Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4.1. Introduction
The layout and other geometric features of a road have direct
influence on the initial cost of its construction and the efficiency and
eoonomy of its use by traffic. The safety of operation is also
significantly affected by geometric design. Deficiencies in geometrics
are costly to rectify later and therefore the various requirements
should be kept in view initially even where stage development is
envisaged.
4~2. Terrain Classification
Terrain classification is an important parameter governing
geometric design standards. For the purposes of thisManual, the
following classification system is adopted:
S. No, Terrain Classification Per cent cross slope of the country
1. Plain OtolO
2. Rolling >10 to 25
3. Mountainous >25 to 60
4. Steep greater than 60
Design speed—km/h
I. Other DistrIct 65 50 50 40 30 25 25 20
Roads
2. Village Roads 50 40 40 35 25 20 25 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Notes: 1. In high banks or deep cuts, the land width should be suitably in-
creased. Similarly, a higher value should be adopted in unstable or
landslide—prone areas.
2. II a road is expected to be upgraded to a higher classification in the
foreseable future, the land width should correspond to that classifi-
cation.
<<
Geornetro.: LDes~gnStandards 21
4.4.2. in order to prevent overcrowding and preserve sufficient
space for future road improvement, it is advisable to lay down
re~tr~ct~orL~on huilding act~\ity along the rural roads. No building
activity should be :UIowed ~dth~n a prescribed distance from the road.
This distance i~defined by a hypothetical line set back from the road
boundary, called the “Building Line”. In addition, it will be desir-
able to limit the nature of building activity for a further distance
defined by what are called “Control Lines”. Building and control
lines are illustrated in Fig. I with respect to the road centreline and
road boundary.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Other
District
Roads 25/300 35 3—5 3—5
2. Village
Roads 25 30 3—5 3—5 3—5
Notes: 1. ‘If the land width is equal to the width between building lines
indicated in this column, the building lines should be set back
2.5 metre from the road land boundary.
2. See Fig. I for position of building lines, control lines and setback
distance relative to the road centreline and road land boundary.
<<
22 Geometric Design Standards
~~1 ~ ~OL4NO~
it
3N~1~J4IOUfl5
4*
it—
0
C
0
I
0
w w
4
_i 0
o 8
,_~__
*
w
it
it
•
a
~-
~
,
9
9
4
*
I
it
it
it
0
a 4
t-
9o
, ~
4
- 19
4
-
0_~
a
IT
OVD~t•iO 3Nt~3~N3B
I
~
it
o
it
o
Attvownoa aw~o,ou
0
I 4
U
0
it—
aNt, *Ni0~UflS
<<
Geometric Design Standards 23
4.5. Roadway Width
The requirements of ioadway width are given in Tables 4 and 5
respectively for plain and rolling terrain, and mountainous and
steep terrain.
‘Two-lane carriageways are not envisaged at this stage for rural roads.
However, there may be some cases where in view of the developments expected,
it may be desirable to provide roadway for a two-lane carriageway.
Notes: 1. The width; above are for single—lane roads, and are exclusive of
parapets and side drains.
2. In general, passing places or lay-byes 3.75 m wide and 20 m long
may be provided at the rate of two per kilometre. These should be
judiciously located after taking into consideration the available extra
width on curves and visibility.
3. On curves, the roadway width may be increased corresponding to
the carriageway widening for curvature, vide para 4.11.6,
<<
24 Geometric Design Standards
Desirable — 7.5 m
Where 7,5 m width / — 5,75 na
cannot be provided
Exceptional — 4.25 m
<<
Geometric Design Standards 25
TABLE 6. WIDTH OF CARRIA0EWAY FOR SiNoca LANE RoADS
3, Earth 3.0—4.0
(i in 3310 1 in 25)
<<
26 Geometric Design Standards
4.9. Side Slopes
The side-slopes of embankments should not be steeper than
slopes safe for the type of the soil. Generally side slopes of I ~ :
should be sufficient for embanknients of normal height. Flatter
slopes of 2 : 1 may be used in case of poor embankment materials,
or where the embankment will be subject to inundation, High
embankments should be properly designed and side slopes provided
accordingly. For guidari~ein this regard reference may be made to
IR,C “Guidelines, for the Design of High Embankments”.
The side slopes for cuts in different materials may be as in
Table 8.
Horizontal Alignment
4.11.
4.11.1. General guidelines: “[he alignment should be as
directional as possible and avoid abrupt turns. On new roads the
curves should be designed to have the largest practicable radius,
<<
Geometric Design Standards 27
C
a
U
4*
C
C
a
a ‘C
S C
113
S
a C
t
U 113
0
C
03
‘C
C
o U
“4
Ca
4-
z ‘I
S ,&J
a
r
4
S
a
~
S 0
S 4 tg
0 a- 0 ~—
13
S
a’. U
U) .IZ
0
4 a
0 C
C
0 U
a
0 a
U
S
‘a c.
‘a
S
a’
4*
<<
28 Geometric Design Standards
V*LLE~ StD(
~&Pc1 O4.~ ~
•4 tL,Nou~x,~J
•UNV_I
1i ~
$LCT~ON£1’ CC
CROSS UCT~ONAT ~
ANO £LTI*N*TIVI ~O* U
SECTION AT A A
<<
Geometric Design Standards 29
RCADWAY ~ ~
NOTES
20 50 60 70 90
25 70 90 110 140
30 100 130 160 200
35 140 180 220 270
40 180 240 280 350
50 280 370 450 550
65 470 620 750 950
<<
Geometric Design Standards 31
010
i. 0 Zi. NAXI~IJM SUPERELEVATIOW POR
~0tJ’~&IP~OUS ANO STEEP TERRAIN
NC~ ~JNO BY SNOW,
0’OI
00$
\ —*..—~ ..._____
901 \.~
e~99y,MAXIuuM SuPE~ELE~ATION FOR
\ PLAIN AND ROLLING TERRA1N, AND
I MOUt4TAINOUS AND STEEP TERRAIN
‘ BOUND ev SNOW.
006
\1J
0’OS
• 225R
WHERE ~ ~ SUPERELEVATIQ~
\
a
a
\ \ v~SPEED PH NaIl
094 . \~,- —~- a
l.a
-J
l.a
3
0’03 ~ ~
\\ ...-
-____
\\~
~4 \....
‘~
092
NOTE
SUPERELEVATION NEED BE PROVIDED PP
SUPERELEVATION CALCULATED IS LESS
THAN THE NORMAL PAVEMENT CAMPER
O’OI
0
tOO 400 100 BOO 1000 ‘ZOO
RACIUS IN NETRES
<<
32 Geometric Design Standards
horizontal curves for different camber rates beyond which the
superelevation will not be required.
Note **Plate 11 depicts the general case where a circular curve is flanked by
transition curves on both sides, In such cases where transition curve
isnot provided, tw.othird superelcvation may be attained on the straight
section before start of the curve and one-third on the curve,
<<
Geometric Design Standards 33
Substituting the value of 0.15 for side friction, and the permissible
maximum values of superelevation indicated in para 4.11.3, the
formula works out as below for different terrains.,
Terrain Formula
t
(a) Plain and rolling R—0,0357 V
(b) Mountainous and steep
(U Snowbound R—O.0357 V’
(ii) Other than snowbound R’=O.OSlS V’
<<
34 Geometric Design Standards
~
o~
~ ~
U
U
U,.
c— 2 U
I.
U
U
0.
U,
0
~ U
0
z 2
o
c 2
0
2
6
U,
u~ 9
.2 ~ 1,
~ 0
~ < ~ *
~ U U
V
0.
~
C) .20 zO~ m
U,
0
(4~
~ 0 V
N 0
4
0 U,~U
* .2
Q 0
~ 2 .2
~
:~~
2 ~
~0
.2
= ~
0
z —c
2 .9
.0
2
00.
ifl ~
1~2
0
°‘
~
~
EU
.~
0
0
~
U U
U
!~!~ <<
Geometric Desigrt Standards 35
TA3LE 11. TRANSITION LENOTHS FoI’ DIFFERENT SPEEDS AND CuRvE
RADii IN PLAIN AND ROLLIN0 TERRAIN
90 NA 75 50 40
100 NA 70 45 35
150 80 45 30 25
170 70 40 25 20
200 60 35 25 20
240 50 30 20 NR
300 40 25 NR NR
360 35 20 NR NP.
400 30 20 NP. NP.
500 25 NR NR NP.
600 20 NR NP. NR
700 20 NP. NP NR
NA—Not applicable
NR—Not required
TABLE 12. TRANSITIoN LENGThs FOR DIFFERENT S~mnsAND CURVE
RADii IN MOUNTAINOUS AND STEEP TERRAIN
15 NA NA 30
20 NA 35 20
25 NA 25 20
30 30 25 IS
40 25 20 15
50 20 35 15
55 20 15 15
70 15 15 15
90 15 15 NR
120 15 NP. NR
150 15 NP. NP.
NA—Not applicable
NR—NoI required
<<
36 Geometric Design Standards
TABLE 13. EXTRA WIDTH OF PAVEMENT AT HORIZONTAL CURVES
<<
Geometric Design Standards 31
30i~R
Grade compensation =
<<
38 Geometric Design Standards
T*si,e 15. SAFE STOPPINO StouT DUTANcE FOR VARIOUS S~aans
20 20
25 25
30 30
40 45
50 60
60 80
65 90
1
LLS 1.50—0.0355
N
<<
40 Geometric Design Standards
These points should be kept in view at the planning stage, especially
where a series of hair-pin bends is involved.
415,4, Layout of a typical hair-pin bend is giVen in Figure 6.
—
~ r
* ~ £
— ~~Dtjr_____**~~__ 6 0
LON6~TUOINALSECTION
-e U”14 —
0—0 **~L’S —.
— C~RLLTLAR CURVE
0
a
0
aa
a SS 5
‘I
I
PLAN
—