IRC:65-2017

Guidelines for Planning

and
Design of Roundabouts
(First Revision)

Published by:

INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

Kama Koti Marg,
Sector-6, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110 022
November, 2017

Price : ` 400/-
(Plus Packing & Postage)
IRC:65-2017

First Published : April, 1976

Reprinted : December, 1990
Reprinted : September, 1998
Reprinted : September, 2002
Reprinted : August, 2005
First Revision : November, 2017

(All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced,

translated or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
permission of the Indian Roads Congress)

Printed by India Offset Press, Delhi - 110 064

500 Copies
 IRC:65-2017

Contents

S.No. Description Page No.

Personnel of the Highways Specifications and Standards Committee i-ii
1. General 2
2. Definitions and Terminologies 3
2.1 Geometric Parameters 3
2.2 Flow Parameters 4
2.3 Driver Behavior Parameters 4
2.4 Performance Parameters 6
3. Roundabouts 6
3.1 Single Lane Roundabouts 6
3.2 Multilane Roundabouts 7
4. Rotary Intersection 8
5. Planning Consideration 9
5.1 Intersection Hierarchy 9
5.2 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) for Roundabout 11
5.3 Site Selection for Roundabouts 11
6. Geometric Design 12
6.1 Central Island and Circulatory Carriageway 12
6.2 Positioning of Central Island 14
6.3 Entry and Exit Design 14
6.4 Splitter/Channelizing Islands 16
6.5 Entry Flaring 17
6.6 Entry Angle 18
6.7 Weaving Width in Rotary 19
6.8 Design Speed 20
6.9 Design Vehicle 21
6.10 Path Alignment 22
6.11 Sight Distance 22
6.12 Grade of Intersecting Road 26
6.13 Camber and Super-elevation 26
IRC:65-2017

6.14 Drainage 27
6.15 Kerbs 28
6.16 Road Signs and Pavement Markings 28
7. Non-motorized Transportation at Roundabout 29
7.1 Pedestrians 29
7.2 Cyclists 30
8 Roundabout Performance Indicators 32
8.1 Critical Gap 32
8.2 Follow-up Time 33
8.3 Lag 33
8.4 Forced Gap 34
8.5 Static Entrance 34
8.6 Floating Entrance 34
9 Capacity Estimation 34
10 Delay 36
11 Level of Service (LOS) 37
12 Illumination 38
13 Landscaping 38
14 Safety 39
14.1 General Considerations 39
14.2 Speed Control 40
References42
 IRC:65-2017

PERSONNEL OF THE HIGHWAYS SPECIFICATIONS

AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(As on 23.06.2017)

Kumar, Manoj Director General (Road Development) & Special Secretary to Govt. of
1
(Convenor) India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
Singh, B.N. Addl. Director General (Incharge), Ministry of Road Transport and
2
(Co-Convenor) Highways, New Delhi
Verma, Dr. S.K. Chief Engineer (R) S,R & T, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
3
(Member Secretary) New Delhi
Members
4 Bamezai, Prof. (Dr.) Gita R&D, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi
5 Basar, Toli Chief Engineer, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh
6 Bhanot, Balraj Chairman, TED, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
7 Bongirwar, P.L. Secretary (Retd.), PWD Maharashtra
DG(RD) & AS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
8 Gupta, D.P.
New Delhi
9 Jain, Prof. (Dr.) S.S. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
10 Jain, R.K. Chief Engineer (Retd.), PWD Haryana
Chief Executive, L.R. Kadiyali & Associates, New Delhi
11 Kadiyali, Dr. L.R.
(Expired on 18.02.2016)
12 Lal, Bhure Chairman, Environment Pollution Control Authority, Delhi
Engineer-in-Chief, Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority,
13 Lal, Chaman
Haryana
14 Narain, Sunita DG, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi
15 Nashikkar, J.T. JMD, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., Mumbai
16 Pandey, R.K. Member (Projects), National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi
17 Parida, Prof. (Dr.) M. Dean, SRIC, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
18 Pateriya, Dr. I.K. Director (Tech), National Rural Roads Development Agency, New Delhi
19 Pawar, Ajit Secretary (Retd.), PWD Maharashtra
20 Porwal, Dr. S.S. (VSM) ADG (Retd.), Border Roads Organisation, New Delhi
21 Raju, Dr. G.V.S. Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Roads & Building, Andhra Pradesh
22 Rawat, M.S. Executive Director, AECOM India Pvt. Ltd.
23 Sarangi, D. CGM, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi
24 Sharma, M.P. Chief Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
DG(RD) & SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
25 Sharma, S.C.
New Delhi

i
IRC:65-2017

26 Sheokand, Balbir Singh Executive Engineer, PWD Haryana

DG(RD) & SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
27 Singh, Nirmaljit
New Delhi
28 Singh, Pawan Kumar GM, 3M India Ltd.
DG(RD) & SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
29 Sinha, A.V.
New Delhi
30 Tawade, D.O. Member (T), National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi
The Director,
31 Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi
(Chandra, Dr. Satish)
The Director General,
32 Border Roads Organisation, New Delhi
(Shrivastava, Lt. Gen. S.K.)
The Director General,
33 Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures, New Delhi
(Mathur, Vishnu)
The Engineer-in-Chief,
34 Military Engineer Services, New Delhi
(Sharma, Lt. Gen. Suresh)
35 Tickoo, Bimal Secretary (T), PWD Jammu
36 Tiwari, Prof. (Dr.) Geetam Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi
Superintending Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
37 Varshney, Sharad
New Delhi
38 Verma, G.L. MD, Engg and Planning Consultants Ltd., New Delhi

Corresponding Members
1 Baluja, Dr. Rohit President, Institute of Road Traffic Education, New Delhi
2 Bhowmik, Sunil Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Tripura
DG(RD) & SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
3 Kandasamy, C
New Delhi
The Director,
4 (Patil, Capt. (Dr.) Rajendra B. Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune
Saner)

Ex-Officio Members

President, (Pradhan, N.K.), Engineer-in-Chief cum Secretary, Works Department,

1
Indian Roads Congress Odisha
Director General (Road
2 Development) & Special (Kumar, Manoj), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
Secretary to Govt. of India
Secretary General,
3 Nirmal, Sanjay Kumar
Indian Roads Congress

ii
 IRC:65-2017

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING

AND DESIGN OF ROUNDABOUTS

The IRC:65 “Recommended Practice for Traffic Rotaries” was first published by Indian Roads
Congress in 1976. For the last three decades, India is witnessing massive road development
program to improve the mobility and connectivity. New vehicle models have been entered
into road system and vulnerable road users are exposed to high speed traffic movement.
All these result in road crashes and it is reported that more than 50% of road accidents are
junction related accidents. Therefore, a need was felt to revise the IRC:65 for rotary which is
a safer junction control where two road of comparable traffic volume is intersecting as well as
junction having considerable right turning traffic. Accordingly, the work of revision of IRC:65
was taken up by the Road Safety and Design Committee (H-7) during the tenure 2015-
2017 under the Convenorship of Shri Nirmaljit Singh. A subgroup comprising Dr. Sewa Ram
(Subgroup Chairman), Dr. Geetam Tiwari, Dr. Manoranjan Parida, Shri Jacob George, Dr.
P K Agarwal have developed the draft. The draft prepared by the subgroup was discussed
in various meeting of H-7 committee and the document was subsequently approved by H-7
Committee in its meeting held on 18.03.2017 for placing before the HSS Committee.
The Composition of H-7 committee is given below

Singh, Nirmaljit …… Convenor

Marwah, S.K. …… Co-Convenor
George, Jacob …… Member-Secretary

Members
Agarwal, Prof. (Dr.) P.K. Ram, Prof. (Dr.) Sewa
Agrawal, C.P. Ramana, Venkata
Balakrishnan, Bina C. Reddy, S. Srinivas
Elango, Tango Roychowdhury, Anumita
Gupta, Kamini Shemar, O.P.
Jain, N.S. Singh, Parampreet
Joint Commissioner of Police Singh, Pawan Kumar
(Traffic), Delhi Sridhara, B.T.
Kirori, R.R.D. Tiwari, Prof. (Dr.) Geetam
Mitra, Prof. (Dr.) Sudeshna Velmurugan, Dr. S.
Parida, Prof. (Dr.) M. Verma, Mohit
Pateriya, Dr. I.K.
Corresponding Members
Arkatkar, Dr. Srinivas Sidhu, H.S.
Bhanot, Balraj Singh, Prof. (Dr.) Indrasen
Sakthivelu

1
IRC:65-2017

Ex-Officio Members
President, (Pradhan, N.K.), Engineer-in-Chief
Indian Roads Congress cum Secretary, Works Department,
Odisha
Director General (Kumar, Manoj), Ministry of Road
(Road Development) & Special Transport & Highways
Secretary to Govt. of India
Secretary General, Nirmal, Sanjay Kumar
Indian Roads Congress
The Highways Specifications and Standards Committee approved the draft in its meeting
held on 23rd June, 2017. The Member secretary of HSS forwarded extensive comments and
the subgroup incorporated all of them. The Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13th
July, 2017 considered and approved the same document for placing it before the Council.
The Council of IRC in its 212th meeting held at Udaipur on 14th and 15th July, 2017 approved
the draft and the final version of the document submitted to IRC for publishing.

1 General

A roundabout is a specialized form of at-grade intersection where vehicles from the converging
arms are forced to move round a central island in one direction in orderly and regimented
manner and move/weave out of the roundabout into their desired direction. In conventional
roundabout, traffic at entry seek suitable gap in the circulating stream to negotiate the
central island. Instead of entering traffic seeking suitable gap with circulating stream, rotary
intersection of larger central islands permits weaving maneuvering. The self-regulating form
of roundabout is safe because of reduced crossing conflict points and aesthetically pleasing
in appearance. When a cross road is converted into a roundabout, the number of conflicts can
be reduced from 32 to 8 as illustrated in Fig. 1.1, wherein potential right-angle collision will be
converted into angular-collision. For these reasons, roundabouts are more safe compared to
uncontrolled cross road junction.

Fig. 1.1 Conflict points in Cross Road Junction Vs. Roundabout

2
 IRC:65-2017

2 Definitions and Terminologies

The basic definitions and terminologies associated with the roundabouts/rotary and
determination of its capacity and level of service are discussed in this section.

2.1 Geometric Parameters

The geometric elements of a typical roundabout/rotary are given in Fig. 2.1.
• Central Island: It is the raised portions around which the vehicles maneuver
to negotiate towards their respective destination. The basic function of the
central island is to convert the direct conflict points into angular conflict
points and reduce severity of conflict points. It is also meant for providing
appropriate turning radius to the vehicle.
• Circulatory Carriageway: The clockwise curved path followed by vehicles
to move around the central island.
• Circulatory Carriageway Width: The width between the outer edge of the
kerb face of inscribed diameter and the central island kerb face.
• Circulating Path Radius: The minimum radius on the fastest through path
around the central island.

Fig. 2.1 Geometric Elements of Roundabout

• Entry Radius: It is radius of curvature provided to entry arm so that vehicle
entering from approach road decelerates and enters the roundabout at
designated speed.
• Entry Width: It is the width of the carriageway at the entry of the roundabout.
• Exit Angle: It is the angle by which traffic is deflected from the weaving
section towards exit of the roundabout.

3
IRC:65-2017

• Exit Radius: It is the radius of curvature provided to exit side of the roundabout
so that vehicle from roundabout is accelerated to leave the roundabout.
• Exit Width: It is the width of the carriageway at the exit of the roundabout.
• Inscribed Circle Diameter: The inscribed circle diameter is the basic
parameter used to define the size of a roundabout. It is measured between
the outer edges of the circulatory path.
• Non-Weaving Width : It is the width of the carriageway used by the circulating
traffic. It can also be defined as the width of the road from the edge of the
central island to the deflecting island as shown in Fig. 2.1.
• Splitter or Deflecting Island: It is kerbed island and associated road
markings on the carriageway, located between an entry and exit on the
same roundabout arm. It is shaped so as to deviate and separate opposing
vehicles onto and from the circulatory carriageway of roundabout.
• Weaving Length: It is the length of the weaving section in rotary.
• Weaving Section: It is the road section used by the traffic wherein either
the merging or diverging of traffic takes place within the rotary. It can also
be defined as the section where the traffic from both the approach arm and
non-weaving enters.
• Weaving Width: It is the width of the carriageway of the weaving section in
rotary.
• Giveway Line: A line of demarcation separating the traffic approaching the
roundabout from the traffic in the circulatory carrigeway. The Giveway line
is usually defined by dotted edge line pavement marking. Entering vehicles
must give way to circulating traffic.

2.2 Flow Parameters

• Circulating Stream: The two circulating stream in the roundabout are defined
as the near and far major streams, with respect to the entering vehicles or
the give way line. For the case of two entry lanes, the inner and outer minor
lane are so defined that the outer lane is the one closest to the kerb face.
• Entry Flow: The traffic inflow from an entry to a roundabout.
• Non-Motorized Traffic (NMT) Crossing: The dedicated roadway section
across the vehicular motion for pedestrian and bicycle (preferably separately)
near the splitter island.

2.3 Driver Behavior Parameters

• Classification of Gap Acceptance: Gap acceptance parameters are
affected by geometry of the entry. These parameters are function of the
circulating flow and measured in seconds.
• Critical Gap: Critical gap is defined as the minimum headway in the circulating
flow while an entering vehicle can safely enter a roundabout, assuming all
entering drivers are consistent and homogeneous (refer Fig. 2.2).

4
 IRC:65-2017

[Source: CRRI (2017) “Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)”]

Fig. 2.2 Entry & Circulating Headway and Gap

• Floating Entrance: If the driver finds a gap and does not have to stop at
the entry arm, the vehicle is defined as floating vehicle. It is the first vehicle
entering a gap while the succeeding vehicles are known as follow-ups
vehicle.
• Follow-up Time: Follow-up time is the time span between two queued
vehicles entering the circulating stream in the same gap. If more than one
vehicle from minor stream uses a gap then the succeeding vehicles are
referred to as follow-ups. It can only be measured when there is a queue
situation.
• Gap Acceptance: All gaps greater than or equal to the critical gap would be
accepted.
• Gap Rejection: All gaps less than the critical gap would be rejected.
• Gap: A gap is the time span between two consecutive circulating vehicles
that create conflict with an entering vehicle. The described time span is
measured only when the entering driver is at the give way line when the gap
begins. (Fig. 2.2)
• Headway: It is the time between two following vehicles and is measured
from the first vehicle’s front bumper to the following vehicle’s front bumper.
• Lag: A lag is the time between the arrival of entering vehicle at roundabout
entry and the arrival of successive conflicting vehicle in the circulating flow.
• Static Entrance: If a vehicle has to stop at the give way line and wait for
a sufficient gap before entering the roundabout, it is referred to as static
entrance.

5
IRC:65-2017

2.4 Performance Parameters

• Delay: Delay is a parameter used to measure the performance of a
roundabout. There are two types of the delays experienced at roundabouts,
namely queuing and geometric delay.
• Entry Capacity: Entry Capacity at roundabouts is the maximum traffic inflow
from an entry to a roundabout when the traffic flow at that entry is sufficient
to cause queuing in its approach road.
• Geometric Delay: Geometric delay is the delay caused by slowing down
the vehicles to stop at the end of queue (if any) after accepting the gap to
negotiate, proceeding through the roundabout and then accelerating back to
normal operating speed. It excludes the time to wait for an acceptable gap.
• Level of Service (LoS): Level of service offers the qualitative traffic flow
condition at roundabout, i.e. free flow, stable flow, unstable flow or force
flow. At roundabouts, level of service (LOS) is expressed in terms of average
delay per vehicle.
• Queuing Delay: Queuing delay is the delay caused due to waiting of vehicles
to accept a gap in the circulating path.

3 Roundabouts

Roundabout may be described as an enlarged junction, where all entering vehicles shall
give way and find suitable gaps to move around an island in one direction before they move
out of the traffic flow into their respective directions radiating from the island. Contrary to the
functioning of roundabout, the rotary type of intersection works upon the weaving behavior of
entry and circulating traffic. The Inscribed Circle shall be large enough to ensure the weaving
in rotary. Based on diameter of Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) roundabouts are further
categorized to single lane and double lane roundabouts.

3.1 Single Lane Roundabouts

This type of roundabout is characterized as having a single-lane entry at all legs and one
circulatory lane. Fig. 3.1 shows the features of a typical single lane roundabout having
a diameter ranging from 28 m to 40 m. The geometric design typically includes raised
splitter islands, a non-mountable central-island and pedestrian crossing. The size of the
roundabout is largely influenced by the choice of a design vehicle and available Right
of Way (RoW). In order to increase the circulating radius of smaller vehicles, a slightly
raised circular concrete paved path along the circumference of the central island called
Truck Apron can be provided, if required, which would help long vehicles to mount upon
them to turn safely.

6
 IRC:65-2017

Truck Apron Raised Splitter Island

(if required)
Non-Mountable Central Island

Single Lane Entrance, Exit and

Circulatory Roadway

Figure 3.1: Typical Single Lane Roundabout

Fig. 3.1 Typical Single Lane Roundabout

3.2 Multilane Roundabouts

Multilane roundabouts are with two or more entry lanes. In some cases, the roundabout
may have different number of lanes on one or more approaches (e.g., two lane entry on
the major approach and one lane entry on the minor road). They also include roundabouts
with entries on one or more approaches that flare from one to two or more lanes. These
require wider circulatory roadways to accommodate more than one vehicle travelling side
by side. Fig. 3.2 shows the features of a typical multi-lane roundabout having a diameter
ranging from 40 m to 70 m. The speeds at the entry on the circulatory roadway and at the
exit are similar or may be slightly higher than those for the single lane roundabouts. The
geometric design will include raised splitter islands, a non-traversable central-island, and
appropriate entry path deflection.

Number of circulatory roadway lanes

based up on approach lane configuration

Raised Splitter Island Non-Mountable Central Island

Two entry lanes on one

or more approaches

Fig. 3.23.2:
Figure Typical
Typical Multilane Roundabout
Multilane Roundabout

7
IRC:65-2017

4 Rotary Intersection

Roundabout and rotary are two different types of road intersections. Roundabout primarily
functions based upon give way behavior by entering traffic giving priority to circulating
traffic. A vehicle on approaching the circulatory carriageway, seize the gap in the circulatory
movement in order to enter the circular carriageway and always functions based on gap
acceptance. Hence compliance to “Priority Rule” is vital for effective function of roundabout.
On the other hand, a rotary intersection of large central island works on weaving, wherein
a vehicle while entering need not necessarily wait on give way line, rather can merge to
circulatory movement and then weave so as to change the lane. Weaving section of rotary
has one more lane than non-weaving section. Table 4.1 presents key differences between
roundabout and rotary. The need of gap acceptance in roundabout configuration can be
appreciated from Fig. 4.1 whereas opportunities for weaving in rotary layout are depicted in
Fig. 4.2.

Fig. 4.1 Need of Gap Acceptance in Roundabout Configuration

Fig. 4.2 Weaving Opportunities in a Rotary

8
 IRC:65-2017

Table 4.1 Key Differences Between Roundabout and Rotary Intersections

Roundabout Rotary
1. Smaller in Size 1. Rotary is bigger in size
2. Works on gap acceptance and “priority 2. Works on weaving behavior between
from rule” is vital for effective function entering traffic from approach road
and circulating stream
3. Maintain relatively low speeds (<40 kmph) 3. Higher speeds allowed (>40 kmph)
4. No pedestrian activity on central island 4. Some large traffic circles allow
pedestrian crossing to and from the
central island.
5. Large entry angle helps to create entry 5. Relatively small entry angle
deflection to control speed through the
roundabout
6. Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) 6. Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) more
• Single lane (28-40 m) than 70 m
• Double lane (40-70 m)

5 Planning Consideration

5.1 Intersection Hierarchy

Generally the life cycle of a junction from at-grade intersection to grade separated intersection
to interchange composed of roundabout and signalized intersections is depicted in Fig. 5.1.
Moving from unsignalized intersections towards roundabout, channelization of traffic takes
place and cross conflict points are converted into angular conflict points as all the vehicles
move in clockwise direction. When the entering vehicle at the roundabout are finding difficulty
to get suitable gap and delay starts occurring, signalization of roundabout can be a solution.
Signalized roundabout is preferred at location where delay occurs during few hours of the
day and in remaining maximum time, especially off-peak hour, it can work as conventional
roundabout based on priority from right rule. Fig. 5.1 presents a general hierarchy of
intersections and interchanges based upon the capacity handled.

Fig. 5.1 General Hierarchy of Intersections Based Upon Traffic Capacity

It can be observed that signalized intersections and roundabouts have an overlapping region
where either of the forms of intersection can be used interchangeably based upon specific
9
IRC:65-2017

site requirements. The planning guide for selection of roundabout as an intersection on

various road types is given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Roundabouts as an Intersections Type in Various Types of Roads

Intersecting Road Arterial/Rural Sub-Arterial/ Collector Local Road

with Traffic Volume Highway Rural Road Road (1800
(3600 PCU/hr) (2900 PCU/hr) PCU/hr)
Carriageway D E E E
(1200 PCU/hr)
Arterial/Rural Highway B B C C
(3600 PCU/hr)
Sub-Arterial/Rural Road - B B C
(2900 PCU/hr)
Collector Road - - A B
(1800 PCU/hr)
Local Road - - - A
Notation:
A. Likely to be an appropriate choice
B. May be an appropriate choice
C. Not likely to be an appropriate choice
D. Not appropriate on at-grade
E. Not likely to have a roundabout between carriageway and this road type

Fig. 5.2 exhibits the comparative capacity handled by different types of roundabouts

Fig. 5.2 Capacity of different types of Roundabouts

10
 IRC:65-2017

5.2 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) for Roundabout

The PCU of any vehicle is a function of vehicular dimensions and speed of the vehicle only, in
case of roundabouts, PCU is also dependent upon turning behavior and conflicts. The PCU
value of different modes is dynamic in nature and also depends upon size of roundabout,
share of heavy vehicles and overall traffic flow at intersection.
Based on the static and dynamic characteristics, the vehicles in an urban intersection can be
classified as two wheelers, three wheelers, big cars, small cars, Light Commercial Vehicles
(LCVs), trucks, buses, bicycles etc. The Passenger Car Units for different types of vehicles,
based on five important parameters namely traffic flow, headway, conflict angle of vehicles
negotiating the roundabout, vehicular speed and composition of traffic have been given in
Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Passenger Car Units for Roundabout

Diameter,

Cycle Rickshaw
Motorized Two

Three Wheeler

D (m)

Heavy Vehicle
Commercial

Buffalo Cart

Horse Cart
Hand Cart
Motorized

Small Car
Wheeler

Big Car

Vehicle
Cycle

Light

20<D≤30 0.18 1.88 3.65 1.12

30<D≤40 0.21 1.65 3.45 1.31
0.32 0.83 1.00 1.40 2 4 3
40<D≤50 0.25 1.53 3.20 1.56
50<D≤70 0.28 1.46 3.05 1.74
[Source: CRRI (2017) “Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)”]

5.3 Site Selection for Roundabouts

Roundabout may be an appropriate choice of traffic management in an at-grade intersection
in following situations:
i) At intersections where traffic volumes on the intersecting roads are such
that:
a) In case of “Stop” or “Give Way” signs or the “T” junction rule result
in inordinate delays for the minor road traffic, roundabouts would
decrease delays to minor road traffic, but increase delays to the major
road traffic.
b) Traffic signals may result in greater delays than a roundabout. It shall
be noted that in many situations roundabouts provide a similar capacity
to that of signals, but may operate with lower delays and better safety,
particularly in off-peak periods.

11
IRC:65-2017

ii) At intersections where there are high proportions of right-turning traffic:

Unlike most other intersection types, roundabouts can operate efficiently
with high volumes of right-turning vehicles.
iii) At rural cross intersections (including those in areas with high desired
speeds) which are prone to accidents involving crossing or right turn (versus
opposing) traffic. However, if the traffic flow on the lower volume road is less
than about 200 vehicles per day, staggered “T” type intersection is preferred.
iv) At intersections of arterial roads in outer urban areas where traffic speeds
are high and right turning traffic flows are high. A roundabout could have an
advantage over traffic signals in reducing right angle collision type accidents
and also in reducing overall delays.
v) At “T”, “Y” or cross intersections where the major traffic route turns through a
right angle. In these situations, the major movements within the intersection
are turning movements.
vi) At locations where traffic growth is expected to be high and where future
traffic patterns are uncertain.
vii) At intersections of local roads where it is desirable not to give priority to other
road.
viii) At intersections with more than four legs, if one or more legs cannot be
closed or relocated or some turns prohibited, roundabouts may provide a
convenient and effective solution whereas:
a) With “Stop” or “Give Way” signs, it is often not practical to define
priorities adequately;
b) Signals may be less efficient due to the large number of phases required
resulting in a high percentage of queuing delay.
However, care should be taken in assessing the future traffic volumes and their patterns. It is
possible that a site considered appropriate for a roundabout now, may become inappropriate
in the future, requiring extensive modifications. Designers should consider the potential to
build in flexibility in the design to accommodate possible future changes, particularly when
land use alter traffic patterns considerably. Roundabout is not desirable at junction having
considerable pedestrian crossing as pedestrian will not get priority to cross a roundabout
junction, as traffic ply continuously. Roundabout requires more land than other intersection
type of similar capacity, but would have very good safety performance.

6 Geometric Design

6.1 Central Island and Circulatory Carriageway

The diameter of the roundabout is the diameter of the central island of roundabout/intersection
for capacity and LoS estimation.

12
 IRC:65-2017

6.1.1 Circulating Road width/Width of non-weaving section

It is the width of the carriageway used by the circulating traffic. It can also be defined as
the width of the road from the edge of the central island to the edge of deflecting island.
The width of the circulating carriageway depends on several factors, the most important of
which are the number of circulating lanes and the radius of vehicle swept paths within the
roundabout. Circulating road width is typically between 1.0 and 1.2 times the maximum entry
width. Catering all these, Inscribed Circle Diameter and Circulatory Carriageway Width for
different category of roundabout assuming 90˚ angle between approach arms and no more
than four arms at intersection is given in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Inscribed Circle Diameter & Circulatory Carriageway Width

Inscribed circle Width of Circulatory

Category of Roundabout/Rotaries diameter range in m Carriageway (CCW),
(ICD) in m
Urban single lane Roundabout 28 – 40
12 m to 8 m
Rural single lane Roundabout 35 – 40
Urban/Rural double lane Roundabout 40 – 70
1-1.2 times entry width
Multilane Rotary >70

6.1.2 In order to ensure the maneuverability of design vehicle for single lane roundabout
of Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) upto 40 m, a combination as given in Table 6.2 shall be
followed between Inscribed Circle Diameter and Central Island Diameter. It is desirable to
provide a Truck Apron for single lane roundabout having smaller Central Island Diameters,
which would ensure adequate deflection for light vehicles.

Table 6.2 Inscribed Circle Diameter and Central Island Diameter for Single Lane Roundabout

Inscribed Circle Central Island Width of Circulatory

Diameter (m) Diameter (m) Carriageway(m)
28 4** 12
30 8 11
32 12 10
36 18 9
40 24 8
[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
** Desirable to provide a Truck Apron to ensure the deflection of light vehicles

13
IRC:65-2017

6.2 Positioning of Central Island

6.2.1 Ideally the Central Island should be located in such a way that center lines of
approach road passes through the center of Inscribed Circle. The size and position of Central
Island shall be such that all approach vehicles will have to be deflected even that approaching
from extreme left lane on the approach road.

6.2.2 It is desirable to equally space the angle between entry arms of roundabout.

6.3 Entry and Exit Design

The roundabout entry design depends upon various variables like entry width, entry flaring
and entry angle.

6.3.1 Entry Width

The entry width is the width of the carriageway at the point of entry. It is measured from the
point “A” at the right hand end of the give way line along the normal to the nearside kerb as
given in Fig. 6.1.

6.3.2 One lane width at the give way line (measured along the normal to the nearside
kerb, as for entry width) must be not less than 3 m or more than 4.5 m, with the 4.5 m value
appropriate at single lane entries and values of 3 to 3.5 m appropriate at multilane entries.

6.3.3 Exit Width

The exit width is the width of the carriageway on the exit and is measured in a similar manner
to the entry width. It is the distance between the nearside kerb and the exit median (or the
edge of any splitter island or central reserve) where it intersects with the outer edge of the
circulatory carriageway.

6.3.4 The downstream link in a undivided two way road with a long splitter island of
a normal roundabout should be between 7 m and 7.5 m. The exit should taper down to a
minimum of 6 m allowing traffic to pass a broken down vehicle. If the link is an all-purpose
two-lane dual carriageway, the exit width should be between 10 m and 11 m and the exit
should taper down to two lanes wide. The width should be reduced in such a way as to avoid
exiting vehicles encroaching onto the opposing lane at the end of the splitter island. Normally
the width would reduce at a taper of 1:15 to 1:20. Where the exit is on an up gradient, the exit
width may be maintained for a short distance before tapering in.

6.3.5 The carriageway width at entrance and exit of a roundabout is governed by the
amount of traffic entering and leaving the roundabout. While deciding upon the width, the
possible growth of traffic in the design period should be considered. It is recommended that
the minimum width of carriageway be at least 5 m with necessary extra widening to account
for the curvature of the road. Table 6.3 gives the value of the width of carriageway at entry
inclusive of widening needed on account of curvature.

14
 IRC:65-2017

6.3.6 Radius of Entry Curve

It is measured as the minimum radius of curvature of the curve as shown in Fig. 6.1. The
provision of an appropriate radius on the entry curve encourages drivers to slow down before
reaching the roundabout. Radius of curve at the entry is critical for design speed, amount of
superelevation and the coefficient of friction. The values of coefficient of friction for roundabout
approaches shall be higher than for other locations. Based on overall considerations, Table
6.3 gives guidance for the selection of radii of curves at entry.

6.3.7 Radius of Exit Curve

It is measured as the minimum radius of curvature of the curve as shown in Fig. 6.1. Values
for the exit kerb radius should exceed the largest entry radius. In areas where there are no
pedestrians, the exit from a roundabout should be as easy to negotiate as practicable. After
having been slowed down by the entry and circulating curves, vehicles should be able to
accelerate on the exit. Therefore, the radius of the exit curve should generally be greater
than the circulating radius. In areas where there are pedestrians, the exit speed should be
minimized. The best solution to minimize the exit speed is to provide radii similar to those at
entrances as given in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Radius of Entry & Exit Curve & Width

Intersecting Road Number of Roundabout Radius of Width of

Approach Design Speed Entry and Exit carriageway
Lane(s) (kmph) Curve (m) at entry and
exit (m)
2 lane Undivided Road One 20-30 20-40 6.5
4 lane Divided Road Two 25-40 30-75 8.0
6 lane Divided Road Three 30-45 50-100 13.0

Fig. 6.1 Radius of Entry and Exit Curve

15
IRC:65-2017

6.4 Splitter/Channelizing Islands

6.4.1 Splitter and channelizing island are provided on each arm of roundabout to
direct and separate opposing traffic movements onto and from a roundabout. Splitter island
shall be of physical islands where there is sufficient space to accommodate kerbed island.
Fig. 6.2 demonstrates the use of splitter islands on roundabout, which would prevent wrong
right turning.

Fig. 6.2 Use of Splitter Islands to Discourage Hazardous Wrong Way Movements

6.4.2 Kerbed splitter islands should be provided on all approaches as they would provide
shelter for pedestrians, assist in controlling entry speed, and guide traffic onto the roundabout
and also deter right-turners from taking dangerous “wrong way” short cut movements through
the roundabout.

6.4.3 On urban arterial road roundabouts, the kerbed splitter island should be of sufficient
size to shelter a pedestrian (at least 2.4 m wide) and be highly visible to approaching traffic.
A minimum area of 8 m2 to 10 m2 should be provided on any arterial road approach. On
roundabout approaches from local roads, the general minimum area of kerbed splitter island
is 5 m2 to 8 m2. In extremely constrained cases, it is preferable to provide a kerbed splitter
island smaller than the general minimum rather than provide no island at all.

6.4.4 In high speed areas the splitter island should also be relatively long to give early
warning to drivers that they are approaching an intersection and must slow down. Preferably
the splitter island and its approach pavement markings should extend back to a point where
drivers would be expected to start to reduce their speed.

6.4.5 The kerb line of splitter island or median in case of a divided carriageway should
lie on arc which when projected forward meets the central island tangentially as shown in
Fig. 6.3
16
 IRC:65-2017

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.3 Arc Projecting Forward from the Splitter Island and Tangential to Central Island

6.4.6 The details of geometric design of splitter island are given in Fig. 6.4 and Fig. 6.5

Offset 0.25 to 0.5m

Offset 0.5 to 1.0m
R=0.3m
R=1.0m
Offs
et
to 1 0.5m
.0m

Raised Splitter Island R=0.3m

R=0.3m

Depressed/Pedestrian
friendly

Offset 0.25 to 0.5m

Offset 0.5m to 1.0m

R=0.6m

Fig. 6.4 Minimum Size of Splitter Island Fig. 6.5 Minimum Splitter Island Nose Radii
and Offset

6.5 Entry Flaring

Entry flaring is localized widening at the point of entry. Normal Roundabouts usually have
flared entries with the addition of one or two lanes at the give way line to increase capacity.

6.5.1 The average effective flare length, l’, is the average length over which the entry
widens. It is the length of the curve CF’, shown in Fig. 6.6

17
IRC:65-2017

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.6 Average Effective Flare Length

6.5.2 Procedure to determine the average effective flare length, l’: As shown in Fig. 6.6,
construct curve GD parallel to the median HA (centre line or edge of central reserve or splitter
island) and distance v from it; then construct curve CF’ parallel to curve BG (the nearside
kerb) and at a constant distance of ½ BD from it, with F’ the point where CF’ intersects line
DG. The length of curve CF’ is the average effective flare length l’. The total length of the
entry widening (BG) will be about twice the average effective flare length.

6.5.3 A minimum flare length of about 25 m is desirable, but capacity will be the
determining factor. Effective flare lengths greater than 25 m may improve the geometric
layout but have little effect in increasing capacity. If the effective flare length exceeds 100 m,
the design becomes one of link widening

6.6 Entry Angle

The entry angle, serves as a geometric proxy for the conflict angle between entering and
circulating traffic streams. There are two different methods for its measurement, depending
on the size of the roundabout.

6.6.1 Procedure to determine to determine entry angle: For large roundabout like that
given in Fig. 6.7 construct the curve EF as the locus of the mid- point between the nearside
kerb and the median line (or the edge of any splitter island or central reserve); then construct
BC as the tangent to EF at the give way line; construct the curve AD as the locus of the mid-
point of (the used section of) the circulatory carriageway (a proxy for the average direction of
travel for traffic circulating past the arm); the entry angle, Angle ACB is the entry angle

18
 IRC:65-2017

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.7 Entry Angle at a Larger Roundabout

6.6.2 For Single Lane Roundabouts, the entry angle is measured as shown in Fig. 6.8.
This construction is used when there is insufficient separation between entry and adjacent
exit to be able to define the path of the circulating vehicle clearly. In this case, circulating
traffic which leaves at the following exit will be influenced by the angle at which that arm joins
the roundabout. The angle between the projected entry and exit paths is measured and then
halved to find entry angle.

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.8 Entry Angle at a Smaller Roundabout

6.6.3 The entry angle should lie between 20 and 60. Entry angles should be larger than
exit angle.

6.7 Weaving Width in Rotary

The width of the weaving section of the rotary should be one traffic lane (3.5 m) wider than
the mean entry width thereto as shown in Fig. 6.9

19
IRC:65-2017

Fig. 6.9 Weaving Width in Rotary

6.8 Design Speed

6.8.1 Roundabouts operate at speeds lower than that of the network preceding and
succeeding it as it requires give way behavior and gap acceptance. Generally, vehicles are
expected not to run more than 30 km/h around urban roundabouts. Rural roundabouts may
have higher operating speeds but still the speed of vehicles at roundabouts is expected to be
lesser than that of mid-block sections.

6.8.2 Based upon sight distance and specific turning radius, the design speeds can be
reduced but excessively reduced speeds may result into increased delay at roundabouts
and in turn deteriorated level of service. Fig. 6.10 presents the typical relationship between
operating speeds at roundabout and radius of Central Island.

e stands for super-elevation

Fig. 6.10 Relationship between Radius of Central Island and Operating Speeds at Roundabout

20
 IRC:65-2017

6.9 Design Vehicle

6.9.1 The design vehicle and consequently the swept path requirements may be different
for various paths through the roundabout. Because travel through roundabouts involves
complex reverse-turn movements, particular care is needed in the use of simple turning
path templates to achieve a satisfactory layout. Fig. 6.11 and Table 6.4 shows turning width
required for a Single Lane Roundabout for ICD diameter upto 36 m.

6.9.2 A roundabout of Inscribed Circle Diameter from 28 m to 36 m can facilitate minimum

turning radii requirement including U-turn for Design Vehicle upto Large Semi trailer Wheel
Base (WB)-15 of 2.58 m overall width, 16.7 m overall length and 13.7 m minimum turning
radius.

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.11 Turning widths required for Normal Roundabout

Table 6.4 Turning Radii required for a Normal Roundabout

Central Island R1 (m) R2 (m) Minimum ICD (m)
Diameter (m)
4.0 3.0 13.0 28.0
6.0 4.0 13.4 28.8
8.0 5.0 13.9 29.8
10.0 6.0 14.4 30.8
12.0 7.0 15.0 32.0
14.0 8.0 15.6 33.2
16.0 9.0 16.3 34.6
18.0 10.0 17.0 36.0
[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]

6.9.3 A roundabout of Inscribed Circle Diameter above 36 m can cater all movement
including U-turn of even Design Vehicle of Large Semi tailor (WB-18) of 2.58 m overall width,
19.7 m overall length and 18.2 m minimum turning radius.

21
IRC:65-2017

6.10 Path Alignment

6.10.1 Drivers select their paths to obtain the largest possible radii (i.e. select their path
to maximize their speed, as depicted in Fig. 6.12. It has been found that drivers typically
travel to maintain the following distances between the edge of their vehicles and particular
geometric features:
• 0.5 m from a road center-line.
• 0.5 m from the face of concrete kerb and channeling,
• 0 m from a painted edge line or chevron.

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.12 Determination of Entry Path Radius for Ahead Movement at a 4-arm Roundabout

Assuming an average vehicle is 2 m wide, the following distances from the center line of the
vehicle to the above geometric features result:
• 1.5 m from a road center-line,
• 1.5 m from concrete kerb and
• 1 m from a painted edge line or chevron.

6.11 Sight Distance

Sight distance is essentially the sight “triangle” (which may be on a curve) needed for a
driver who does not have the right of way to perceive and react to a conflicting pedestrian,
vehicle or bicyclist. Roundabouts have an advantage over standard intersections in that
there are fewer conflicts to check for sight distance requirements. The minimum required
sight distance is actually preferred in order to keep speeds low at the roundabout. Three sight
distance principles must be applied to the combination of vertical and horizontal geometrics
at roundabouts. These criteria affect the positioning of signs, landscaping, poles and other
roadside furniture.

22
 IRC:65-2017

6.11.1 The alignment on the approach should be such that the driver has a good view of
both the splitter island, the central island and desirably the circulating carriageway. Adequate
Approach Sight Distance (ASD) should be provided to the give way lines and pedestrian
crossing as shown in Fig. 6.13 for the approach speed given in Table 6.5.

Fig. 6.13 Measurement of Approach Sight Distance on Curved Approach

Table 6.5 Required minimum Approach Sight Distance Criteria

*Speed (km/h) ** Approach Sight Distance (m)

40 30
50 40
60 60
70 70
80 105
90 130
100 160
110 190
120 230
*On the geometric element prior to the entry curve.
**Measured from a passenger car eye height of 1.15 m to an object cut-off height of 0 m.

6.11.2 Other Visibility Considerations

A driver, stationary at the stopping line, should have a clear line of sight (using a passenger
car eye height of 1.15 m) to traffic on any previous approach (an object height of 1.15 m
passenger car eye height). The desirable minimum length of this line of sight is based on the
distance travelled in 4 seconds (observation time plus reaction time) at the 85th percentile
speed plus the stopping distance (measured along vehicle paths from previous approaches).
The absolute minimum length of this line of sight is based on the distance travelled in 2.5
seconds (observation time plus reaction time) at the 85th percentile speed plus the stopping
distance. Desired and absolute minimum sight distance at 85th percentile speed is as given
in Table 6.6.

23
IRC:65-2017

Table 6.6 Absolute and desired minimum sight distance at 85th percentile speed

85th Percentile Speed Criterion for Minimum Sight Distance in m

(km/h)
Absolute Minimum – 2.5s Desirable Minimum – 4s
Observation & Reaction Observation & Reaction
Time Time
20 17 25
30 28 40
40 40 57
50 54 74
60 71 96
70 91 121
80 114 147
[Source: Road Planning & Design Manual, Queensland]

6.11.3 Traffic plying within circulatory roadway should have sight distance as given in
Fig. 6.14.

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.14 Circulatory Visibility Requirement

6.11.4 Traffic approaching a pedestrian crossing should have sight distance as given in
Fig. 6.15.

24
 IRC:65-2017

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.15 Measurement of Visibility required at Entry to Pedestrian Crossing

6.11.5 Intersection sight distance as given in Fig. 6.16 shall be ensured for drivers to see
the conflicting vehicles

A d1= Sight distance of entering vehicle (A-B)

d2= Sight distance of circulating vehicle (C-B)

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 2007]
Fig. 6.16 Measurement of Intersection Sight Distance

6.11.6 It is preferable to position a roundabout in a sag rather on a crest. It is important

to avoid placing a roundabout just over a crest where the layout is obscured from the view of
approaching drivers.

25
IRC:65-2017

6.11.7 At grade separated roundabouts, particularly where there may be a structure (e.g.
pier) in the central island which might obstruct a driver’s visibility, care must be taken to
ensure that the sight distance requirements are met. Any safety barriers used to protect
piers, structures, embankments etc. may also interfere with visibility and must be located to
avoid this interference

6.12 Grade of Intersecting Road

A roundabout should preferably be located on level ground. It may be sited to lie on a plane
which is inclined to the horizontal at not more than 1 in 50. It is, however, not desirable
that a roundabout be located in two planes having different inclinations to the horizontal. A
roundabout may, with advantages be located on a summit. Such locations assist deceleration
while approaching and acceleration while leaving the roundabout.
For roundabouts in valleys always provide a full view to the approaching vehicles, but are
likely to induce greater approaching speeds and have drainage difficulties.

6.13 Camber and Super-elevation

6.13.1 For Single Lane Roundabout upto 40 m ICD, uni directional camber of the order
0.5% to 1% can be provided to drain the surface runoff away from central island as shown in
Fig. 6.17

Fig. 6.17 Camber in Single Lane Roundabout

26
 IRC:65-2017

6.13.2 Camber for Rotary and Bigger Roundabout

For all roundabout with ICD above 40 m and rotary, since the curvature is opposite to that of
entry and exit, vehicles, especially heavy buses and trucks, experience difficulty in changing
over from one cross-slope to another in the opposite direction. It is, therefore, recommended
that the algebraic difference in the cross-slopes be limited to about 5%. The super-elevation
should be limited to the least amount consistent with design speed. The crown-line which is
the line of meeting of opposite cross-slopes should, as far as possible, be located such that
vehicles cross it while travelling along the common tangent to the reverse curve. Channelizing
islands should be situated on the peak with the road surfaces sloping away from them to
all sides. Whenever possible, the cross-slope at an entrance should be carried around on
the outer edge of the roundabout to the adjacent exit, altering the slope slightly to suit the
curvature in the rotary and the exit. A typical disposition of cross-slopes in a roundabout is
indicated in Fig. 6.18.

Fig. 6.18 Camber and superelevation in Two lane Roundabout and in Rotary

6.14 Drainage
Drainage at roundabout is a crucial part of planning and design. The reasons to provide a
sound and long-lasting drainage system are:
• To prevent flooding of the road and ponding on the road surface.
• To protect the bearing capacity of the pavement and the sub grade material.
• To avoid the erosion of side slopes.
For more details on drainage, reference may be made to IRC:SP:42 “Guidelines of Road
Drainage” and IRC:SP:50 “Guidelines on Urban Drainage”.

27
IRC:65-2017

6.15 Kerbs
The kerbs for channelizing and central islands should be either vertical kerbs or mountable
kerbs. The height of the kerb of the central island shall not be more than 225 mm and shall
be non-mountable type. Utmost care shall be given that visibility shall not be obscured.
The kerbs at the outer edges of rotary and at the approach roads should preferably be of the
vertical type. The approaches should be provided with kerbs up to a minimum distance of 30
m from the point where the flaring of the approach starts.

6.16 Road Signs and Pavement Markings

Road signs and pavement marking shall be placed at convenient and suitable locations to
safeguard and guide to uninterrupted traffic. The Lane marking and signing may be provided
as per the guidelines given in IRC 35 “Code of Practice for Road Markings” and IRC:67
“Code of Practice for Road Signs” respectively. Fig. 6.19 and Fig. 6.20 show a typical sign
and marking plan for roundabout and rotary layout.

Fig. 6.19 Typical Sign and Marking plan for a 4-armed Single Lane roundabout

28
 IRC:65-2017

Fig. 6.20 Typical Sign and Marking plan for a 4-armed Rotary

7 Non-motorized Transportation at Roundabout

7.1 Pedestrians
It is essential that splitter islands (or medians) are provided for pedestrian crossing. In the
planning and design of roundabouts special consideration should be given to the movement of
pedestrians. Roundabouts are at least as safe for pedestrians as other forms of intersections.
This is possible as pedestrians are able to cross one direction of traffic at a time by staging
on the splitter islands. However, pedestrians must cross with care because, unlike traffic
signals, roundabouts do not give priority to pedestrians over through traffic movements.
To minimize pedestrian accidents at crossings of entries and exits, the entry and exit speeds
should be kept low. The best solution to achieve this is to provide small radius entry and exit
curves.
Consideration may be given to providing priority crossings (e.g. zebra crossings), for
pedestrians where:
• Pedestrian volumes are high;
• There is a high proportion of young, elderly or senior citizens wanting to
cross the road; or

29
IRC:65-2017

• Pedestrians are experiencing difficulty in crossing and are getting delayed

excessively.
Other design considerations to enhance pedestrian safety at roundabouts include:
• Designing splitter islands which are as large as the site allows;
• Prohibiting parking on the approaches to the roundabouts to provide clear
visibility;
• Providing street lighting which illuminates not only the circulating carriageways
but also the approaches; and
• Locating signs and vegetation so as not to obscure “small” users of the road
such as pedestrians.
However, where pedestrian volumes are high, serious consideration should be given to the
use of an alternative intersection treatment. This is especially true where the pedestrian
traffic consists of school children or the elderly. For the sake of universal accessibility and
intimation to the road users, various surface treatment options and table top crossing can be
provided.

7.2 Cyclists
Roundabouts can be designed to provide an acceptable level of safety for cyclists. However,
the extent to which special geometric treatments and/or traffic control measures are needed
to achieve an adequate level of safety will depend on:
• The daily vehicle traffic volume and the peak hour flows;
• The proportion of cyclists in the total traffic stream;
• The functional classification of the roads involved and
• The overall traffic management strategies for the location.
Reducing the relative speed between entering and circulating vehicles, minimizing the
number of circulating lanes, and maximizing the distance between approaches reduces the
entering/circulating vehicle accident rates at roundabouts. These design concepts will also
minimize entering/circulating vehicle accidents involving cyclists.
Separate cycle paths are safer than a bicycle lane within the road carriageway, particularly at
highly trafficked roundabouts. This treatment has the added advantage of restricting widths
through the roundabout enabling better entry curvature and deflection to be obtained.
Specific provision is not generally required at single lane roundabouts where vehicle speeds
through the roundabout are less than 40 km/h. Special provision for cyclists is desirable
where:
• The cumulative, approach traffic volume, exceeds 10,000 vehicles per day;
• There is a multi-lane roundabouts; or
• Vehicle speeds exceed 50 km/h through the roundabout.

30
 IRC:65-2017

Photo 7.1 Roundabout with Separated Bicycle Lanes

This can be achieved by:

• Providing a path of access for cyclists separated from the road carriage way
as an alternative to the use of the road carriageway at the roundabout. In
most instances, and particularly in the case of large roundabouts, it would
be desirable for the path to be two-way, in order to provide cyclists with a
convenient choice of route to the road carriageway, and hence encourage as
many cyclists as possible to use the facility.
• Using footpaths located adjacent to the roundabout where separate provision
is not possible. Fencing or landscaping between the path and carriage way,
is necessary to prevent ‘ride-out’;
• Providing traffic signals for one or all entries to a roundabout, depending
on the predominant paths of cyclists and other traffic or depending on the
accident history;
• Providing a controlled crossing on critical approaches of very large
roundabouts on busy roads or grade separation where cyclist demand is
very high. A Live example is given in Photo 7.1 and also Fig. 7.1 where
separate cycle path in a rotary location is shown.

31
IRC:65-2017

Entry Motorized Traffic

Exit Lane
Motorized Traffic

Exit Cycle Track

Cycle Track

Central Island

Entry Cycle Track

Fig. 7.1 FigureFig.7.1:

ShowingFigure showing path of cyclists separated from the carriageway
Path of Cyclists Separated from the Carriageway

8 Roundabout performance indicators

8.1 Critical Gap

Critical gap represents the minimum time interval in the circulating flow when an entering
vehicle from approach can safely enter a roundabout. Thus, the driver’s critical gap is the
minimum gap that would be acceptable. A particular driver would reject gaps less than the
critical gap and would accept gaps greater than or equal to the critical gap. Critical gap can
be estimated on the basis of observations of the largest rejected and smallest accepted gap
for a given intersection. Gap features:
• A gap is defined as the time span between two consecutive circulating
vehicles that create conflict with an entering vehicle.
• The described time span is measured only when the entering driver is at the
give way line when the gap begins.
• All gaps less than the critical gap would be rejected and all gaps greater than
or equal to the critical gap would be accepted.

32
 IRC:65-2017

Fig. 8.1 shows the relationship between Diameter of Roundabout and Critical Gap

Roundabout Diameter in (m)

Fig. 8.1 Relationship between Diameter of Roundabout and Critical Gap

8.2 Follow-up Time

The time between the departure of one vehicle from the approach and the departure of the
next vehicle using the same gap in circulating flow, under a condition of continuous queuing
condition, is called the follow-up time. It is the headway that defines the saturation flow rate
for the approach if there were no conflicting vehicles on movements of higher rank. In order
to calculate entry capacity, it is required to calculate the critical gap and follow-up time for
the roundabout. The critical gap and follow-up time at a roundabout primarily vary with the
diameter of the roundabout. For the purpose of planning and design, the values of critical gap
and follow-up time parameters for roundabouts of different diameters evolved based on the
studies done across 18 roundabouts are presented in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Critical Gap and Follow-up Time for Different Diameter Roundabout

Diameter, D (m) Critical Gap (sec) Follow-up Time (sec)

20<D≤30 2.01 1.51
30<D≤40 1.87 1.40
40<D≤50 1.65 1.24
50<D≤70 1.61 1.21
[Source: CRRI (2017) “Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)”]

8.3 Lag
A lag is the time span between an entering vehicle and opposing circulating vehicle. Many
studies have shown that it is acceptable practice to combine lags and gaps into one data set
for analysis.

33
IRC:65-2017

8.4 Forced Gap

A forced gap occur when a vehicle enter the roundabout without giving enough consideration
of the circulating traffic. The entering vehicles force themselves into the roundabout and
circulating vehicles have to slow down or even stop to not crash into the entering vehicle.
Forced gaps are mainly used by lorries that have trouble entering the roundabout due to lack
of sufficient gaps.

8.5 Static Entrance

If a vehicle has to stop at the give way sign and wait for a sufficient gap to occur before
entering the roundabout it is marked as static entrance.

8.6 Floating Entrance

If the driver finds a gap and does not have to stop at the give way sign the vehicle is defined
as floating. It is only the first vehicle entering a gap that is a floating vehicle, the succeeding
vehicles are follow-ups.

9 Capacity Estimation

This section presents the process for determining the entry capacity of roundabout. The
maximum flow rate that can be accommodated at a roundabout entry depends on two factors
namely, the circulating flow on the roundabout that conflicts with the entry flow and the
geometric elements of the roundabout.
When the circulating flow is low, drivers at the entry are able to enter the roundabout without
significant delay. The larger gaps in the circulating flow are more useful to the entering
vehicles and more than one vehicle may enter each gap. As the circulating flow increases,
the size of the gaps in the circulating flow decrease, and the corresponding rate at which
vehicles can enter also decreases.
Similarly, the geometric elements of the roundabout also affect the rate of entry flow. The
most important geometric element is the width of the entry and circulatory roadways, or
the number of lanes at the entry on the roundabout. Two entry lanes permit nearly twice
the rate of entry flow as that of a single lane. Wider circulatory roadways allow vehicles
to travel alongside, or follow, each other in tighter bunch and so provide longer gaps
between bunches of vehicles. The flare length also affects the capacity. The inscribed
circle diameter and the entry angle have minor effects on capacity. The capacity of
roundabout is a function of entry flow and circulating flow. As driver behavior appears
to be the significant variable affecting roundabout performance, consideration of critical
gap and follow-up time is highly recommended to produce accurate capacity estimates.
The following exponential model from US HCM (2010) can be used by the analyst for the
estimation of entry capacity of roundabout:

34
 IRC:65-2017

C = A * Exp (–B*Qc) (Eq 9.1)

A =3600/Tf (Eq 9.2)
B= (Tc – 0.5*Tf )/3600 (Eq 9.3)
Where,
Tf = Follow-up time in seconds
Tc = Critical Gap in seconds
Qc = Circulating flow in PCU/hr
Using the average critical gap and follow-up time presented in the earlier section, the entry
capacity models/equations for varying range of diameters of roundabouts have been derived
in the Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM) and presented in Table 9.1. The
Nomograph for the direct estimation of entry capacity of the roundabouts of different sizes of
circulating flow is presented in Fig. 9.1

Table 9.1 Entry Capacity Model for Varying Diameter of Roundabout

Diameter, Critical Follow-up A=3600/Tf B= (Tc - C = A*Exp(-B*Qc)

D (m) Gap, Tc (s) Time, Tf (s) 0.5*Tf)/3600

20<D≤30 2.01 1.51 2388 0.00035 C = 2388* Exp (-0.00035 * Qc)

30<D≤40 1.87 1.40 2567 0.00032 C = 2567* Exp (-0.00032 * Qc)

40<D≤50 1.65 1.24 2909 0.00029 C = 2909* Exp (-0.00029 * Qc)

50<D≤70 1.61 1.21 2981 0.00028 C = 2981 * Exp (-0.00028 * Qc)

[Source: CRRI (2017) “Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)”]

[Source: CRRI (2017) “Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)”, Report submitted to CSIR]
Fig. 9.1 Entry Capacity for Varying Circulating flow

35
IRC:65-2017

10 Delay

The overall performance of roundabout is assessed with respect to total delay an individual
vehicle experience while maneuvering through the roundabout. Sample speed profile along
a network comprising of roundabout is shown in Fig. 10.1.

Fig. 10.1 Sample Speed Profile Along a Network Comprising of Roundabout

The different types of delay observed by maneuvering vehicles at roundabout is as follows:

• Queuing delay - The delay to drivers waiting to accept a gap in the circulating
traffic.
• Geometric Delay - The delay to drivers slowing down to stop at the end of
the queue and, after accepting a gap, accelerating to the negotiation speed,
proceeding through the roundabout and then finally accelerating further to
reach normal operating speed. It excludes the time to wait for an acceptable
gap.
36
 IRC:65-2017

The comparison of delay offered by signalised intersection and roundabout is presented in

Fig. 10.2.

Single Lane Approaches two Lane Approaches

Signal capacity
(5800 vph)
Total Delay (sec/veh)

possible roundabout

Total Delay (sec/veh)

Signal capacity (4000 vph)
without
turn bays

Practical roundabout
capacity (3700 vph)

Signal

Roundabout

Roundabout

Total entering volume (vph) Total entering volume (vph)

Fig. 10.2 Comparative Delay Offered by Signalized Intersection and Roundabout

11 Level of Service (LOS)

The estimation of LoS is based on the vehicular delay model derived from studies conducted
at 11 roundabouts by taking into account the delay experienced by the vehicle from entry
point to reach the exit point of the roundabout.
The delay model empirically derived is as under:
y= 0.8*e0.001x (Eq 11.1)
Where,
y= Vehicular Delay in seconds.
x= Total Approach Traffic Flow in Veh/hr.
Fig. 11.1 reveals the LoS derived for roundabouts from the above equation and cluster analysis.

[Source: CRRI (2017) “Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)”]

Fig. 11.1 Relationship Between Approach Traffic Flow and Average Vehicular Delay

37
IRC:65-2017

Based on observed vehicular delay at roundabout and prevailing traffic flow, LoS has been
established by using clustering technique to represent the quality of traffic flow on roundabout.
Accordingly, LoS for the roundabout are given in Table 11.1. If the volume to capacity (v/c)
ratio of a lane exceeds 1.0 regardless of the delay, the LoS of the roundabout is defined as F.

Table 11.1 Level of Service for different Delay

LoS Average Delay ‘d’ per Veh in sec

A <5
B 5 ≤ d < 15
C 15 ≤ d < 20
D 20 ≤ d < 35
E 35 ≤ d < 65
F > 65
[Source: CRRI (2017) “Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)”]

12 Illumination

In view of safety and security, streets should be well lighted. The roundabout must not be
left unlit with one or more approaches being lit. Otherwise the driver may not be able to
see the unlit roundabout while coming from a lit up approach arm. Reflective markers and
signs should be used on the central island. Any raised islands or kerbing should also be
illuminated if possible. Otherwise, reflective markers are a must. The exit arms should have
an ‘illumination transition zone’ where the intensity of lighting gradually decreases. When
the driver exits the well illuminated roundabout, he/she should be able to adapt to the dark
environment of the exiting arm.
A lot of vehicles go out of control on roundabouts. So, adequate clear zones should be
maintained so that there are no hazards for such vehicles. Therefore, lighting poles should
not be placed on small channel islands and left hand perimeter just exiting from the
roundabout. For details on illumination, reference may be made to IRC:SP:90 “Manual for
Grade Separators & Elevated Structures”.

13 Landscaping

The form and layout of the roundabout should not get obscured to the driver; therefore use
of appropriate plantation is required. The central island should appear prominent, so that
the driver is able to distinguish the central island from the surroundings. Small Channel
Islands should not have trees planted on them. Landscaping must be done carefully so as to
maintain the clear line of sight.

38
 IRC:65-2017

The plantation along the approach and exit arm should be low in height so as to maintain a
clear line of sight for the driver. Large, fixed landscape elements such as big trees, rocks,
sculptures, etc. should be avoided in areas vulnerable to vehicle run off. Landscaping in corner
radii areas should be done to channelize pedestrians to crosswalk areas and discourage
pedestrians from jaywalking or from crossing to the central island.
For more details on clearances, reference may be made to IRC:SP:21 “Guidelines on
Landscaping and Tree Plantation”.

Fig. 13.1 Typical landscape details on roundabout.

14 Safety

14.1 General Considerations

In general, a well-designed roundabout is the safest type of intersection. ‘Before and after’
type studies have shown that in general, fewer vehicle accidents occur at roundabouts than
at intersections containing traffic signals, stop or give way signs. The primary reason for this
is that the potential relative speeds of vehicles are considerably lower for a well-designed
roundabout than for other types of at-grade intersections.

39
IRC:65-2017

Conversely, a poorly designed roundabout with little entry curvature or deflection results
in high speeds through the roundabout creating high potential relative speeds between
vehicles. Multiple vehicle accident rates at these roundabouts can actually be higher than for
an equivalent at-grade intersection. Therefore it is important to give special attention to the
design of the geometry of roundabouts.
Within the context of low overall accident rates for roundabouts, single vehicle accident rates
at roundabouts are high compared to other intersection types. This is because roundabouts
consist of a number of relatively small radii horizontal curves for each travelled path through
the roundabout. Drivers travel on these curves with quite high speed. Single vehicle accidents,
which predominantly involve out-of-control vehicles, increase as the required amount of side
friction decreases.
Because of the relatively high number of out-of-control vehicles, it is desirable to have
adequate amounts of clear zone where there are no roadside hazards on each side of the
carriageway. Roadside hazards common at roundabouts include light and power poles, large
trees and sign supports etc. If roadside hazards cannot be located outside the required clear
zone, consideration should be given to making them frangible. If it is not possible to remove
roadside hazards or make them frangible, protecting them with safety barriers are a hazard in
themselves and are the least desirable option. In addition, safety barriers in the vicinity of the
holding line often obscure visibility to circulating vehicles. Central lighting is often preferred
for this reason as well as for economy.

14.2 Speed Control

14.2.1 The entering/circulating vehicle accident rate on any particular approach is

largely related to the potential relative speed of entering and circulating vehicles. Minimizing
the potential relative speed of entering and circulating vehicles will minimize the entering/
circulating vehicle accident rate. The potential relative speed of entering and circulating
vehicles should be limited to 40 km/h.

14.2.2 The potential relative speed of entering and circulating vehicles on any particular
approach can be reduced by:
o Reducing the entry curve radius.
o Providing a smaller radius entry curve on the preceding approach arm.
o Providing greater deflection through the roundabout.
o Increasing the central island diameter.
o Providing more separation between arms.
o Decreasing the entry and exit widths.

40
 IRC:65-2017

14.2.3 The exiting/circulating vehicle accident rate at any particular exit point of multi-lane
roundabouts is predominantly related to the potential relative speed of exiting and circulating
vehicles. Minimizing the relative speed of exiting and circulating vehicles will minimize the
exiting/circulating vehicle accident rate.

14.2.4 Speed Consistency can be achieved by following general guidance given in

Fig. 14.1, where R1 is the entry path radius on the fastest through path, R2 is the circulating
path radius, R3 is the exit path radius, R4 is the Right turn path radius and R5 is the left turn.
In the fastest path, it is desirable that entry path radius R1 to be smaller than R2. Exit Radius
R3 should not be less than R1 or R2 to minimize loss of control crashes. Radius of right turn
R4 ensure that maximum speed difference between entering R1 and circulating R2 is no
more than 20 kmpkh. The fastest left turn R5 shall be below the roundabout design speed
and not more than 20 kmph of conflicting R4 path radius.

Fig. 14.1 Vehicle Path Radii

Fig. 14.1 Vehicle Path Radii

41
IRC:65-2017

References

1 Road Planning & Design Manual, First Edition, Department of Transport and Mains
Road, Queensland 2014
2 Indian Highway Capacity Manual, 2016
3 Planning Level Guidelines for Modern Roundabouts, Center for Transportation,
Research and Education, Iowa State University, U.S.
4 IRC:SP:90-2010 “Manual for Grade Separators & Elevated Structures”
5 IRC:SP:21-2009 “Guidelines on Landscaping and Tree Plantation”
6 IRC:35-2015 “Code of Practice for Road Markings”
7 IRC:67-2012 “Code of Practice for Road Signs”
8 IRC:SP:42-2014 “Guidelines of Road Drainage”
9 IRC:SP:50-2013 “Guidelines on Urban Drainage”
10 IRC:65-1976 “Recommended Practice for Traffic Rotaries”

42