Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
6.1 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 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
(97% Compaction)
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
(95% Compaction)
(97% Compaction)
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
(97% Compaction)
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
(95% Compaction)
(97% Compaction)
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
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
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.
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.
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
Homogenous Design
Period
WMM
Section
DBM
GSB
BC
From To
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)
From To BC DBM
5.4.1 of IS SP 73-2015,msa
Length km
Homogeneous
Section
From To BC DBM
Construction
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
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
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
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
Homogeneous Section
Pavement Detail
NH 168
DBM (mm) 50 50 50 -
WMM (mm) 250 250 250 -
GSB (mm) 200 200 200 -
Fig. 6.7: Initial Cost Comparison Fig. 6.8: Life Cyclel Cost Comparison
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
(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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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)
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
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.
(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
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
Table 6.25: Statement showing Details of Existing Bridges Proposed to be Retained with Repairs and rehabilitate
Existing Bridges
Proposed Bridges
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
Local
5 47+230 47+180 3 x 8.0 25.80 Open RCC Box 11.00 16.00 New 2-Lane Bridge
Nallah
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
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)
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)
8 - 4+740 Flyover 1x15.0 + 60.053 Pile RCC Wall type RCC/PSC Girder 12.0 13.0 New 2-Lane Flyover
Proposed Bridges
(Bypass) 1x30.0 +
and RCC slab on bypass
(Skew 18o) 1x15.0
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
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
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
(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
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