girders.
 Cast the top RCC deck slab together with cross diaphragm.
 Cast the crash barrier on either side.
 Lay wearing coat.
Analysis of Deck Slab
Model
It is assumed that deck slab will be rested on main longitudinal girders and cross
girders. Since the spacing of cross girders is more than double of spacing between
main girders, deck slab will be designed as one-way continuous beam along
transverse direction supported on longitudinal girders. Single line STAAD model will
be generated to represent the deck slab. Nodes will be provided at support
locations, two cantilever edges and point at the end of top flange of longitudinal
girder. In addition, nodes will be considered at suitable location to get the BM and
SF result easily. Member property will be assigned as beam with 1m width and
depth as thickness of deck slab. Members adjacent to support will be given
combined thickness of deck slab and top flange thickness of girder. Pinned type
supports will be provided at each girder location. Typical model shown below will be
considered in the analysis.
Analysis of Deck Slab for Dead Load and SIDL
Dead load will be derived using “self-weight” command in STAAD. SIDL will be placed
as UDL and Concentrated load on member. While wearing coat load and footpath
load will be placed as UDL on members over which it is acting, weight of railing and
crash barrier will be placed as concentrated load on members where it comes.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Analysis of Deck Slab for Carriageway Live Load
Analysis of moving load for the design of deck slab will be done according to the
guidelines of IRC: 6 – 2017. In case of a continuous beam, influence line diagrams
cannot be readily made use of in the design. The reason for this is that the effective
width of concentrated axle loads of IRC loading change according to the positions of
the latter along the span and as such bending moment per meter width, relevant for
the design of the slab also undergoes changes.
The five types of IRC loading viz. 70R Wheel (m & l type), 70R Track, Class A and
Special vehicle (SV). The original loading (each wheel or track) will be divided into
discrete equivalent concentrated loads in the transverse direction maintaining the
total load and width same as per code. It gives more accurate analysis to find out the
bending moment in the deck slab per meter width. The equivalent load systems for
the different load classes are shown below: -
a) Class 70R Bogie (m)
b) Class 70R Bogie (l)

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
c) Class 70R Track
d) Class A
e) Special Vehicle (SV) Loading

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The most critical value of live load bending moment at mid span and shear force at
support (both loading class wise and position wise) would be considered as design
value. The footpath live load has also been calculated according to guidelines of IRC:
6 –2017 if any.
Effective Width
The width of slab that may be effective in resisting BM due to concentrated load will
be considered in accordance with clause 305.16.2 of IRC:21–2000 and Annexure B3
of IRC:112-2011.
The width of slab that may be effective in resisting BM due to concentrated load will
be considered in accordance with clause 305.16.2 of IRC:21–2000 and Annexure B3
of IRC:112-2011.
For slab in between main girders:
bef = Effective width of slab on which the load act =  x a (1 – a/l0) + b1
Where,  = 2.6 (As per Table given in IRC:21-2000, ratio b/ lo, Where b is the width
of slab)
l = center to center span of longitudinal girder

a = The distance of concentrated load from the nearest support
b1 = Width of contact area at right angle to the span + 2 x wearing coat
thickness (0.065m)
For Cantilever
bef = 1.2 x a + b1
Live load will be moved from one side of carriageway to other side with an
increment of position of ~0.5m. For each position on live load effective width will be
calculated and tabulated in excel sheet. These live loads will be divided with the
corresponding effective width to get the effective live load per unit width of deck
slab. The same will be put on STAAD Pro model to get the moment and shear force
on deck slab due to live load. The slab designed on above basis will not be checked
for shear as per IRC:21–2000 and Annexure B3 of IRC:112-2011.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Temperature Load
Load due to temperature gradient will be considered in accordance with clause

218.3 of IRC: 6 – 2016. Distribution of stresses due to continuity effect will be
considered and stress check will be made.
Load Tabulation and Design
Moments and shear force results obtained from output of STAAD analysis will be
tabulated in Excel sheet. Design of deck slab will be carried out in accordance with
IRC: 112– 2011, using spread sheet prepared in house.
(b) PSC Substructure
PSC substructure will be considered as cantilever column type / Portal frame type
member in vertical direction supported on fixed support over open or pile
foundation. Load and moments will be calculated at base of substructure
considering all the loads and load combinations as specified in IRC: 6-2017 using in
house software in Excel sheet/MIDAS software. Substructures will be checked for
axial and biaxial moments at the base and other section also. Pier / Abutment Cap
will be considered as cantilever beam of varying depth along transverse direction
and supported on face of equivalent pier section. Load from superstructure will be
placed on bearing location. Live load will be placed on superstructure in such a way
so that it gives maximum reaction on outer bearing to create maximum moment and
shear on pier / abutment cap. In case the distance of bearing from face of pier /
abutment is less than the depth of cap, then cap should also be as bracket. Design of
sub-structure shall be confirming IRC:24-2010.
(c) RCC Foundation
Safe bearing capacity of soil will be calculated considering soil strata at individual
structure location. Foundation type of structure will be decided depending on load
on foundation, scour depth and safe bearing capacity. Open foundations will be
designed as beam of variable depth in both the direction. Uplift will not be
considered in any foundation. In longitudinal direction, the pile cap will be designed
as cantilever slab, supported from face of pier wall with vertical reactions from piles
as loads. In transverse direction the pile cap will be designed as cantilever slab
supported from face of the equivalent pier. Torsion due to difference in pile reaction
will be considered in design.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Methodology for Estimation of Load Carrying Capacity of Pile
The total vertical load carrying capacity of pile foundation is a combination of skin
friction along the surface and end bearing at pile tip. The Design of Vertical load
carrying capacity will be carried out following IRC 78 and IS 2911(Part 1) Guidelines.
The Uplift capacity of pile will be calculated based on IRC 78 and IS 2911(Part 1)
Guidelines. The lateral Capacity would be calculated based on IS 2911(Part1/sec2)
and IRC Guidelines.
Where the pile tips will be socketed inside the moderately to partly weathered hard
rock, total vertical load carrying capacity of pile foundation is a combination of skin
friction along the surface and end bearing at pile tip. However, as per IS: 14593 &
IRC: 78 specifications, load carrying capacity of pile foundation on rock is estimated
from the side friction along the pile shaft only in rock socket portion and the end
bearing of rock at pile tip. As per the above-mentioned guidelines, the side friction
along the pile shaft in the overburden soil portion has not been considered. Since
the pile is socketed in the rock comes out to be short pile, hence the method given
in the IS: 2911 (Part 1) for the estimation of lateral load carrying capacity may not
use. Therefore, the lateral load carrying capacity of the pile is estimated as per the
“Brom’s Method”, which covers all the different lengths (short, intermediate & long)
of pile in any strata. The depth of foundation will be decided so that it is safe against
scour. The minimum embedment / socket depth in rock would be provided as per
the guidelines given in IS: 14593 - 1998 & IRC: 78 – 2014. The water table was
considered at ground level for analysis purpose.
Design Methodology for foundation
Pile Cap
Pile Cap will be assumed as a rigid slab type structure resting on pile and load
coming from pier. Reaction on pile would be calculated considering rivet theory and
design of pile cap by considering beam analogy method. Pile cap will be checked for
moment at pier face locations in both direction and for normal shear d eff away from
pier face location in both directions. Pile cap will also be checked for punching shear
at pile and pier locations.
6.3.4 Proposed Cross Sections

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cross-section for the improved facility should be adequate to cater to the traffic expected
over the design period and offer safe and convenient traffic operation at speeds consistent
with the terrain conditions and functional classification of this road.
The cross-sectional elements (lane/ width etc.) are as per standards specified in geometric
design manual.Nine nos. typical cross sections have been envisaged for the subject project
mentioned below. These have been prepared on the basis of site reconnaissance and design
guidelines.
Typical Cross
Description
Sections
Typical Cross Section of 4-Lane Flyover with Central Pier (Structure Width – 2x11.0m and
TCS-1
Service Road/At-grade Road Width - 2x6.5m) – At Stretches with Full Clearance
TCS-1A
Service Road/At-grade Road Width - 2x6.5m) – At Stretches with Less Than Full Clearance
Typical Cross Section at RE Wall Stretches of 4-Lane Flyover with Central Pier (Structure
TCS-1B
Width – 2x11.0m and Service Road/At-grade Road Width - 2x6.5m)
TCS-2
TCS-2A
Typical Cross Section at RE Wall Stretches of 4-Lane Flyover with Central Pier (Structure
TCS-2B
Typical Cross Section of 4-Lane Flyover with Portal Frame (Structure Width – 2x11.0m and
TCS-3
Typical Cross Section of 4-Lane Flyover with Portal Frame (Structure Width – 2x11.0m and
TCS-3A
Typical Cross Section at RE Wall Stretches of 4-Lane Flyover with Portal Frame (Structure
TCS-3B
TCS-4 2 lane at grade road with Paved and earthen shoulder
Typical cross section drawing for the options is given in Chapter 4: Option Study report . After
evaluation of different options(Option 1,2and 3) based on Land Requirement, R&R Involvement, cost
etc option 2 (with TCS 2,2A,2B ) has been finalized which is elaborately given in Ch.4.
Cross section schedule for the project road are presented in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 : TCS Schedule

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design Chainage(m) Lengt TCS Type
Sl no. Description
From To h (m) Option-2
2 lane at grade road with Paved and earthen
1 0 120 120 TCS-4
shoulder
Typical Cross Section at RE Wall Stretches of
4-Lane Flyover with Central Pier (Structure
2 120 340 220 TCS-2B
Width – 2x8.0m and Service Road/At-grade
Road Width - 2x6.5m)
Typical Cross Section of 4-Lane Flyover with
Central Pier (Structure Width – 2x8.0m and
3 340 500 160 TCS-2A
Service Road/At-grade Road Width - 2x6.5m)
– At Stretches with Less Than Full Clearance
4 500 600 100 TCS-2
– At Stretches with Full Clearance
5 600 2720 2120 TCS-2
6 2720 2820 100 TCS-2
7 2820 2980 160 TCS-2A
– At Stretches with Less Than Full Clearance
8 2980 3200 220 TCS-2B
2 lane at grade road with Paved and earthen
9 3200 3320 120 TCS-4
shoulder
Total Length 3320

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.3.5 Flyover
The viaduct of proposed flyover starts from 311+555 and ends at 313+715. The span
arrangement is provided in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5: Details of Span Arrangement of Flyover
Start Span Type of Length

End Chainage
Chainage Arrangement (m) Superstructure (m)
72 x 30m (3 Span PSC Girder Type

311+555 313+715 2160
continuous) Structure
Main built up area of Kalladka town is located between km 312+050 to km 313+000 which
needs to grade separated. However, from km 312+980, the nature of ground profile is
downward and found to be almost parallel with proposed profile with 2.5% longitudinal
gradient. Hence, length of flyover could not be reduced further.
It was specially suggested from PIU, Hassan that the cross roads at km 313+100 and km
313+260 shall be covered within flyover stretch to facilitate cross movement. In the current
proposal, these cross roads are covered within viaduct stretch with clear height of 10.769m
and 10.914m respectively.
Width of structure as per earlier proposal by L&T, as collected from PIU (Hassan), was 12.0m
which is as per IRC:SP:87-2009. However, 13.4m wide structure is considered in the current
report as per IRC:SP:87-2013. Provision of IRC:SP:87-2019 and IRC:SP:84-2019 has not been
considered due to economy and further LA which will be time consuming. The matter may
be included in Schedule-D under “Variation from Manual”.
It was suggested to propose a PUP/CUP towards Hassan side (near km 311+630) for cross
movement of local traffic. However, this location is covering by viaduct span with clear
height of 5.074m.
6.3.6 Improvement Proposal for Culverts
There are 11 nos. CD structures along the project road. All structures are proposed for
reconstruction. Details of improvement proposals of culverts are provided in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Details of Improvement Proposals of Culverts

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sl Design
Existing Improvement
No Chainage Proposed Type Span (No. x m x m)
Type Proposal
. (km)
1 311+160 Slab Culvert Reconstruction Box 1 x 2.0 x 2.0
Pipe
2 311+200 Reconstruction Box 1 x 2.0 x 2.0
Culvert
Pipe
Culvert
Pipe
Culvert
Pipe
Culvert
Pipe
Culvert
Pipe
Culvert
6.4 Intersection Improvement Proposals
The proposed project road will form a no. of intersections with existing roads. 1 no. of major
intersection shall have to be developed. Improvement of these intersections has been
thought off with minimum of land acquisition. However, proper acceleration and
deceleration lanes have been considered with proper traffic signage. In general, standard
codal provisions have been followed for design of these intersections. Detail layouts are
provided in Drawing Volume. Besides, there are 5 nos. minor intersections along the project
road which shall be operated as normal left-in and left-out principle. Improvement proposals
of major and minor intersections are provided in Table 6.7 & 6.8.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 6.7 : Improvement Proposals of Major Intersections
Design Type of
Sl Improvement
Chainag Intersec Type Remarks
No. Proposals
e (km) tion
1 Int. with NH-15,NH 715 and State
1+860 Major 4 - legged At Grade
road towards Tezpur town.
Table 6.8 : Improvement Proposals of Minor Intersections
Sl Chainage Type of Improvement

Type Side
No. (km) Intersection Proposals
1 311+550 Minor 3 legged RHS At Grade
3 311+625 Minor 3 legged LHS At Grade
6.5 Pavement Design

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rigid Pavement Design
The Rigid Pavement Design is carried out in accordance with Indian Roads Congress guide
lines. The pavement is designed in accordance with IRC: 58 -2015 “Guidelines for the Design
of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements for Highways”.
Design Parameters of Rigid Pavement
 Effective CBR of subgrade = 8%

 Two-way commercial traffic volume per day = 7267 CVPD
(The traffic for the Kalladka flyover approach towards Mangalore is considered as the
volume of the same is the most among all the directions. The opening of the flyover is
considered to be the year 2022)
 Adopted 28 days Compressive strength of Concrete = 40 MPa
 90 days Flexural strength of concrete = 4.95 MPa
Front to 1st rear axle distances is provided in Table 6.9.
Table 6.9 : Front to 1st Rear Axle Distances
Type of Vehicle Remarks
LCV, Mini Bus, 2 Axle Truck, 3 Axle Truck,

<4.5m
4 Axle & above
Mini Bus <4.5m
Bus >4.5m
2 Axle <4.5m
3 Axle <4.5m
4 Axle & above <4.5m
Other parameters for design of rigid pavement are provided in Table 6.10.
Table 6.10 : Other Parameters for Design of Rigid Pavement

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sl Parameters Value
No.
(i) Design Period 30 Yrs.
(ii) Lane Width 3.5m
(iii) Transverse Joint Spacing 4.5m
(iv) Commercial Vehicle per Day in the Year of Completion 7267 Nos.
(v) Axle Configuration from Axle Load Survey
- Front axle (steering single) 47.45%
- Rear Single Axle 42.60%
- Rear Tandem Axle 9.95%
- Rear Tridem Axle 0%
(vi) Percentage of CVD with Spacing between Front Axle & 1st Rear Axle Less
70.14%
Than 4.5m
(vii) Commercial Vehicles Travelling during Night Time (6pm to 6am) 64%
(viii Average Numbers of Axles per Commercial Vehicles 2.108

)
(ix) Axle Load Spectrum Table (No Front Axle)
Axle load spectrum obtained from axle load survey is provided in Table 6.11.
Table 6.11 : Axle Load Spectrum
Single Axle Tandem Axle Tridem Axle

Axle)Frequency (% of Single
Mid-Point of Load Group

Frequency (% of Single
Axle Load Class (KN)

Mid-point of Load Group
Number
Number
Number
Axle)
Axle)
185-195 190 0 0.00% 380-400 390 0 - 530-560 545 0 -

175-185 180 0 0.00% 360-380 370 0 - 500-530 515 0 -
165-175 170 0 0.00% 340-360 350 0 - 470-500 485 0 -
155-165 160 8 0.72% 320-340 330 0 - 440-470 455 0 -
145-155 150 5 0.45% 300-320 310 0 - 410-440 425 0 -

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Single Axle Tandem Axle Tridem Axle
Axle)Frequency (% of Single


Mid-point of Load Group
Number
Number
Number
Axle)
Axle)
135-145 140 16 1.43% 280-300 290 0 - 380-410 395 0 -

125-135 130 58 5.19% 260-280 270 0 - 350-380 365 0 -
115-125 120 83 7.42% 240-260 250 0 - 320-350 335 0 -
105-115 110 87 7.78% 220-240 230 0 - 290-320 305 0 -
95-105 100 69 6.17% 200-220 210 0 - 260-290 275 0 -
85-105 90 115 10.29% 180-200 190 0 - 230-260 245 0 -
100.00 -
<85 80 677 60.55% <180 170 261 <230 215 0
%
1118 100% 261 100% 0 -
Analysis of Pavement Crust
E Concrete Pavement with tied Concrete Shoulder - yes/no No

1
E Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation, k 284.7

2 (=D1)
E Unit Weight of Concrete (=D4) 24

3
E Trial Thickness of Concrete Slab (PQC) 0.30 m E 30000

4 (=D2)
E Radius of relative stiffness, I [(D2xE4^3)/(12xE2xE6)]^0.25 0.702 m Miu 0.15

5
E Maximum day time temperature differential in slab (=D6) 21 1-miu^2 0.978

6
E Load Transfer Efficiency Factor for TDC analysis, Beta = 0.66

7 0.66 for dowel Joints, 0.90 for joints without dowels
E Night-time Temperature Differential in slab, 0C (for top- 15.5

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 down cracking) = day-time diff/2 + 5 (=D7)
(A) General
A1 Effective CBR of compacted sub-grade 8% ………… 5.7.3.5, Fig. 2
A2 Modulus of subgrade reaction 50.3 MPa ………… Table 2
A3 Provide 150mm thick granular sub-base
A4 Provide a DLC of 150mm thick with a minimum 7

days compressive strength of 7 MPa
A5 Effective Modulus of subgrade reaction of 284.7 ………… Table 4

combined foundation of sub-grade + granular sub- MPa/m (considering 150m DLC
base & DLC
A6 Provide debonding layer of Polythene sheet of 125

micron thickness between DLC and Concrete Slab
(B) Selection of Flexural Strength of Concrete
B1 28 days compressive strength of cement concrete >= 40 MPa (min) ………… 5.8.1
B2 90 days compressive strength of cement concrete >=48 MPa ………… 5.8.1
B3 28 days Flexural strength of cement concrete 4.5 MPa ………… 5.8.2
B4 90 days Flexural strength of cement concrete (B3x1.1) 4.95 Mpa ………... 5.8.2
(C) Selection of Design Traffic for Fatigue Analysis
C1 Design Traffic 30 Yrs.
C2 Annual growth rate for CVs 5%
C3 Two-way commercial traffic volume / day 7267 CVPD
C4 % of traffic in predominant direction 50% 3634 CVPD
C5 Total 2-ways CV during design period 176226053

(365xC3X(1+C2/100)^C1)/(C2x100)
C6 Average number of axles per CV 2.108

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
C7 So, 2-way axle laod repetition during design 371884520
period (C5xC6)
C8 Number of axles in predominant direction 185742260

(C7xC4/100)
C9 Design traffic after adjusting for lateral placement 46435565 25% of predominent
of axles (C8x0.25) direction traffic for
multiple h/way
(…… 5.5.2.3)
C10 Night time design axle repetitions (12hr) (C9xSl. 29718762

No. vii of Table 2.3)
C11 Day time design axle repetitions (12hr) [C9x(1-Sl. 16716803

No. vii of Table 2.3/100)]
C12 Day time 06 hrs axle load repetitions (C11/2) 8358402 …….. 5.6.2.4
C13 Hence, Design number of axle load repetitions for 8358402 For Bottom-up Cracking
Bottom-up Cracking Analysis (=C12) Analysis
C14 Night time 06 hrs axle load repetitions (C10/2) 14859381
C15 % of CVD having spacing between front 70.14 Sl No. (vi) of Table 2.3
(streering) axle and first axle of the rear axle unit
less than 4.5m
C16 Hence, the 06 hr night time design axle load 10422370 ………. 5.3/5.5.2.4
repetitions for Top-down Cracking Analysis
(wheel base<4.5m) (C14xC15/100)
C17 The axle load category-wise design axle load

repetitions for Bottom-up and Top-down fatigue
analysis are given below:
Category-wise axle Category-wise axle

Proportion of
Axle category repetition for Bottom- repetition for Top-down
Axle Category
up Cracking Analysis Cracking Analysis
Front (streeing) single 47.45 3966062 4945414

Rear Single 42.60 3560679 4439929
Tandem 9.95 831661 1037026
Tridem 0 0 0

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(D) Cumulative Fatigue Damage (CFD) Aanalysis for Bottom-up Cracking (BUC) and Top-
down Cracking (TDC) and Selection of Slab Thickness
D1 Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of 284.7 MPa/m

foundation, k (=A5)
D2 Elastic Modulus of Concrete, E 30000 MPa …….. 5.8.4.1
D3 Poisson's Ratio of Concrete, (miu) 0.15 …….. 5.8.4.1
D4 Unit Weight of Concrete 24 KN/cum
D5 Design Flexural Strength of Concrete (=B4) 4.95 MPa
D6 Maximum day time temperature 21 deg. C ……. Table 1 (for slab

differential in slab 300/400, BUC)
D7 Night-time temperature differential in slab 15.5 deg. C ……. 5.6.2.3 (1/2 of day
(D6/2+5) temp. considered at
night for TUC)
(E) Cumulative Fatigue Damage Analysis (Mid-Point of the Axle Load Class is adopted for
Stress Computation)
Bottom-up Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Day-time (6 hour) traffic and Positive Temperature Differential
Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles

(ni/Ni)Fatigue Damage
Stress Ratio (SR)
Stress Ratio (SR)

Fatigue Damage
Flex Stress MPa

Flex Stress MPa
Allowable Repetitions
Expected Repetitions
(ni/Ni)
(ni)
(ni)
(Ni)
(Ni)
185-195 0 3.088 0.624 15941 0.000 - - - - -

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bottom-up Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Day-time (6 hour) traffic and Positive Temperature Differential
Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles

(ni/Ni)Fatigue Damage
Stress Ratio (SR)
Stress Ratio (SR)

Fatigue Damage
Flex Stress MPa

Flex Stress MPa
(ni/Ni)
(Ni)
(Ni)
(ni)
(ni)
175-185 0 2.983 0.603 28706 0.000 - - - - -
165-175 0 2.879 0.582 51693 0.000 - - - - -
155-165 25479 2.774 0.560 93087 0.274 - - - - -
145-155 15924 2.669 0.539 170521 0.093 - - - - -
135-145 50958 2.564 0.518 350972 0.145 - - - - -
125-135 184722 2.460 0.497 887653 0.208 - - - - -
115-125 264344 2.355 0.476 3259200 0.081 - - - - -
105-115 277083 2.250 0.455 29211111 0.009 - - - - -
95-105 219756 2.146 0.433 infinite 0.000 - - - - -
85-105 366259 2.041 0.412 infinite 0.000 - - - - -
<85 2156154 1.936 0.391 infinite 0.000 831661 1.705 0.344 - -
0.0
3560679 0.811 831661
00
Total Bottom-up Fatigue Damage due to single
811
and tandem axle loads =

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Top-Down Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Night-time (6 hour) traffic and Negative Temperature Differential
(KN)Axle Load Class

Rear Tridem Axles
Rear Tandem Axles
Rear Single Axles (Stress computed for 33% of axle
(Stess computed for 50% of axle load)
load)
(ni)Expected Repetitions
(ni)Expected Repetitions
Fatigue Damage (ni/Ni)


Stress Ratio (SR)
Stress Ratio (SR)
Stress Ratio (SR)

Flex Stress MPa
Flex Stress MPa
Flex Stress MPa

(Ni)
(Ni)
(Ni)
(ni)
185-195 0 2.496 0.504 626620 0.000 380-400 - - - - - - - - - -

175-185 0 2.447 0.494 1011424 0.000 360-380 - - - - - - - - - -
165-175 0 2.399 0.485 1772726 0.000 340-360 - - - - - - - - - -
155-165 31771 2.351 0.475 3491844 0.009 320-340 - - - - - - - - - -
145-155 19857 2.302 0.465 8221810 0.002 300-320 - - - - - - - - - -
135-145 63541 2.254 0.455 26323513 0.002 280-300 - - - - - - - - - -
125-135 230336 2.206 0.446 infinite 0.000 260-280 - - - - - - - - - -
115-125 329619 2.157 0.436 infinite 0.000 240-260 - - - - - - - - - -
105-115 345504 2.109 0.426 infinite 0.000 220-240 - - - - - - - - - -
95-105 274021 2.061 0.416 infinite 0.000 200-220 - - - - - - - - - -
85-105 456701 2.012 0.407 infinite 0.000 180-200 - - - - - - - - - -
<85 2688580 1.964 0.397 infinite 0.000 <180 1037026 1.988 0.402 Infinite 0.000 - - - - -
4439929 0.014 1037026 0.000 - 0.000
Total Top-Down Fatigue Damage 0.014
Sum of CFD for BUC & TDC= 0.825

HENCE, DESIGN IS SAFE
(F) Design of Dowel Bars
F1 Slab Thickness, h (=E4) 300 mm
20 mm - expansion joint
F2 Joint width, z
5 mm - contraction joint
F3 Modulus of sub-grade reaction, k (=A2) 50.3 MPa/m
F4 Radius of relative stiffness, l (=E5) 702 mm
F5 E for dowel bar (2x10^5) 200000 MPa Modulus of Elasticity of Dowel

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bars MPa
Modulus of Dowel support

F6 Modulus of Dowel support [Kmds] 415000 MPa/m varies from 80000 to 415000
MPa/m
Maximum based on Axle Load

F7 Maximum Single Axle Load 164 KN
survey
(Considering dual wheel as

F8 Maximum Single Wheel Load (F7/2) 82 KN
single wheel for safe design)
As no shoulders are provided, no load transfer to shoulder is assumed.
No tied concrete shoulder is

considered hence no load is to
F9 Wheel load for Dowel Bar design (F8x1) 82 KN
be transferred to the
shoulder.
Safety of the Dowel Bar is examined for a Wheel Load of 82 KN
Assume a percentage of load transfer through Dowel Bar as 50% for 100% joint efficiency
F10 The Load to be transferred (F9/2) 41 KN
F11 Diameter of Dowel Bars = Bd 38 mm Assumed
Characteristics Compressive strength of For M40 concrete, 40MPa for

F12 40 MPa
Concrete = Fck 28 days, 40*1.2 for 90 days)
Permissible Bearing Stress in concrete …………….Eq 15 (Permissible

F13 26.71 MPa
(calculated using equation 15 of IRC 58:2015) Bearing Stress)
F14 Spacing between Dowel Bars 285 mm Assumed
First Dowel Bar is placed at a distace from the

F15 150 mm
pavement edge =
F16 Length of each Dowel Bar = 0.5 m Assumed
Dowel Bars up to a distance of 1.0 x radius of relative stiffness (l), from the point of load application
are effective in load transfer (para 7.2.7)
Number of Dowel Bars participating in load

Number = (1 + relative
F17 transfer when wheel load is just over the dowel 3.46
stiffness of bars/spacing)
bar close to the edge of the slab [1+(F4/F14)]
F18 Rounded Number of bars 3

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Assuming that the load transferred by the first
Dowel is Pt and that the load on Dowel Bar at a
F19 distance of L from the first dowel bar is zero, 1.782
the total load transferred by dowel bar system
[1+(F4-F14)/F4+(F4-2xF14)+(F4-3XF14)/F4]
Load carried by the outer Dowel Bar, Pt

F20 23.01 KN
(F10/F19)
Check for Bearing Stress
102395.07
F21 Moment of Inertia of Dowel (22/7xF11^4)/64
mm^4
Relative Stiffness of Dowel Bar embedded in

F22 concrete, B 0.021 mm^-1
[(F6xF11)/(1000x4xF5xF21)]^0.25
Bearing Stress in Dowel Bar Fb-max

F23 26.70 MPa <Permissible Bearing Stress
[(F20xF6)x{2+(F22xF2)}]/[4x{(F22)^3xF5xF21]
HENCE, DESIGN OF DOWEL BAR IS SAFE
(G) Design of Tie Bars
Input Data
G1 Slab thickness (=E4) 0.30 m
G2 Lane width, b (refer Table 2.3) 3.50 m
G3 Co-efficient of friction, f 1.5
G4 Density of Concrete, kN/cum (E3) 24
G5 Allowable tensile stress in plain bars, MPa 125 (As per IRC 58:2015)
G6 Allowable tensile stress in deformed bars, MPa 200 (As per IRC 58:2015)
G7 Allowable bond stress for plain tie bars, MPa 1.75
Allowable bond stress for deformed tie bars,

G8 2.46
MPa
G9 Select diameter of tie bars, dt 12 mm

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design for Deformed Bars
G10 Select diameter of tie bars, dt (=G9) 12 mm
Cross-sectional area of tie bar, A

G11 113.143 sqmm/m
(G10^2)x(22/7/4)
G12 Perimeter of Tie bars, P (22/7)xG10 37.7143 mm
Area of steel bar required per metre width of

G13 joint to resist the frictional force at slab bottom, 189 sqmm/m
As (G2xG3x0.33xG4x1000)/G6
Spacing of tie bars, = 1000*(A/As)

G14 598.639 mm
[1000xG11/G13]
G15 Provide a spacing of (c/c) 590 mm
G16 Length of tie bar, L [(2xG6xG11)/(G8xG12)] 487.805 mm
Increase length by 100mm for loss of bond to painting and another 50mm for tolerance
in placement
Therefore, the required length of tie bar

G17 637.805 mm
(G16+100+50)
Say, 640 mm
(H) Summary of Pavement Design is given in Table 6.12.
Table 6.12 : Summary of Pavement Design
Sl No. Particulars Unit DValue

1 Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) Thickness mm 300
2 Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) Thickness mm 150
3 Granular Sub-Base (GSB) Thickness mm 150

4 Reinforcement

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
A Dowel Bar
(i) Diameter mm 38
(ii) Length mm 500
(iii) c/c Spacing mm 285
B Deformed Tie Bar
(i) Diameter mm 12
(ii) Length mm 640
(iii) c/c Spacing mm 590
6.6 Other Highway Facilities
6.6.1 Illumination
Highway illumination shall be considered at various location such as flyover, builtup

locations Junctions etc. as per clause 12.4 of IRC: SP: 73-2018.:
6.6.2 Miscellaneous Provisions for Traffic Guidance and Safety
The objective of a high-speed facility includes providing safe, efficient and economic
movement of motorized through traffic with comfort and pleasing environment during the
journey. This requires certain miscellaneous provisions for traffic guidance and safety.
However, it is evident that after implementation of the project, high speed environment will
make the areas more accident-prone unless proper safety controls are exercised. The
Consultants propose to rectify any geometric and engineering deficiency existing along the
critical stretches. The safety measures and devices as proposed are described below:
 Traffic Guidance, Regulation, Control and Safety Measures

 Pedestrian Facilities
 Speed Breakers
Traffic Guidance, Regulation, Control and Safety Measures
For notification of road features and also for safety and guidance of the road users, the
project road will be provided with all the necessary traffic control and safety devices. These
include:
 Traffic Signs – mandatory, cautionary and informatory Road Markings

 Provision of road studs or similar tools, for carriageway centerline and edge
delineation
 Metal Beam Crash Barrier
 Concrete Beam Crash Barrier

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
 Pedestrian Guard Rail
To ensure safety of vehicles, W-Beam type metal beam crash barriers shall be provided on
both edges of the road where embankment height (road height) is equal to or greater than
3m. Suitable reflectors have been proposed to be fixed on the beam @ 3 m centre-to-centre
for proper delineation of the barrier line. The metal beam crash barrier sections shall start
and finish with a parabolic flare away from the carriageway. Concrete guard posts shall be
provided on both side of the carriageway for the balance reaches. Besides, trapezoidal
reflectors have been considered on guard posts at forest stretches.
Pedestrian Facilities
The facilities to be provided for pedestrian safety include:
 Pedestrian crossings at important intersections and urban areas

 Footpaths of adequate width
 Road signs cautioning drivers of Pedestrian Crossings ahead
 Pedestrian signals at intersections
The above will be provided at important intersections and major urban locations.

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Speed Breakers
Speed breakers shall be provided on minor cross-roads to alert the drivers and control the
speed of vehicles approaching the project road, forming priority junctions, and these shall be
constructed as per IRC: 99-1988. The speed breaker will be provided at about 10m into the
cross-road from the project road. Another speed breaker will precede this at 100-120m.
Appropriate warning signs “hump ahead” will be provided in advance to caution the drivers.
6.7 Proposed ROW and Land Acquisition
Proposed ROW is considered in such a way so that minimum land acquisition is involved.
PROW has been considered as per the following table.
Table 6.13 : Summary of PROW
Design
Chainage(m PROW
Sl Lengt TCS
) Description (m)
no. h (m) Type
Fro
To
m
2 lane at grade road with Paved and
1 0 120 120 TCS-4 27.25
earthen shoulder
2 120 340 220 TCS-2B 35.5
3 340 500 160 TCS-2A Service Road/At-grade Road Width - 35.5
2x6.5m) – At Stretches with Less Than Full
Clearance
4 500 600 100 TCS-2 21.5
Service Road/At-grade Road Width -
2x6.5m) – At Stretches with Full Clearance
5 600 2720 2120 TCS-2 21.5

SOPD
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Design
Chainage(m PROW
Sl Lengt TCS
) Description (m)
no. h (m) Type
Fro
To
m
6 2720 2820 100 TCS-2 21.5
7 2820 2980 160 TCS-2A Service Road/At-grade Road Width - 35.5
2x6.5m) – At Stretches with Less Than Full
Clearance
8 2980 3200 220 TCS-2B 35.5
2 lane at grade road with Paved and
9 3200 3320 120 TCS-4 27.25
earthen shoulder
Total Length 3320

21.07.chapter 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21.07.chapter 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

21.07.chapter 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project: Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study and preparation of Detailed Project 1 of 37

6.1 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

6.2 General Concept

6.3 Geometric Improvement

6.3.1 Codes and Guidelines

Table 6.1 : List of IRC Codes to be Adopted for Design

ii) IRC-SP-23:1993 – Vertical Curves for Highways

iii) IRC-SP-90:2010 – Manual for grade separator & elevated

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

ii) IRC-92:1985 - Guidelines for Design of Interchanges in

5 Safety Measures ii) IRC-SP-44:1996 – Highway Safety Code

6.3.2 Design Standards for at Grade Road Works

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

Summary of Design Standards

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

6.3.3 Design Standard for Structures

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

(a) Codes & Standards

(i) Dead Load (DL)

(ii) Super Imposed Dead Load (SIDL)

(iii) Carriageway Live Load (LL)

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

(iv) Differential Shrinkage and Creep

For differential shrinkage and creep stress calculations, parameters will be

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

(v) Earth Pressure Load

Coefficient of Earth pressure at Rest condition, at Active condition and at Passive

(vi) Live Load Surcharge

Live Load surcharge equivalent to 1.20 meters height of earth-fill will be

(vii) Seismic Loads

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

(viii) Temperature Load

Temperature gradient load as per IRC: 6-2017 will be considered in design of

Coefficient of thermal expansion is considered as 12 x 10 -6/C as per IRC: 6-2017.

Temp Rise Case Temp Fall Case

(c) Durability Considerations

(i) Material and Cover

 RCC Deck slab over PSC I Girder : M45

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

The minimum cover to reinforcement shall be determined from the

Element Clear Cover to Reinforcement

(ii) Soil Properties

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

Elastomeric bearings with arrester control in both directions or POT-PTFE/

(v) Drainage Provisions

Structural Analysis, Design and Construction

(a) Precast Post Tensioned I Girder Superstructure

Method of Analysis for Longitudinal Girders

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

Method of Analysis for Cross Diaphragm

 The intermediate cross diaphragm shall be designed as truss elements

Sequence of Construction for Post Tensioned Girder

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

Analysis of Deck Slab

Analysis of Deck Slab for Dead Load and SIDL

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES

a) Class 70R Bogie (m)

b) Class 70R Bogie (l)

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT TRANSPORTATION ROADS AND BRIDGES