Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 50

Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for

Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

6. ENGINEERING DESIGNS AND ALTERNATIVES

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The feasibility study involves carrying out surveys and investigations and based
on these investigations various design alternatives are developed. Preliminary
designs and cost estimation of these alternatives is done. Thereafter economic
and financial analysis of the various alternatives is carried out to arrive at the best
techno-economic solution.
6.2 ALIGNMENT IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL
Improvement proposals for alignment are proposed based on objectives outlined
in Terms of Reference (TOR). As mentioned in TOR main objective of proposed
project is improvement of safety feature of the alignment, capacity augmentation
and improvement within existing ROW as far as possible.
The warrants for 2-lane and the design service volumes for various lane
configurations specified in the Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two
Laning of Highways With Paved Shoulders (IRC: SP: 73-2015) and Manual of
Specifications and Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private
Partnership (IRC: SP: 84-2014) by Indian Roads Congress, are given in
Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Warrants and Design Service Volumes

Design Service volume in


PCUs per day
Warrants for 2- lane
4 Lane
2 Lane Highway
Highway
Terrain
2-lane 2- lane with min.
without
with with 1.5m wide LOS LOS
paved
granular paved paved 'B' 'C'
shoulder
shoulder shoulder shoulder
Plain <8000 >10000 15000 18000
40000 60000
Rolling <6500 >8000 11000 13000
Mountainous
- - 7000 9000 20000 30000
and Steep

Further as per the office memorandum F.NO.RW/NH-37010/4/2010-PIC dated


24th November 2011 issued by MoRT&H, the 2 laning with gravel shoulder for a
National Highway may be proposed, where the average daily traffic at the time of
traffic survey is upto 15% lower than the threshold specified in Table 6.1 above.
However, as per MoRT&H MO. no NH-12019/6/2012-P&M dated 05.10.2012,
minimum final level for widening /development of a NH should be 2 lane with
Paved shoulder.
Further, as per the circular issued by Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways SR&T (Roads), RW/NH-33044/37/2015/S&R(R) dated 26th May
2016; all the roads with traffic more than 10000 PCUs are to be proposed
for four laning.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-1
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Based on the observed traffic flows and reconnaissance of the surrounding


network, the project road NH 168A have been divided into four homogeneous
traffic sections and NH 168 has been divided two homogeneous section. The
homogeneous wise traffic projections have been given in chapter 7 and the
summary on the base (2015) are shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Homogeneous Sections of Traffic on Project Highway

Design Traffic
Homogeneous Existing Chainage Design Chainage
Sl. Length Volume
Section (km) (km)
(Km) AADT
No. (PCU-
(HS)
From To From To Design 2015)
NH-168A
1 HS- I 0+000 33+900 0+000 33+600 33.600 5,654
HS II
2 (Dhanera 33+900 42+325 0+000 11+000 11.000 7,954
Bypass)
42+325 42+745
3 HS III 42+325 55+030 12.705 11,631
42+745 55+050
4 HS IV 55+050 67+470 Out of Scope - 26,810
NH-168
5 HS V 0+000 42+462 0+000 41+420 41.420 3,542
6 HS VI 42+462 68+415 41+420 68+174 26.754 1,944

As given in chapter 7 of Main Report and can be seen from the above Table 6.2
Homogenous section I, V and VI would require to be widened to 2 lane with
granular shoulder configuration from the year 2015. Also it may be noted that
Homogenous section II would require to be widened to 2 lane with granular
shoulder configuration from the year of opening 2019. However, as per MoRT&H
MO. no NH-12019/6/2012-P&M dated 05.10.2016 and as per IRC:SP 73:2015,
these sections have been recommended for widening to 2 lane with Paved
shoulder.
Also it may be noted that Homogenous Sections IV of 168A would be required to
be widened to 4 lane configurations from the year 2015. Homogenous section III
would require to be widened to 4 lane configurations by the year 2021, which is
only three years after the year of opening of the project road (i.e. 2018) and as
per new circular (May 2016), the homogeneous Section III would be required to
widen to 4 lane in the opening year. Considering above ground, it is logical to
improve homogenous section III as well to 4 lane configurations from the year of
opening itself. Homogenous sections III and IV would require to be further
widened to 6 lane configuration at LOS C, as given in IRC:SP:84-2014, by the
year 2040 and 2027 respectively.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-2
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

As stated in chapter 5, the project stretch from Km 55+050 to Km 67+470 i.e.


Zerda to Deesa was previously State Highway no 7. The existing road section
from Deesa to Zerda of SH 7 (SH chainage from Km 140+920 to Km 153+380) is
awarded to M/s Ranjit Toll way Pvt. Ltd by Gujarat State Road Development
Corporation (GSRDC) on BOT basis. The section has been developed by the
concessionaire and the concession is in its initial stages of operation.
In context of improvement of the above stretch, the consultant enquired with
GSRDC regarding provision of capacity augmentation in ongoing BOT
concession. General Manager, GSRDC vide letter no GMP/DGP road/1249/2016
informed that, Capacity augmentation is to be taken up in the present
concession, by M/s Ranjit Toll way Pvt. Ltd.
Further, Regional Officer (MoRT&H) Gujarat vide his letter no. 477 dated
01.07.2016 and Under Secretary (NH) Gujarat vide letter dated 21.06.2016
instructed for exclusion of the stretch for improvement in this project. Hence the
stretch (Zerda to Deesa) has been excluded for improvement in this project.
6.3 WIDENING
As per ToR, the scope of proposed project is upgrading the existing highway to 2
lanes with 1.5 m paved shoulder and earthen shoulder on both sides/ 4 Laning
divided carriageway. As explained above the lane configurations recommended in
the base year for the project roads are as follows:
Table 6.3: Recommended Lane configuration

Homo- Design Chainage(Km)


Sl Length
geneous Lane configuration
No. From To (Km)
Section
NH 168A
1 HS- I 0+000 33+600 33.600 2 lane +Paved shoulder
11+000
HS II 0+00 (Km
(Km
2 33+600 of 11.00 2 lane +Paved shoulder
(Bypass) 43+250 of
NH 168A)
NH 168)
3 HS III 42+300 55+030 12.730 4 lane +Paved shoulder
NH 168
1 HS- V 0+000 42+420 42.420 2 lane +Paved shoulder
2 HS VI 43+250 68+174 24.924 2 lane +Paved shoulder

In addition to above improvement and for free flow of traffic at start point of NH
168A near Sanchore, one side grade separated Flyover along NH 68 (Sanchore-
Tharad) has been proposed. Considering the existing lane configuration, 4 lane
divided with one side slip road from Km 289+830 to Km 291+320 has been
proposed for improvement.

The proposed improvement as far as possible shall be within the existing right of
way avoiding land acquisition except for locations having inadequate width,
realignments with geometric improvements, provision of highway facilities like Toll
plaza, Bus Lay byes, Truck lay byes etc. and where provision of bypasses has
been made.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-3
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

The evaluation criterion for widening proposals is as follows:


Technical Considerations Geometric, movement of traffic during construction,
earthwork, cross drainage works, junction layout, relocation of existing utilities,
bypasses, construction costs, and maintenance costs.
Environmental Consideration Location of water bodies, monitoring, operation
and training of air quality, noise, and water quality, redevelopment of borrow
areas.
Social Consideration - Area of Land Acquisition, Type of Land Acquisition,
location of hot spots religious places, resettlement and rehabilitation problems
and costs.
Considering the above factors concentric widening of existing carriageway is
adopted for majority of the section. The summary of widening is given in
Table 6.4 and detail of widening is given in Annexure 6.1.
Table 6.4: Summary of Widening

Widening length in Km
Curve
Realignment Bypass
NH Name Eccentric Improvement
Concentric (Km) (Km)
(Km)
Left Right
NH 168 62.719 - - 3.415 1.210 -
NH 168A 31.790 7.200 3.600 2.580 1.160 11.00

6.3.1 Typical Cross Sections


Based on the traffic projection, capacity and the design standards enumerated in
Chapter-6 Design Standards the typical cross-sections applicable for various
sections of the project road have been prepared. These applicable chainages
(refer Annexure 6.2) and their typical cross sections are given at the end of this
Chapter. These typical sections have been prepared separately for various
alternatives like reconstruction, rehabilitation, Built-up areas, Grade separated
sections etc. as follows:
TCS-1 2 Lane with Paved Shoulder-Concentric
TCS-2 2 Lane with Paved Shoulder-Eccentric Left
TCS-3 2 Lane with Paved Shoulder-Realignment/Curve Improvement
TCS-4 2 Lane with Paved Shoulder-Bypass/Realignment
TCS-5 2 Lane with Paved Shoulder-Reconstruction
TCS-6 4 Lane divided without Service road (Concentric-Rural)
TCS-7 4 Lane divided without Service road (Eccentric Right-Rural)
TCS-8 4 Lane divided without Service road (Eccentric Left-Rural)
TCS-9 4 Lane divided without Service road (Realignment/Curve Imp.)
TCS-10 4 Lane divided without Service road (Reconst.-Concentric-Rural)
TCS-11 4 Lane divided without Service road (Reconstruct.-Eccentric Left-
Rural)

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-4
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

TCS-12 2 Lane with Slip road / Service road (Approaches to Flyover)


TCS-13 4 lane divided with one side Flyover and slip road (approached to
flyover

6.4 BYPASSES AND REALIGNMENTS


As per Section 3.1 Scope of Service of Terms of Reference of the project a
Bypass proposals should be considered wherever in urban areas, improvement
to two lanes of the existing road is not possible. Locations where alignment is
passing through congested areas and roadway improvements would have severe
social impact and difficulty in acquiring required ROW, have been resolved by
proposing short bypasses and the same is discussed below. Locations not
confirming to design standards for the design speed limit as per IRC standards,
sharp right angle turns and sections prone to accidents have been improved by
short realignment.
Selection Criteria
Various factors that influence selection of Bypass alignment are as given below.
After careful evaluation preferred option is recommended for the proposed
Highway alignment.
1. Length of Proposed Option
2. Road Geometric Standards
3. Spread of the town i.e. left side or right side
4. Type of Land Acquisition
5. Structures Minor Bridges, Major Bridges
6. Environmental Constraint like ponds etc.
7. Social Impact Relocation and Rehabilitation costs.
8. Construction Problem
9. Cost
The comparative evaluation for the bypass to select the final alignment is based
on technical suitability; traffic needs, operating benefits and construction ease.
The study and analysis has been based upon Google Earth Imagery and ground
survey.
As explained in chapter 5, both the project roads pass through Dhanera
settlement. Within this stretch, the existing road is four land divided carriageway
with raised median for a length of about 2.8 km and the available Right of Way
(ROW) width is about 24m. Western railway crossing with narrow ROB exists
within this built up area.
As per the traffic study, the local traffic as well as the through traffic within the city
area is significantly high due to merging and diverging of two National Highways.
Moreover both the National Highways meet in Dhanera with a T junction within
the heavy settlement and habituated area. Further water pipe line and sewer
lines are existing along the road. For smooth movement of through traffic and
segregation of local traffic, service road has to be provided. Hence widening with
service road could not be accommodate within the existing ROW without
acquisition of land and structures and consequent R&R. Considering the above
facts and to minimize the social impact due to widening along existing road, a
bypass avoiding the settlement has been explored.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-5
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Except the above Dhanera settlement, no other settlement requires any Bypass.
Only curve improvements and small realignments at certain locations have been
proposed to the existing substandard geometry. The details are given as follows.
Table 6.5: List of Bypasses
Name of Existing Chainage Bypass Chainage
Sl.
Town / Length
No. Start End Start End
Village (km)
NH 168A
11+000
0+00
33+900 on 43+300 on (Design
1 Dhanera (Design Chainage 11.00
NH168A NH168 Chainage Km
Km 33+600 of NH
43+250 of NH
168A)
168)
Further small realignments have been provided to improve the horizontal
alignment where sharp curves and S curves exist. All the realignments proposed
on both the project roads are given in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: List of Realignments

Name of Existing Chainage Realignment Chainage


Sl. No.
Town/Village Start End Length (Km) Start End Length (Km)
NH 168A
1 Virol (S Curve) 9+100 10+422 1.322 9+100 10+260 1.160
NH 168
1 Canal Bridge 19+243 20+448 1.205 19+240 20+450 1.210

6.5 BYPASSES / REALIGNMENTS


6.5.1 Dhanera Bypass(NH 168)
The project road NH 168A passes Dhanera Municipality after crossing the Rel
River Bridge. The initial section of the road is 2 lanes for about 0.6 Km and then
2.8 Km length of 4 Lane divided with 2.8m median. NH168 connects the project
road at Km 38+000 with a T junction. The existing right of way within the town
section is about 24m. Two other major cross roads connect Dhanera town and
Railway station at Km 36+550 and Km 39+195. The western railway crosses the
project road at Km 39+399 with a narrow (5m carriageway) ROB. The habitation
area further extends for a length of about 2 km and NH 168 takes off from NH
168A at km 42+300 towards Panthawada. There are 2 major hospitals along the
project road. The projected traffic in this stretch within Dhanera town warrants 4
lane configurations. It is clear from the traffic study, majority traffic are local
traffic. Hence to segregate the local traffic, both side service roads is required in
this section. To accommodate 4 lane divided with both side service road, a
minimum of 45m width right of way is required. Further on the approaches of
ROB, extra 4m width of land will be required to accommodate the slip roads.
Considering the above factors and land acquisition, there will be 195 nos. of
structures on left side and 171 nos. on right side affected from Km 35+800 to Km
42+000. Demolition of numerous residential/commercial structures would entail
higher resettlement cost and opposition from local population and other stake
holders. Further widening to six lanes will also be a constraint.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-6
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Considering the above constraints the improvement of existing road is not


feasible and bypass for Dhanera has been explored.
During study of proposed bypass, the local administrative officials were also
consulted. The Chief Officer, Dhanera Nagarpalika and President of Dhanera
Nagarpalika, expressed that, provision of Bypass will have great benefits to the
local traffic and existing congestion issues. They informed during discussions
that, there is no existing Master Plan for Dhanera.
Three options have been explored for improvement at Dhanera as shown in
Fig. 6.1.
Option I - Bypass on South side of Dhanera [Start from Km 33+600 (existing
33+900) of NH168A, then crossing NH168 at km 41+300 (existing 41+330) and
NH168A at Km 42+700 (existing 42+710) and terminated at km 43+250 (existing
43+300) of NH168.
Option II - Bypass on North side of Dhanera [Start from Km 34+000 (existing
34+300) of NH168A, then crossing NH168 at Km 42+870 and terminating on
NH168 at Km 43+350 (existing 43+360)
Option III - Up gradation of Existing road.
The comparison of options is presented below:
The biggest disadvantage of option II is that there is no National Highway
connection of NH 168 from Tharad side to Panthawada side. As a result NH 168
traffic will use the existing road and the narrow ROB inside the Dhanera town. In
view of above, another bypass from Tharad side to Samarwada (along proposed
option 1 bypass) has to be provided. This proposal will also involve another ROB
and additional length of 6.260 Km.

Fig. 6.1: Proposed Dhanera Bypass

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-7
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

The comparison of the three options on various parameters is given below:

S.
Factor Option I Option II Option III
No.
1 Length (Km) 11.000 8.20 9.450
Additional NIL 6.260 NIL
bypass for
NH168 South of
Dhanera
2 Lane 2 Lane 2 Lane 4 Lane with
Configuration service road
3 Provision of 2.2 1.2 6.73
Service road/ slip
(Km)-Both side
4 Geometrics Good. Good Poor S curves
Design speed 100 Design Speed 100 with straight in
Kmph Kmph between. Design
speed 40-50 kmph

T Junction with NH
168
5 PROW (m) 45 45 45
6 Land Acquisition 49.500 65.070 20.00
(Hect.)
7 Bridges/ Major Bridge-1(2 Major Bridge-1 (2 Major Bridge-
structures lane) lane) 1(existing
ROB-1(2 lane) ROB-2 (2 lane) Retained)
Minor Bridge-1(2 Minor Bridge-1(2 ROB-1(4 Lane)
Lane) Lane) Minor Bridge-2 (4
Flyover-2 (2 Lane) Flyover-1 (2 Lane) Lane)
VUP-1 (2 lane) VUP- 1 (2lane) FlyOver-1(4 lane)
VUP-1(4 lane)
8 Major Junctions 4 3 4
9 Environmental Nil Nil Water bodies,
Constraints Industrial Zone,
Government
Buildings, Temples
10 Structures Nil Nil Water Body-
Impacted 1,Industrial
Zone,Temple-1,
Government
Bilding-1
11 Utility Relocation Negligible Negligible Water supply
Sewer Line Both
Side
Electrical

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-8
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

S.
Factor Option I Option II Option III
No.
12 Social Impact Cultivation/ barren Cultivation/ barren Land acquisition in
land acquisition land acquisition urban area
(Land rate (Land rate
Demolition of
approx.. 200/sqm) approx.. 200/sqm)
structure (Land
rate approx..
4500/sqm)
13 Civil Construction 152.650 205.55 131.19
Cost (Rs. in
Crores)

The Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) cost along the existing alignment will
be very high. Demolition of the affected structures is likely to cause social unrest.
It may also be noted that, during discussion with Dhanera Nagarpalika official,
they concurred that bypass for Dhanera is definitely required and the best
techno-economic option be selected.
Further the proposal was discussed in the meeting held under the chairmanship
of Additional Resident Collector (ARC) on 23rd June 2016 along with Regional
Officer (MoRTH) Gujarat and PWD official. The ARC enquired about the benefits
of the bypass. In principle he agreed to the Option I proposal for Bypass.
Bypass Option-I has encumbrance free alignment with marginal R&R impact.
Hence Option I is recommended.
6.5.2 Virol Realignment (NH 168)
In Rajasthan section of NH 168, the alignment passes nearby Virol Village with S-
curve. On right side of the existing road at Km 9+800 to Km 10+000, there is one
temple with associated pond. As per local inquiry, it is seen that, the local people
have sentiments attached to the pond and it is also well guarded by retaining wall
along the existing road. Beyond the pond, there is one fuel station on right side
and 3 residential houses on left side. Since the existing alignment in this stretch
is having substandard geometries is about 30/40 Kmph which needs to be
improved. Curve improvement along existing road will affect the pond and
houses. Keeping in view this constraints, the realignment from Km 9+100 to Km
10+260 has been proposed
Proposed re- alignment is shown on aerial view in Fig. 6.2.

View of Pond at Km 9+800 View of S curve

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6-9
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Fig. 6.2: Proposed Virol Realignment

6.5.3 Realignment near Sujlam-Suflam Canal(NH 168)


The project road NH 168 passes the existing canal (Sujalam Suphalam) at Km
19+895 and a Crude oil pipe at Km 20+072. There is one existing RCC Girder
deck slab bridge over canal of span arrangement 2x16.1m. The carriageway
width on the bridge is about 7.4m. There is also a sharp S-curve before the
bridge (Tharad side) and the stretch is an accident prone area. The view of sharp
curve is shown in Fig. 6.3 below:

View of Canal Bridge View of Blind curve near Canal

Considering, the above facts and to provide safety on the National Highway traffic
the realignment from Km 19+240 to Km 20+450 has been proposed. Proposed
re- alignment is shown in aerial view in Fig. 6.4.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 10
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Fig. 6.4: Proposed Sujalam Canal Realignment

6.6 PAVEMENT DESIGN


6.6.1 General
As part of the detailed design engineering study of the Project corridor which
consists of 68.40 Km Tharad-Dhanera-Panthvada road section of NH168 and
67.40 Km, of Sanchor-Dhanera-Deesa road section of NH168A, the Consultants
conducted pavement investigations of the existing road which includes visual
pavement condition survey, determining engineering characteristics of existing
sub-grade by carrying out in-situ & laboratory testing of soil collected from
excavated test pit, measuring existing pavement composition, determining in-situ
CBR by conducting DCP test on sub-grade top, determining structural strength of
existing pavement by conducting BBD test and laboratory testing of materials
from existing Pavement. Based on the findings of such extensive pavement
investigation, the consultant undertook pavement design for rehabilitation of the
existing pavement and new construction along the project corridor for meeting the
design requirements as specified in the TOR.
6.6.2 Pavement and Subgrade Investigation
Majority of the input data required for the pavement design, are obtained from
pavement and sub-grade investigation carried out as per the Terms of Reference
(TOR) laid out by the Indian Academy of Highway Engineers (IAHE) under
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and activities involved in the process are
detailed as here under:
(i) Review of all available reports
The Consultant gathered all available information from various NH Divisions of
state and PWD of concerned regions. This information was studied and pavement
investigation was planned / conducted and design was carried out on the findings
of this investigation.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 11
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

(ii) Road and Pavement Condition Surveys


The consultant carried out detailed field study to collect road and pavement surface
condition during the month May 2015. The prime objective for pavement condition
survey was to identify distresses and sections with similar characteristics. All
distresses were systematically recorded and quantified in the format as per TORs
requirement, for the purpose of determining mode of rehabilitation or requirement
of any reconstruction. The pavement condition survey was carried out to cover the
following conditions.
Pavement condition: which includes surface distress such as % cracking,
rutting, % raveling, potholes and edge break
Shoulder condition: which includes rut depth, material loss, corrugation and
edge drop
Embankment condition: This includes height of embankment with general
condition and extent of slope erosion.
The details of road and pavement condition survey as noted during are presented
in Annexure 6.3.
Subsequently, in the last week of July 2015, the states of Gujarat & Maharashtra
experienced an unprecedented rainfall, which caused flood in many areas,
including the project roads influence area. Because of prolonged water
submergence of the project road, the pavement and its shoulder have been
damaged severely. At some locations, road has been overtopped with flowing
water. In these sections embankment requires raising to such height that the
bottom of sub-grade remains at least 1.5 m above the highest water level, to keep
the bottom of sub-grade above the capillary fringe.
(iii) Investigation for existing Pavement Composition
In order to obtain existing pavement composition, test pits were dug at every 500 m
interval staggered on the both sides along the project corridor to obtain pavement
composition details. For each test pit following details/observations were recorded:
Test pit reference (Id and location)
Pavement composition (material type and thickness)
Subgrade type and condition (wet/dry)
The existing pavement details obtained from survey are presented in
Annexure 6.4.
The summary of existing pavement composition which includes average, minimum
and maximum thickness of each layer for each homogeneous section is presented
in Table 6.7.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 12
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Table 6.7: Summary of Existing Pavement Compositions


Existing Chainage
Pavement Composition (mm)
(km)
Homogeneous
Section Bituminous WMM
From To
Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. Avg.
NH 168A
HS-I 0+000 33+900 50 245 120 50 435 245
HS-II
33+900 42+325 45 155 86 95 370 241
(Dhanera)
HS-III 42+325 55+050 35 210 124 100 385 214
HS-IV 55+050 67+470 115 160 135 130 245 210
NH 168
HS-V 0+000 42+460 25 160 78 50 425 199
HS-VI 42+460 68+415 30 100 62 65 370 185

No granular sub-base layer has been observed along the project corridor except at
few isolated places.
It has been observed that 26 % stretch along NH 168A and 36% stretch along NH
168 has presence of about 50mm-350mm thick boulder layer in existing pavement,
out of which about 10% of stretch in both NH 168A and NH 168 have bituminous
layer laid directly over boulder layer. Moreover, 27% of stretch in both NH 168A and
NH 168 has about 50mm-250mm sand/moorum layer below boulder/granular layer.
(iv) Investigation of Subgrade Characteristic and Strength of existing
Pavement
Existing Subgrade Characteristics
With the aim to determine the characteristics of existing subgrade soil, minimum of
3 representative samples were collected from the test pits excavated up to
subgrade top at staggered and equal interval in every 5 km which was considered
as the length of each homogeneous section. Following tests were conducted in-situ
and also in laboratory on the collected samples for evaluation of in-situ subgrade
soil properties:
(a) In Situ Density and Moisture Content,
(b) Field CBR using DCP,
(c) Laboratory Moisture-Density Characteristics,
(d) Laboratory CBR under 4-days soaked (at three energy level) and unsoaked
condition
While defining the scope of laboratory tests it was ensured that at least three sub-
grade soil samples for each homogenous road segment or three samples for each
soil type encountered, whichever is more, were tested. Summarized test results are
presented in Annexure 6.5.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 13
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

The summary of maximum and minimum DCP CBR and Laboratory CBR of
existing subgrade soil samples for each homogenous sections are shown in Table
6.8.
Table 6.8: Summary of DCP and Laboratory CBR of existing Subgrade

Existing Existing Subgrade CBR (%)


Homogeneous Chainage, km DCP CBR Lab CBR
Sections
From To Min. Max. Min. Max.
NH 168A
HS-I 0+000 33+900 15 39 6 23
HS-II (Dhanera) 33+900 42+325 13 32 12 20
HS-III 42+325 55+050 13 37 3 26
HS-IV 55+050 67+470 19 34 8 18
NH 168
HS-V 0+000 42+460 6 26 6 25
HS-VI 42+460 68+415 6 31 5 19

Strength of Existing Pavement:


Evaluation of structural strength of the existing pavement was carried out by taking
deflection measurements using Benkelman Beam Deflection technique in
accordance with the CGRA procedure given in IRC: 81-1997. Deflection surveys
were carried out as per the TOR provisions with main line and control line
deflections. BBD Survey was not carried on road sections warranting
reconstruction.
The detailed BBD data are presented in Appendix 6.5 in Volume II: Appendices
to Main Report. Summarized characteristic deflection of homogeneous section for
NH 168 and NH 168A project road sections are presented in Table 6.9.
Table 6.9: Characteristic Deflections

Homogenous Avg.
Section Characteristic
From Deflection
To (Km)
(Km) (mm)
NH 168
0 11 0.243
11 13 0.697
13 29 0.210
29 32 0.557
32 37 0.228
37 43.4 0.482
43.4 68.415 0.431

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 14
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

From Table 6.9, it is concluded that residual deflection obtained from BBD test
varies from 0.210 mm to 0.697 mm for NH 168 road section and 0.287 mm to
1.047 mm for NH 168A road section. The deflections from BBD test are primarily
more dependent on sub-grade strength rather than pavement layers. Low
deflections obtained for NH 168 road section, suggest that the existing subgrade
has sufficient in-situ strength to cater to moving traffic but for NH 168A road section
which shows comparatively high deflection in the stretch from Km 34.0 to Km 63.00
and hence it is indicative of lesser sub-grade strength in comparison with NH-168.
But in both the cases, and the in-situ sub-grade strength can be considered as
adequate for the projected design traffic.
6.6.3 Design Options
Both flexible and rigid pavement options are considered for the project road. The
detail design of pavements involves the following cases.
(i) Strengthening (in the form overlay/partial reconstruction depending on the
present condition of Bituminous layers, existing granular base/sub-base layer
and subgrade) of the existing pavement where alignment and primary levels
remain unchanged along the project corridor;
(ii) Design of the pavements for new construction in widening portion and
reconstruction sections. These sections are defined on the basis of
realignment, by-passes, raising of embankment and extent of damages in the
existing pavement.
(iii) Design of service roads
The methodology adopted for pavement design (both new and rehabilitation) is
presented in a flowchart (Fig 6.5 and Fig 6.6) indicating the various steps involved
in the design process, their interaction with one another and the input parameter
required in each step.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 15
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Fig. 6.5 : Pavement Design Procedure (New Construction)

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 16
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Fig. 6.6 : Pavement Rehabilitation Design Procedure

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 17
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

6.6.4 Design Standards


The design standards followed are:
(i) The new flexible pavement is designed in accordance with IRC-37: 2012
(Guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements). While carrying out the
design, provisions made in IRC: SP -84-2014 and IRC: SP-73-2015 are also
taken into consideration.
(ii) Flexible Overlay designed in accordance with IRC: 81 1997 (Guidelines for
strengthening of flexible pavements using Benkelman Beam Deflection (BBD)
technique).
(iii) Rigid pavement is designed according to IRC: 58-2015.
(iv) Pavement for service roads is designed as per IRC: 37- 2012 for design
traffic specified in IRC: SP 84-2014 for four-lanes and IRC: SP-73 -2015 for
two lanes.
6.6.5 Design inputs
Following design inputs have been considered in the pavement design.
a. Design Subgrade CBR
Potential Borrow areas of selected earth are located along the Project corridor in
order to use soil for the construction of subgrade and embankment. A total of
twenty eight (28) borrow areas were identified and soil samples were collected
from these borrow areas and tested in the Laboratory. Out of 28 borrow areas,
Fifteen (15) borrow areas are located along the road section of NH 168 and
thirteen (13) borrow areas along the road section of NH168A. Sieve analysis,
Atterberg limits, Proctor Compaction characteristics and soaked CBR (at three
energy levels) were tested to determine the engineering characteristics of borrow
soil. The detailed test results of borrow area soil are presented in Annexure 6.6/7.
The CBR varies from 6% to 26%. Assuming that the same borrow area will be used
for both embankment and subgrade construction; effective CBR has been
determined and presented in Table 6.10A & 6.10B.
Table 6.10A: Borrow Area CBR along Existing Road section NH 168
(95% Compaction)

(97% Compaction)

Effective CBR (%)

Adopted Design
Chainage (Km)

Lead (Km)

CBR (%)
CBR (%)

CBR (%)
S.No

side

Remarks

1 0.0 R.H.S 16.0 8.0 8.9 8.5 15 Borrow areas at km 0.50 and km
14.30 will be used for construction
2 0.5 R.H.S 0.2 15.6 18.0 16.9 of subgrade in the stretch from km
3 4.7 R.H.S 0.1 7.3 8.6 8.0 0.0 to km 20.0 with average lead
distance of 6 km.
4 10.3 R.H.S 0.3 15.1 16.6 15.9
5 14.3 R.H.S 0.1 14.6 17.0 15.9
6 20.5 R.H.S 0.1 10.7 12.3 11.6 10 Borrow areas at Km 25.0, km 30.60
and km 35.30 will be used for
7 25.0 R.H.S 0.2 10.7 12.5 11.7 construction of subgrade in the
8 30.6 R.H.S 0.2 17.5 20.4 19.1 stretch from km 42.462 to km 20.0

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 18
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

(95% Compaction)

(97% Compaction)

Effective CBR (%)

Adopted Design
Chainage (Km)

Lead (Km)

CBR (%)
CBR (%)

CBR (%)
S.No

side
Remarks

9 35.3 R.H.S 0.5 11.7 13.8 12.8 with average lead distance of 6 km.
10 40.0 L.H.S 0.4 10.2 12.1 11.2 Borrow area at Km. 35.30 will be
used in construction of Dhanera
Bypass.
11 45.7 L.H.S 0.1 19.5 21.2 20.4 15 Borrow areas at km 48.00 and km
55.30 will be used for construction
12 48.0 L.H.S 1.8 17.7 20.3 19.1 of subgrade in the stretch from km
42.462 to km 60.0 with average
13 55.3 R.H.S 0.6 21.4 23.6 22.6 lead distance of 5 km.
Borrow area at Km. 48 will be used
in construction of Dhanera Bypass.
14 62.2 L.H.S 1.0 12.2 14.7 13.6 12 Borrow areas at km 62.20 will be
used for construction of subgrade
in the stretch from km 60 to km
15 68.415 R.H.S 0.1 8.8 10.3 9.6 68.415 with average lead distance
of 7 km

Table 6.10B: Borrow Area CBR along Road section NH 168A


(95% Compaction)

(97% Compaction)

Effective CBR (%)

Adopted Design
Chainage (Km)

Lead (Km)

CBR (%)
CBR (%)

CBR (%)
S.No

side

Remarks

1 3.4 L.H.S 0.5 23.4 26.0 24.8 15 Borrow areas at Km 3.40 Km 15.0
and Km 30.0 will be used for
2 10.0 L.H.S 0.5 15.6 17.0 16.3 construction of subgrade in the
3 15.0 L.H.S 0.2 15.6 17.5 16.6 stretch from km 0.0 to km 36.1 with
average lead distance of 8 km.
4 23.0 L.H.S 0.2 13.6 16.0 14.9
Borrow area at Km. 30 will be used
5 30.0 R.H.S 0.2 16.6 19.0 17.9 in construction of Dhanera Bypass.
6 33.2 R.H.S 0.5 4.9 5.6 5.3
7 42.1 L.H.S 0.5 8.5 9.2 8.8 9 Borrow areas at km 48.20 and Km
51.4 will be used for construction of
8 48.2 R.H.S 0.2 10.0 11.8 11.0 subgrade in the stretch from km
36.1 to km 42.325 with average
lead distance of 10 km.
9 51.4 R.H.S 0.5 17.5 19.8 18.7 15 Borrow areas at km 51.40 will be
used for construction of subgrade in
10 56.7 L.H.S 1.0 18.5 19.5 19.0 the stretch from km 42.235 to km
55.1 with average lead distance of
8 km.

11 62.0 R.H.S 2.3 24.3 25.5 24.9 15 Borrow areas at km 62.00 will be

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 19
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

(95% Compaction)

(97% Compaction)

Effective CBR (%)

Adopted Design
Chainage (Km)

Lead (Km)

CBR (%)
CBR (%)

CBR (%)
S.No

side
Remarks

12 62.2 L.H.S 2.3 11.7 13.0 12.4 used for construction of subgrade in
the stretch from km 55.1 to km
13 67.47 R.H.S 0.6 15.6 17.6 16.6 67.47 with average lead distance of
7 km.

Note: Soil of all Borrow areas locations is suitable for embankment construction

Based on the CBR values as presented in Table 6.10A&B, recommended


subgrade CBR has been adopted for widening/ realignment / new sections. Thus,
the Design CBR values vary from 9% to 15 %.
b. Vehicle Damage Factor
Forty eight hours axle load survey has been carried out at the following locations:
At Km 41+000 of Tharad-Panthvada Road section of NH 168
At Km 52+000 of Tharad-Panthvada Road section of NH 168
At Km 4+000 of Sanchor-Deesa Road section of NH 168A
At Km 64+000 of Sanchor-Deesa Road section of NH 168A
VDF is determined based on the methodology recommended in IRC: 37-2012.
The VDF values are calculated direction wise and maximum VDF of up and down
direction of road section is adopted for pavement design for various homogeneous
sections as shown in Table 6.11.
Table 6.11: Summary of VDF
VDF at km 41+000 VDF at km 52+000
Vehicle NH168 NH168
Type
UP Down UP Down
Direction Direction Direction Direction

LCV 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02


2-Axle 0.22 4.43 1.12 0.30
3-Axle 0.71 5.77 0.32 11.04
Bus 0.64 0.91 0.40 0.53
MAV 6.74 4.74 9.55 1.99

c. Design Period
IRC: 37-2012 recommends that National Highways should be designed for a
minimum life of 15 years. The Four-Laning Manual through PPP (IRC SP 84-2014)
specifies the minimum design period of 15 years or the operation period, whichever
is more, for the thickness of the granular base and sub base layers and initial
bituminous surfacing for a minimum design period of 10 years. IRC SP 84-2014
also specifies that the new pavement shall be designed in accordance with the
IRC: 37-2012 Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements. IRC: SP-73-2015

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 20
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

recommended minimum 15 years of design period. IRC: 81-1997 recommended


that design period of overlay for major road should be at least 10 years.
Considering all these aspects, design period for new Flexible Pavement and
overlay is considered as 15 years.
d. Widening Configuration and Distribution Factor
IRC: 37-2012 suggest different distribution factors depending on lane / carriageway
configuration. Based on this guide line and proposed lane configurations of
homogeneous sections, appropriate distribution factors are adopted for estimating
design traffic loading and the same are presented in Table 6.12.
Table 6.12: Lane Distribution Factor

Design Chainage Distribution Factor


Homogeneous (km) Design Proposed Lane (In term of total
Section Period Configuration traffic in both
From To directions)
NH-168A
2019-
HS-I 0+000 33+600 2-Lane+PS 0.5
2033
HS-II (Dhanera 2019-
0+000 11+000 2-Lane+PS 0.5
By Pass) 2033
2019-
HS-III 42+325 55+030 4-Lane+PS 0.375
2033
HS-IV** Out of Scope -- -- --
** As per the comment (4.vi.) vide letter no. RW/GNR/Misc-14/477 of MORTH Regional office
(Gandhinagar), this section not been considered as the part of the Project.

NH-168
2019-
HS-V 0+000 41+420 2 Lane+PS 0.5
2033
2019-
HS-VI 41+420 68+174 2 Lane+PS 0.5
2033

e. Design Traffic
The Design Traffic is estimated considering the AADT projected and Vehicle
Damage Factor (VDF determined from the axle load data presented in the traffic
report and summarized in Table 6.11).
The detailed calculation of design traffic estimation of each of the homogeneous
sections is presented in Annexure 6.78 and 6.8a; the adopted design traffic for
each of the homogeneous sections is presented below in Table 6.13.

Table 6.13: Design Traffic for Different Homogeneous Sections

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 21
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Design Traffic Based on VDF


(MSA) Design Traffic
Homogeneous Section
Adopted (MSA)
UP Down
NH-168A
HS-I 38 44 45
HS-II (Dhanera By Pass) 42 49 50
HS-III 47 55 55
HS-IV This section is out of Project scope
NH-168
HS-V 3 7 20*
HS-VI 4 6 20*
Note:* IRC: SP-73-2015 recommends designing the pavement for minimum design traffic of 20 msa

f. Pavement Materials
Material investigation and laboratory testing have been conducted for determining
basic engineering properties of materials that are to be incorporated in pavement
construction. Sub base and base course will be constructed with crushed
aggregate as per MORT&H 5th Specification, 2013. Design traffic of all the
Homogeneous Sections exceeds 30 msa except in homogenous sections HS V
and HS VI is less than 30 MSA. Therefore, as per IRC: 37-2012, VG 40 bitumen is
to be used for HS-I, II, III & IV and VG 30 to may be used for homogenous sections
V and VI. But for construction uniformity, VG 40 is recommended for all the
homogeneous sections. Thus, the Elastic modulus of DBM and BC layer is taken
as 3000 Mpa for pavement design.
Regarding alternate material with regard to environmental concerns, it is
recommended to use waste plastic in Bituminous Concrete (BC) mix which is
provided as wearing course. For designing the bituminous mix with waste plastic,
IRC: SP 98-2013 will be followed. Moreover, commercially available chemically
modified top surface protective seal coat over wearing course is also
recommended which prevents ingress of water and thereby enhances life of the
road and reduces maintenance of road through its design life.
Pavement composition and layers thickness are determined as per IRC 37-2012
based on estimated design traffic and design subgrade CBR of each homogenous
sections.
6.6.6 Design of New Flexible Pavements and Bypass section
Pavement for new construction in widening, and reconstruction portion and bypass
section is designed based on subgrade strength, material characteristics, Design
traffic as discussed in previous sections.
While Homogenous section HS I and Dhanera Bypass (HS II) have been
designed as 2-L carriageway with pave shoulder, HS III is designed as four lane
carriageway facility throughout design year (i.e. 2019-2033).
Homogenous Section HS V and , HS VI and Dhanera bypass are designed as two
lane with paved shoulder facility for the design period from year 2019-2033.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 22
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

HS-I, HS-II (Dhanera Bypass), HS-III, HS-V and, HS-VI are designed in single
phase.
Pavement compositions for new / widening section have been worked out as per
IRC 37-2012. Pavement layer thickness charts given in IRC 37 2012 from plate
no. 1 to plate no. 8 have been referenced for pavement Design and are presented
in Table 6.14A & 6.14B below.
Table 6.14A: Pavement Design for New / Widening Section NH 168A
Design
Pavement Composition
Chainage
Desi Adopted Estimated
Homogenous Design mm
km gn Design Traffic for
Period for
Section CBR Traffic Stage I
Stage I
(%) (msa) (msa)
From To BC DBM WMM GSB

HS I 0+000 33+600 15 45 - 2019-2033 40 65 250 200


HS II (Dhanera By
0+000 11+000 10 50 - 2019-2033 40 95 250 200
Pass)
HS III 42+325 55+030 15 55 - 2019-2033 40 65 250 200
HS IV This section is out of Project scope

Table 6.14AB: Pavement Design for New / Widening Section NH 168


Adopted Design Traffic*

Design Chainage, Pavement


km Composition, mm
Design CBR (%)

Homogenous Design
Period

WMM
Section
DBM

GSB
BC
From To

0+00 20+00 20 15 2019-2033 40 60 250 200


HS V
20+00 42+420 20 10 2019-2033 40 80 250 200
42+420 60+00 20 15 2019-2033 40 60 250 200
HS VI
60+00 68+174 20 12 2019-2033 40 70 250 200
*Adopted Design Traffic as per clause 5.4.1 of IRC: SP: 73-2015

6.6.7 Strengthening of Existing Pavement


For Strengthening of existing pavement of the project corridor, Benkelman Beam
deflection test as specified in IRC: 81-1997 and also mentioned in TOR, has been
conducted at site. Widening of existing pavement, in-situ sub-grade strength,
existing pavement composition and pavement condition were taken into
consideration while designing bitumen overlay thickness to strengthen existing
pavement.
Overlay design for a given road section is based on the statistical analysis of
rebound deflection measurements in a section, corrected for temperature and
moisture.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 23
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Overlay thickness has been calculated based on Fig. 9 of IRC: 81-1997 (deflection
Vsvs. Overlay Thickness Curve). VG 40 bitumen is used for overlay bituminous
layer as the same is considered to be used in new construction. Thus, E value of
mix will be 3000 MPa. IRC: 81 proposed conversion factor of 0.7 for converting
BM to DBM/BC for mix E value 1700 MPa. In this case conversion factor will be
approximately (1700/3000)1/3=0.62. Using this conversion factor, overlay thickness
has been determined and presented in Table 6.15a and 6.15b.
Table 6.15a: Overlay Thicknesses (NH 168A)

Adopted Design Traffic (as per clause 5.4.1 of IS SP 73-2015) msa


Chainage Proposed
Overlay
km Design, mm

Avg. Characteristic Deflection, mm


Homogeneous Section

From To BC DBM

0+00 15+00 45 0.533 40 65


HS-I 15+00 25+00 45 0.306 40 -
25+00 33+600 45 0.553 40 -
HS-II (Dhanera Bypass) 0+00 11+000
HS-III 42+325 55+030 55 0.305 40 -
HS-IV This section is out of Project scope

Table 6.15b: Overlay Thicknesses (NH 168)

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 24
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Adopted Design Traffic as per clause


Chainage Proposed

Avg. Characteristic Deflection, mm


Overlay
km Design, mm

5.4.1 of IS SP 73-2015,msa
Length km
Homogeneous
Section
From To BC DBM

0.0 11.0 11.0 20 0.243 40 -


11.0 13.0 2.0 20 0.697 40 -
13.0 29.0 16.0 20 0.210 40 -
HS-V
29.0 32.0 3.0 20 0.557 40 -
32.0 42+420 5.0 20 0.228 40 -

42+420 60.0 17.538 20 0.446 40 -


HS-VI
60.0 68.415 8.415 20 0.414 40 -

6.6.8 Matching of Bituminous for Widening and Overlay Section


The structural adequacy of the existing pavement structure, structural requirement
of pavement in widening section and that of existing pavement were carefully
compared and recommendations for overlay were made so as to provide for
construction of new/ widening section / overlay section in a single paving operation.
Thus, the final pavement composition is calculated and presented in Table 6.16.
Table 6.16: Pavement Compositions for Widening and Overlay Section

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 25
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Pavement Composition (mm)


Design Chainage Overlay
Stage II

Adopted Design Traffic


(km) Stage I Construction (mm)
Homogenous Section

Construction

Design CBR (%)

Design Period Stage II


Design Period Stage I

WMM
DBM

DBM

DBM
GSB
BC

BC

BC
From To

2019-
0+00 20+00 20 15 40 60 250 200 - - - 40 -
2033
HS V
2019-
20.00 42+420 20 10 40 80 250 200 - - - 40 -
2033
2019-
42+420 60+00 20 15 40 60 250 200 - - - 40 -
2033
HS VI
2019-
60+00 68+174 20 12 40 70 250 200 - - - 40 -
2033

6.6.9 Design of Rigid Pavements


With the aim to carry out Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Rigid pavement option is also
considered for the entire project road sections. The rigid pavements are designed
as per IRC: 58-2015.
Design Traffic and Subgrade CBR:
The rigid pavement has been designed to withstand the cumulative effect of the
axle load repetitions of different commercial vehicles applied over the design life
of 30 years. As per IRC 58 2015, only 25% of the cumulative repetitions of
commercial vehicles for 30 years are taken as the design traffic for computing the
expected axle load repetitions for design.
Based on the base year traffic volume data and the growth factors, the
cumulative repetitions of commercial vehicles for 30 years design life has been
worked out. Design Subgrade CBR values are considered as worked out earlier
during flexible pavement design.
Design Traffic for Rigid Pavement Design has been calculated for all
homogeneous sections and presented in Annexure 6.89 and summarized design
traffic and design subgrade CBR is presented in Table 6.17.
Table 6.17: Design Traffic for Rigid Pavement

Design Chainage,
Homogenous Design Traffic (million Design
km
Section axle load repetitions CBR (%)
From To
NH 168 A
HS I 0+00 33+60 24.48 15
HS II (Dhanera 0+00 11+00 29.54 10

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 26
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Design Chainage,
Homogenous Design Traffic (million Design
km
Section axle load repetitions CBR (%)
From To
Bypass)
HS III 42+325 55+030 30.06 15
HS IV This section is out of Project scope
NH 168
0+0 20+00 13.50 15
HS V
20+00 42+420 13.50 10
42+420 60+00 7.56 15
HS VI
60+00 68+174 7.56 12

Dry Lean Concrete and K-Value:


For rigid pavement design, the thickness of dry lean concrete (DLC) layer is
taken as 150 mm, accordingly as per DLC thickness and K-value of subgrade, K-
value for DLC are determined for each homogenous sections as per IRC 58-
2015. K-value for DLC is shown in Table 6.18.
Table 6.18: K-Value for DLC

Chainage, km K-Value for


Homogenous Section
From To DLC (Mpa/m)

NH 168 A
HS I 0+00 33+60 300
HS II (Dhanera Bypass) 0+00 11+00 300
HS III 42+325 55+030 300
NH 168
HS V 0+00 42+420 300
HS VI 42+420 68+174 300

Other Basic Design Inputs:


The base input data for rigid pavement is presented below:
Design Life = 30 yrs
Subgrade CBR = 15 %
Thickness of DLC = 150 mm
Tyre Pressure, p = 0.8 Mpa
Modulus of elasticity of concrete, E = 30000 Mpa

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 27
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Poisson's ratio, m = 0.15


Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Concrete, a = 0.00001 / OC
O
Temperature Differential for BUC, Dtbuc= 14.3 C
O
Temperature Differential for TDC, Dttdc = 12.15 C
28 - day Flexural Strength of Concrete = 4.5 Mpa
90 - day Flexural Strength of Concrete = 4.95 Mpa
Spacing of Contraction Joint, L = 4.5 m
Spacing between Longitudinal Joint and edge of Pavement, B
3.5 m
=
Tied Concrete Shoulders? (Yes/No)= yes

Pavement Design Details


The design calculations are given in Annexure 6.910. The pavement design
details for all homogeneous sections are summarized in Table 6.19.
Table 6.19: Rigid Pavement Design
Composition, mm Dowel Bars Tie Bars
Section Diameter, Length, Spacing, Diameter, Length, Spacing,
PQC DLC GSB mm mm mm mm mm mm
HS-V 260 150 150 32 450 250 12 640 690
HS-VI 250 150 150 32 450 260 12 640 720
Note: As per clause 6.3.4.1 of IRC 58-2015, the design PQC thickness may be increased by 10 mm to (i) permit
to retexturing and (ii) grinding to rectify faulting during the service life
So, Final thickness of PQC layer will be proposed thickness + 10 mm additional thickness.

6.6.10 Design of Service Road


Service road designed for 10 MSA for two sections as proposed in IRC: SP-73-
2015 (Clause 5.5.8) and 10 MSA for four lanes divided carriageway (IRC:SP-84-
2014,Clause 5.5.5). Accordingly, the pavement compositions for service road for
two as well as four lane divided carriageway are determined as per design chart of
IRC: 37-2012 and presented in Table 6.20.
Table 6.20: Pavement Compositions for Service Road
Homogeneous Section
Pavement Detail
NH 168
0.0 36.1 43.8 55.1
Chainage (Km) to to to to
36.1 38.4 55.1 68.415
CBR (%) 15.0 10.0 15.0 -
BC (mm) 40 40 40 -

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 28
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Homogeneous Section
Pavement Detail
NH 168
DBM (mm) 50 50 50 -
WMM (mm) 250 250 250 -
GSB (mm) 200 200 200 -

6.6.11 Life Cycle Cost Analysis


As suggested in MOSRT&Hs Circular No. RW/NH-33044/31/2014/S&R(R) (Pt)
dated 04.08.2015, Life Cycle Cost Analysis is carried out for both Flexible and
Rigid Pavement and the same are presented in Annexure 6.101. The result of the
analysis shows that upfront construction cost of Rigid Pavement is about
44.8224% more than that of Flexible pavement. However, the Life Cycle Cost of
rigid pavement is found about 12.849.70% cheaper than flexible option. Since the
price comparison is within the acceptable limit of 20%, it is recommended to adopt
Flexible Pavement for the project road. The cost comparison between Flexible and
Rigid Pavement has been provided in Fig. 6.7 and Fig. 6.8 below:

Fig. 6.7: Initial Cost Comparison Fig. 6.8: Life Cyclel Cost Comparison

6.6.12 Final Pavement Schedule


As per site investigations after recent flood, it has been found that overtopping
occurred at several places and the vertical alignment of road is not as per
standards. Therefore, the vertical profile has to be modified as the embankment
has to be raised due to high HFL in the region. The vertical profile of project road is
changed and in general, raised throughout the project road stretches. Thus no
overlay is required on project road sections as the majority of the road stretch is to
be reconstructed.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 29
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

The final pavement composition is shown in Tables 6.21A, 6.21B and 6.21C
below:
Table 6.21A: Pavement Design for New / Widening Section NH 168A

Estimated Traffic for Stage I


Chainage Pavement Composition

Adopted Design Traffic (msa)

Design Period for Stage I


km mm
Homogenous Section

Design CBR (%)

(msa)

WMM
DBM

GSB
BC
From To

2019-
HS I 0+00 33+60 15 45 - 40 65 250 200
2033
HS II Dhanera Bypass
2019-
HS III 42+325 55+030 15 55 - 40 65 250 200
2033
HS IV This section is out of Project scope

Table 6.21B: Pavement Design for New / Widening Section NH 168


Homogenous Section

Pavement Composition,
Chainage, km
mm

Adopted
Design Design
Design
CBR (%) Period WMM
DBM

GSB
Traffic*
BC

From To

2019-
0+000 20+00 20 15 40 60 250 200
2033
HS V
2019-
20+00 42+420 20 10 40 80 250 200
2033
2019-
42+420 60+00 20 15 40 60 250 200
2033
HS VI
2019-
60+00 68+174 20 12 40 70 250 200
2033
*Adopted Design Traffic as per clause 5.4.1 of IS SP 73-2015

Table 6.21C: Pavement Design for Bypass

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 30
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Adopted Design Traffic*


Pavement
Composition, mm

Design CBR (%)


Length, km
Homogenous Design
Period

WMM
Section

DBM

GSB
BC
Dhanera Bypass (Km 0+0 to 2019-
11.0 50 10 40 95 250 200
Km 11+0 (HS II) 2033

Considering moisture susceptible characteristics of available materials along the


stretch, it is suggested to use 2% lime during BC & DBM layer construction.
6.7 HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.7.1 Design Approach and Methodology
Data collected from the visit to site were collated and studied along with
the Google Earth Imageries. The Design Approach has been formulated through
careful examination of the field data collected and the following additional pieces
of data:
90m, SRTM Digital Elevation Model (DEM) (from website
http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/) - to analyze the river catchment characteristics in
GIS platform.
Rainfall/runoff data published in Flood Estimation Report for Sub zone 1
(a) isopluvial maps for design storms of 24 hour duration with 50 year and
100 year return period.
Technical Studies and Reports on Flash Floods in Luni basin, prepared and
disseminated by Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur.
Design Approach for Bridges and Culverts
Hydro-Meteorologically Homogenous Sub zones
For estimation of Design Flood, The Central Water Commission (CWC) has
divided the whole Geographical Territory of India into 26 distinct hydro-
meteorologically homogenous Sub zones. The proposed project area comes
under Sub zone 1(a).
Design Rainfall
Relevant data have been taken from the Flood Estimation Report of Subzone
1(a). The following table lists the 24-hr maximum point rainfall values (from
Isopluvial Maps of different Return Periods) generally adopted for the study area:

24-hour rainfall (mm)


25 years 50 years 100 years
320 350 390

The daily rainfall values recorded in Dhanera (435mm) and Deesa (410mm)
stations during the last week of July, 2015 are more than the 100 year, 24-hour

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 31
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

point rainfall values recommended by CWC for the subzone. For the remaining
stations, however, the recorded values of daily rainfall are less than the 100 year
rainfall value recommended for this subzone.
A culvert or bridge structure designed for a very rare return period flood shall be
too costly to be economically justifiable. Again, a structure designed for even the
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) can fail as a PMF can also be exceeded.
While designing bridges, therefore, adaption of a rainfall value corresponding to a
certain return period assumes a corresponding risk of failure. Such risks are
accepted risks and are inbuilt in the provisions of IS Codes and Road Manuals.
The design of the structures of the project road shall be guided by the codal
provisions only.
The bridges of the project road shall, therefore, be designed with the 100
year rainfall value stipulated in the Isopluvial maps of the Flood Estimation
Report for subzone 1(a), (390mm) and not with the rainfall experienced by
some parts of the project area, viz Dhanera (435mm) and Deesa (410mm).
Basin Parameters
The watersheds of the rivers / streamlets at the proposed crossing points have
been delineated with the help of Google Earth Imagery and ArcGIS 10 Software.
The watershed area, fall in height, total and segmental stream lengths and
corresponding elevations have also be determined with the help of GIS Software.
Estimation of Design Flood
Determination of Design Discharges have been done in line with the stipulations
of IRC-5:2015, IRC-SP:13-2004 and standard engineering practices.
For streams having catchment areas more than 25 sq km and upto 5000
sq.km, SUH Method as stipulated in the Flood Estimation Report have been
followed. However, for ephemeral rivers of arid zones (as in the project area),
rainfall-runoff modeling in line with SUH Method is applicable for headwater
regions only. Technical studies report that a typical characteristic of the arid zone
flash flood is a significant diminution of flood peaks and volume of run off as the
river flows downstream, due to heavy transmission losses through percolation
and spread of flood water into flood plains.
Keeping these (infiltration and loss in transmission) aspects into consideration,
the design flood for major rivers of the project road have been adopted on the
basis of transmission loss estimations recommended by the eminent hydrologists
of Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur.
For catchment areas less than 25 Sq.Km, Rational Method in general has been
followed. Empirical Methods (Catchment Area Method using Dickens Formula),
without any assigned return period, has been used as a check for the adopted
Design Flood.
Design Return Period
For Waterway
IRC-5: 2015 recommends determination of Waterway on the basis of 100 Years
return flood. Also, the 4 Lane Manual of MORTH recommends design of hydraulic
structures for 100 year Return Period Flood.
As per MORTH guidelines, all the bridges shall be designed for 100 year Return
Period Flood.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 32
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

The culverts shall be designed for 25 year flood. However, it is preferable to


check the waterway for a flood of rarer frequency (Article 7 of IRC SP 13). The
major culverts shall be checked for the next rarer frequency of 50 year Return
Period flood.
However, the bridges which have failed (washed out or outflanked) during
July, 2015 flood shall be designed with waterway at least equal to the gap
left by the stream at the failure points.
For HFL
HFLs shall be estimated on the basis of 100 Years frequency flood with
backwater and compared with HFL value collected from local enquiry. Higher of
these two values shall be adopted in design.

For scour
The stipulations of IRC-5:2015 and IRC-78: 2000 shall be adopted for estimating
the scour depth. Foundation shall be designed on the basis of Q100 multiplied by
suitable factor based on catchment area, as stipulated in IRC 5.
The following table summarizes the return period to be adopted for design of
bridges:
Table 6.22: Summarizes the return period to be adopted
for design of bridges

Sl.
Design Parameter Adopted Return Period Flood
No.
1. Waterway for bridges 100 Years
2. HFL for Bridges 100 Years
3. Scour for foundation design 100 Year Flood multiplied by suitable
factor, based on catchment area.
4. Design of Roadside Drains / 25 Years (both for rural and urban areas)
Culverts and checked for 50 year Return Period
Flood.

Design Afflux
Maximum permissible afflux under a bridge shall be considered as 300 mm.
The headwater elevation of culverts shall be determined on the basis of
acceptable head up of water upstream of the culvert point and in no case the
Hw/D ratio (Headwater Depth and Diameter/Depth of culvert ratio) shall be more
than 1 for the safety of the subgrade / pavement materials.
Vertical Clearance
The minimum vertical clearances for bridges and slab culverts shall be provided
on the basis of stipulations of IRC 5: 2015.
Design Velocity through Bridges / culverts
A maximum velocity of 3.5 m/s shall be considered for design. For culverts, a
minimum velocity of 0.9 m/s shall be adopted as self-cleansing velocity.
Determination of Linear Waterway of bridges

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 33
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

IRC-5:2015 and IRC-SP:13-2004 stipulate methods for determining the linear


waterway for Alluvial streams, Quasi-Alluvial streams and streams with rigid
boundaries. For Alluvial streams, Laceys Regime equation (W = 4.8*(Q)^0.5)
provides a guideline for fixing the linear waterway for a bridge.
Initial approximation for the linear waterway of bridges shall be done on the basis
of Laceys waterway.
The Linear Waterway for the bridges shall be finalized on the basis of anticipated
flow hydraulics under bridges.
Mannings n
The Rugosity Coefficients for use in design shall be taken from Table 6, SP: 13-
2004. The same table is reproduced below for ready reference:
Table 6.23: Rugosity Coefficients, n

Sl. Mannings N-values.


Surface (Natural Streams)
No. Perfect Good Fair Bad
1. Clean, straight bank, full stage, no 0.025 0.0275 0.030 0.033
rifts or deep pools
2. Same as (1), but some weeds and 0.030 0.033 0.035 0.040
stones
3. Winding, some pools and shoals, 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050
clean
4. Same as (3), lower stages, more 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055
ineffective slope
5. Same as (3), some weeds and 0.033 0.035 0.040 0.045
stones
6. Same as (4), stony sections 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060
7. Sluggish river reaches, rather weedy 0050 0.060 0.070 0.080
or with very deep pools
8. Very weedy reaches 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150

Suitable n values shall be taken for different bed / bank conditions and for deep
channel and flood plains of rivers.
Determination of HFL
HFLs at the proposed crossing points shall be determined on the basis of
provisions of IRC-5: 2015. The design HFL shall be the highest value amongst
a) HFL ever recorded
b) HFL on the basis of analytical calculations (Check Flood)
c) HFL anticipated (for tributaries) on the basis of backwater effect.
Methodology for Analysis of Bridges
Hydrological and Hydraulic Design of bridges / culverts require
Hydrological analyses for estimation of Peak Design Flood
Hydraulic calculation for determination of corresponding HFL under
unobstructed condition

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 34
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Hydraulic calculation for fixing linear waterway, afflux, flow velocity through
bridge opening and estimation of scour depth
A) Flood Discharge Calculation:
a) Catchment Area Methods
Dickens Formula:
Q = CA0.75 (1)
Because of the varying topography and catchment characteristics C values will
vary appreciably, and reliability of computed discharge depends on the accuracy
of the adopted value for these coefficients. Dickens formula is being used in
most of the cases.
Rational Method
Unlike the Empirical Formulae, Rational Method takes into account the Rainfall
and other catchment characteristics. Flood discharges estimated by Rational
Formula can be assigned a Return Period.
Rational Formula
Q= 0.028 PfAIC
Where:
Q = Maximum runoff in cumecs
A = Catchment area in hectares
Ic = Critical intensity of rainfall in cm/ hr.
P = Coefficient of run-off for the given catchment characteristics.
f = Spread factor for converting point rainfall into areal mean rainfall.
Ic = (F/T)*((T+1) / (Tc+1))
F= Total Rainfall of T hours duration (24 hrs.) in cm corresponding to 50 /
100 yrs return period.
T = Duration of total rainfall (F) in hours= 24 hrs.
Tc= Time of concentration in hour.
Time of Concentration
Time of concentration (Tc) would be determined from the following Empirical
Formula:
Tc = [0.87(L3/H)] 0.385
Where, L is the length of catchment in km and H is the elevation difference in
meter in length L.
Point rainfall values are to be adjusted for aerial mean value using recommended
spread factor as per IRC: SP-13 and CWC report. Total rainfall in 24 hrs is to be
adjusted corresponding to Tc hr for finding critical rainfall intensity Ic from the
rainfall distribution curve (Duration vs. conversion ratio) of CWC report.
b) Estimation of Flood Discharge by Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH)
Method
For catchment areas more than 25 sq. km, SUH Method as stipulated in CWC
Flood Estimation Report for Subzone 1(a) has been considered.
B) Methodology for estimation of Design HFL (unobstructed condition)

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 35
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Before assessing the effect of constructing the bridge, it is necessary to estimate


the HFL at the bridge point in natural condition when the adopted Design Flood is
simulated to be passing through the bridge section. HFL corresponding to Design
Flood in unobstructed condition is estimated by equating the Design Flood with
the Carrying Capacity of the channel.
The conveyance factor in unobstructed condition would be estimated with the
help of Mannings equation with a trial depth of flow. Discharge corresponding to
the trial depth would be calculated and compared with the Design Discharge.
With the help of Spreadsheet calculation, level of water required to pass the
design discharge is to be taken as the HFL in unobstructed condition.
As the natural drains generally have irregular cross sections having varying
roughness coefficients in deep channel portion and flood plain, varying roughness
coefficients, areas and wetted perimeters for sub sections are considered for
determining conveyance factor (K) of each sub section. Discharge passing
through each sub section is found as
Qn =KnS (n =1, 2, 3 .)
Where Kn = Conveyance Factor for the nth sub section = (1/ n)*An*Rn^(2/3), n
being the Roughness Coefficient for the nth sub section.
Where S is the energy slope assumed as longitudinal bed slope of the channel.
Average discharge for the cross section of the channel is found by adding
discharges passing through each sub section.
C) Methodology for Scour Analysis
Laceys Regime equations, as recommended by IRC-5: 2015 and IRC-78:2000 is
considered for determination of scour Depth for design of foundation. The
equation is as follows:
Mean Scour Depth
dm = 1.34 (q2/f)1/3
Where dm is the mean scour depth measured below HFL, q is the design
discharge intensity under bridge in cumecs per meter and f is the silt factor given
by the equation
f= 1.76 (d50)1/2
Where d50 is the mean sediment size in mm.
For computing scour depth, enhancement of flood flow to the maximum extent of
30% (depending on the catchment area) is to be considered as per stipulations of
IRC-78:2000. Maximum scour levels for pier and abutment are to be considered
using a factor of safety of 2 and 1.27 respectively as stipulated in IRC-78:2000.
A minimum depth of foundation equal to 2 m below bed level would be
considered for design of foundation.
The above regime equations as stipulated in IRC-5:2015 and IRC-78: 2000 shall
be used for bridges where the soil constituting the beds and banks of the streams
are silty/sandy. Laceys scour formula shall not be applicable for rocky beds. In
such cases, the foundation of structure shall be taken at least 2m into sound rock
strata.
Provision of Upstream and downstream protections / cut off walls shall be
provided for culverts to take care of scour and undermining.
Methodology for Analysis and Design of Culverts

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 36
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Hydro-Meteorological Assessment
Rational formula shall be applied to arrive at the design peak discharge at culvert
structures.
Hydraulic Assessment
Conveyance capacities of the existing culverts are to be compared with design
discharge to assess the adequacy of waterway of the individual culverts.
The span of culvert would be chosen after hydraulic analysis by Excel Spread
Sheet (Mannings Equation) and by Hydraflow Extension software of Autodesk,
Inc which follows the methodologies of hydraulic design of culverts as set forth in
Hydraulic Design Series Number 5 Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts that
is prepared for the U.S Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The maximum permissible downstream velocity for the culverts would be
considered as 3.5 m/s with nominal protection.
In no case the Hw / d ratio is to be considered as more than 1 for the safety of the
pavement layers.
Design Methodology for Roadside Drainage System
In developing the local drainage systems, the issues, which shall be addressed,
are as follows:
a) Identification of local depressions / channels crossings the proposed
alignment and naturally attracting overland flow towards them
b) Assessment of flow direction at those localized areas
c) Identification of local ridges - natural or manmade canals etc.
d) Distances between local depressions and nearest local ridges and
corresponding land slope
e) Identification of natural storage areas like ponds, lakes which may act as local
receiving body in absence of natural drainage channels.
f) Nearest human habitation / property, places of worship, places of strategic
importance etc. and possibility of further development within the design
period.
g) Permissible head up of water upstream of proposed embankment assessed
on the basis of type, nature and elevation of upstream area.
h) Height of proposed embankment
Roadside Ditches / Drains
Roadside toe drains shall be provided to receive discharge from embankment
surface and countryside runoff and carry it safely to the nearest outfall point
ensuring safety to the embankment toe, which is the area most vulnerable to
erosion / failure.
Roadside drains shall generally be provided on both sides of the embankment to
safely carry the discharge from the embankment without jeopardizing the safety
of the toe.
The alignment of the drains shall depend on the topography of the area and the
type of drain selected. For stretches, where the natural ground slope is towards
the embankment toe, the drain shall be provided at the toe point and lined

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 37
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

suitably. For stretches, where the ground slope is away from the embankment
toe, the drains may be provided at the edge of ROW and these drains may not be
lined.
The shape and size of the roadside drains shall be decided on the basis of length
of embankment being served by the drain up to the nearest outfall point.
For stretches passing through urban areas, rectangular covered drains shall be
recommended for safety reasons.
For rural areas, the drains shall be open and trapezoidal with 1.5(H):1(V) side
slope. As the topography in general is quite flat, optimization of the length of
drain, bed width and depth of flow shall be necessary to reduce the top width of
the drain (land width required for construction of drain). To reduce the length of
drain up to nearest outfall and consequently the section, intermediate balancing
culverts shall be provided at suitable locations. These drains may also terminate
at local roadside ponds, if feasible. The minimum bed width and depth of flow at
starting section shall be 500 mm and 300 mm respectively. The sections shall be
gradually increased in terms of bed width and depth of flow up to the outfall point.
The section shall be designed to ensure a non-silting / non-scouring velocity in
drains.
6.7.2 Retention / Replacement of Cross Drainage Structures
For Bridges
Decisions on existing high level bridges have been taken on the basis of their
structural adequacies and their hydraulic performance during past flood as per
information received during local enquiries. However, check for adequacy of
waterways of these bridges shall be further done on the basis of detailed
hydrological and hydraulic analyses in detailed design stage.
For Culverts
The retention criteria for a culvert shall be fixed on the basis of their structural
condition, extent of choking by silting and the conveyance capacity of the culvert
in its present condition. The extent of choking of any culvert and the possibility of
economic clearance of the same has been duly considered before taking the final
decision. Guidelines regarding retention or replacement, as stipulated in the
Manual of Specifications and Standards for Four Laning of National Highways
through Public Private Partnership published by the Ministry of Shipping, Road
Transport & Highways, Government of India has been followed to the applicable
extent. Other criteria considered are as follows:
Hazards of replacement
Ease of routine maintenance
General criteria for replacement or retention of culverts, as stipulated in IRC:
SP:73- 2007 and IRC:SP:84- 2009 has been followed in principle.
In a nutshell, the general criteria followed are as follows:
a) All pipe / box / slab culverts having size less than 0.9m shall be
recommended for replacement.
b) All pipe culverts of 0.9 m diameter having hydraulic and structural adequacy
and functioning properly shall be recommended for retention / widening.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 38
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

(Many of the 900mm pipe culverts of the project road are silted up to different
degrees seriously hampering their conveyance capacities).
c) For replacement cases, the minimum recommended dimension has been
kept 1.5m to ensure easy manual maintenance.
d) In cases of replacement, Box and slab culverts have been preferred to pipes
as pipe culverts bring with them more joints resulting in more chance of
leakages and consequent threat to the pavement materials.

6.7.3 Recommendations
Recommendations for Bridges
The detail Hydrological & Hydraulic Calculation and Recommendations for
existing and new bridges of NH-168 are given in Appendix 6.1 in Volume II:
Appendices to Main Report and Annexure 6.12 respectively.
The detail Hydrological & Hydraulic Calculation and Recommendations for
existing and new bridges of NH-168A are given in Appendix 6.2 in Volume II:
Appendices to Main Report & Annexure 6.13 respectively.
Recommendations for Culverts
Annexure 6.14, Annexure 6.15 and Annexure 6.16 provide the detail
calculation Hydrological & Hydraulic Calculation for the existing and proposed
culverts of NH-168, NH-168A and NH-168A Bypass respectively.
Annexure 6.17 and Annexure 6.18 provide the recommendations for the
existing and proposed culverts of NH-168 and NH-168A respectively.
As flood flow in the project area carries huge sediment, regular maintenance of
cross drainage structure is very important for effective drainage of the project
road as a whole.
Roadside Drainage
Design Rainfall Intensity (Ic) and Discharge
The typical drain section shall be designed for rainfall of 25 year return period as
per IRC: SP-42 (for rural) and SP: 50 (for Urban), Guidelines for Road Drainage.
Design rainfall intensity, Ic in cm/hr, to be used in the Rational formula (Q d= 0.028
PfIcA) was computed based on time of concentration (tc) in hours. The formula
recommended by IRC-SP-13 for Ic is
Ic = (F/T)*[(T+1)/(tc+1)]
Where, F is the total rainfall in cm in T hrs.
Runoff coefficients are taken according to the type of surface, namely paved,
unpaved, agricultural, and residential and forest areas etc. as per the
recommendations made in IRC: SP-42, SP-50 and SP-13.
Based on Rational method, as discussed in methodology, discharge per Km
length of drain has been computed.
Design Methodology

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 39
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Design discharge rate (Qd) per kilometre of drain is found using rational formula
for rural area and urban area. Based on road and ground profile the accumulated
discharge for the length of drain segment is computed.
Carrying capacity (Qc) corresponding to a given drain size is calculated using
Mannings equation:
QcK S
Where S is the longitudinal bed slope of drain, K is conveyance given by
K = 1/n AR2/3
Where n is Mannings roughness coefficient corresponding to the given type of
drain, A is the flow area in m2 and R is the hydraulic mean depth in m.
The longitudinal slope of the drains, in final drainage profile, shall be considered
in such a way that it suits the existing land slope.
Size of the drain has been adopted by ensuring Qc>=Qd,
Recommendation for Roadside Drain
Following table provides preliminary sizing of trapezoidal roadside drains to be
adopted for the project road:
Table 6.24: Preliminary sizing of trapezoidal roadside drains to be adopted
for the project road
Description Lined Drain Un-Lined Drain
Recommended bed width of
0.50 m 0.9 m
drain
Recommended depth of flow 0.4 m 0.4 m
Free board 0.15 m 0.15 m
Adopted total depth of drain 0.55 m 0.55 m
Top width of drain 1.6 m 2.55 m
Recommended Side Slope 1:1 V:H 1.5 : 1 V:H
Anticipated Velocity 1.0 m/s 0.6 m/sec
Discharge of drain 0.36 m3/s 0.36 m3/s
In town sections, covered rectangular RCC drains of internal size 1m x 1m
(including free board) shall be adopted for the purposes of safety and easy
maintenance.
Height of Embankment
The project road, in many stretches, is built as dwarf embankment and in many
places at the same level of the ground. The sags, in many places, in ground
profile are not bridged through culverts. As a consequence, the road stretches as
mentioned in paragraphs above have been overtopped.
The design approach is to have the sags bridged through provision of culverts. In
the waterlogged stretches in the Tharad-Dhanera section, particular attention
have been paid to ensure that that the subgrade is at least 0.6m above the
stagnant water level which is almost equal to the existing road level.
6.8 BRIDGE DESIGN

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 40
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

6.8.1 Recommendation of Bridges / Structures


Out of the seven existing bridges and one ROB of NH-168A; one existing major
bridge, one existing ROB and two existing minor bridges are bypassed. Two
existing minor bridges are proposed to be retained with repair and additional 2-
Lane bridges are proposed. Remaining 2 minor bridges are proposed to be
replaced by new structure due to hydraulic inadequacy.
Out of 05 existing minor bridges of NH-168, one existing bridge is proposed to be
retained with repair and remaining 04 bridges are proposed to be replaced
because of improvement in road geometrics or due to hydrological requirement.
The details of existing bridges proposed to be retained are given in Table 6.25.
The details of existing bridges proposed to be replaced are given in Table 6.26.
The details of proposed new structures are given in Table 6.27.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 41
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Table 6.25: Statement showing Details of Existing Bridges Proposed to be Retained with Repairs and rehabilitate
Existing Bridges

Sl. Location Design Overall


Stream Span Total
No. (Km.) Chainage Type of Type of Type of Carriageway Deck Retain /
Arrangement Length Remarks
Foundation Substructure Superstructure Width (m) Width Replace
(m) (m)
(m)
NH-168
Retained
RCC Wall RCC Girder and
1 19.884 19.895 Canal 2 x16.1 32.25 Open 7.40 8.62 with
Type Slab
Repair
NH-168A
Retained Additional 2-
43+746 Vela RCC Wall RCC Girder and
1 43+746 2 x 20 40.05 Open 7.50 8.60 with Lane bridge
(skew) Nallah Type Slab
Repair on LHS
Retained Additional 2-
Ramuna RCC Wall
2 48+674 48+660 2 x 8.65 17.32 Open RCC Solid Slab 11.10 12.00 with Lane bridge
Nallah Type
Repair on LHS

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 42
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Table 6.26: Statement showing Details of Existing Bridges Proposed to be Replaced


Existing Bridges

Sl. Location Design Overall


Stream Span Total
No. (Km.) Chainage Type of Type of Type of Carriageway Deck Retain /
Arrangement Length Remarks
Foundation Substructure Superstructure Width (m) Width Replace
(m) (m)
(m)
NH-168
Improvement
Local
1 40+741 40+712 2 x 3.6 7.22 Open RCC Box 9.15 10.15 Replace of Road
Nallah
Geometry
Vela RCC Wall Washed Out
2 41+031 41+000 2 x7.0 14.02 Open RCC Solid Slab 7.65 8.4 Replace
Nallah Type during flood
Khimat RCC Wall Hydraulically
3 55+680 55+625 2 x7.1 14.20 Open RCC Solid Slab 13.65 14.65 Replace
Nallah Type Inadequate
Local RCC Wall Hydraulically
4 67+380 67+170 1 x7.9 7.90 Open RCC Solid Slab 11.00 11.92 Replace
Nallah Type Inadequate
NH-168A
290+165
290+165 2x In approach of
1 (NH-68) Canal 1 x 10.60 10.62 Open PCC Wall Type RCC Solid Slab 2 x 9.10 Replace
o (NH-68) 10.10 flyover
(skew 20 )
Local Hydraulically
2 0+232 0+232 2 x 3.15 7.50 Open RCC Box 10.85 11.75 Replace
Nallah Inadequate
Tintoda RCC Wall
3 50+819 50+526 4 x 6.8 27.20 Open RCC Solid Slab 7.00 8.00 Replace Washed Out
Nallah Type

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 43
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Table 6.27: Statement showing Details of Proposed New Bridges / Structures

Proposed Bridges

Sl. Location Design Span Total Overall


Stream Type of Type of Type of Carriageway
No. (Km.) Chainage Arrangement Length Deck Remarks
Foundation Substructure Superstructure Width (m)
(m) (m) Width (m)

NH-168
Local RCC Girder and
1 2+358 2+358 3 x 15.0 45.04 Open RCC Wall type 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah Slab

Local
2 40+484 40+455 1 x 8.0 9.30 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah

Local
3 40+741 40+712 1 x 6.0 7.10 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah

Vela PSC Girder and


4 41+031 41+000 3 x 35.0 105.05 Pile RCC Wall type 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah RCC Slab

Local
5 47+230 47+180 3 x 8.0 25.80 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah

Khimat RCC Girder and


6 55+680 55+625 2 x 15.0 30.04 Open RCC Wall type 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah Slab

7 63+653 63+600 - 3 x 6.0 19.80 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge

8 65+045 64+992 - 2 x 7.0 15.20 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge

9 65+793 65+743 - 3 x 6.0 19.80 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge

Local
10 66+210 66+157 3 x 9.0 28.80 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah

11 67+050 67+000 Local 3 x 10.0 31.80 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 44
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168
Proposed Bridges

Sl. Location Design Span Total Overall


Stream Type of Type of Type of Carriageway
No. (Km.) Chainage Arrangement Length Deck Remarks
Foundation Substructure Superstructure Width (m)
(m) (m) Width (m)

Nallah

67+380 Local
12 67+170 1 x 8 (Right) 10.29 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
o
(Skew 29 ) Nallah

NH-168A

290+165 43.664
290+165 10.350+13.50 New 4-Lane NH + 2-
1 (NH-68) Canal 2 x 5.0 11.20 Open RCC Box (barrel
(NH-68) +10.350 Lane Slip road Bridge
o
(skew 20 ) length)

290+560 New 2-Lane LHS


2 - Flyover 1 x 45.0 45.050 Pile RCC Wall type PSC Box Girder 13.50 14.50
(NH-68) Flyover

Local
3 0+232 0+232 2 x 5.0 11.20 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah

2.75
2.5 (width of
4 - 32+950 FOB 1 x 14.0 14.00 Open Steel Circular Steel Girder (width of FOB with Ramp
footpath)
footpath)

1+330 New 2-Lane VUP on


5 - VUP 1 x 12.00 13.20 Open RCC Box 12.00 13.00
(Bypass) bypass

2+180 Rel PSC Girder and New 2-Lane Bridge


6 - 10 x 28.0 280.05 Pile RCC Wall type 11.00 16.00
(Bypass) River RCC Slab on bypass

3+115 RCC Girder and New 2-Lane Bridge


7 - - 1 x 16.50 16.54 Open RCC Wall type 11.00 16.00
(Bypass) Slab on bypass

8 - 4+740 Flyover 1x15.0 + 60.053 Pile RCC Wall type RCC/PSC Girder 12.0 13.0 New 2-Lane Flyover

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 45
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

Proposed Bridges

Sl. Location Design Span Total Overall


Stream Type of Type of Type of Carriageway
No. (Km.) Chainage Arrangement Length Deck Remarks
Foundation Substructure Superstructure Width (m)
(m) (m) Width (m)

(Bypass) 1x30.0 +
and RCC slab on bypass
(Skew 18o) 1x15.0

6+500 New 2-Lane LVUP on


9 - LVUP 1 x 10.50 11.80 Open RCC Box 12.0 13.0
(Bypass) bypass

1x31.2 +
7+836 Steel Girder & New 2-Lane ROB on
10 - ROB 1x37.2 + 99.652 Pile RCC Wall type 11.0 16.0
(Bypass) RCC Slab bypass
1x31.2

10+208 PSC Girder and New 2-Lane Flyover


11 - Flyover 2 x 30,0 60.053 Pile RCC Wall type 12.0 13.0
(Bypass) RCC slab on bypass

43+746 Vela RCC Girder and Additional 2-Lane


12 43+746 2 x 20.0 40.040 Pile RCC Wall type 1 x 8.50 1 x 12.50
(skew 7o) Nallah RCC Slab Bridge on LHS

13 45+790 45+780 - 2 x 10.0 20.020 Open RCC Wall type RCC Solid Slab 2 x 8.50 2 x 12.50 New 4-Lane Bridge

Ramuna Additional 2-Lane


14 48+674 48+660 Nallah
2 x 8.65 17.32 Open RCC Wall type RCC Solid Slab 1 x 8.50 1 x 12.50
Bridge on LHS

15 53+746 53+756 - 2 x 7.00 15.40 Open RCC Box 2 x 8.50 2 x 12.50 New 4-Lane Bridge

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 46
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

Summary of Recommendation of Existing and Proposed Structures

Items NH-168A NH-168 Total


Existing Structure Details
Number of existing Bridges 07 05 12
Number of Major Bridges 1 - 1
Number of Minor Bridges 07 05 12
Number of ROB 1 - 1
Number of Causeways - - -
Number of VUPs - - -
Number of existing Bridges to be 03 04 07
replaced
Number of existing Bridges to be 02 01 03
retained
Number of existing Bridges / 04 - 04
structure to be bypass
Number of existing Bridges to be - - -
widened
Number of existing ROBs to be - - -
replaced
Proposed Structure Details
Number of Widened Bridges - - -
Number of New /Replaced ROB 01 - 01
Number of New/ Replaced Major 02 01 03
Bridges
Number of New/ Replaced Minor 01 (2-Lane) 11 (2-lane) 12 (2-Lane)
Bridges 03 (4-Lane) 03 (4-Lane)
02 (add. 2- 02 (add. 2-
Lane) Lane)
Number of New VUP 01 - 01
Number of New LVUP 01 - 01
Number of New Gas Pipe Line 01 - 01
Bridges
Number of New Flyovers 03 - 03
Number of FOB 01 - 01
Total Number of Structures 16 12 28

A comparative statement showing details of existing and proposed bridges is


enclosed as Annexure 6.19 (a & b). Typical general arrangement drawings of
proposed structures are also enclosed as Volume IV: Drawings.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 47
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

6.9 AT GRADE INTERSECTION/GRADE SEPARATED INTERSECTION


NH 168A
Except the start and end point of both the project roads, some major junctions
exist along the project road, which are formed due to the connection with
NH/SH/MDR. There are about 6 major type junction along NH 168A.
At start point of the Project near Sanchore, the major traffic flow is on NH 68
which is about more than 65% of the total turning movement traffic. Since, NH to
NH crossing one grade separate is required at this location. However,
considering the traffic flow pattern and geometry of the junction, Flyover on NH
68 (Sanchore-Tharad) will be most techno economical. Considering the above
facts, at grade Intersection has been proposed with one foot over bridge for
safety of pedestrian.
In addition to the above location there are 2 locations where at grade intersection
and at 2 locations grade separated intersections have been proposed.
Considering the pedestrian volume one foot over bridge has also been proposed
at Km 32+950 (Raniwada Junction).
At end of the improvement proposal (Km 55+030), the project road meets the
existing BOT project near Zerda. Considering the ongoing BOT, only merging with
existing junction has been proposed.
However for smooth merging & diverging of local cross road traffic, at grade
intersections have been proposed at 19 nos. minor junctions have been identified
and improvement has been proposed. The details of Major & Minor Junction for
improvement for NH 168A has been given as Annexure 6.20a.
NH 168
Except the start and end point of both the project roads, there is no major road
crossing the project road.
However for smooth merging & diverging of cross road traffic, at grade
intersections have been proposed at various locations. 2 nos. major (Start and
End) and 27 nos. minor junctions have been identified and improvement has
been proposed.
During site visit with RO (MoRTH), Gujarat and Gujarat PWD officials, it was
decided not to provide any grade separator at start & end of the project to reduce
construction cost.
The details of Major & Minor Junction for improvement for NH 168 have been
given as Annexure 6.20b.
6.10 PROPOSAL FOR TOLL PLAZA
The site for toll plaza location was carefully selected based on guidelines laid out
in IRC standards. Toll plaza on proposed highway alignment will be designed as
per IRC standards mentioned in IRC: SP: 73-2015 for two lane highway
alignment and IRC: SP: 84-2014 for four lane highway alignment. In all 2 different
locations were identified for Toll Plaza based on strategic importance and other
aspects as explained below.
The number of lanes at the Toll Plaza in the initial stage should be corresponding
to forecast traffic for at least 10 years for both four and two lane highway.
General Layout of Toll Plaza as per IRC: SP: 73 and IRC: SP: 84 is as given
below,

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 48
Consultancy Services for Project Management Phase-I including Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
Upgradation of Junction with NH-68 at Sanchore connecting Dhanera and terminating at its Junction with
NH-27 near Deesa+Junction with NH-68 near Tharad connecting Dhanera, Panthawada Section of NH-168A
and NH-168 in the State of Gujarat to two/four lane with Paved Shoulder Configuration
(Package No. NH/IAHE/19) _Package I - NH168

(i) Lane Width = 3.2 m in general and 4.5 m for oversize vehicles.
(ii) Booth Island (a) Width = 1.9 m (b) minimum Length = 25 m/35m.
(iii) Transition 1in 20 to 1 in 10 may be provided from two-lane section/four
lane section to the widened width at Toll Plaza on either side.
(iv) Provision of Future expansion: The office building shall be located taking
into consideration of future expansion.
The number of toll lanes for the Toll Plaza was derived based on clause 10.4.12
of IRC: SP: 73-2015 for two lane and IRC: SP: 84-2014 for four Lane.
On exclusion of existing BOT section (Zerda to Deesa), the total length of NH
168A is about 57Km. Further as per the guidelines given in MCA, two toll plaza
are to be located at least 60 Km apart. Considering the above facts and criteria
and also distance from existing toll plaza on BOT section (Zerda - Deesa)
provision of two toll plaza on NH 168A is not feasible. Hence only one toll plaza
has been proposed.
The locations identified for providing Toll plaza on NH 168 and NH 168A is listed
below
NH No Location
168 Km 5+850
168 Km 64+600
168A Km 8+400
6.11 SERVICE ROADS/SLIP ROADS
Considering the traffic safety and to facilitate free flow of slow moving vehicle,
5.5m width Service road/Slip road on both sides near both the proposed Flyover
on Dhanera Bypass (NH 168A) have been proposed. However considering the
traffic projection and presence of habitation service road on NH 168 has not been
proposed. The details locations are as follows:
Design Chainage(Km) Design Chainage(Km) Width of
Sl. Left Right Paved
No. carriageway
From To Length From To Length (m)
Dhanera Bypass (NH 168A)
1 4+210 5+100 0.890 4+190 5+125 0.935 5.5
2 9+725 10+650 0.925 9+675 10+665 0.990 5.5
NH 68 (Sanchore-Tharad)
1 290+050 291+100 1.05 390+050 391+100 1.05 7.0

6.12 HIGHWAY FACILITIES


i) Bus Bays
28 Bus bays (14 Locations) on NH 168 and 24 bus bays (12 locations) on NH
168A along with stops are identified as probable locations to address the need of
people living along the project roads. The detailed locations along NH 168 &
168A have been marked on strip plan.

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 49
Engineering Designs and Alternatives

ii) Truck Lay Byes


To fasilate the truck traffic, Truck Lay Bye on both the project roads have been
proposed nearby to the proposed toll plaza area in the following locations.

NH No Location Side
9+600 Left
NH 168A
9+770 Right
8+350 Left
8+520 Right
NH 168
59+498 Left
59+668 Right

iii) Road Signs, Pavement Marking and Lighting


Indian Road Congress (IRC) codes will be followed in proposing and designing
road safety features.
Pavement markings will be done for traffic lane line, edge lines and hatching. The
marking will be with hot applied thermoplastics materials. The pavement
markings will be reinforced with raised RR pavement markers and will be
provided for median and shoulder edge longitudinal lines and hatch markings.
Highway lightings including high masts will be provided at intersections in order to
improve the night time visibility.
All the urban locations as well grade separated structure locations will be
provided lighting arrangements.
6.13 PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
The revenue maps along the project roads have been collected from concerned
revenue authorities and the existing Right of Way (ROW) has been measured
from these maps. It is seen that as per these maps, there is wide variation in
existing ROW as per the Revenue record. It has been observed that in some
village maps, the existing ROW has not been marked. However, as per Land
records, the ROW has been marked on the Land acquisition Map.
In reference to the letter dated 21st June 2016 of CE (NH), Gujarat and discussion
during site visit, the width of Proposed Right of Way (PROW) in existing sections
has been kept as 30m whereas in bypass and realignment section the PROW
width has been kept as 45m.
In addition to above, extra land area has been proposed for Bus Bay, Truck Lay
Bye, Junction improvement & toll plaza area. The detail of PROW has been given
in in Appendix 6.3 in Volume II: Appendices to Main Report. The detail of
Ownership has been given in Appendix 6.4 in Volume II: Appendices to Main
Report and Land Acquisition Plan in Drawing Volume. The details of Draft 3(A)
Notification has been given in Appendix 6.6 in Volume II: Appendices to Main
Report

Draft Detailed Project Report (Volume I: Main Report)


6 - 50

Вам также может понравиться