Anda di halaman 1dari 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65

Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6


CHAPTER - 6: DESIGN STANDARDS AND METHODOLOGY
6.1

General
The preliminary design of various engineering aspect includes items as Geometric Design, Design Standards, Pavement
Design, Design of Bridges and Structures, Miscellaneous works etc. The improvement proposals, design standards
adopted for the project are presented in this Chapter along with the summary of design of various items.
The various references applied for important components of the project are as follows:
Geometric Design

IRC Standards and M/o SRTH circulars on National Highways supplemented by


AASHTO policy on geometric design.

Pavement Design

Overlay
-

IRC 81, and AASHTO Design Guide for designing and strengthening
requirements of existing pavement

New Pavement
-

IRC 37 and AASHTO Design guide for design of flexible pavements

Structure Design

Bridge Codes as mentioned in QAP

Road Furniture &


& Road side Facilities

Related standards of IRC & M/o SRTH publications

The basic data used for detailed design of various components of the project road are provided in the following Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Basic Data for Design
Sl.
No.
1

Project Component
Road alignment and
profile

Basic Data for Design

Intersections/
Junctions

Pavement
design
strengthening
of
existing pavement

Pavement
design
new pavement and
paved shoulders

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Out come

Geometric design standards


Road Inventory
Topographic survey data and Digital
Terrain model
Type of area, rural or urban including
available
ROW
and
roadside
developments
Suitability of location for new bridges
Peak-hour traffic intensities and turning
movement data
Topographic survey plan

Traffic loading in terms of cumulative


standard axles for design lane
Benkelman Beam deflection data
DCP-CBR of existing subgrade
Laboratory soaked CBR of subgrade
material
Thickness and composition of existing
pavement layers
Traffic loading in terms of cumulative
standard axles for design lane
Soaked laboratory CBR of soil samples
from prospective borrow areas
Initial design life and stage development

Strengthening overlays for different


stretches

Location
of
widening
carriageway
Improvement to sub-standard
curves
and
steep
grade
sections
Realignments and bypasses

Design of at-grade intersections


Installation of traffic control
measures

Thickness and composition


various pavement courses

of

1 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Sl.
No.
5

Project Component
Design of bridges and
culverts

Basic Data for Design

6.2

strategy
Inventory and condition survey of bridges
and culverts
Topo plan of the area
Cross sections and longitudinal sections
of water course
Hydrological and hydraulic study
Results of geotechnical investigations
Road inventory
Alignment plans
Locations of intersections on urban areas

Road furniture and


safety measures

Roadside Drains

Results from drainage study

Wayside Amenities

Inventory of existing wayside amenities by


location, type and quality grade

Out come

Details of widening existing


culverts
Replacement of sub-standard
culverts and bridges by new
ones
Design and drawings for new
bridges

Identification of different types


of signs on linear plans

Identification of locations for


installation of crash barriers and
pedestrian guard rails

Pavement marking details


Identification of the location, type
and size of roadside drains to be
provided

Evaluation of the need for


additional amenities

Traffic engineering measures for


smooth entry to and exit from
existing amenity areas.

Locations and laybye design for


bus

stops

Geometric Improvement

6.2.1 General
The project is for widening the existing 2-lane NH Section to 4-lane divided carriageway. It has already been indicated in
Chapter 2 that the horizontal geometry of the project road is fairly good except a few curves at isolated locations. Apart
from this the road passes through congested areas Balana, Matheri Shekhan, Ismailabad and Pehowa. Thus the widening
has got the following destine characteristics:

Widening on one side of the existing carriageway


4lane divided carriageway for concentric widening in urban stretch wherever possible
Standard 4-lane divided new carriageway in rural stretch for bypass

These are discussed further hereinafter.


6.2.2 Geometric Design Standards
This project is for widening of existing 2-lane road to 4-lane divided carriageway. The geometric designs would be as per
recommendations of IRC: 73. However, existing road has certain limitations due to presence of settlements, utility
services, and sensitive receptors like religious structures, institutions, and community place very close or within ROW.
Thus some compromise in design standard is required. Nevertheless the general design standards proposed to be
adopted is enumerated below:

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

2 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

Table 6.2 : Geometric Design Standards


Sl No

Attributes

Standards

Design Speed

100-80 kmph

Carriageway Width

At road section

2 x 11.0m

At Underpass/ Flyover/ ROB/ Bridges locations


At median side and raised Footpath/ Crash
barrier

Edge Strip

0.5m x 2

4
5
6

Paved Shoulder
Earthen Shoulder
Median Width
a) At Rural Stretches
b) At urban stretches/ Underpass
Camber
a)Carriageway
and
Paved
Shoulder
b) Earthen Shoulder
Maximum Super-elevation
Footpath width at built-up areas
Space for utility services
Median cut for surface drainage
Location of Traffic Signs

2 x 1.5m
2 x 2.0m

8
9
10
11
12

13

Location of kilometer stones and


guard stones

As per M/o SRTH Notification

2 x 7.0m

Remarks

4.0m
1.5m

Railing and street light provided on median

2.5 per cent


3.0 per cent
5 per cent
1.5m x 2
1.5m x 2
20 cm
3m from the
edge of paved
shoulder
Outside earthen
shoulder width

Footpath is over drain with cover


At edge of roadway width at built-up stretches

The design standards proposed are further elaborated as under.


6.2.3 Location of Widening Carriageway
Normally in a widening project, the new carriageway is located by the side of the existing one so that the latter is fully
utilized and work on the former can proceed without hindrance to traffic movement. However, this aspect becomes critical
when the existing road is in concentric widening with the ROW and the road land is limited in width. The project road falls
under this category, and for such cases fixing the location of the widening carriageway becomes a crucial issue to be
decided upon at the initial stage itself so that the improvement measures could be appropriately tailored, the land
acquisition needs are identified and the social impacts are ascertained to develop rehabilitation and resettlement of project
affected persons. This issue has accordingly been addressed, and the manner of developing recommendations in this
regard is described hereunder:
a)

For the 4-laning project, the three following possibilities are available:
i)
ii)
iii)

b)

Location new carriageway on the right of the existing one. This will call for work operations and more
land on the right of the existing road.
Similar to (i) above but the new carriageway located on the left of the existing road.
Widening symmetrical about the centre of the existing road. In this case, part of the existing pavement
will come under the proposed median.

The objectives of the widening scheme have been taken to be as follows :

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

3 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
i)

ii)
iii)
iv)
c)

It should be conducive for use of the existing carriageway to the maximum extent possible. In financial
terms, a loss of one metre of existing pavement for purposes of median would mean a loss of the earlier
investment.
It should cause least disturbance to the environment, i.e. to avoid heavy cut/fill, tree cuttings, obstruction
to water courses, acquisition of built - up area etc.
It should be compatible with the operational requirements (speed, safety, comfort)
It should be accommodated within the existing ROW to the maximum extent feasible.

For fulfilling the objectives at b) above, the following physical considerations in descending order of precedence
were taken into account.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)

To make use of any space left by abandoned bridges if any


To avoid acquisition of structures
To avoid heavy cut/fill
It should suit location of major bridges and their approaches for the new carriageway
It should avoid acquisition of agricultural land and tree cuttings to the maximum extent feasible
It should avoid the side where optical fibre cable has been laid
For better safety and convenience in operation, widening will not generally be changed from one type to
other in less than 5 km unless absolutely essential due to site conditions.
In the overall, the project should be economical to construct and operate.

6.2.4 Typical Cross-sections


Based on above criteria for geometric improvement requirement typical cross-sections have been developed. These are
as follows:
Type I

4-lane divided carriageway without service road (eccentric widening on left) [Fig 6.1]

Type II

4-lane divided carriageway without service road (eccentric widening on right) [Fig 6.2]

Type III

4-lane divided carriageway with service road (eccentric widening on left) [Fig 6.3]

Type IV

4-lane divided carriageway without service road on new alignment (bypass) [Fig. 6.4]

Type V

4-lane divided carriageway at raising location in Existing alignment [Fig 6.5]

Type VI

4-lane divided carriageway at Flyover/Underpass location (with service road) in new


alignment [Fig 6.6]

Type VII

4-lane divided carriageway at Flyover/Underpass location (with service road) in


existing alignment [Fig 6.7]

6.2.5 Alignment Design


The inventory data and typical cross-sections formed the basis of determining the widening requirement. Based on this
information along with presence of buildings, trees, utility services along the project road as described in the earlier
chapter, widening scheme for the entire project road has been developed. This will form the basis of alignment design.
6.2.6 Profile Design
The project road being in the flat terrain, the existing profile is fairly good with significant sections recently overlaid. The
existing camber is 1.5 to 2 percent about the centre line. The project being of four-laning, the camber of existing profile
requires to be converted to unidirectional as per the typical cross-section. Apart from that it is also essential to have almost
same design level at median edge. Thus the profile design involves following activities.

Providing vertical grade within the stipulations of IRC: 73 recommendations


Application of Profile Corrective Course (PCC)
Maintaining same level at median edge for both the carriageways

Compatibility of profile with junctions of existing road


Considering HFL data, raising of proposed road level of some stretches are necessary, which is already discussed with
NHAI officials during site visit.
Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

4 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
The list of pavement raising stretches are as follows
29+160 to 34+660
& 44+160 to 50+420
6.2.7 Median Width
In normal stretches with widening on one side of existing road, median width of 4.0 m with 0.25 median shyness has been
adopted. At flyover locations, the median width adopted is 1.5 m with 0.25 m median shyness. The preliminary
assessment of such requirements is indicated in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Roadway Details

Sl
No.

Chainage (Km)

Paved
Shoulder

Earthen
Shoulder

Footpath

Median
Width

From

To

Length
(Km)

0.3

0.3

1.5

2.0

4.0

Ambala Bypass

0.3

1.55

1.25

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

ROB Approaches

1.55

3.6

2.05

1.5

2.0

4.0

Ambala Bypass

3.6

6.05

2.45

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

Flyover Approaches

6.05

15.883

9.833

1.5

2.0

4.0

Ambala Bypass

15.883

17.31

1.427

1.5

2.0

4.0

17.31

18.96

1.65

1.5

2.0

4.0

18.96

22.58

3.62

1.5

2.0

4.0

22.58

23.32

0.74

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

10

23.32

24.26

0.94

1.5

2.0

4.0

11

24.26

26.96

2.7

1.5

2.0

4.0

12

26.96

27.86

0.9

1.5

2.0

4.0

13

27.86

28.16

0.3

1.5

2.0

4.0

14

28.16

28.56

0.4

1.5

2.0

1.5

15

28.56

29.16

0.6

1.5

2.0

4.0

16

29.16

34.66

5.5

1.5

2.0

4.0

Raising

17

34.66

34.8

0.14

1.5

2.0

4.0

Ismailabad Bypass

18

34.8

35.56

0.76

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

VUP in Ismailabad Bypass

19

35.56

36.96

1.4

1.5

2.0

4.0

Ismailabad Bypass

20

36.96

37.72

0.76

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

VUP in Ismailabad Bypass

21

37.72

39.46

1.74

1.5

2.0

4.0

Ismailabad Bypass

22

39.46

42.36

2.9

1.5

2.0

4.0

23

42.36

42.76

0.4

1.5

2.0

4.0

24

42.76

43.96

1.2

1.5

2.0

1.5

25

43.96

44.16

0.2

1.5

2.0

4.0

26

44.16

50.42

6.26

1.5

2.0

4.0

27

50.42

50.86

0.44

1.5

2.0

4.0

28

50.86

55.36

4.5

1.5

2.0

4.0

Pehowa Bypass

29

55.36

56.12

0.76

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

Flyover in Pehowa Bypass

30

56.12

58.04

1.92

1.5

2.0

4.0

Pehowa Bypass

31

58.04

58.84

0.8

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

Flyover in Pehowa Bypass

32

58.84

59.56

0.72

1.5

2.0

4.0

Pehowa Bypass

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

C/W Width

Matheri Shekhan Bypass


VUP
Realignment
Geometric Improvement

Geometric Improvement

Raising

5 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
33

59.56

60.16

0.6

1.5

2.0

4.0

34

60.16

67.81

7.65

1.5

2.0

4.0

35

67.81

70.91

3.1

1.5

2.0

4.0

36

70.91

74.01

3.1

1.5

2.0

4.0

37

74.01

74.76

0.75

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

38

74.76

75.31

0.55

1.5

2.0

4.0

39

75.31

76.66

1.35

1.5

2.0

4.0

40

76.66

76.96

0.3

1.5

2.0

4.0

41

76.96

95.383

18.423

1.5

2.0

4.0

Nos of bus bay


Nos of truck lay byes
Nos of major junction

6.2.8

VUP

Kaithal Bypass

42 (21 Location)
4 (at two Location)
15

Service Road
The concept of service road is being conceived at built-up area and grade separated intersections (Flyover & Underpass
locations) which will come along the proposed alignment. The typical cross-section under this scenario is also indicated in
Fig. 6.3, Fig 6.6 & Fig 6.7. The list of proposed service road stretches are as follows

0+300 to 1+550
3+600 to 6+050
22+580 to 23+320
28+160 to 28+560
34+800 to 35+560
36+960 to 37+720
32+760 to 43+960
55+360 to 56+120
58+040 to 58+840
74+010 to 74+760

6.2.8 Bypass Alignment


In the Feasibility Report submitted by the consultant on 12 Mar 13, Ambala Bypass was provisioned on the tentative
alignment of ring road proposed to be constructed for Ambala city i.e. the ring road proposal of State Government, District
Town Planning Authorities. The length of Bypass proposed was 8.606 km however it was observed that though the length
of the Bypass was shorter and economical but the land acquisition would had become difficult and costly besides having
large socio political implications. The alignment would have necessitated demolishing of large number of existing
buildings. Therefore, a fresh look has been given to Ambala Bypass and the new proposal (now incorporate) covers a
length of km 15+883. This alignment is a green field alignment with no interfering habitations en-route.The project road
passes through the built up area of Matheri Shekhan and congested sections of Ismailabad, Pehowa and Kaithal. Matheri
Shekhan are near about 1.0 km stretch each and Ismailabad & Pehowa being about 3.0 km & 5.0 km stretch respectively.
Further, there is residential and commercial activities right at the edge of shoulder. The available ROW is only about 25m.
Thus widening of road to four lane is not at all feasible. Hence Matheri Shekhan bypass of 1.65 km, Ismailabad bypass of
4.8 km & Pehowa bypass 8.7 km have been envisaged. Also, at Kaithal, there is very fast development along both sides of
NH-65, specially close to Bus stand area. 4-laning in this area will not serve the purpose for full time of the project.
Therefore, Kaithal Bypass is planned which will connect NH-65 to SH-11 junction at Titram Mor. The proposed bypasses
pass through rural areas. There are only village roads crossing all the bypasses, while SH-6 & SH-9 cross Pehowa bypass
also. SH-6 is leading towards Pipli on NH-1 & SH-9 is leading towards Karnal on NH-1. Underpass has been proposed at
the intersection of all bituminous road crossing & flyover has been proposed at the intersection of SH-6 & SH-9 crossings.
These bypasses are running through rural area and involve acquisition of agricultural land and barely any structures.

Details of Bypass
Name of Bypass
Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Design Chainage
6 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
From

To

Bypass Length
(Km)

NH22

NH65

15.883

Matheri Shekan Bypass

17+310

18+960

1.650

Ismailabad Bypass

34+660

39+460

4.800

Pehowa Bypass

50+860

59+560

8.700

Kaithal Bypass

76+960

95+383

18.400

Ambala Bypass

Details of Realignment
Design Chainage

6.3
6.3.1

From

To

24+260

26+960

Length (Km)
2.700

Pavement Design
General
Pavement design basically aims at determining the total thickness of the pavement structure as also the thickness of the
individual structural layers required for good performance and for effectively standing against the expected traffic loading
and prevailing environmental conditions over the design period. For the present project, designs are required for:
Strengthening existing pavement.
Design of new pavements for the additional carriageway and paved shoulders as also for bypasses
Design of pavement for service roads
The type of pavement to be adopted for the additional carriageway, whether to be of flexible or rigid type, is to be
determined based on life-cycle cost analysis extending over a period of 30 years.

6.3.2

Design Methodology
The Consultants adopted the following methodologies for designing the pavement under different situations:
i)

Overlay for strengthening existing pavement


-

ii)

New Pavement for Additional Carriageway, Bypasses and Paved Shoulders


-

6.3.3

Initial design by IRC : 81-1997 using the data of BBD Survey


Comparison with results by reverse CBR method adopting IRC: 37-2012 and soaked sub grade CBR
data
finalizing the designs after checking compatibility with the design for new pavement and using best
engineering judgment

initial design by IRC:37-2012 using soaked CBR data for borrow material expected to be used in
subgrade. For any widening and paved shoulders on the existing road formation, the strength
characteristics of existing subgrade will be used.
Comparison with results by AASHTO Design Guide (1993)

Parameters for Design


Design Life

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

7 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
The design life adopted in the analysis is 15 years for flexible pavement
Design Traffic
a)

Traffic Distribution Factors


Directional distribution factor of 0.5 and lane distribution factor of 0.75 have been adopted.

b)

Vehicle Damage Factor


The vehicle damage factor (VDF) for different types of commercial vehicles as derived from the 24 hour axle load
study worked out to be as follows:

Table 6.4 : Vehicle Damage factor for Different Types of Vehicles


Vehicle Type

Vehicle Damage Factor

Adopted Weighted Mean


VDF for Design
LCV
0.03
0.08
0.06
3 AXLE
2.90
5.67
4.38
2 AXLE
1.74
1.66
1.71
MAV
6.88
2.81
7.87
BUS
0.25
0.24
0.25
MINIBUS
0.02
0.01
0.014
As may be seen, the 2Axle category which contributes to major portion of ESA repetitions is more heavily loaded
in Kaithal- Ambala direction than in the other direction. As the pavement is to be designed for the future, as a
measure of abundant precaution, the Consultants have adopted the weighted mean VDF values for all vehicle
categories in view of the following considerations:
Ambala-Kaithal

c)

Kaithal-Ambala

The VDF values pertain to a sample survey over a period of 24 hours, and it is quite possible that there
may be heavier vehicles during other days of the year.
In future years, demand-supply position as also transport demand direction because of new industrial
and other economic developments may change to cause obliteration to the VDF factors.
In developing countries, there has been a general tendency of increasing axle loads, and the project
area is no exception.
In the development of the existing 2-lanes into 4-lane divided carriageway, the widening may be
symmetrical or on either side, or adoption of different VDF values for the two directions and
consequently the design traffic loading may lead to complexities in design and implementation.

Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) Applications


Based on the traffic forecast prepared in Chapter 4, and the VDF values and traffic distribution factors brought
out earlier, the traffic loading in the design lane in terms of cumulative number of ESA has been computed for
design periods upto 30 years for the two homogenous traffic sections. The design values are summarized in
Table 6.5.
Table 6.5: Summary of Design Traffic in Terms of ESAL
Design Period

15 Years
20 Years
30 Years

Million ESA
Ambala-Pehowa
Pehowa - Kaithal
Section
Section
19
19
30
30
63
66

Remarks

Years of Opening : 2016

The design traffic in terms of ESAL shown in Table 6.5 indicates that there is only a marginal difference between
two sections. Accordingly, for convenience in design, the same ESAL repetitions as given below have been
adopted for pavement design for both the sections.

Table 6.6 : Design Traffic


Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

8 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

Design Period

Traffic for Pavement Design for both the


Sections (million ESA)
20
30
70

15 years
20 years
30 years

d)

Other Parameters for Design


Other design parameters such as BBD, subgrade soil strength, factors for use in AASHTO design procedure, etc.
as are specific for the adopted methods are brought out hereunder while dealing with such methods.

6.3.4

Design of Strengthening Overlay for Existing Pavement


Homogeneous Sections for Design
The road has been divided into 6 number of homogeneous design sections based on the cumulative variance of pavement
deflection using the BBD values.
The homogeneous sections so determined are listed in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Analysis of BBD Test Results for Control Sections of Ambala-Kaithal Section of NH-65
Section
No.

Chainage (km)

Mean
Corrected
Deflection

From
4.900
5.900
6.900
7.900
8.900
9.900
10.900
11.900
12.900
13.900
14.900
15.900
16.900
17.900

To
5.100
6.100
7.100
8.100
9.100
10.100
11.100
12.100
13.100
14.100
15.100
16.100
17.100
18.100

1.560
1.760
1.760
2.170
2.980
0.940
1.200
1.460
1.930
1.950
1.750
1.860
1.440
1.700

LS-2

18.900
20.900
21.900
22.900
22.900
23.900
24.900
25.900
26.900

19.100
20.100
21.100
22.100
23.100
24.100
25.100
26.100
27.100

1.190
1.280
1.300
1.140
1.190
1.220
1.210
1.230
1.270

LS-3

27.900
28.900
29.900
30.900
31.900
32.900
33.900
34.900
35.900

28.100
29.100
30.100
31.100
32.100
33.100
34.100
35.100
36.100

1.770
1.980
1.880
1.930
2.000
2.010
2.980
2.520
2.230

LS-1

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Standard
Deviation
(mm)
0.150
0.210
0.230
0.240
0.410
0.100
0.080
0.170
0.130
0.210
0.280
0.140
0.130
0.110
Average
0.250
0.140
0.110
0.290
0.220
0.090
0.220
0.090
0.100
Average
0.330
0.140
0.180
0.130
0.140
0.150
0.170
0.310
0.180

Characteristic
Deflection
(mm)

Overlay thickness in
terms of BM (mm)

1.860
2.180
2.220
2.650
3.800
1.140
1.360
1.800
2.190
2.370
2.310
2.140
1.700
1.920
2.117
1.690
1.560
1.520
1.720
1.630
1.400
1.650
1.410
1.470
1.561
2.430
2.260
2.240
2.190
2.280
2.310
3.320
3.140
2.590

195

170

210

9 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Section
No.

Chainage (km)

Mean
Corrected
Deflection

Standard
Deviation
(mm)

Characteristic
Deflection
(mm)

From
36.900
37.900
38.900
39.900
40.900
41.900
42.900
43.900

To
37.100
38.100
39.100
40.100
41.100
42.100
43.100
44.100

2.240
1.120
1.230
1.140
0.980
2.310
2.150
1.970

0.260
0.190
0.230
0.190
0.110
0.180
0.140
0.560
Average

2.760
1.500
1.690
1.520
1.200
2.670
2.430
3.090
2.331

LS4

44.900
45.900
46.900
47.900
48.900
49.900
50.900

45.100
46.100
47.100
48.100
49.100
50.100
51.100

1.140
1.840
1.290
1.200
1.010
1.490
0.870

LS-5

51.900
52.900
53.900
54.900
55.900
56.900
57.900
58.900
59.900
60.900
61.900
62.900
63.900
64.900
65.900
66.900

52.100
53.100
54.100
55.100
56.100
57.100
58.100
59.100
60.100
61.100
62.100
63.100
64.100
65.100
66.100
67.100

1.800
2.090
1.990
1.960
2.110
2.190
2.970
3.170
1.880
1.890
1.570
1.740
1.930
1.860
1.520
1.850

LS-6

67.900
68.900
69.900
70.900
71.900
72.900
73.900
74.900
75.900
76.900

68.100
69.100
70.100
71.100
72.100
73.100
74.100
75.100
76.100
77.100

1.070
1.210
1.320
1.650
1.000
1.370
1.000
1.330
1.330
1.580

0.150
0.260
0.100
0.090
0.080
0.400
0.090
Average
0.290
0.110
0.250
0.200
0.180
0.130
0.420
0.210
0.200
0.230
0.150
0.190
0.130
0.160
0.160
0.250
Average
0.160
0.110
0.110
0.210
0.150
0.200
0.290
0.230
0.190
0.190
Average

1.440
2.360
1.490
1.380
1.170
2.290
1.050
1.597
2.380
2.310
2.490
2.360
2.470
2.450
3.810
3.590
2.280
2.350
1.870
2.120
2.190
2.180
1.840
2.350
2.440
1.390
1.430
1.540
2.070
1.300
1.770
1.580
1.790
1.710
1.960
1.654

Overlay thickness in
terms of BM (mm)

170

214

170

Pavement Deflections for Overlay Design


The BBD values from control section testing (10 BBD values at 10 m intervals for each kilometer) have been used for
overlay design. The procedure for determining the characteristics deflections involved the following steps :

The BBD values were adjusted for the standard temperature of 35C. Seasonal factor of 1.2 (corresponding to
subgrade moisture content of 10%, PI < 15 and low rainfall as per Figure 4 of IRC:81) was then applied, and mean
(corrected) deflection for each km was then worked out.

The corrected mean deflection values for each homogeneous section were analysed to work out the standard
deviation, and the characteristic deflections were taken to be the mean plus two times standard deviation.

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

10 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Overlay Design by IRC:81-1997
The design curve in IRC:81(1997) recommends overlay thickness to be provided in terms of bituminous macadam (BM)
construction for the variables of characteristic deflection, and design traffic in terms of million ESA. The equivalent
thickness in terms of DBM/BC could be computed by applying a factor of 0.7. The overlay thickness so arrived at for the
homogenous design sections are shown in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8: Overlay Design According to IRC: 81


Homogeneous
Section

Chainage
(km km)

Design
Traffic
(m ESA)

Charac.
Deflection
(mm)

OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6

5.0 18.0
18.0 27.0
27.0 44.0
44.0 51.0
51.0 67.0
67.0 77.2

30
30
30
30
30
30

2.117
1.561
2.331
1.597
2.440
1.654

Overlay Thickness (mm)


In terms of BM
195
170
210
170
214
170

In terms of
DBM/BC
140
120
150
120
150
120

Overlay Design by Reverse CBR Method


The investigations made by the Consultants included measuring the thickness of the various layers of the existing
pavement at 5 km intervals, and determination of soaked CBR at FDD in the laboratory.
The investigations showed that the existing pavement generally comprised stone soling to a thickness varying from 0 to
240 mm, GSB to a thickness of 50 to 510 mm and bituminous layers to a thickness of 30 to 250 mm. The soaked CBR at
MDD varied from 4.0 to 5.3.
The above results have been used in conjunction with the design for new pavement as given by IRC:37-2012 to work out
the strengthening requirements. The data and results worked out there from for each homogeneous section are shown in
Table 6.10.
Table 6.10 : Computation of Strengthening Requirements by Reverse CBR method
Homogeneous
Section

OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
Notes : 1.
2.
3.

Thickness of Existing Pavement


(mm)
BT
Total
Total
Equivalent
Granular
240
480
720
180
450
630
230
500
730
70
570
640
150
450
600
150
320
470

Design as New Pavement


BC +
DBM
(mm)
170
170
170
170
170
170

Base +
Sub-Base
(mm)
580
580
580
580
580
580

Total
Equivalent
Granular
1090
1090
1090
1090
1090
1090

Reqd.
Overlay BC +
DBM (mm)

125
155
120
150
165
210

Existing pavement thicknesses are average ones excluding high values.


The existing BT thickness has been multiplied by a factor of 2.0 to determine equivalent granular
thickness.
The new pavement designs are for CBR of 5% and design loading of 20 m ESAL. The thickness of BC +
DBM has been multiplied by a factor of 3 to arrive at equivalent granular thickness. The required overlay
in terms of BC+DBM has been determined by dividing the required thickness of granular overlay by 3.

Comparison to Overlay Designs by Different Methods and Recommendations


Comparison of overlay design by different methods is provided in Table 6.11. As may be seen, while the results by various
methods are comparable for some sections, variations are noted for the others. Armed with the above basic information,
the Consultants proceeded to finalise the designs based on the following considerations.

It is necessary that the bituminous layers of the overlay are compatible with those for new pavement (for paved
shoulder on existing pavement side, and where symmetrical widening is adopted). The proposed composition for the

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

11 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
new pavement works out to 40 mm BC + 130 mm DBM + 250 mm WMM + 330 mm GSB. This means that the
surfacing has to be 40 mm BC.

Inspection of the results in Table 6.11 shows that for most of the sections, it will be adequate have DBM binder course
of 80 mm. Accordingly it is proposed that the DBM course for new pavement be divided into 50 mm lower layer and
80 mm upper layer.
For sections in lower strength condition, it is proposed to introduce a base layer of (50) mm thick BM as a
strengthening cum crack relief layer. For other sections which are stronger and where BM layer is not proposed, the
Consultants believe that the profile correction course which will be of BM material will serve to inhibit reflection
cracking.

Based on the above considerations, the recommended overlay designs for general application for the different sections
are also indicated in Table 6.11.
The recommendations for overlay design are summarized in Table 6.12.
Table 6.11: Comparison of Overlay Designs by Different Methods
Homogeneous
Section
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6

Thickness of BC+DBM
Recommended Design
By Reverse CBR Method
By IRC:81
BM
DBM
BC
140
125
50
80
40
120
155
80
40
150
120
50
80
40
120
150
80
40
150
165
50
80
40
120
210
80
40
Table 6.12: Summary of Recommended (Overlay) Designs

Homogeneous
Section
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6

Chainage
Km km

Length km

5.0 18.0
18.0 27.0
27.0 44.0
44.0 51.0
51.0 67.0
67.0 77.2

5.2
9
17
7
16
10.2

Recommended Overlay Design


BM
DBM
BC
50
80
40
80
40
50
80
40
80
40
50
80
40
80
40

Compatibility of Bituminous Courses at Widening Stretches


Widening of existing pavement arise in certain situations where it is essential that the bituminous course applied on the
existing and widening portions are of the same type and thickness so that these are constructed in one go without danger
of longitudinal cracking or settlement at the interface. The situations are :
a)

Widening of existing pavement on shoulder side for achieving the design width, and for paved shoulders which
have to have the same strength as the main pavement.

b)

Widening of existing pavement on both sides in case of symmetrical widening including provision of paved
shoulders. These are discussed hereunder.

Widening of existing pavement on shoulder side


Two cases for this situation will arise :
i)
ii)

Where the strengthening involves only DBM and BC; and


Where the strengthening also includes a BM layer

For the first case, the widening portion will be brought up to be in level and line with the profile corrected existing
pavement with the construction of sub-base, base and lower DBM (50 mm thick) layer. The top DBM layer (80 mm) and
BC (40 mm) will be applied for the entire width including widening.
In the second case, it is proposed that the widening will be brought up similarly with the construction of sub-base and
WMM base. After priming the base in the widening portion, the whole width will be applied with 50+50 = 100 mm thick BM,
80 mm thick DBM and 40 mm thick BC. This approach will, however, have some impact on the effective thickness on the
Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

12 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
widening portion in the sense that the widening portion will have effective thickness in terms of DBM + BC of only 190 mm
(converting BM with a factor of 0.7) against the design requirement of 170 mm.
The proposed cement treatment for the top 150 mm layer of subgrade would contribute to better shear strength.
Accordingly, the proposed designs are recommended.
The pavement blocks depicting the disposition of the pavement layers at the interface of existing pavement and widening
portion are indicated as follows:

Homogenous Section OS-2, 4 and 6


(where there is no BM layer for
strengthening)

Homogeneous Sections OS-1,3 and 5


(where
there
is
BM
layer
for
strengthening)

Existing
Pavement
40 BC
80 DBM
Existing pavement corrected
for
profile

Existing
Pavement
40 BC
80 DBM
50 BM
Existing pavement corrected
for
profile

New Pavement
(Widening)
40 BC
80 DBM
50 DBM
250 WMM
330 GSB
Subgrade Compacted
to 97% MDD
New Pavement
(Widening)
40 BC
80 DBM
50 BM
50 BM
250 WMM
330 GSB
Subgrade Compacted
to 97% MDD

6.3.5

Design of New Flexible Pavement


General
Design of new flexible pavement applies to the new carriageway and widening of existing carriageway including paved
shoulders. The methodologies recommended in IRC:37-2001 and AASHTO Design Guide (1993) have been adopted and
the final designs recommended based on best engineering judgment.

Soil Support Value


Soil support value pertains to the strength of the sub grade in terms of CBR under design moisture and compaction
conditions. The compaction level expected to be achieved as per the construction specifications in 97% MDD (heavy
compaction), and accordingly the samples for testing were compacted to this level. IRC 37 recommends testing of
samples in soaked condition while the AASHTO procedure goes by the effective moisture condition during service of the
pavement.
For purposes of design, two cases arise :
i)

For new carriageway, it will be for the borrow soil that is expected to be used in the sub grade; and

ii)

For widening of existing carriageway and for paved shoulders on the side of existing carriageway, it will be the
material at sub grade level which will be prepared to reach the required level of compaction.

The Consultants investigations for sub grade soil gave the following results:

Samples for 15 prospective borrow areas located all along the project road were tested, and the soaked CBR found
varied from 4.0 to 5.3 percent. Taking note of the results of the laboratory investigations, and to be on the
conservative side, it is proposed that the design CBR for both the IRC and AASHTO method be taken as 5 percent. It

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

13 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
is intended that the construction specifications will stipulate that the soil used in sub grade shall have a minimum 4day soaked CBR of 5% on sample compacted to 97% MDD (heavy compaction).

The strength of the material in existing sub grade is relevant for the design of widening and paved shoulders for the
existing carriagway. Samples of the sub grade tested under 97% MDD and soaked condition gave CBR values in the
range 4.4 to 5.5. For compatibility in design, the design CBR for widening/paved shoulder for the existing carriageway
has also been adopted to be 5 percent.

Thus all the designs for new pavement, widening and paved shoulders have been prepared for sub grade CBR at 5%.
Design by IRC: 37-2012 Method
The parameters for design are:

Design traffic loading (20 years)


Subgrade CBR

20 m ESAL
5 percent

Now since the difference in MESA is not so much between the two sections, so higher of the two has been adopted for
final design.
Referring to the pavement design catalogue given in the above standard, the pavement composition works out to :
BC
DBM
WMM Base
GSB Sub Base

40 mm
100 mm
250 mm
330 mm

The DBM will be laid in two layers of 50 mm (lower) and 80 mm (upper). For widening/paved shoulders for existing
carriageway, where the strengthening of existing pavement involves application of 50 mm thick base layer, the 50 mm
thick lower DBM layer of new pavement will be replaced by 100 mm thick BM, for reasons discussed in Para 6.4.4. CRMB
from refinery is proposed as binder for the BC surfacing layer.
Design by AASHTO Method
The procedure as enunciated in AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993) has been followed. The
procedure gets simplified by the use of a computer programme available in-house, and the same has been adopted. The
parameters adopted in the design are given below :

Subgrade CBR of 4%; MR


Traffic
Sub-base, CBR of 30%; MR
WMM base, CBR of 100%; MR
PSI = 4.2 2.2
Overall Standard Deviation S0
Reliability of 90%; Zr
Layer Coefficient
For
BC
=
For
DBM
=
For
WMM =
For
GSB
=

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.42 ; MR
0.35 ; MR
0.14 ; MR
0.11 ; MR

2555 x CBR 0.64 = 6205 psi


30 m ESAL for 20 years
15,000 psi
30,000 psi
2.0
0.45
- 1.282
= 450,000 psi
= 350,000 psi
= 30,000 psi
= 15,000 psi

Drainage Coefficient
:
1.1 for sub-base and base under good drainage condition with pavement
exposed to saturation moisture for 5 25% of time.

The total structural number required for the pavement worked out to 5.84. Further calculations to work out the cover
required for sub-base and base, the design composition worked out to be :
BC
DBM
WMM
GSB
Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

40 mm
160 mm
250 mm
370 mm
14 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Total

820 mm

Comparison of Design by IRC and AASHTO Procedures


A comparison of design thickness between IRC and AASHTO methods is provided in Table 6.13.

Table 6.13 : Comparison of Design Thickness between IRC and AASHTO Procedures
Layer
BC
DBM
WMM
GSB
Total Thickness
SN

AASHTO
40
160
250
370
820
5.85

IRC
40
100
250
330
750
5.26

Comparison of results in Table 6.13 shows that the AASHTO method gives a relatively thicker bituminous course
compared to the IRC method.
The road falls in the tropical zone with hot and medium rainfall conditions. In the performance of pavement, environmental
parameters have a significant role to play, and in the present case, oxidation of the bituminous binder, shrinkage cracking
and attendant distress of the wearing course are anticipated, and these will need to be corrected periodically. For
economical management of the pavement, one possible approach would be that the pavement is constructed with a
strong base and the wearing course is renewed periodically, say once every 5 years, to correct the distress manifestations
(cracking, ravelling etc.), to improve the pavements functional quality and somewhat add to its strength. Such an
approach is proposed for the present project.
For any traffic level, the AASHTO procedure developed from the Road Test at Illinois (where the pavement is subject to
freezing and spring thaw conditions) gives a much higher thickness for bitumen-bound courses compared to the IRC
method (developed from layer analysis and experience in tropical countries). In areas subject to spring thaw, virtually the
ice-melted water flows through the granular base/sub-base courses resulting in substantial reduction to their bearing
capacity. On the other hand, because of the near freezing temperature, the bitumen-bound layers become hard and stiff
and serve to distribute the imposed traffic loads like a plate or rigid pavement where deflection and flexural stresses
become critical. For meeting with, such situations without danger of cracking, the bitumen-bound courses have to be
relatively thick of the order of 250 mm even for medium level traffic. This is the major reason that explains the relatively
higher thickness of bitumen bound courses given by the AASHTO method.

Recommended Pavement Composition


In the light of the discussions in the above para , the design worked out by the IRC method as brought out is recommend
for adoption. The pavement will be provided with 40 mm tick functional BC surfacing in the 5 th,10th and 15th year. In the
20th year (at the completion of the design period), suitable strengthening will be provided based on the residual strength of
the pavement.

Treatment to Subgrade
The subgrade soils are generally silt of low plasticity, and the 500 mm thick subgrade, according to the specification is to
be compacted to 97% MDD (heavy compaction). To improve the soil against moisture susceptibility, to enhance the shear
strength of the pavement layers which depends on the shear strength of the subgrade, and to prevent intrusion of
subgrade soil into the sub-base, all directed towards long-term good serviceability of the pavement, it is proposed to
provide a geotextile separation layer between the subgrade and sub-base.
Maintenance Strategy for Flexible Pavement
The pavement will be subject to routine maintenance, periodic maintenance and rehabilitation at the end of the design
period of 20 years as detailed below:
Routine Maintenance

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Immediate local repair of defects surfacing out from time to time such as patching
potholes, sealing cracks, etc. as per IRC:82.
15 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

Periodic Maintenance

Application of 40 mm thick BC functional overlay once every 5 years to correct surface


defects and to improve riding quality, i.e. at 5th, 10th, 15th and 25th year of operation.

Rehabilitation

This is for strengthening and rehabilitating the pavement to restore it to original


condition, to be taken up at the end of the initial design period of 20 years. The
strengthening treatment to be applied will depend on the residual life of the pavement
which can roughly be estimated by different procedures, but the actual strengthening
requirement can be assessed only at that point of time through objective evaluation. All
the same, for the purposes of the life cycle cost study, the strengthening requirement
has been estimated through application of a system of damage factors.

Residual Life of Flexible Pavement:


Pavement Layer

a)

Thickness
(mm)

Assumed
Residual Life
Factor (%)

40
130
250

60
70
80

16
39
50

16
33
17

120

60

48

48

Initial
Construction
- BC
- DBM
- WMM

b)

Functional
BC
overlays, 40 mm
thick at 5th,10th and
15th year

Overlay to restore to Original Condition


Thickness (mm)
Equivalent BC
Thickness (mm)

TOTAL
Notes :

1.

DBM has been converted into BC by application of factor

2.

Similar factor for WMM

0.14 0.42

114

0.35 0.42

The strengthening requirement at the end of 20 years thus works out to 120 mm thick BC. Taking guidance from this, it is
proposed to apply a strengthening overlay comprising 80 mm thick DBM + 40 mm thick BC.
6.3.6

Service Road Pavement Composition


Design by IRC: 37-2001 Method
The parameters for design are :

Design traffic loading


Subgrade CBR

10 m ESAL
5 percent

Referring to the pavement design catalogue given in the above standard, the pavement composition works out to :
BC
DBM
WMM Base
GSB Sub Base
6.3.7

30mm
80 mm
250 mm
285 mm

Considering Stage Construction the Recommended Pavement thickness is given below:Design of New Flexible Pavement
Design by IRC: 37-2012 Method
The parameters for design are:

Design traffic loading (15 Years)

Subgrade CBR

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

20 MSA
5 percent
16 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Referring to the pavement design catalogue given in the above standard, the pavement composition works out to:
BC
DBM
WMM Base
GSB Sub Base

40 mm
100 mm
250 mm
330 mm

Summary of Recommended (Overlay) Designs


Homogeneous
Section
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
OS-4
OS-5
OS-6
6.4

Chainage
Km km

Length km

5.0 18.0
18.0 27.0
27.0 44.0
44.0 51.0
51.0 67.0
67.0 77.2

5.2
9
17
7
16
10.2

Recommended Overlay Design


BM
DBM
BC
50
50
40
50
40
50
50
40
50
40
50
50
40
50
40

Improvement of Junctions / Intersections


Following major junctions needing improvement have been identified along the project road and shown in Table:6.14.
Table 6.14 : Details of major Junctions
Sl.
No.

Km

0+000

Type
3 Legged (T Type)
3 Legged (T Type)

Start of Ambala Bypass

Junction with NH-1 Service


road
Junction with NH-1 Service
road

Joining road
NH-22

Ambala
Bypass
Ambala
Bypass

4+232

4+292

15+883

4 Legged (+ Type)

End of Ambala Bypass

NH-65

30+090

4 Legged (+ Type)

Junction with SH-4

SH-4

34+660

3 Legged (Y Type)

Start of Ismailabad Bypass

NH-65

39+460

3 Legged (Y Type)

End of Ismailabad Bypass

NH-65

50+860

3 Legged (Y Type)

Start of Pehowa Bypass

NH-65

55+720

4 Legged (+ Type)

In Pehowa Bypass

SH-6

10

58+460

4 Legged (+ Type)

In Pehowa Bypass

SH-9

11

59+560

3 Legged ( Y Type)

End of Pehowa Bypass

NH-65

12

76+960

3 Legged ( Y Type)

NH-65

13

80+670

4 Legged (+ Type)

14

85+705

4 Legged (+ Type)

15

95+383

4 Legged (+ Type)

Start of Kaithal Bypass


With MDR-119 in Kaithal
Bypass
With SH-8 in Kaithal Bypass
Titram More (end of Kaithal
Bypass)

3 Legged (T Type)

6.5

Design of Structures

6.5.1

General Arrangement of Proposed New Bridges


a)

Place

MDR-119
SH-8
SH-11 & Kaithal
Bypass

Span Arrangement
The new bridges follow the new alignment of the approach road and are placed in most cases adjacent to the
bridges on the existing alignment unless the proposed alignment is on a diversion.
Accordingly the span arrangements of the new bridges are developed based on that of the adjacent existing
bridge. Abutments and piers are placed in line with the existing ones so that existing waterway is not disturbed.
The span arrangements of the new bridges are kept same as those of the existing bridges except for the cases

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

17 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
where doubling the spans yielded additional advantage. However increasing spans by omitting piers results in
increase in depth of superstructure, and a raising of the formation level of the bridge. The economic analysis
should therefore include the cost of the bridge as well as the cost of raising the embankment. Generally from
maintenance point of view and from riding quality over the bridge it is desirable to reduce the number of
expansion joints and bearings i.e. increase in the span length.
The inventory of the existing bridges, topographic survey, hydrological investigation and geotechnical
investigation forms the basis for the development of the general arrangement of the bridges.
b)

Formation Level
Formation levels of the adjacent existing bridges formed the basis of fixing those of the proposed new bridges.
However, detailed hydrological investigation has been carried out and the vertical clearance above HFL for each
of the bridges has been checked for adequacy before finalizing the finished formation level of the proposed new
bridges.

c)

Type of Foundation
During site visit it is observed that all the minor bridge (spans are multiple of 4.5m to 13.0m) are resting over
open foundation. Well foundation is provided in case major bridges (span are multiple of 30m to 35m), so it can
be concluded that the bearing capacity of soil is neither too good nor so poor. It is proposed to provide open
foundation for spans up to 12.0m and pile foundation for higher spans. However the shape the size of foundation
shall be checked after geo-technical investigation and hydraulic (scour) calculation.

Design Considerations
General
Subsequent articles deal with various considerations for design of bridges comprising materials, loads and load
combinations, exposure condition, reference codes and standards, cover to reinforcement, design methodology, etc.
Materials
a)

Concrete Grade
Grade of concrete in various elements shall be as under for moderate conditions of exposure:

b)

All PSC members


RCC members

All PCC members

M45
M35 for Superstructure
M30 for Substructure and foundation
M20

Reinforcement Steel
-

c)

High yield strength deformed bar shall be grade Fe-415


Mild steel bars shall be of grade S240

Prestressing System
a)

System

12T13 multiple strand system


of Freyssinet or ISMALCCL or equivalent

b)

Cables

12T13 cables with strands of


12.7mm nominal dia

c)

High Tensile Steel


Nominal 12.7mm dia 7 ply low
relaxation strands conforming to
class 2 of IS:14268-1995
98.7 sq.mm per strand
(nominal cross section area)
183.71 KN per strand
1.95 x 105 MPa

Strands

Area

Ultimate load
Modulus of Elasticity

:
:

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

18 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

d)

Bearings
Tar-paper is proposed for span up to 7.0m, Reinforced elastomeric bearing is proposed for span from
7.0 m to 13.0 m. and POT-PTFE bearings are proposed for higher spans.
Elastomeric bearings shall be designed as per IRC:83 (Part II) and shall conform to Cl. 2005 of MOSTs
Specifications for Road & Bridge Works (3rd Revision).
POT-PTFE bearings shall be designed and supplied by the manufacturers. The loads and forces coming
on the bearings shall be provided to enable the manufacturer to design these bearings and these shall
conform to Cl. 2006 of MOSTs Specifications for Road & Bridge Works (3rd Revision).

Expansion Joints
The following type of Expansion Joint shall be provided:
Filler type expansion joint with a movement upto 20 mm has been provided in all solid slab type structures and box type
structures.
Single Strip Seal Expansion Joints has been provided for superstructures with movement up to 80 mm (+/- 40 mm) in
case of girder bridges.
Expansion joints shall conform to MOSTs Specifications for Road and Bridge works.
The expansion joint assembly shall follow the profile of the crash barrier for the full height.
Loads and Load Combinations
a)

Dead Loads
Following unit weights shall be assumed in the design as per IRC Codes.
-

b)

c)

Presstressed Concrete
Reinforced Concrete
Plain Cement Concrete
Structural Steel
Dry Density of Soil
Saturated Density of Soil

:
:
:
:
:
:

2.5 t/m3
2.4 t/m3
2.2 t/m3
7.85 t/m3
1.8 t/m3
2.0 t/m3

Superimposed Dead Loads


- Wearing Coat

40mm thick asphaltic concrete & 25mm thick


mastic asphalt with total of 2.2 t/m3

- Crash Barriers

From design (i.e. 1.0 t/m on either side)

Live Loads
- Road Live Loads

One/Two/Three lanes of IRC Class A.


One lane of IRC Class 70R (wheeled/tracked)
One lane of IRC Class 70R (wheeled)
With one lane of IRC Class A.

Whichever produces worst effect.

d)

Minimum clear distance between 70R vehicle and Class A vehicle, when placed side by side in
combination, shall be 1.2m for design.

Resultant live load stresses shall be reduced by 10% in case all the three lanes are loaded i.e. in case
of three lanes of IRC Class A or one lane of IRC Class 70R with one lane of IRC Class A.

Impact factor shall be as per Cl. 211 of IRC:6 for the relevant load combinations.

Longitudinal Forces

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

19 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

Following effects shall be considered in the design.


-

e)

Braking forces as per the provision of Cl. 214 of IRC:6.


Distribution of longitudinal forces due to horizontal deformation of bearings/frictional resistance offered
to the movement of free bearings as per Cl. 214.5 of IRC: 6

Horizontal Forces due to Water Currents


Portion of sub-structure of road bridges which may be submerged in running water shall be designed to sustain
safely the horizontal pressure due to force of current as per the stipulations of Cl. 213 of IRC:6

f)

Earth Pressure Forces

1)

Earth pressure forces shall be calculated as per the provision of Cl. 217 of IRC:6 assuming the following soil
properties :
-Type of soil assumed for backfilling :

-Angle of Internal Friction


-Angle of Wall Friction
-Coefficient of Friction `

:
:
:

As per Appendix 6 of IRC:78


with dry density of 1.8 t/cu.m
and submerged density of
1.0 t/cu.m.
= 300
= 200
tan (2/3 ), where is angle of
internal friction of substrata
immediately under the
foundations.

2)

Live load surcharge shall be considered as per the provisions of Cl. 710.4.4 & Cl. 710.6.9 of IRC:78 i.e.
equivalent of 1.2m height of fill in case of abutments and equivalent of 1.2m height of fill in case of return/wing
walls.

g)

Wind Effect
Structures shall be designed for wind effects as stipulated as Cl. 212 of the IRC:6. The wind forces shall be
considered in the following two ways. The one producing the worst effect shall govern the design.
i)
ii)

Full wind forces at right angles to the superstructure


65% of wind force as calculated in (i) above acting perpendicular to the superstructure and 35% acting
in traffic direction.

iii)

h)

Seismic Effect
The proposed road stretch between Ambala and Kaithal is in different seismic zones III & IV. A small part of
Kaithal district lies in zone III (Approx 5 Km.). Therefore, all structure shall be designed considering seismic IV on
the conservative side. The seismic forces shall be calculated as per seismic coefficient method outlined in Cl. 222
of IRC: 6.

i)

Temperature Range
i)
ii)

j)

The bridge structure/components i.e. bearings and expansion joints, shall be designed for a temperature
variation of 250 C considering extreme climate.
The superstructures shall also be designed for effects of distribution of temperature across the deck
depth as applicable.

Differential Shrinkage Effects

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

20 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
A minimum reinforcement of 0.2% of cross sectional area in the longitudinal direction of the cast-in-situ slab shall
be provided to cater to differential shrinkage stresses in superstructures with in-situ slab over precast girders as
per Cl. 605.2 of IRC:22-1986 in case this type of superstructure is used.
k)

Buoyancy

l)

100% buoyancy shall be considered while checking stability of foundations irrespective of their resting on
soil/weathered rock/or hard rock. Pore pressure uplift limited to 15% shall be considered while checking stresses
of the substructure elements.
Load Combination
All members shall be designed to sustain safely the most critical combination of various loads and forces that can
coexist. Various load combinations as relevant with increase in permissible stresses considered in the design
shall be as per Cl. 202 of IRC:6 and Cl. 706 of IRC:78.
In addition, the stability of bridge resting on neoprene/POT/POT cum PTFE bearings shall be checked for one
span dislodged condition. The load case shall be checked with seismic/wind load combinations.

m)

Exposure Condition
Moderate exposure conditions shall be considered while designing various components of the bridge.
Design Criteria

a)

The main design criteria shall be to evolve design of a safe structure having good durability conforming to the
various technical specifications and sound engineering practices.
Various Codes of Practices referred shall be as under:
i)
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)
xii)
xiii)
xiv)
xv)

b)

IRC:5-1998
IRC:6-2010
IRC:18-2000
IRC:21-2000
IRC:22-1986 (latest revision)
IRC:24-1967
IRC:45-1972 (reprint 1996)
IRC:78-2000
IRC:83-1982 (Part I)
IRC:86 1987 (Part II)
IRC:86-1983
IRC:SP-33-1989 (Provisions wherever applicable)
IS:456-1978
IRC:112-2011
IS:2502-1963
IRC:SP-84-2014 (Any provision given in Feasibility Report as per standards & specifications of
IRC SP-2009 shall be replaced by IRC SP 84 2014)

Materials, loads, load combinations, permissible stresses shall be as defined earlier.


c)

Units : Metric units shall be followed.

d)

Concrete clear cover


-

e)

For all reinforcement


For prestress cable
duct to outer most
fibre of girder
For other covers and
interduct spacings

As per Cl. 304.3 of IRC:21


As per clause 16 of IRC:18

As per clause 16 of IRC:18

Prestressing

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

21 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Stressing shall be carried out simultaneously from both ends. All the strands of a cable shall be stressed in one
go. Provisions for 4% emergency cables will be provided. If they are not utilised during construction, they will be
pulled out and cable ducts will be grouted and plugged suitably. Provision will also be made in the transverse
diaphragms for cables to account for 15% of design prestressing force, which may be introduced in future.
Access at deck ends will be provided to enable maintenance, inspection and future prestressing operations.
f)

Type of Superstructure
RCC solid slabs, RCC T-beam & slab type, PSC T-beam and slab type and PSC Box type of superstructure will
be considered based on the span lengths and clearance availability. The following criteria, in general, shall be
followed while deciding type of superstructure for various bridges:

i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

Type of Superstructure

Span Length

RCC solid slab


RCC TBeam & Slab
PSC T-Beam & Slab
PSC Box Superstructure

6 m to 11 m
11 m to 24 m
25 m to 35 m
36 m to 44 m

The depth of superstructures shall be decided based on structural considerations and also keeping in view the
minimum vertical clearances above HFL and the road formation levels.
g)

Miscellaneous Effects
For the design of superstructure elements, bending and shear checks shall be carried out as per IRC Codes of
practices.

Scheme for Widening of Existing Bridge Structures


Widening of the existing bridges can be taken up after construction of the new bridges so that flow of traffic can be
maintained without any requirement of diversion road. The width of widening will be similar to the new bridge width. For
the new bridges the carriageway width has been fixed as 11m between the inner edges of the safety kerbs and the width
of the crash barrier to be adopted is 0.5m and 1.75 m wide footpath including kerb is proposed in urban area. The outer
width of new bridges will be thus 12.0m without footpath and 13.75 m with footpath. For widening of the existing bridges, it
is decided to have a minimum deck width of 10.25 m in urban areas and 8.5 m in rural areas. However, in general, one of
the existing kerbs need not be dismantled and for the sake of symmetry, the railing on the both sides should be kept
similar. Thus the overall widening will have to accommodate an additional kerb having same width as the existing one.
Contrary to the above, if it is contemplated to have 0.5m wide strong safety barrier, there may be construction difficulty to
connect the new strong safety barrier with the existing kerb which requires additional widening. The change associated
with the widening of existing kerb will require new alignment of the existing roadway and the median verge will be of
different width in the approaches of the existing bridge.
The overall width requirement for widening of existing bridges with strong safety barrier works out to be minimum 8.5m
without footpath and 10.25 m with footpath. While the value of the overall outer width works out to be (7.5+2 Wr)m where
Wr is the width of existing kerbs of railing in meters in case the existing kerb is not disturbed and the width of the new kerb
is kept same as that of the existing kerb.
The methodology of widening of existing bridges will vary from bridge to bridge as per the following criteria. However
same will be finalized at later stage after consultation with client.
For bridges with solid slab type super-structure and open foundations, widening of superstructure will be taken up on outer
side of existing superstructure away from median verge. Such widening will be taken with new foundations, substructure
and superstructure adjacent to the existing ones. This widening will be integrated with the existing deck by dismantling the
existing railing, kerb, etc.
For the bridges having RCC-T beam type super-structure, widening is not possible, In such cases the existing bridges
were kept same. The existing bridges which are in poor condition are dismantled and re-constructed.

Details of bridges to be widened as indicated in Tables follows.


Widening/Repair of Existing Major Bridges
Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

22 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

Sl.
No.
1

Existing
Type of
Overall
Span
Bridge No.
Overall Width
Proposed Arrangem
Existing
Width
After
Superstruct
Chainage
ent
Substructure Foundation
Location
(M)
Widenin
ure
(C/C Exp.
g (M)
Gap) (M)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
20+900

(Dangri
Bridge)
38+327
(Markanda
Bridge)

25+288

1x 30.3 + 4
RCC- T beam RCC, Circular
X 35.8

42+208

6x30.35

RCC- T beam RCC, wall type

RCC, Well

9.0

9.0

RCC, Well

8.5

8.5

Remarks

9
On Right c/w,
No widening
proposed as the
super-structure is of
T-beam type
On Left c/w,
No widening
proposed as the
super-structure is of
T-beam type

Widening/Repair of Existing Minor Bridges


Existing
Span
Arrangeme
Superstruct
nt
ure
(C/C Exp.
Gap) (M)
3
4

Type Of

Sl.
No.

Bridge No.
Existing
Location

35+577

39+513

3x4.50

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

35+860

39+798

3x4.50

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

36+128

40+058

3x4.50

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

36+310

40+238

3x4.50

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

36+580

40+508

3x4.50

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

36+920

40+848

3x4.50

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

37+137

41+058

3x4.50

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

40+880

44+788

3x8.40

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

58+320

62+988

2x9.5

RCC Solid
slab

Brick Masonry,
Wall type

10

71+290

75+928

2x13

RCC box
structure

RCC Wall type

Proposed
Chainage

Substructure
5

Overall
Overall Width
After
Foundati Width
(M)
Widening
on
(M)
6
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
Brick
Masonry,
Open
RCC raft

8.5

12.5

Remarks

12.5
8.5
12.5
8.5
12.5
8.5
12.5
8.5
12.5
8.5
8.5

12.5

7.2

12.5

7.4

12.5

19.5

19.5

On left c/w,
No action
proposed

Proposed New Bridges:


The details of proposed new bridges are as indicated in Tables below.

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

23 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Details of Proposed Major Bridge
Sl. No.

Span
Type Of
Overall
Proposed Arrangement
Width
Chainage (C/C Exp. Gap) Superstructure Substructure Foundation
(M)
(M)

25+288

1x 31 + 4 X 36

RCC- T beam

RCC, Circular

RCC Pile

25+728

5x24.0 + 3 x20.0

PSC T-beam

RCC wall type

42+208

6x30.35

RCC- T beam

RCC, wall type RCC, Well

54+059

3 x20.9

PSC T-Beam

RCC Wall type

RCC Pile

RCC Pile

Remarks
New Dangari river
bridge on Left
carriageway

12.5

Bridge over Satlij


Yamuna Branch Canal
2 x12.5
& Narayana Branch
Canal in realignment
12.5

New Markanda bridge


on Right carriageway

2 x12.5

In Pehowa Bypass

Details of Proposed Minor Bridge


Span
Type Of
Arrangeme
Sl. Proposed
Overall
nt
Superstruct
No. Chainage
Width (M)
Substructure
Foundation
(C/C Exp.
ure
Gap) (M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Remarks

1 x 15

RCC Solid
Open
RCC wall Type
slab
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Ambala Bypass

4+740

1x 10

RCC Solid
Open
RCC wall Type
slab
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Ambala Bypass

6+745

1x 15

RCC Solid
Open
RCC wall Type
slab
Foundation

12.5

In Ambala Bypass

7+159

1x 15

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

12.5

In Ambala Bypass

24808

2 x 6.55 +1 x
7.1

RCC solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

12.5

On realignment portion

36288

3x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

12.5

In Ismailabad Bypass

38658

2x6.5

RCC Box

RCC wall type

Raft

12.5

In Ismailabad Bypass

39008

2x6.5

RCC Box

RCC wall type

Raft

12.5

In Ismailabad Bypass

39208

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

12.5

In Ismailabad Bypass

10

39513

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

11

39798

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

12

40058

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

1
2
3
4

4+157

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

24 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Span
Type Of
Sl. Proposed Arrangeme
Overall
Superstruct
No. Chainage
Substructure Foundation Width (M)
nt
ure
(C/C3Exp.
1
2
4
5
6
7

6.5.2

Remarks
8

13

40238

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

14

40508

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

15

40848

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

16

41058

1x13.5

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

17

44788

3x8.40

RCC Solid
slab

RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On left carriageway

18

54758

2x12.5

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Pehowa Bypass

19

62988

2x9.5

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

20

75928

2x13

RCC box
structure

RCC Wall type

RCC raft

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

21

77508

1x11.0

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Kaithal Bypass

22

79118

1x6.0

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Kaithal Bypass on Kaithal


Major Distributory

23

84084

1x8.0

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Kaithal Bypass on Shergarh


Minor (Kaithal branch)

24

86897

2x10.0

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Kaithal Bypass on Amin Drain

25

87812

1x7.0

RCC Solid
slab

RCC wall Type

Open
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Kaithal Bypass on Sirsa Branch

26

87866

1x25.0

RCC T-Beam RCC Wall type

Open
Foundation

2 x 12.5

In Kaithal Bypass on Sirsa Branch

1 x 12.5

On right carriageway

Design of Underpass, Flyover & ROB


Three Flyovers & Six underpasses have been proposed. Flyovers are proposed at NH-1, SH-6 & SH-9 crossings on
Pehowa Bypass and Underpasses are proposed at bituminous road crossings on all bypasses & at some selected road
junctions on existing highway.
A minimum vertical clearance of 5.5m has been provided. Flyovers are proposed with PSC-T-Beam & slab type structure
for a width of 12 .5 m for each carriageway with clear median opening in between. Underpass are proposed with RCC box
type structure for a width of 12 .5 m for each carriageway with clear median opening in between

Proposed New Underpasses:


The details of proposed underpasses are as given in Tables below.
Proposed Underpass
S.
No.

Design
Chainage
(Km)

Name of Intersecting
Roads

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Proposed
Structural
Type

Proposed
Span
Arrangement

Total Width
of Structure
(m)

Clear
Height (m)
25 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Sudpur Village

RCC Box

1 x 12.0m

2 x 12.5m

Nizampur to Ambala
Road
Nagal village road
crossing close to
School/ Hospital
Sabad village road
crossing
Across Ismailabad
Bypass
On Patiyala road
crossing

RCC Box

1 x 12.0m

2 x 12.5m

0+750

1
2

4+594

22+938

35+185

37+393

74+398

5.5m
5.5m

2 x 12.5m
RCC Box

1 x 12.0m

RCC Box

1 x 12.0m

RCC Box

1 x 12.0m

RCC Box

1 x 12.0m

5.5m
2 x 12.5m

5.5m

2 x 12.5m

5.5m

2 x 12.5m

5.5m

Proposed New Fly Over:


The details of proposed flyover are as given in Tables below.
Proposed Fly over
Sl.
No.

Design
Chainage
(Km)

Name of Intersecting
Roads

Span

Length
(m)

Overall
width
(m)

Remarks

4+248

On Ambala Bypass

2x30

60

2 x 12.5m

4 Lane

55+718

SH6 in Pehowa Bypass

1 x 25

25

2 x 12.5m

4 Lane

58+458

SH9 in Pehowa Bypass

1 x 25

25

2 x 12.5m

4 Lane

Proposed New ROB:


The details of proposed ROB are as given in Tables below.
Proposed ROB
S No.

Location

On Ambala Bypass

Design
Chainage

Proposed span
arrangement (m)

Proposed
Structure
type

Total width
of the
structure (m)

1x30

PSC Girder &


Slab

2 x 12.5

1x30

PSC Girder &


Slab

2 x 12.5

1x30

PSC Girder &


Slab

2 x 12.5

0+849
2

On Ambala Bypass

5+164
3

On Kaithal Bypass

80+986

Scheme of Widening of Culverts to Accommodate Additional 2 Lanes


A)

Where the existing width of culvert is at least 12m and there is no shift of the new road alignment away from the
existing alignment it will be possible to widen the existing culvert to cater for the future 2/3 lanes. The widening
for the additional one lane on the existing formation side can be taken up later.
In other words if, with modified alignment of the existing 2 lanes roadway, the available width of the culvert from
the kerb of the central verge, is of two lane width or more, there is no need of widening the existing 2 lane portion
to 3 lanes at the present moment. The widening can be done later.
If the available width cannot accommodate the newly designed two-lane width, widening has to be done upto
two-lane formation width.

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

26 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
For widening towards central verge side, the widening should consider the width of central verge and the
formation width of the new two-lane carriageway.
B)

For the construction of the new two/three lanes, there are two possibilities i.e.
a)
to construct two lanes at the present moment with future widening
b)
to construct three lanes at the present moment
In the case of first possibility, the wing wall/return wall is to be made twice.
In the case of the second possibility there will be need to widen the road embankment upto the full formation
width for the three lane carriageway now near the culvert site. The widening needs to be reduced to the two lane
formation width in gradual fashion say 1:10 width reduction.
It has been decided to adopt the first alternative.

C)

For widening of pipe culverts, the widening will be in multiples of 2.4 m which is the available unit length of NP4
pipes.

D)

Dismantling of Existing Head Wall and Parapet for Pipe Culverts


For pipe culvert, the parapet lying on the side of widening will have to be dismantled generally. There is no need
of dismantling the head walls other than a part dismantling around the RC pipe so that the standard collar can be
introduced. Half width of the collar has to be embedded in the outer face of the head wall where widening is
necessitated.

E)

Dismantling of Wing Wall, Return Wall and Parapets for Slab Culverts
There is no need to dismantling return walls. The parapet on the widening side generally is to be
removed/dismantled. The wing walls having inclination with the longitudinal axis of the roadway have to be partly
dismantled to avoid fouling with the construction of the new abutment. In case of splayed wing wall it will not be
generally necessary to dismantle part of it to accommodate the construction of the abutment beyond the central
verge for the new 2 or 3 lanes. However, if the central verge is only 1200mm, it may be necessary to partly
dismantle the splayed wing wall to accommodate the construction of the new abutment beyond the central verge.

F)

Raising of Road Level for Existing 2 Lane Carriageway


In order to improve the vertical profile of the existing 2-lane carriageway, it is sometimes necessary to raise the
existing profile.
Generally for the RC pipe culverts and syphons the raising does not pose any problem other than raising parapet
height.
However, for slab culverts, raising formation level introduces additional weight on the slab that is to be
considered. Depending on the extent of the raise, the method of the strengthening have been classified in
various types and the methodology of strengthening by putting additional thickness on the existing slab is
developed. It should be noted that the existing slab culverts have wearing course of at least 100mm and in case
of strengthening, the existing wearing course needs to be removed completely.

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

27 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

Table-6.5: Details of Widening & New Proposed Culverts

S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Existing
Chainage

Ambala Bypass

11+700
12+760
14+970
15+580
15+920
16+030
16+500
17+500
17+990
18+170
18+200
18+500
18+880
Realignment
Realignment
Realignment
24+672
25+028
25+541
26+200
26+400

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Proposed Chainage

Existing Type

Existing Span

Proposed Span

Proposed Type

Scheme

0+380
1+080
1+573
1+890
3+520
6+000
8+900
13+820
15+933
16+988
19+158
19+898
20+248
20+357
20+796
21+173
21+838
22+328
22+498
22+543
22+838
23+208
25+858
27+058
27+503
28+558
28+947
29+418
30+080
30+318

Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert

1x1.5
1x0.6
1x3.2
1x3.6
1x3.2
3x0.6*
1x0.6*
1x3.1
1x3.1
1x1.8
1x1.2
1x3.0
1x1.8
1x1.0
1x1.0
1x0.3**
1x0.6
1x0.6

1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x4x3
1x5x3
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x3
1x1.2

Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert

New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Widened
Widened
Widened
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
New
Widened
Widened
Widened
Widened
Widened
Reconstruction
New
New
New
Widened
Widened
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction

28 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
S.No
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Existing
Chainage
26+737
27+058
29+113
-

Ismilabad Bypass

39+010
39+460
41+030
42+950
43+700
Pehowa Bypass

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Proposed Chainage

Existing Type

Existing Span

Proposed Span

Proposed Type

Scheme

30+603
30+933
31+208
32+358
32+983
33+898
34+378
35+558
36+058
36+758
37+258
37+858
38+358
40+058
42+910
43+352
43+958
44+948
45+628
46+178
46+914
47+582
48+458
48+918
49+528
50+418
51+358
51+858
52+358
52+858
53+358
53+858
54+358
54+798
55+358

Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
-

1x1.0
1x5.0
1x0.6
1x4.5
1x0.9
1x0.3
1x0.65
1x0.6
1x1.6
-

1x5x3
1x2x3
1x2x2
1x2x3
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x3
1x2x2
1x2x3
1x2x3
1x5x3
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x3
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x3
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x3
1x2x2

Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert

Widened
Reconstruction
New
New
Reconstruction
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
New
Reconstruction
New
New
Reconstruction
Widened
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New

29 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
S.No
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81

82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

Existing
Chainage

55+653
56+745
57+157
57+350
57+427
57+795
58+232
58+500
58+710
59+018
59+274
60+290
60+600
60+800
61+200
61+400
62+285
62+800
63+390
64+700
66+025
66+150
66+225
66+450

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Proposed Chainage

Existing Type

Existing Span

Proposed Span

Proposed Type

Scheme

55+858
56+425
57+408
57+908
58+458
58+958
59+458
60+338
60+885
61+418
61+833
62+018
62+098
62+470
62+906
62+938
63+158
63+778
63+958
64+518
64+956
65+108
65+212
65+975
66+118
66+948
67+143
68+065
68+818
69+328
70+708
70+796
70+878
71+018
71+128

Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert

1x0.5
1x0.6
1x3.10
1x3.0
1x0.5
1x1.8
1x0.5
1x0.6
1x0.5
1x0.5
1x0.5
1x1.5
1x3.0
1x0.9
1x0.6
1x1.25
1x1.3
1x1.0
1x1.0
1x1.2
1x0.9
1x0.9
1x1.0
1x0.9

1x2x2
1x2x3
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x4x3
1x4x3
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2

Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert

New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Reconstruction
New
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
New
Widened
Widened
Widened
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Widened
Widened
Widened
New
Widened
New
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Reconstruction

30 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
S.No

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135

Existing
Chainage
68+160
70+002
70+685
Kaithal Bypass

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Proposed Chainage

Existing Type

Existing Span

Proposed Span

Proposed Type

Scheme

71+838
72+458
72+966
74+804
75+479
76+938

Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
Slab Culvert
-

1x1.0
1x1.0
1x0.6
-

1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x5.0
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x2x2

Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Slab Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert

New
New
Widened
Widened
Reconstruction
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New

77+598
78+000
78+360
79+379
79+839
80+040
80+459
81+467
81+757
82+062
82+476
83+077
83+617
84+007
84+497
84+876
85+296
85+876
86+196
87+116
87+896
88+135
88+496
89+575
90+015
90+514
90+824
91+336
91+669

31 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
S.No

Existing
Chainage

136
137
138
139
140

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Proposed Chainage

Existing Type

Existing Span

Proposed Span

Proposed Type

Scheme

92+394
92+864
93+216
93+734
94+514

1x1.2
1x2x2
1x1.2
1x1.2
1x2x2

Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Pipe Culvert
Box Culvert

New
New
New
New
New

32 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
Table 6.6: Summary of Proposed Culverts
Type of Culvert
Culverts to be widened
Pipe Type
Slab type
Culverts to be Replaced / New construction
New Single Pipe
New Single box
New Slab
Total
6.6
6.6.1

Nos.
1
20
62
45
12
140

Traffic Facilities
Rest Area
Highway users who travel long distances up to a few hundred kilometers a day during a single journey need amenities
along the highway. This section of project road has several eating places at the built-up areas. Moreover, this section
connects directly Kaithal headquarters of Kaithal District with Ambala. Thus amenities are available at these two locations
separated by only 77.739 km. Further provision of a Rest Area will require additional acquisition of land along with
provision of infrastructures in it. Keeping this in view no additional Rest Area is contemplated and thus not provided in this
section. However, this requires concurrence of NHAI

6.6.2 Bus-bays
21 nos. Bus Bays with Passenger Shelters on each side of the road along the project highway have been proposed.

6.6.3 Truck Lay-byes


During site reconnaissance it was observed that there are several roadside dhabas, where trucks park their vehicle for
eating, resting or even minor maintenance of vehicles. Depending upon the site conditions the locations of truck lay byes
on each side of the roads are as follows:

Location

Chainage (Km) - LHS

Near Thol

31+115

Near Pehowa

58+885

Chainage (Km) - RHS


31+535
59+335

It may not be feasible to change these locations as the users are already used to these places. Further land has been
occupied by the owners (legally or illegally) for this purpose. Thus it is proposed to develop these locations as truck lay
byes with safety barrier at the shoulder edges of the main carriageway.
6.7

Toll Plaza Location


The project road is proposed to be developed as Tolled Road. The project road being only 94.952 km long, only two toll
plaza will be feasible to be provided. During site reconnaissance it was observed that free space is available near
km 24+000 & km 64+000 suitable for development of Toll Plaza System. Same is already discussed with NHAI officials
during site visit.

6.8
6.8.1

Traffic Control and Safety Devices


General
For notification of road features as also for safety and guidance of the road users, the project road will be provided with all
the necessary traffic control and safety devices. These include:

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

33 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6

Traffic Signs
Road Markings
Guard Posts
Pedestrian Guard Railing

These are described further hereunder.


6.8.2 Traffic Signs
Traffic signs will consist of :

Mandatory Signs
Warning Signs
Informatory Signs
Gantry mounted overhead signs in advance of flyovers and toll plazas

All the signs will be of retro-reflective type conforming to M/o SRTH Specifications and Recommendations of IRC: 67.
6.8.3 Road Markings
The road markings will be in reflectorised thermoplastic material, and will be of the following types:

Solid edge line, 150mm wide in while colour to define the edges of the carriageway
Broken lane marking lines, 100mm wide in white colour

Directional arrows, chevron and diagonal markings, stop lines, zebra crossing lines provided in white colour in
accordance with the IRC: 35
6.8.4 Guard Posts
The project road is generally in flat terrain where embankment height is seldom more than 3m. At locations where the
embankment is higher than 3m, guard posts are proposed to be provided.
6.9

Right of Way
Proposed Right of Way (ROW) on either side of proposed median centre line & existing right of way (ROW) as per the
information available from NH division of PWD, Haryana on either side of existing road centre line are as follows:

Existing Chainage

Proposed Chainage

Existing ROW (m)

Proposed
ROW (m)

Remarks

From

To

From

To

Left

Right

Left

Right

0+000

11+883

0+000

15+883

19

41

Ambala Bypass

13+069

14+640

17+310

18+960

30

30

Matheri
Shekhaon
Bypass

14+640

17+000

18+960

21+347

12.50

12.50

30

30

17+000

19+920

21+347

24+260

11.73

11.73

30

30

19+920

23+056

24+260

26+960

30

30

23+056

23+958

26+960

27+860

11.73

11.73

30

30

23+958

24+262

27+860

28+160

30

30

24+262

30+923

28+160

34+660

12.50

12.50

30

30

30+923

35+538

34+660

39+460

30

30

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Realignment

Realignment

Ismailabad
bypass
34 of 35

Project: Feasibility cum PDR for 4/6-laning of Ambala to Kaithal section of NH-65
Final Feasibility cum Preliminary Design Report: Chapter-6
35+538

46+980

39+460

50+860

12.5

12.5

30

30

46+980

55+894

50+860

59+560

30

30

55+894

62+000

59+560

66+660

12.5

12.5

30

30

62+000

72+305

66+660

76+960

15

15

30

30

72+305

88+135

76+960

95+383

30

30

Document : 1058/RH/REP/FFR/403_1_R1

Pehowa Bypass

Kaithal Bypass

35 of 35