Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-2 October 2012
compatibility with the existing pavement, ROW and utilities. The general considerations
followed for fixing the proposed horizontal alignment are as follows:
• Maximum utilization of existing pavement width (black top)
• Geometric improvements at substandard curve locations
• Skew angle at proposed ROB location
• Avoidance of Settlements for new bypasses
• Development proposal of structures (reconstruction/widening)
• Maximum utilization of existing ROW
8.3 Project Start Point
During the Inception Report stage and as per the Contract Agreement, the project start point was
conceived at km 44.20 from the start of the existing Kaithal Bypass. There is a separate study in
progress from Ambala to Kaithal. Both the sections are being developed by NHAI. Kaithal Town is the common point for the NH-65 from Ambala to Kaithal and Kaithal to Haryana-Rajasthan
Border. The DPR for Ambala to Kaithal section is in advanced stage and the same is being
developed for 2-lane with paved shoulder configuration.
As a part of that Ambala to Kaithal project a bypass on the east side of the Kaithal Town has
been proposed. With reference to NHAI letter NHAI/PIU-SNP/Kaithal-Rajasthan
Border/2011/815, SWI had discussion with the associated engineer of M/s Meinhardt Singapore
Ptc, Noida about proposed Kaithal bypass and collected the alignment details. As per the
proposed alignment, the end point of Bypass is at the existing T-junction at 33+250 of Kaithal
Narwana Section NH-152 (new NH number) near village Titram. This end point is about 11.1 km
from the project start point on existing Kaithal Bypass. With the development of the bypass the
through traffic from Ambala shall use the bypass to come to this junction directly. The existing
road shall function for the local traffic destined to Kaithal Town. A flyover has been proposed at
the end of the new bypass under this project. During the meeting with the NHAI officials, SWI
was advised to match the alignment of the project road with the proposed Kaithal bypass and
treat end of the Kaithal Bypass as the start of the project.
Due to the above development proposal we propose to start the project at Km 33+250 instead
of Km 44+200.
8.4 Cross Sectional Details
8.4.1 Lane Width
The width of a basic traffic lane is proposed to be 3.50m. Thus, for 2-lane the carriageway widths
will be 7.0m. In case of the divided cross-section, a 0.25 m wide edge strip with a composition
same as that of the adjacent pavement will be provided as compensation for kerb shyness.
8.4.2 Paved Shoulders
Full strength pavement for paved shoulder is proposed. Width of these shoulders will be 1.50m in rural sections. However in urban section the width has been increased to 2.0m. These will
provide better traffic operations, lower maintenance cost and will help to directly use these as
part of carriageway when the road is widened in future
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-3 October 2012
8.4.3 Earthen Shoulders
Earthen shoulders are proposed to be 2.0m wide on either side of the proposed main carriageway
for rural pain and rolling terrains. If site condition warrants, the width can be reduced to 1.50m
for urban /built-up sections.
8.4.4 Median
In rural stretches, the project road will have raised median and its width is proposed to be 4.50m. However in urban stretches 1.5m wide median with pedestrian guard rail has been proposed. The
medians will be edged with 250 mm high non-mountable concrete kerbs.
8.4.5 Service Road
Where Service road is provided, it will be of 5.5m/7.0m carriageway width of different pavement
composition based on the expected traffic. The minimum width of separation between main carriageway and service road is proposed to be 1.50m.
8.4.6 Footpath
Where footpath is proposed, minimum width of footpath will be of 1.00m on the building line
side.
8.4.7 Utility Corridor
Minimum width of utility corridor for rural sections will be 2.0m and for urban/ built-up sections will be 1.00m.
8.4.8 Side Slopes
For fill sections, the following side slopes are proposed:
Embankment height up to 3.0 m - 2H:1V and Considering the Embankment
material property
Embankment height from 3.0 m to 6.0 m - 2.5H:1V and Considering the Embankment
material property
Embankment height exceeding 6.0 m - To be designed as per material property and as
per IRC: 75
Cutting sections - 1H: 1V and with considering the material property of the cutting material.
8.4.9 Crossfall
The crossfall for the pavement and paved shoulders will be 2.5%. For earthen shoulders and
median the corresponding value will be 3.0%.
8.4.10 Proposed ROW
A uniform ROW of 60m width has been considered irrespective of the type of abutting land use for the proposed roadway, except at urban sections having restricted availability of land on either
side of the project road. In such cases, proposed ROW is kept as 30m and 45m.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-4 October 2012
The locations of restricted proposed ROW is as given below:
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length
(m)
Prop.
ROW
Width (m)
Village /
Semi-Urban
Development From To From To
25+300 24+450 700 7+950 8+850 700 45 Bata
121+400 122+530 1130 32+400 33+530 1130 45 Narwana
130+650 131+050 400 41+600 42+000 400 30 Sachha Khera
167+840 169+000 1160 83+250 84+410 1160 30 Babal Baria
202+100 203+130 1030 125+600 126+630 1030 30 Muklan/ Kambha
210+400 211+500 1100 133+900 135+000 1100 30 Chowdarywas
8.4.11 Cross Section
The typical cross sections to be followed in the project stretch are detailed as below:
TCS-I: 4-lane Eccentric Widening in Rural Stretches (For Existing 7.0m Carriageway)
TCS-II: 4-lane Concentric Widening in Rural Stretches (For Existing 10.0m Carriageway)
TCS-III: 4-lane Concentric Widening in Pavement Reconstruction Stretches
TCS-IV: 4-lane Bypass / Realignment
TCS-V: 4-lane Concentric Widening with 5.5m Service Road on both sides in Semi-urban
Sections
TCS-VA: 4-lane Concentric Widening with 7.0m Service Road on both sides in Semi-urban Sections
TCS-VI: 4-lane ROB and Flyover Approach with RE Wall on Bypass
TCS-VII: 4-lane Vehicular Underpass Approaches (with Retaining Wall) on Bypass
TCS-VIII: 4-lane Concentric Widening in Semi-urban stretches with 1.5m median
TCS-IX: 4-Lane Underpass, Flyover & ROB Approach with RE Wall and Service Road (5.5m)
TCS-IXA: 4-Lane Underpass, Flyover & ROB Approach with RE Wall and Service Road (7.0m)
Figures 8.1 to 8.10 shows the typical cross sections to be followed on the project stretch.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-5 October 2012
Figure 8.1: Typical Cross Sections - I
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-6 October 2012
Figure 8.2: Typical Cross Sections - II
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-7 October 2012
Figure 8.3: Typical Cross Sections - III
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-8 October 2012
Figure 8.4: Typical Cross Sections - IV
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-9 October 2012
Figure 8.5: Typical Cross Sections - V
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-10 October 2012
Figure 8.6: Typical Cross Sections - VA
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-11 October 2012
Figure 8.7: Typical Cross Sections - VI
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-12 October 2012
Figure 8.8: Typical Cross Sections - VII
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-13 October 2012
Figure 8.9: Typical Cross Sections - VIII
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-14 October 2012
Figure 8.10: Typical Cross Sections – IX / IXA
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-15 October 2012
8.5 Widening Scheme
The existing project road section of NH-65 has multi dimensional facets with respect to land use
and road geometry and considering all these aspects the section-wise policy adopted for widening
based on the initial investigations is given in Table 8.2. Mostly eccentric widening has been
proposed for maximum utilization of the existing pavement. The side of widening has been decided considering the availability of land and location of any religious/socially sensitive
structures. Concentric widening has been proposed in the built-up section to maximise the
utilisation of the width of existing ROW.
As per the 4-laning Manual (IRC: SP:84-2009), 6-lane divided carriageway with service road is
recommend in the built-up areas as a part of the 4-laning project (ref. Section 2.1). During investigation it was found that existing ROW in built-up areas is limited to maximum 27.0m.
Due to inadequacy of the existing ROW, 4-lane road with 5.5/7.7m service road has been
proposed in the following sections as given in Table 8.1:
Table 8.1: Location of 4-Laning in built-up Stretches with 5.5m/7.0m Service Road
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length
(m)
Widening TCS-Type From To From To
-0+500 0+000 500 New 4-Lane with 7.0m SR Type IXA
33+250 32+750 500 0+000 0+500 500 Left 4-Lane with 7.0m SR Type IXA
25+300 24+600 700 7+950 8+650 700 Concentric 4-Lane with 7.0m SR Type VA
1+500 0+000 1500 31+950 32+400 450 Flyover Approach with 7.0m SR Type IXA
121+400 121+850 450 32+400 32+850 450 Flyover Approach with 7.0m SR Type IXA
121+850 122+530 680 32+850 33+530 680 Concentric 4-Lane with 7.0m SR Type VA
122+530 123+540 1010 33+530 34+540 1010 Flyover Approach with 5.5m SR Type IX
124+000 124+400 400 35+000 35+400 400 PUP Approach with 5.5m SR Type IX
130+650 131+050 400 41+600 42+000 400 Concentric 4-Lane with 5.5m SR Type V
156+800 157+200 400 68+700 69+100 400 PUP Approach with 5.5m SR Type IX
167+840 169+000 1160 83+250 84+410 1160 Concentric 4-Lane with 5.5m SR Type V
181+100 198+900 17800 105+250 106+150 900 Flyover Approach with 7.0m SR Type IXA
121+800 122+400 600 Flyover Approach with 7.0m SR Type IXA
198+900 199+250 350 122+400 122+750 350 Flyover Approach with 7.0m SR Type IXA
202+100 203+130 1030 125+600 126+630 1030 Concentric 4-Lane with 5.5m SR Type V
210+580 211+500 920 134+080 135+000 920 Concentric 4-Lane with 5.5m SR Type V
Total Length (m) 10450
The considerations of the side of widening are summarized below:
• Sensitive structures like temples, mazar, burial grounds/ graves, shamsan, etc.
• Major government installations, educational institutions, series of buildings
• High tension towers, electric line, trees, irrigation canals parallel to road
• Water bodies like pond, nalla
• Built-up areas of village and semi-urban stretches
• Railway line parallel to road
• Substandard curve improvement
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-16 October 2012
Table 8.2: Tentative Widening Scheme for 4-Laning
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design Length
(m) Widening TCS-Type Left / Remarks Right / Remarks
From To From To
-0+500 0+000 500 New Type IXA Flyover Approach Flyover (2x15)
33+250 32+750 500 0+000 0+500 500 Left Type IXA Flyover Approach Flyover (2x15)
33+250 31+000 2250 0+000 2+250 2250 Left Type II Trees & pylon ( 20 m from CL), km 33-32
31+000 29+000 2000 2+250 4+250 2000 Right Type II Mazar
29+000 27+300 1700 4+250 6+000 1750 Left Type II Trees
27+300 26+800 500 6+000 6+500 500 Right Type II
26+800 26+000 800 6+500 7+250 750 Left Type II Trees, Petrol Pump, Buildings
26+000 25+300 700 7+250 7+950 700 Right Type II
25+300 24+600 700 7+950 8+650 700 Concetric 4-Lane with
7.0m SR Type VA ROW 45m till 8+800 Bata Village Built-up section
24+600 21+000 3600 8+650 12+250 3600 Right Type II Samshan, Trees
21+000 20+500 500 12+250 12+750 500 Left Type II Grave
20+500 19+000 1500 12+750 14+250 1500 Right Type II Village, Talab
19+000 18+120 880 14+250 15+100 850 Left Type II Grave
18+120 15+300 2820
15+100 16+440 1340 Kalayat Bypass Type IV Kalayat Town, Existing 4-lane
16+440 16+640 200 Kalayat Bypass Type VII PUP (4.5m)
16+640 18+550 1910 Kalayat Bypass Type IV Kalayat Town, Existing 4-lane
15+300 10+000 5300 18+550 23+700 5150 Left Type II Pond, Buildings & Trees
10+000 8+550 1450 23+700 25+150 1450 Right Type II Building
8+550 6+000 2550 25+150 27+800 2650 Left Type II School, Trees
6+000 4+800 1200 27+800 29+050 1250 Right Type II Trees
4+800 4+450 350 29+050 29+450 400 Left Type II Building
4+450 3+410 1040 29+450 30+500 1050 Right Type II Talab, Village
3+410 +0 3410 30+500 31+950 1450 Narwana Bypass Type IV
31+950 32+400 450 Narwana Bypass Type IXA Flyover Approach Flyover (2x30)
121+400 121+850 450 32+400 32+850 450 Flyover Approach Type IXA ROW 45m Narwana
121+850 122+530 680 32+850 33+530 680 Concentric 4-Lane
with 7.0m SR Type VA ROW 45m Narwana
122+530 123+540 1010 33+530 34+540 1010 Approach with SR
(5.5m) Type IX ROB (36x2)
123+540 124+000 460 34+540 35+000 460 Concentric 4-Lane Type VIII Buildings
124+000 124+400 400 35+000 35+400 400 Approach with SR
(5.5m) Type IX PUP with slip
124+400 126+300 1900 35+400 37+300 1900 Left Type II
126+300 130+400 4100 37+300 41+400 4100 Right Type II Village, HT Tower, building
130+400 130+650 250 41+400 41+600 200 Realign on LHS Type IV Curve Improvement
130+650 131+050 400 41+600 42+000 400 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR Type V ROW 30m
Sachha Khera Village Left but houses on both
sides
131+050 135+350 4300 42+000 46+300 4300 Right Type II Petrol Pumps
135+350 138+060 2710 46+300 47+930 1630 Dhanaudha Bypass Type IV Dhanauda Village
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-17 October 2012
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design Length
(m) Widening TCS-Type Left / Remarks Right / Remarks
From To From To
47+930 48+130 200 Dhanaudha Bypass Type VII PUP (4.5m)
48+130 50+100 1970 Dhanaudha Bypass Type IV Dhanauda Village
138+060 140+360 2300 50+100 52+400 2300 Left Type II Building
140+360 140+760 400 52+400 52+800 400 Realign on LHS Type IV Curve Improvement
140+760 142+600 1840 52+800 54+640 1840 Right Type II
142+600 142+870 270 54+640 54+850 210 Realign on LHS Type IV Curve Improvement, 400 m, Village, left
142+870 153+450 10580 54+850 65+400 10550 Right Type II Buildings, Km 148-149, Km
152-153, Village Left
153+450 156+800 3350 65+400 68+700 3300 Left Type II Trees, Village, Building, Km 154-155, Village
Right, Talab
156+800 157+200 400 68+700 69+100 400 Approach with SR
(5.5m) Type IX PUP with slip
157+200 158+150 950 69+100 70+100 1000 Left Type II
158+150 162+540 4390
70+100 71+450 1350 Barwala Bypass Type IV
71+450 72+150 700 Barwala Bypass Type VII VUP
72+150 73+650 1500 Barwala Bypass Type IV
73+650 74+350 700 Barwala Bypass Type VII VUP
74+350 75+030 680 Barwala Bypass Type IV
75+030 75+730 700 Barwala Bypass Type VII VUP
75+730 77+950 2220 Barwala Bypass Type IV PUP
162+540 162+790 250 77+950 78+200 250 Left Type II Trees
162+790 163+690 900 78+200 79+100 900 ROB Approach Type VI ROB 2 x 36m
163+690 167+840 4150 79+100 83+250 4150 Left Type II Trees
167+840 169+000 1160 83+250 84+410 1160 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR Type V ROW 30m
Village Babal Baria, Expanded more on right side
169+000 169+500 500 84+410 84+910 500 Right Type II Water Treatment Plant
169+500 172+700 3200 84+910 88+110 3200 Left Type II Brick Kiln, Trees, temple Irrigation canalflowing
on either side of road (172.5 backwards), Trees
172+700 174+000 1300 88+110 89+410 1300 Right Type II Village
174+000 178+000 4000 89+410 93+410 4000 Left Type II Before 177, Building line is on either side
178+000 181+100 3100 93+410 96+500 3090 Right Type II Temple, Factory Building
181+100 198+900 17800
96+500 98240 1740 Talwandi Rana Byp Type IV
98+240 98+440 200 Talwandi Rana Byp Type VII PUP (4.5m)
98+440 103+980 5540 Talwandi Rana Byp Type IV
103+980 104+180 200 Talwandi Rana Byp Type VII PUP (4.5m)
104+180 105+250 1070 Talwandi Rana Byp Type IV
105+250 106+150 900 Flyover Approach Type IXA Flyover 2 x 30m
106+150 108+915 2765 Hisar Bypass Type IV
108+915 110+500 1585 ROB Approach Type VI ROB 2 x 36m & VUP
110+500 111745 1245 Hisar Bypass Type IV
111+745 111+945 200 Hisar Bypass Type VII PUP (4.5m)
111+945 117+720 5775 Hisar Bypass Type IV
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-18 October 2012
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design Length
(m) Widening TCS-Type Left / Remarks Right / Remarks
From To From To
117+720 118+620 900 VUP Approach Type VII VUP
118+620 121+800 3180 Hisar Bypass Type IV
121+800 122+400 600 Hisar Bypass Type IXA Flyover Approach Flyover 2 x 30m
198+900 199+250 350 122+400 122+750 350 Flyover Approach Type IXA
199+250 200+700 1450 122+750 124+200 1450 Right Type II
200+700 202+100 1400 124+200 125+600 1400 Left Type II Petrol, pump Temple, Trees, Building
202+100 203+130 1030 125+600 126+630 1030 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR Type V ROW 30m Muklan/Kambha Village Left
203+130 209+000 5870 126+630 132+500 5870 Left Type II Buildings, km 205-206 Left Drain 2.5 km length on RHS
209+000 209+500 500 132+500 133+000 500 Right Type II
209+500 210+580 1080 133+000 134+080 1080 Left Type I 7 m existing BT
210+580 211+500 920 134+080 135+000 920 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR Type V ROW 30m from 133+900 Chowdarywas
211+500 212+300 800 135+000 135+800 800 Left Type I 7 m existing BT
212+300 214+300 2000 135+800 137+800 2000 Right Type I 7 m existing BT
214+300 214+850 550 137+800 138+350 550 Left Type I 7 m existing BT
214+850 217+500 2650
138+350 140+235 1885 Barwa Bypass Type IV
140+235 140+435 200 Barwa Bypass Type VII PUP (4.5m)
140+435 141+650 1215 Barwa Bypass Type IV
217+500 217+790 290 141+650 141+950 300 Realignment LHS Type IV
217+790 218+120 330 141+950 142+280 330 Left Type I 7 m existing BT Factory
218+120 218+540 420 142+280 142+700 420 Realignment LHS Type IV
218+540 218+790 250 142+700 142+950 250 Right Type I 7 m existing BT
218+790 219+350 560 142+950 143+500 550 Left Type I 7 m existing BT
219+350 225+340 5990
143+500 145+700 2200 Siwani Bypass Type IV
145+700 145+900 200 Siwani Bypass Type VII PUP (4.5m)
145+900 148+300 2400 Siwani Bypass Type IV
148+300 149+300 1000 ROB + Flyover
Approach Type VI ROB + Flyover(2 x 36m)+(1 X 30m)
149+300 149+650 350 Siwani Bypass Type IV
225+340 229+550 4210 149+650 153+860 4210 Left Type I Petrol Pump on LHS Railway line on RHS
229+550 230+060 510 153+860 154+370 510 Concentric 4-Lane Type VIII Petrol Pump on LHS Built-up section
230+060 230+520 460 154+370 154+830 460 Left Type I 7 m existing BT Railway line, Left, Curve Improvement is required
230+520 230+800 280 154+830 155+080 250 Realignment LHS Type IV
230+800 232+050 1250 155+080 156+330 1250 Left Type II
232+050 232+900 850 156+330 157+180 850 Realign on LHS Type IV Curve Improvement, 500m
232+900 233+400 500 157+180 157+680 500 Left Type II
233+400 235+300 1900 157+680 159+480 1800 Realign on LHS Type IV Buildings, temple, Realign, Petrol Pump
235+300 238+000 2700 159+480 162+180 2700 Left Type II
238+000 240+200 2200 162+180 164+380 2200 Concentric 4-Lane Type VIII Petrol Pump on LHS Railway Line, Jhumpa Village
240+200 241+580 1380 164+380 165+759 1379 Left Type II
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-19 October 2012
The widening scheme can be summarised as given in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: Summary of Widening Scheme
Cross-Section Type
Description Length
(m)
TCS-I 4-lane Eccentric Widening in Rural Stretches (For Existing 7.0m Carriageway)
10230
TCS-II 4-lane Concentric Widening in Rural Stretches (For Existing
10.0m Carriageway) 86679
TCS-III 4-lane Concentric Widening in Pavement Reconstruction Stretches
0
TCS-IV 4-lane Bypass / Realignment 47845
TCS-V 4-lane Concentric Widening with 5.5m Service Road on both
sides in Semi-urban Sections 3510
TCS-VA 4-lane Concentric Widening with 7.0m Service Road on both sides in Semi-urban Sections
1380
TCS-VI 4-lane ROB and Flyover Approach with RE Wall on Bypass 3485
TCS-VII 4-lane Vehicular Underpass Approaches (with Retaining Wall)
on Bypass 4400
TCS-VIII 4-lane Concentric Widening in Semi-urban stretches with 1.5m median
3170
TCS-IX 4-Lane Underpass, Flyover & ROB Approach with RE Wall and
Service Road (5.5m) 1810
TCS-IXA 4-Lane Underpass, Flyover & ROB Approach with RE Wall and Service Road (7.0m)
3750
Total Design Length (m) 166259
All the above schemes are general policy decisions, these will be dependent on the precise geometric configuration, realignment, re-sectioning, reconstruction, exact land widths available etc. which will refined if required during the next stage.
8.6 Proposal for Bypasses and Realignments
The existing section of NH-65 from Kaithal to Haryana/Rajasthan Border passes through number of town and villages. In general, bypasses are proposed where section of the road passes through heavily built-up area on both side, having poor geometry, commercial activities, mixing of slow moving vehicles and pedestrian influence, limited availability of land width for accommodating the improvement proposal. With these considerations, at the draft Feasibility stage and further site visits and presentations to NHAI Officials bypasses for Kalayat, Narwana, Dhnaudha, Barwala, Hisar, Barwa and Siwani are proposed. Option studies for the bypass alignments have been carried our at the Draft Feasibility stage and presented to NHAI. After joint site visits and presentations to NHAI the bypass alignments have been finalized as presented below. The bypasses have been given an in principal approval by NHAI and thereafter the topographic survey was initiated along the proposed bypass corridors. The summary of Bypasses is presented in Table 8.4 below:
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-20 October 2012
Table 8.4: Summary of Proposed Bypasses
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length (m) Village/ Town
From To From To
18+120 15+300 2820 15+100 18+550 3450 Kalayat Bypass
3+410 0+000 3410 30+500 32+400 1900 Narwana Bypass /
Realignment
135+350 138+060 2710 46+300 50+100 3800 Dhnaudha Bypass
158+150 162+540 4390 70+100 77+950 7850 Barwala Bypass
181+100 198+900 17800 96+500 122+400 25900 Talwandi Rana
and Hisar Bypass
214+850 217+500 2650 138+350 141+650 3300 Barwa Bypass
219+350 225+340 5990 143+500 149+650 6150 Siwani Bypass
Total length (m) 39770
52350
The summary of realignments are presented in Table 8.5 below:
Table 8.5: Summary of Proposed Realignments
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length
(m)
Widening Side From To From To
130+400 130+650 250 41+400 41+600 200 Realignment LHS
140+360 140+760 400 52+400 52+800 400 Realignment LHS
142+600 142+870 270 54+640 54+850 210 Realignment LHS
217+500 217+790 290 141+650 141+950 300 Realignment LHS
218+120 218+540 420 142+280 142+700 420 Realignment LHS
230+520 230+800 280 154+830 155+080 250 Realignment LHS
232+050 232+900 850 156+330 157+180 850 Realignment LHS
233+400 235+300 1900 157+680 159+480 1800 Realignment LHS
Total length (m) 4660
4430
8.6.1 Kalayat Bypass
The settlement area of Kalayat village spans between km 18+700 to km 16+000, with the existing land width being approx. 26.0m considering the building lines. The stretch of 2.45km within the settlement is already of 4-lane configuration and ROW available is inadequate for providing 7.0m wide service road on both sides. Concentric widening of the road at this section with proposed row of minimum 45m will result in considerable demolitions and rehabilitations of existing settlements. Apart from the ROW inadequacy the following also were considered for proposing the bypass:
• Commercial activities on both side of the road • Parking of slow moving vehicles on both side of the 4-lane road resulting an effective
2-lane road in the stretch • Pedestrian movements in the area • Accident frequency inside the settlement area (57 nos. in last 3 years) • Congestion along the built-up area causing increased travel time of through vehicles • Large volume of through traffic
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-21 October 2012
Keeping these in view a bypass has been proposed on the left hand side of the existing road with an approximate proposed length of 3.45 km, starting at existing km 18+120 (design km 15+100) and ending at km 15+300 (design km 18+550) against existing length of 2.82km. The alignment of the bypass is shown in Figure 8.11.
8.6.2 Narwana Bypass / Realignment After the submission of Draft Feasibility report and joint site visits it found that a straight bypass/
realignment joining the Narwana Chowk near PWD Guest House has been found to be a better technical solution. The proposed alignment eliminated the two junctions with NH-71 and thus
eliminating the mixing of NH-71 and NH-65 traffics.
Though in the Inception and Draft Feasibility Stage, a bypass to Narwana town was proposed but in view of the 45m ROW availability and minor acquisition of structures is proposed to have a 4-
lane road with 7.0m service road on both sides within a proposed 45m ROW in Narwana town
area. Keeping these in view a bypass/realignment has been proposed on the right hand side of the existing road with an approximate proposed length of 1.90 km, starting at existing km 3+410 (design km 30+500) and ending at km 0+000 (design km 32+400) against existing length of 3.410km. The alignment of the bypass is shown in Figure 8.12.
8.6.3 Dhnaudha Bypass Bypass to Dhnaudha town has been proposed due to inadequate existing ROW availability to
propose a 4-lane with service road section through the built-up stretch. An acquisition of 45m
ROW shall entitle acquisition of large number of structures. The proposal for the bypass was discussed with NHAI during the joint site visits. Keeping these in view a bypass has been proposed on the right hand side of the existing road with an approximate proposed length of 3.80 km, starting at existing km 135+350 (design km 46+300) and ending at km 138+060 (design km 50+100) against existing length of 2.710 km. The alignment of the bypass is shown in Figure 8.13.
8.6.4 Barwala Bypass The existing project road stretch within Barwala town is of 4-lane configuration over a length of 1.80km. This section requires provision of service road on both side of 7.0m width, but the ROW available is around 28.0m only. The minimum ROW width required for 4-lane with service road is 45.0m. The considerations for the bypass are as follows:
• Commercial activities on both side of the road • Parking of slow moving vehicles on both side of the 4-lane road resulting an effective
2-lane road in the stretch • Pedestrian movements in the area • Accident frequency inside the settlement area (40 nos. in last 3 years) • Congestion along the built-up area causing increased travel time of through vehicles • Large volume of through traffic
Keeping these in view a bypass has been proposed on the left hand side of the existing road with an approximate proposed length of 7.850 km, starting at existing km 158+150 (design km 70+100) and ending at km 162+540 (design km 77+950) against existing length of 4.390 km. The alignment of the bypass is shown in Figure 8.14.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-22 October 2012
8.6.5 Talwandi Rana and Hisar Bypass The Hisar Master Plan-2021 and Draft Development Plan 2025 of Talwandi Rana village wsa collected from Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Hisar. The discussion with DTCP, Hisar officials revealed that there is no ground activity on the alignment shown in the Master Plan. It was desired that as a part of the project the proposed Hisar town and Talwandi Rana village bypass alignment shall be finalized under this project in consultation with the DTCP officials. The alignment options of Hisar Bypass corridors has been studied with respect to the proposed corridor and future developments/sectors/industrial blocks, etc. shown in Master Plans of Hisar and Talwandi Rana and present ground developments in view of avoiding any major resettlement or acquisition of structures. The same has been presented in the Draft Feasibility Report. A 45m ROW within the Talwandi Rana village would acquite a sizable number of structures within the village. Thus a combined bypass to Talwandi Rana and Hisar is proposed. The bypass shall also eliminate mixing of the NH-65 and NH-10 traffic as proposed in the Draft Feasibility Stage. During the joint site visits and presentations it was decided to propose a bypass to Talwandi Rana town.
The considerations for proposing bypass to Hisar Town are as follows:
• Commercial activities on both side of the road • Major government buildings beside the road • Parking of slow moving vehicles on both side of the 4-lane road resulting an effective 2-
lane road in the stretch • Pedestrian movements in the area • Accident frequency inside the settlement area (109 nos. in last 3 years) • Congestion along the built-up area causing increased travel time of through vehicles • Large volume of through traffic
Keeping these in view a bypass has been proposed on the right hand side of the existing road with an approximate proposed length of 25.90 km, starting at existing km 181+100 (design km 96+500) and ending at km 198+900 (design km 122+400) against existing length of 17.80 km. The alignment of the bypass is shown in Figure 8.15.
8.6.6 Barwa Bypass The existing project road stretch within Barwa village is of 2-lane configuration over a length of
1.5km. This stretch is congested due to local slow moving traffic and commercial activities. The
section requires 4-laning but sufficient width of 45m is not available within the village. Apart
from the same the stretch has a substandard horizontal curve as per the set design standards. The considerations for the bypass are as follows:
• Commercial activities on both side of the road • Parking of slow moving vehicles on both side of the road • Pedestrian movements in the area • Accident frequency inside the village • Congestion along the built-up area causing increased travel time of through vehicles • Large volume of through traffic
Keeping these in view a bypass has been proposed on the right hand side of the existing road with an approximate proposed length of 3.3 km, starting at existing km 214+850 (design km 138+350) and ending at km 217+500 (design km 141+650) against existing length of 2.65km. The alignment of the bypass is shown in Figure 8.16.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-23 October 2012
8.6.7 Siwani Bypass
The existing project road stretch within Siwani town is of 4-lane divided configuration for a
length of 1.3km. This stretch is congested due to local slow moving traffic and commercial activities. The section requires construction of service road on both side of 7.0m width, but
the width available is approx. 24.0m only. The minimum ROW required for 4-lane with
service road is 45.0m. The considerations for the bypass are as follows:
• Commercial activities on both side of the road • Parking of slow moving vehicles on both side of the 4-lane road resulting an effective 2-
lane road in the stretch • Pedestrian movements in the area • Accident frequency inside the settlement area (72 nos. in last 3 years) • Congestion along the built-up area causing increased travel time of through vehicles • Large volume of through traffic
Keeping these in view a bypass has been proposed on the right hand side of the existing road with an approximate proposed length of 6.15 km, starting at existing km 219+350 (design km 143+500) and ending at km 225+340 (design km 149+650) against existing length of 5.990km. The alignment of the bypass is shown in Figure 8.17.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-24 October 2012
Figure 8.11: Kalayat Bypass
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-25 October 2012
Figure 8.12: Narwana Bypass/ Realignment
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-26 October 2012
Figure 8.13: Dhanudha Bypass
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-27 October 2012
Figure 8.14: Barwala Bypass
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-28 October 2012
Figure 8.15: Talwandi Rana and Hisar Bypass
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-29 October 2012
Figure 8.16: Barwa Bypass
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-30 October 2012
Figure 8.17: Siwani Bypass
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-31 October 2012
8.7 Homogeneous Sections for Pavement Design
8.7.1 Analysis of Unit Delineation by Cumulative Differences
A relative and straight forward and powerful analytical method for delineating statistically
homogeneous units from pavement response measurements along a highway system is the cumulative difference approach. The method is fundamentally easy to visualize. This approach is
adopted because it is readily adaptable to computerized solution and graphic analysis. This
approach can be used for a wide variety of measured pavement response variables. In order to delineate a pavement length, an attempt is made to isolate each unique factor influencing
potential pavement performance. Performance factors considered for delineating a pavement
length follows:
- Traffic
- Pavement Condition
- CBR - Characteristic Deflection
The project road has been divided into homogeneous road sections on the basis of traffic generation and dispersal nodes located along the project road. The important dispersal/generation
locations identified along the project road include:
� Narwana (Km. 35+600)
� Surewala (Km.55+800)
� Hisar (Km. 102+400)
8.7.2 Homogeneous section for pavement design of widening of existing lane
Considering the above mentioned traffic generation/ distribution points and analysis of traffic data as given in Chapter 5, it was inferred that the total project stretch can be divided into four
homogeneous sections as stated below from the traffic point of view.
S. No. Description Length
in Km
1 Section I : From Kaithal (Km. 0+000) to Narwana (Km. 32+400) 32.40
2 Section II : From Narwana (Km.32+400) to Surewala (Km. 56+300) 23.90
3 Section III : From Surewala (Km.56+300) to Hisar (Km. 96+500) 40.20
4 Section IV : From Hisar (Km. 96+500) to Rajasthan Border (Km.
165+759) 69.259
The traffic volume and CBR parameters are considered in unit delineation of project corridor for the pavement design for widening and reconstruction portions. The selection parameters and
sections are presented in Figure 8.18 and final sections adopted are given in Table 8.6.
Table 8.6 : Homogeneous Sections for Pavement Design of Widening of Existing Lane
Existing Km Existing
Length (m)
Design Km Design
Length (m) Section
From To From To
25+300 24+600 700 7+950 8+650 700 I
121+850 124+400 2550 32+850 35+400 2550 II
130+650 131+050 400 41+600 42+000 400 III
156+800 157+200 400 68+700 69+100 400 IV
167+840 169+000 1160 83+250 84+410 1160 V
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-32 October 2012
Existing Km Existing
Length (m)
Design Km Design
Length (m) Section
From To From To
202+100 203+130 1030 125+600 126+630 1030 VI
209+500 214+850 5350 133+000 138+350 5350 VII
217+790 218+120 330 141+950 142+280 330 VIII
218+540 219+350 810 142+700 143+500 800 IX
225+340 230+520 5180 149+650 154+830 5180 X
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-33 October 2012
Figure 8.18 : Homogeneous Sections for Pavement Design for Widening of Existing Lane
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-34 October 2012
8.7.3 Homogeneous section for overlay and reconstruction of existing lane
The characteristic deflection, pavement condition and traffic volume is considered in unit
delineation of project corridor for overlay design. The selection parameters and sections are
presented in Figure 8.19 and final sections adopted are given in Table 8.7.
Table 8.7 : Homogeneous Sections for Overlay of Existing Lane
Existing Km Existing
Length (m)
Design Km Design
Length
(m)
Section From To From To
33+250 18+120 15130 -0+500 15+100 15100 I
15+300 3+410 11890 18+550 30+500 11950 II
121+850 130+400 8550 32+850 41+400 8550 III
130+650 135+350 4700 41+600 46+300 4700 IV
138+060 140+360 2300 50+100 52+400 2300 V
140+760 142+600 1840 52+800 54+640 1840 VI
142+870 158+150 15280 54+850 70+100 15250 VII
162+540 162+790 250 77+950 78+200 250 VIII
163+690 181+100 17410 79+100 96+500 17400 IX
199+250 214+850 15600 122+750 138+350 15600 X
217+790 218+120 330 141+950 142+280 330 XI
218+540 219+350 810 142+700 143+500 800 XII
225+340 230+520 5180 149+650 154+830 5180 XIII
230+800 232+050 1250 155+080 156+330 1250 XIV
232+900 233+400 500 157+180 157+680 500 XV
235+300 241+580 6280 159+480 165+759 6279 XVI
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-35 October 2012
Figure 8.19: Homogeneous Sections for Pavement design for Overlay of Existing Lane
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-36 October 2012
8.7.4 Homogeneous Section for Pavement Design of New Construction
The traffic volume and borrow area CBR parameters are considered in unit delineation of project
corridor for the pavement design. The selection parameters and sections are presented in
Figure 8.20 and final sections adopted are given in Table 8.8.
Table 8.8 : Homogeneous Sections for New Pavement
From To Length (m) Remarks
0+000 32+400 32400 Section - I
32+400 56+300 23900 Section - II
56+300 96+500 40200 Section - III
96+500 165+759 69259 Section - IV
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8 37 October 2012
Figure 8.20: Homogeneous Sections for New Pavement Design
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-38 October 2012
8.8 Pavement Options
Pavement is the most significant component of a road and therefore its design strengths must be
assured to support the projected traffic loading throughout the design period. Its cost represents
largest proportion of the total construction cost (i.e. about 40% for new roads and about 60% for
rehabilitation projects).
The purpose of the pavement study is to make analysis of different pavement alternatives to
provide a basis for selection of the most advantage solution, considering all costs occurring during the life of the pavement, viz., construction costs, maintenance costs and costs for the road
users.
In pavement option study, the following would be studied in detail:
• New flexible pavement on the widening part and for full reconstruction stretches
• Flexible overlay over the existing pavement
• Flexible Pavement for partial reconstruction stretches of existing pavement.
The different pavement design methods for above pavement options shall be studied and applied, which are given in Table 8.9.
Table 8.9: Pavement Design Methods
Pavement
Option Option Type Design Method
1 New Flexible Pavement IRC: 37-2001
2 Flexible Overlay IRC: 81-1997
3 New Rigid Pavement IRC: 58-2002
8.8.1 IRC: 37-2001 Method of Flexible Pavement Design –Widening and for New construction
The pavement designs given in the previous edition of IRC: 37-1984 was applicable to design traffic upto 30 million standard axles (msa). With the increasing traffic and incidence of
overloading, arterial roads need to be designed for traffic far more than 30 msa. As empirical
methods have limitations regarding their applicability and extrapolation, the analytical method of
design has been used to analyse the existing pavement and develop a new set of designs given in IRC: 37-2001 for design traffic upto 150 msa making use of the results of pavement research
work done in the country.
It gives pavement design catalogue for subgrade CBR values ranging from 2 percent to 10
percent and ten levels of design traffic 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 40, 50, 100, 150 msa. The pavement
composition given in the design catalogue is relevant to Indian conditions, materials and
specifications. For intermediate traffic ranges, the pavement layer thicknesses are interpolated linearly. But for traffic exceeding 150msa, the pavement design appropriate to 150msa has been
chosen and further strengthening shall be carried out to extend the life at the appropriate time
based on pavement deflection measurement as per IRC: 81.
AADT
For the purpose of structural design, only the number of commercial vehicles weighing of three
tones or more and their axle loads are considered. The annual average daily traffic on base year,
from traffic analysis is given in Table 8.10.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-39 October 2012
Table 8.10: Annual Average Daily Traffic in Base year (2011)
Section
Location
(Existing
Chainage,
km)
Details of section LCV &
Tractor
2-Axle
Truck
3-Axle
Truck
M-Axle Truck/
HEM/EMV ( Existing
Chainage)
Bus &
Minibus
I 18+000 0+000 32+400 384 754 472 585 239
II 130+400 32+400 56+300 369 865 758 1055 450
III 180+000 56+300 96+500 607 1012 981 989 410
IV 225+000 96+500 165+759 384 754 472 585 239
Design Life
For the design of pavement, the design life is defined in terms of the cumulative number of
standard axles that can be carried before strengthening of the pavement is necessary.
It is recommended that pavements for National Highways should be designed for a life of 15
years in IRC: 37-2001. However, to enhance the financial viability of the project, pavement
design in stages is adopted satisfying the following minimum design requirements:
The thickness of sub-base and base layers is designed for a minimum design period of 15 years
and the initial bituminous surfacing for a minimum design period of 10 years.
Vehicle Damage Factors
The vehicle damage factor is a multiplier to convert the number of commercial vehicles of different axle loads and axle configuration to the number of standard axle load repetitions. It is
defined as equivalent number of standard axle per commercial vehicle. The VDF varies with the
vehicle axle configuration, axle loading, terrain, type of road and from region to region. The vehicle damage factors arrived and adopted are presented in Table 8.11.
Table 8.11: Vehicle Damage Factors adopted for the Design
Vehicle
Type
Adopted VDF Values
Km 0+000 to
Km 32+400
Km 32+400 to
Km 56+300
Km 56+300 to
Km 96+500
Km 96+500 to
Km 165+759
Kaithal to
Narwana
Narwana to
Surewala
Narwana to
Hisar
Hisar to RJ
Border
BUS 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08
LGV 0.13 0.36 0.06 0.13
2 Axle 2.00 4.31 2.60 4.86
3 Axle 5.99 8.41 5.90 8.39
M Axle 11.37 10.19 14.54 14.65
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-40 October 2012
Design Traffic
The design traffic is considered in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles to be carried
during the design life of the road. This can be computed using the following equation:
N = 365 * [(1+r)n-1] * A * D * F
r
Where,
N=the cumulative number of standard axles to be catered for in the design in terms of msa
A=Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction in terms of the number of commercial
vehicles per day D=Lane distribution factor
F=Vehicle damage factor
n=Design life in years
r=Annual growth rate of commercial vehicles
The traffic has been used from the projected traffic computed in Chapter 5.0.
The directional distribution and lane distribution of traffic is assumed to be 0.5 and 0.75
respectively.
The design traffic is then computed for design life location wise is presented in Annexure 8.1A,
8.1B, 8.1C & 8.1D. The design traffic obtained for each homogeneous section is presented in
Table 8.12.
Table 8.12: Design Traffic in Million Standard Axles
Design Period
Stretch
Kaithal -
Narwana
Narwana -
Surewala
Surewala -
Hisar
Hisar - RJ
Border
Km 0+000
to Km
32+400
Km 32+400
to Km
56+300
Km 56+300
to Km
96+500
Km 96+500 to
Km 165+759
10 years 17 39 34 50
15 years 32 71 61 90
Adopted MSA 32 71 61 90
CBR Value
The average CBR value of existing subgrade soil for the entire stretch is considered as 8%.
Pavement Materials
The general specification sections and characterization of material is presented in Table 8.13.
Table 8.13: Materials Specification and Characterisation
Sl. No. Pavement Layers and
Materials
Sections
Details Remarks
1 Embankment Construction Section 305
2 Subgrade Section 305 Minimum Soaked CBR 8%
3 Granular Sub-base
Upper Layer
Lower Layer
Section 401 Minimum compacted thickness 100mm
Grading I of Table 400-1
Grading I of Table 400-2
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-41 October 2012
Sl. No. Pavement Layers and
Materials
Sections
Details Remarks
4 Base Course-WMM Section 406 Thickness of single layer shall be 75mm-200mm
5 Prime Coat Section 502
6 Tack Coat Section 503
7 Bituminous Macadam Section 504 Thickness of single layer shall be 50mm-100mm
8 Dense Bituminous Macadam Section 507 Thickness of single layer shall be 50mm-
100mm
9 Bituminous Concrete Section 512 Thickness of single layer shall be 25mm-100mm
10 Dry Lean concrete Section 601 Thickness of single layer shall be 100 mm
and 150 mm
11 Pavement Quality Concrete Section 602 Minimum compacted thickness of 140mm
The flexible pavements would be designed as a multi-layer system consisting of typical
component layers, namely sub-base, base course, binder course and surface course. Generally
sub-base course consist of granular materials laid in one or more layers of same or different materials, depending upon availability of materials and cost. The base course may generally
consist of Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) laid in layers of same or different gradings, depending
upon the thickness requirements, machinery and cost. The binder and surfacing courses generally consist of layers of bituminous mixes of different specifications. As the lower pavement layers
are subjected to lesser magnitude of stresses, materials of lower strength could be made use of in
the lower pavement layers. Superior pavement materials, which could withstand higher stresses and also wear and tear due to traffic and environmental factors, are used in upper layers.
The flexible pavement thicknesses required for pavement widening and New Pavement of
stretches is given in Table 8.14 & Table 8.15.
Existing ground to be checked for suitability and loosened, recomputed to desired MDD
Table 8.14 : Flexible Pavement Thickness for Widening of Existing Lane
Design Chainage
Design
Traffic
(MSA) CBR of
Subgrade
(%)
Proposed Pavement Thickness (mm)
Designed
for 10 years
Designed for 15
Years TOTAL
From To 10
Years
15
Years BC DBM WMM GSB
-0+500 32+400 17 32 8 40 80 250 200 570
32+400 56+300 38 71 8 40 110 250 200 600
56+300 96+500 34 61 8 40 105 250 200 595
96+500 165+759 50 90 8 40 120 250 200 610
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-42 October 2012
Table 8.15: Flexible Pavement Thickness for New pavement and Reconstruction Stretches
Design Chainage
Design
Traffic
(MSA)
CBR of
Subgrade
(%)
Proposed Pavement Thickness (mm)
Designed
for 10 years
Designed for 15
years TOTAL
From To 10
years
15
years BC DBM WMM GSB
-0+500 32+400 17 32 8 40 80 250 200 570
32+400 56+300 38 71 8 40 110 250 200 600
56+300 96+500 34 61 8 40 105 250 200 595
96+500 165+759 50 90 8 40 120 250 200 610
8.8.2 IRC: 81-1997 Method of Flexible Overlay – For Strengthening of Existing Pavement
The average characteristic deflection (Dc) values to be used for design purposes have been worked from BBD survey. The design traffic in terms of cumulative standard number of axle
with respect to homogeneous traffic sections is already given in Table 8.18. The thicknesses are
deduced from Figure 9 of IRC 81-1997 in terms of bituminous macadam construction. Since the materials specified in wearing course of widening portion are BC/DBM, the thicknesses obtained
in terms of BM should be determined using equivalency factors:
1cm of Bituminous Macadam = 1.5cm of WBM/Wet Mix Macadam/BUSG
1cm of Bituminous Macadam = 0.7cm of DBM/AC/SDBC
The overlay thickness calculated and proposed is presented in Table 8.16.
Table 8.16: Proposed Overlay Thicknesses on existing lane
Design Km Design
Length
(m)
Design
Traffic
(MSA)
Avg.
Characteristic
Deflection
Thickness
in BM
(mm)
Thickness
in term of
BC/DBM
(mm)
Proposed
Composition and
Thickness (mm)
From To BC DBM
-0+500 5+250 5750 17 0.995 54 38 40 50
5+250 15+100 9850 17 1.073 72 51 40 50
18+550 30+500 11950 17 1.027 62 44 40 50
32+850 35+600 2750 38 0.997 86 61 40 50
35+600 41+400 5800 38 1.112 109 77 40 50
41+600 42+650 1050 38 1.112 109 77 40 50
42+650 46+300 3650 38 1.090 104 73 40 50
50+100 52+400 2300 38 1.164 119 84 40 50
52+800 54+640 1840 38 1.164 119 84 40 50
54+850 56+650 1800 38 1.164 119 84 40 50
56+650 64+500 7850 34 1.115 106 75 40 50
64+500 69+100 4600 34 1.188 120 84 40 50
69+100 70+100 1000 34 1.193 121 85 40 50
77+950 78+200 250 34 1.193 121 85 40 50
79+100 91+400 12300 34 1.193 121 85 40 50
91+400 96+500 5100 34 1.103 104 73 40 50
122+750 133+800 11050 50 0.975 91 64 40 50
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-43 October 2012
Design Km Design
Length
(m)
Design
Traffic
(MSA)
Avg.
Characteristic
Deflection
Thickness
in BM
(mm)
Thickness
in term of
BC/DBM
(mm)
Proposed
Composition and
Thickness (mm)
From To BC DBM
133+800 138+350 4550 50 1.082 113 80 40 50
141+950 142+280 330 50 1.114 119 84 40 50
142+700 143+500 800 50 1.114 119 84 40 50
149+650 154+830 5180 50 1.121 121 85 40 50
155+080 156+330 1250 50 1.121 121 85 40 50
157+180 157+680 500 50 1.121 121 85 40 50
159+480 165+759 6279 50 1.121 121 85 40 50
8.8.3 IRC: 58-2002 Method of Rigid Pavement Design – For Toll Plaza locations
Rigid pavement for new carriageway has been designed as per IRC: 58-2002.
Wheel Load
A tyre pressure of 8 kg/cm
2 may be adopted for the design.
For important roads, such as Expressways, National Highways and other roads where there will
be uninterrupted traffic flow and high volume of truck traffic, the suggested value of Load Safety Factor (LSF) is 1.2. For roads of lesser importance having lower proportion of truck traffic, LSF
may be taken as 1.1. For residential and other streets that carry small number of commercial
traffic, the LSF may be taken as 1.0.
It is recommended that the basic design of the slab be done with a 98th percentile axle load, and
the design thereafter checked by for fatigue consumption for higher axle loads.
Design Period
Normally, cement concrete pavements have a life span of 30 years and should be designed for
this period.
Design Traffic
Design traffic of 25 per cent of the total two- lane two-way commercial vehicles may be
considered as a very conservative estimate for design against fatigue failure. In case of four-lane
and multi-lane divided highways, 25 per cent of the total traffic in the direction of predominant
traffic may be taken for design of pavement.
Temperature Differential
Temperature differential between the top and bottom of pavements causes the concrete slab to warp, giving rise to stresses. For this purpose, guidance may be had from Table 8.17.
Table 8.17: Recommended Temperature Differentials for Concrete
Zone States
Temperatures Differentials, 0C in
Slabs of Thickness
15cm 20cm 25cm 30cm
I Punjab, U.P., Uttaranchal, Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Haryana and North M.P., excluding hilly regions.
12.5 13.1 14.3 15.8
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-44 October 2012
Characteristics of Subgrade and Sub-Base
The strength of subgrade is expressed in terms of modulus of subgrade reaction k, which is
defined as pressure per unit deflection of the foundation as determined by plate bearing tests. An
approximate idea of k-value of a homogeneous soil subgrade may be obtained from its soaked CBR value-using Table 8.18.
Table 8.18: Approximate k-value corresponding to CBR Values for
Homogeneous Soil Subgrade
Soaked CBR Value % 2 3 4 5 7 10 15 20 50 100
k-value (kg/cm2/cm) 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.8 5.5 6.2 6.9 14.0 22.2
The approximate increase in k-values of subgrade due to different thicknesses of sub-bases made
up of untreated granular, cement treated granular material and dry lean concrete (DLC) layers
may be taken from Tables 8.19 and 8.20. Unconfined compressive strength of cement treated granular material should be a minimum of 2.1 MPa and compressive strength of DLC should be
7 MPa at 7 days.
Table 8.19: k-Values over Granular and Cement Treated Sub-bases
k-value
(kg/cm2/cm)
Effective k (kg/cm2/cm) over untreated
granular layer sub-base of thickness in
cm
Effective k (kg/cm2/cm) over
cement treated sub-base of
thickness in cm
15 22.5 30 10 15 20
2.8 3.9 4.4 5.3 7.6 10.8 14.1
5.6 6.3 7.5 8.8 12.7 17.3 22.5
8.4 9.2 10.2 11.9 - - -
Table 8.20: k-Values over Dry Lean Concrete Sub-base
k-value of Subgrade (kg/cm2/cm) 2.1 2.8 4.2 4.8 5.5 6.2
Effective k over 100 mm DLC,
(kg/cm2/cm)
5.6 9.7 16.6 20.8 27.8 38.9
Effective k over 150 mm DLC, (kg/cm
2/cm)
9.7 13.8 20.8 27.7 41.7 -
Separation Layer between sub-base and pavement:
Foundation layer below concrete slabs should be smooth to reduce the inter layer friction. A
separation membrane of minimum thickness of 125 micron polythene is recommended to reduce
the friction (Ref. IRC: 15-2002) between concrete slabs and dry lean concrete sub-base (DLC).
Drainage Layer
In order to facilitate quick disposal of water that is likely to enter subgrade, a drainage layer of
150mm thick GSB has been considered as per IRC: 15-2002.
Characteristics of Concrete
Flexural strength of plain concrete as per IS: 456-1978 is given as
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-45 October 2012
fcr = ckf0.7x
Where fcr = flexural strength (modulus of rupture), N/mm
2
fck = Characteristic compressive cube strength concrete, N/mm2
According to Croney and Croney,
fcr = 0.49 x fck0.55 for gravel aggregates and fcr = 0.36 x fck0.7 for crushed aggregates
For M-40 concrete, fcr values from the above three equations are obtained as 44.27 (IS: 456),
37.26 (gravel) and 47.61 kg/cm2 (crushed rock) respectively. Hence a flexural strength of 45
kg/cm2 is recommended for M-40 concrete.
The recommended value of modulus of elasticity of pavement concrete is 3x105 kg/cm
2.
Pavement concrete is subjected to dynamic loading and the ratio of static and dynamic moduli on
the same concrete is found as 0.8. The modulus value increases both with age and strength but
the variation is small.
A Poisson’s Ratio of 0.15 is considered.
The coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete (Alpha) of the same mix proportions varies with the type of aggregate. However, for design purpose, a value of (Alpha) = I0XI0-
6 per 0
C may be
adopted in all cases.
The ratio between the flexural stress due to the load and the flexural strength of concrete is
termed as the stress ratio (SR). If the SR is less than 0.45, the concrete is expected to sustain
infinite number of repetitions. As the stress ratio increases, the number of load repetitions
required to cause cracking decreases. The relation between fatigue life (N) and stress ratio is given as:
N= unlimited for SR< 0.45
N=
268.3
4325.0
2577.4
−SRWhen 0.45<SR< 0.55
Log N =
−
0828.0
9718.0 SR for SR > 0.55
The designed thickness obtained from IRC 58-2002 for the Toll Plaza locations at km 27+700,
km 86+000 and km 159+100 is presented in Table 8.21. The design calculations are given in
Annexure 8.2.
Table 8.21: Proposed Rigid Pavement thickness at all
Toll Plaza Locations
Material Type Thickness (mm)
Pavement Quality Concrete (M-40) 300
Dry Lean Concrete (M-10) 150
Granular Sub-base 150
Subgrade 500
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-46 October 2012
8.9 Junctions Design
Road junction/intersection is a key element of highway design. The efficiency, safety, speed, cost
of operation and capacity of road system depends very much on the intersection design. The
choice between an at-grade and grade separated junctions at a particular site depends upon
various factors such as traffic, economy, safety, aesthetic delay etc. Grade separated junctions generally are more expensive initially and are justified in certain situations. The main objective
of intersection design is to reduce the severity of potential conflicts between motor vehicles,
buses, trucks, bicycles, pedestrians and facilities while facilitating the convenience, ease, safety and comfort of people traversing the intersections. The design should be fitted closely to the
natural transitional paths and operating characteristics of the users.
Design of a safe intersection depends on many factors as given below:
� Human factors
� Traffic considerations (mainly design hour turning movements, type of movement and vehicle speeds)
� Road and environmental considerations (sight distance, conflict area, geometric features)
� Economic factors.
Generally intersections can be classified in to three categories depending on the traffic
conditions. These are
� Uncontrolled intersections at-grade;
� Intersections with Priority Control;
� Time separated / signalised intersection at-grade; � Space separated intersections/Grade separated intersections
8.9.1 General Criterion for improvement proposal at junctions
• A signalised intersection besides other warrants is justified if the major street has a traffic
volume of 650 to 800 vehicles per hour (both directions) and Minor Street has 200 to 250
vehicles per hour in one direction only. The detailed warrants for signalised intersection are
laid down as per IRC: 93-1985.
• The vehicular under/overpass structures will be provided at the intersection of the Project
Highway with all the National Highways and State Highways. Such under/over passes will
also be provided across other categories of roads carrying an average daily traffic of more
than 5000 PCUs on the date of inviting bids.(As per Clause:2.13.2, IRC:SP:84-2009)
• An interchange, besides any overriding necessity, is justified when the total traffic of all the
arms of the intersection is in excess of 10,000 PCU’s per hour. The detailed warrants for
interchanges are given in IRC: 92-1985.
• Grade separations should be provided across existing railway crossings if the product of ADT
(fast vehicles only) and the number of trains per day exceeds 50,000 within the next 5 years.
For new constructions such as bypasses, grade separations should be provided when this
figure is greater than 25,000.
The turning movement surveys for estimation of peak hour traffic for the design of major intersection have been carried out. The details regarding composition and directional movement
of traffic is furnished in Chapter 5. The data derived from surveys were analysed to identify
requirements of suitable remedial measures, such as construction of underpasses, flyovers, interchanges, and grade-separated intersections along the project road alignment.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-47 October 2012
The geometric design of junctions has been done taking in to account the site conditions, turning
movement characteristics, level of services, overall economy and operational safety.
8.9.2 Details of Junctions improvement proposal
Existing 3 major and 49 minor junctions are proposed to be improved as a part of 4 laning project.
Cross roads with paved carriageway are only considered for development of the junction. The major and minor junctions forming with National Highways, State highways and District roads are
listed in Table 8.22.
Table 8.22: Existing Junction Improvement Locations
A) Major Junctions
Sl.
No.
Existing
Km
Design
Km
Type of
Junction Side
Type of
Road
Width
(m) Leading to
1 18+120 15+100 Y RHS BT 10.0 Kalayat village
2 15+300 18+550 Y RHS BT 10.0 Kalayat village
3 3+410 30+500 Y LHS BT 10.0 NH-71
4 135+350 46+300 Y LHS BT 10.0 Dhnaudha
village
5 138+060 50+100 Y LHS BT 10.0 Dhnaudha
village
6
144+390 56+365 X
Straight BT 7.0 Phulana
RHS BT 7.0 Tohana
7 158+150 70+100 Y RHS BT 10.0 Barwala town
8 162+540 77+950 Y RHS BT 10.0 Barwala town
9 165+630 81+055 T RHS BT 5.5 x 2 Thermal
Power Plant
10 181+100 96+500 Y LHS BT 10.0
Talwandi Rana
and Hisar towns
11 214+850 138+350 Y LHS BT 7.0 Barwa village
12 217+500 141+650 Y LHS BT 7.0 Barwa village
13 219+350 143+500 Y LHS BT 7.0 Siwani town
14 225+340 149+650 Y RHS BT 7.0 Siwani town
B) Minor Junctions
Sl.
No.
Existing
Km
Design
Km
Type of
Junction Side
Type of
Road
Width
(m) Leading to
1 30+355 2+895 T RHS BT 3.0 Village
2 30+000 3+255 T LHS BT 3.0 Guliyana
3 29+180 4+130 T RHS BT 3.0 Tohana
4 28+330 4+910 T LHS BT 5.5 Kelram
5 26+600 6+585 T RHS BT 3.0 Village
6 24+750 8+510 T RHS BT 3.0 Village
7 25+090 8+150 T RHS BT 3.0 Village
8 Kalayat 17+580 X Both BT 3.0 Kalayat
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-48 October 2012
Sl.
No.
Existing
Km
Design
Km
Type of
Junction Side
Type of
Road
Width
(m) Leading to
Bypass
9 13+975 19+880 T RHS BT 7.0 Village
10 12+085 21+875 T LHS BT 5.0 Village
11 9+845 23+865 T LHS BT 5.0 Viudrana
12 8+125 25+585 T LHS BT 5.0 Hatho
13 4+000 29+950 X LHS BT 3.0 Dhakal
RHS BT 3.0 Narwana
14 125+095 36+080 T LHS BT 3.0 Village
15 126+415 37+400 T LHS BT 3.0 Sundarpura
16 126+690 37+675 T RHS BT 3.0 Dabhane
17 130+350 41+905 T LHS BT 3.5 Sacchakheda
18 130+880 41+350 X LHS BT 3.5 IFFCO
RHS BT 3.5 Village
19 135+540 46+500 T RHS BT 3.5 Bikhewala
20 Dhanaudha
Bypass 49+105 X Both BT 3.5 Dhnaudha
21 143+010 54+980 T LHS BT 3.5 Litani
22 146+620 58+585 T RHS BT 3.0 Village
23 146+700 58+655 T LHS BT 5.5 Litani
24 152+645 64+600 T RHS BT 5.5 Drugwala
25 154+970 66+925 T LHS BT 3.5 Gobipur
26 Barwala
Bypass 71+130 X Both BT 3.5 Barwala
27 168+305 83+700 T RHS BT 5.0 Zewara
28 168+845 84+275 T RHS BT 5.0 Kirada
29 172+930 88+365 T LHS BT 5.0 Rajli
30 173+900 89+345 T RHS BT 5.0 Kheri Paleri
31 174+615 90+035 X LHS BT 3.0 Village
RHS CC 5.0 Bahbalpur
32 175+614 91+050 T LHS BT 3.5 Dhiktana
33 176+245 91+680 T LHS BT 5.0 Bagan
34 178+950 94+355 X LHS BT 3.0 Institute
RHS BT 3.0 Village
35 179+500 94+905 T RHS BT 3.0 Juglan
36 Hisar
Bypass 106+845 X Both BT 3.5 Hisar
37 Hisar
Bypass 113+765 X Both BT 3.5 Hisar
38 Hisar
Bypass 119+685 X Both BT 3.5 Hisar
39 Barwa Bypass
138+710 X Both BT 3.5 Barwa
40 Siwani
Bypass 146+868 X Both BT 5.5 Siwani
41 199+140 122+635 T RHS BT 5.5 Tokar
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-49 October 2012
Sl.
No.
Existing
Km
Design
Km
Type of
Junction Side
Type of
Road
Width
(m) Leading to
42 199+530 123+025 T LHS BT 5.5 Deewa
43 202+755 126+260 T RHS BT 5.0 Rawalvas Kol
44 203+245 126+740 T LHS BT 5.5 Chidod
45 205+695 129+225 X LHS BT 3.5 Perivar
RHS BT 3.5 Kalawar
46 206+690 130+220 X LHS BT 3.5 College
RHS BT 3.5 Periwar
47 210+645 134+145 X LHS BT 5.5 Village
RHS BT 5.5 Choudhrywas
48 225+340 149+650 Y RHS BT 7.0 Siwani
49 227+860 152+145 T LHS BT 5.5 Gondwas
50 230+815 155+100 T RHS BT 3.0 Ashram
51 232+272 156+500 Y LHS BT 3.0 Village
52 234+000 158+225 T RHS BT 5.0 Village
53 236+334 160+508 T LHS CC 4.5 Village
54 240+020 164+200 T LHS BT 7.0 Jhunpa
55 240+462 164+639 T RHS BT 3.5 Village
56 240+473 164+650 T LHS CC 4.0 Village
57 240+879 165+056 Y LHS BR 4.5 Village
Note: All other junctions as listed in the development proposal chapter other than above will be
developed as priority controlled signalized junction.
New at-grade major junctions are proposed at the start and end points of proposed bypasses as
given in Table 8.23 below, the same are also indicated in Table above:
Table 8.23: Proposed New Junction Locations
Sl.
No. Existing Km Design
Km Location
Junction/
Interchange Type
1 18+120 15+100 Kalayat Bypass start Y-Junction
2 15+300 18+550 Kalayat Bypass end Y-Junction
3 3+410 30+500 Narwana Bypass/realignment
start Y-Junction
4 0+000 32+400
Narwana
Bypass/realignment end,
Crossing on NH-71
Grade Separator
(2x 30m)
5 135+350 46+300 Dhanaudha Bypass start Y-Junction
6 138+060 50+100 Dhanaudha Bypass end Y-Junction
7 158+150 70+100 Barwala Bypass start Y-Junction
8 162+540 77+950 Barwala Bypass end Y-Junction
9 181+100 96+500 Hisar Bypass start Y-Junction
10 175+200 of
NH-10 105+250 Crossing of NH-10
Grade Separator
(2x 30m)
11 198+900 122+400 Hisar Bypass end Grade Separator
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-50 October 2012
Sl.
No. Existing Km Design
Km Location
Junction/
Interchange Type
(2x 30m)
12 214+850 138+350 Barwa Bypass start Y-Junction
13 217+500 141+650 Barwa Bypass end Y-Junction
14 219+350 143+500 Siwani Bypass start Y-Junction
15 225+340 149+650 Siwani Bypass end Y-Junction
The traffic flow pattern at the Hisar bypass end is presented in the Figure 8.21 below.
Figure 8.21: Traffic Circulation Plan at Hisar Bypass End
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-51 October 2012
8.10 Design of Bridges
8.10.1 Existing Bridges
There are total 8 bridges on this route. All the 8 bridges are minor bridges. The existing bridges are on Irrigation canals. All are slab bridges. Most of the bridges have brick masonry as
substructure and foundations.
Following criteria are checked to assess the requirement / possibility of widening and
reconstruction of the existing bridges:
• The Design loading of the existing structures.
• If the width of additional widening is 1.0m (0.5 m on each side) or less, the widening of the
structure may be dispensed with and traffic shall be guided with the help of crash barriers in
a transition of 1 in 20 on either side approaches.
• All existing bridges which are structurally distressed shall be reconstructed as new bridge
• All existing brick arch bridge if any shall be dismantled and replaced by a new bridge
8.10.2 Proposal of New Bridges
The existing 3 bridges with load classification lesser than 70R have been proposed to be
reconstructed on upstream side or on downstream side as per site requirement. Span arrangement has been kept either similar to the existing bridges or a combination of two/three spans has
been adopted as per site conditions and hydraulic parameters. The new proposals are based on
the “IRC: SP: 84-2009, Manual of Specification and Standards for four laning of National Highways through Public Private Partnership”.
The summary giving condition of existing bridges and their development proposal is presented in
Table 8.24 and the proposal for new bridges is presented in Table 8.25.
Typical cross sections at deck level for bridges with and without footpaths are given in Figure 8.22 to Figure 8.25.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-52 October 2012
Figure 8.22: Cross Section of Bridge at Deck Level- with Footpath for 4-Lane Divided Highway
(Both sides new Bridges for 4-Lane Standards)
Figure 8.23: Cross Section of Bridge at Deck Level- with Footpath for 4-Lane Divided Highway
(Both sides new Bridges for 6-Lane Standards)
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-53 October 2012
Figure 8.24: Cross Section of Bridge at Deck Level- with Footpath for 4-Lane Divided Highway
(One side New 2-Lane Bridge and other sides Existing 2-Lane Bridge)
Figure 8.25: Cross Section of Bridge at Deck Level- without Footpath for 4-Lane Divided Highway
(One side New 2-Lane Bridge and other sides Existing 2-Lane Bridge)
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-54 October 2012
Table 8.24: Development Scheme of Existing Bridges
Sl. No.
Existing
Chainage
(Km.)
Type of
Structure
Span (m)
No of Span
x Effective
Span L
Carriageway
Width
( m )
Year of
Construction Remark
Proposed Span
Arrangement
(No. Xlength) Development Proposal for Bridges
1 20+200 RCC Slab 3 x 8.0 7.6 1994 Fair. 3 x 8.0
A new bridge of 4-lane configuration needs
to be constructed as the existing bridge is of
load classification less than 70R.
2 1+400 RCC Slab 3 x 8.3 6.4 N.A Fair/Repair
reqd. -
This bridge is to be bypassed as Narwana
Bypass
3 140+800 RCC Slab 3 x 5.6 7.9 1955 Fair. 2 x 10.0 Existing bridge is old bridge and it is to be dismantled and a new bridge of 4-Lane
configuration is to be constructed.
4 150+480 RCC Slab 2 x 7.5 11.5 2002 Good 2 x 7.50
The existing bridge is to be retained with repair measures and new bridge of 2-Lane
configuration will be constructed parallel to
the existing bridge.
5 172+630 RCC Slab 2 x 3.5 7.5 1955 Fair 1 x 10.0 A new bridge of 4-lane configuration needs to be constructed as the existing bridge is of
load classification less than 70R.
6 194+100 RCC Slab 3 x 4.0 7.7 1978 Bad - This bridge is to be bypassed as Hisar
Bypass
7 199+630 RCC Slab 1 x 11.0 11.0 2007 Fair/Repair
reqd. 1 x 11.0
The existing bridge is to be retained with repair measures and new bridge of 2-Lane
configuration will be constructed parallel to
the existing bridge.
8 213+500 RCC Slab 1 x 7.7 9.7 1968 Fair 1x10 A new bridge of 4-lane configuration needs to be constructed as the existing bridge is of
load classification less than 70R.
Effectively 6 minor bridges out of 8 minor bridges are to be developed as part of the 4-laing project.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-55 October 2012
Table 8.25: Development scheme of New Bridges on Bypasses
Sl.
No.
Bridge
Type Location
Design
Chainage
(Km)
Type of Crossing
Tentative Span (m)
No. of Span x
Effective Span L
Total
length (m)
Carriageway
Width
( m )
Type of
Structure
1 Minor Narwana
Bypass 31+290 Irrigation Canal 1 x 35.0 35.0 12.0 x 2 PSC I-girder
2 Minor Barwala Bypass
72+784 Irrigation Canal 2 x 20.0 40.0 12.0 x 2 RCC T-Beam
3 Minor Barwala
Bypass 76+690 Irrigation Canal 1 x 10.0 10.0 12.0 x 2 Slab
4 Minor Hisar
Bypass 108+380 Irrigation Canal 1 x 15.0 (skew) 15.0 12.0 x 2 RCC T-Beam
5 Minor Hisar
Bypass 113+043 Nala 2 x 15.0 30.0 12.0 x 2 RCC T-Beam
6 Minor Hisar
Bypass 116+910 Irrigation Canal 1 x 25.0 25.0 12.0 x 2 PSC I-girder
7 Minor Hisar
Bypass 120+745 Irrigation Canal 1 x 20.0 20.0 12.0 x 2 RCC T-Beam
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-56 October 2012
8.10.3 Improvement Proposal of Railway Level Crossings
The project road crosses railway tracks at 3 locations. As per Clause 2.13.4 of IRC: SP: 84-2009
the existing level crossing shall be replaced by Railway Over Bridges (ROBs) at all these 3
locations along the project road.
One existing ROB in the Hisar town, has been bypassed, therefore no improvement proposal has
been made inside the Hisar town. However, the proposed Hisar Town Bypass crosses the Railway line at one location at km 110+000 (Design Chainage) in the form of ROB. The
improvement proposal for the railway crossings is presented in Table 8.26.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-57 October 2012
Table 8.26: Development Proposal for Railway Level Crossings
Sl. No.
Existing
Chainage
(km)
Design
Chainage (km)
Number of
Tracks
Development Proposal
Remark Bridge Type Width
Span
arrangement
(Nos. x length)
(m)
1 123+000 34+040 Double Track Steel Composite 2x12.0m 2 x 36.0m Existing LC is to be replaced by a ROB
2 163+200 78+670 Single Track Steel Composite 2x12.0m 2 x 36.0m Existing LC is to be replaced by a ROB
3 191+100 110+000 Double Track Steel Composite 2x12.0m 2 x 36.0m On proposed Hisar town bypass
4 221+000 148+790 Single Track Steel Composite 2x12.0m
2 x 36.0m
(continued as
Flyover)
On Siwani bypass, existing LC to be retained
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-58 October 2012
8.10.4 Proposal for Vehicular Underpass and Pedestrian Underpass
The vehicular under/overpass structures will be provided at the intersection of the Project
Highway with all the National Highways and State Highways. Such under/over passes will also
be provided across other categories of roads carrying an average daily traffic of more than 5000
PCUs on the date of inviting bids. (As per Clause:2.13.2, IRC:SP:84-2009).
Turning movement count carried out on major junctions along the project highway and it
analysis is given in Chapter 5.
Structural details of the proposed Vehicular Underpass (VUP) along the project road are given in
Table 8.27.
Table 8.27: Details of Proposed VUP
Sl.
No.
Existing Chainage
(Km)
Design Chainage
(Km)
Name of
Intersecting
Roads
Proposed Structure
Type
Structure
Dimension (m)
No.x L x H
Over all width in
m
Villages/ Towns
connected
Population of Bypassed
Town
Justifica-
tion
1 Barwala
Byp. 71+800 MDR Box Type 1 x 12.0 x 5.5 2 x 12.0
Kharkhada &
Hasangarh 33,130
ADT = 4866 PCU, but
connects to
Uchana
2 Barwala
Byp. 74+000 SH-10 Box Type 1 x 12.0 x 5.5 2 x 12.0 Jind 33,130
As per 4-laning
Manual
3 Barwala
Byp. 75+380 SH-17 Box Type 1 x 12.0 x 5.5 2 x 12.0 Hansi 33,130
As per 4-laning
Manual
4 Hisar Byp. 109+265 MDR Box Type 1 x 12.0 x 5.5 2 x 12.0 Neoli Kalan,
Kabrel, Bagla 1,742,815
ADT > 5000
PCU
5 Hisar Byp. 118+168 MDR 107 Box Type 1 x 12.0 x 5.5 2 x 12.0 Balsamand 1,742,815 ADT > 5000
PCU
As per IRC:SP:84-2009 Clause 2.13.3, the cross road to be carried over the 4-lane highway in rural sections. But due to the following reasons the project highway has been taken over the
cross-roads.
• The land available along the cross roads vary from 15m for MDRs and 18m for SHs. This
width is insufficient for construction of the new approaches along the cross roads in case the
cross road is taken above the project highway. Extra land need to be acquired in addition to
the land being acquired for the project highway.
• Also in case the cross road is taken above a 2x30m flyover structure need to be constructed
to cross the proposed ROW (60m) of the project highway whereas a box structure of 12m x 5.5m is proposed in case of the VUPs.
At the proposed PUP/CUP locations the project highway has been taken above and subway has not been considered due to the following reasons:
• As per IRC:103-1988, the subway need to be kept closed during night time which will force
the pedestrian to cross the highway at night thus posing serious safety hazards.
• The underpasses locations are susceptible to drainage and submergence problems.
• The underpasses in rural locations and near ponds are susceptible submergence problems
due to low ground water level conditions (near ponds) specially during monsoon seasons
Structural details of the proposed Pedestrian Underpass (PUP) and Cattle Underpass (CUP) along
the project road are given in Table 8.28.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-59 October 2012
Table 8.28: Details of Proposed PUP/CUP
Sl. No.
Existing
Chainage
(Km)
Design
Chainage
(Km)
Proposed
Structure
Type
Structure
Dimension (m) Remarks Village/ Town
connected
Population as per
2001 Census No. of Cattles Justification
No. x L x H
1 24+600 8+650 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Samshan Bata Sadhan village 12,417 - Samshan
2 19+500 13+730 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Cattle pass Kharak Pandwan 5,919 2678 Pond
3 Kalayat bypass
16+538 Box type 1x7.0x4.5 Village Road
Kalayat 17,051 - Kalayat is Tehsil HQ of Kalayat Tehsil and have medical and educational
facilities catering to nearby villages.
4 14+200 19+700 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Cattle pass Pinjupura 1,984 446 Pond
5 Narwana
bypass 31+600 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Cattle pass Narwana 50,659 -
No road is present at the location but the propoased bypass is shall block
some earthen tracks through the fields. No passsage is present over a length of 1.5km, a cattle underpass is required for throughfare.
6 124+250 35+200 Box type
(with 5.5m Sr.
Rd.)
1x7.0x4.5 Religious
structure &
School
Narwana 50,659 - Public gathering and pedestrian movements were observed which may
pose safety hazard while crossing 4-lane road
7 130+210 41+200 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Cattle pass Saccha Kheda 3,152 705 Pond
8 Dhanaudha
bypass 48+026 Box type 1x7.0x4.5
Village Road
Danauda 10,870 - Dhnaudha Khurd and Dhnauda Kalan are twin villages of Narwana Tehsil
and have medical and educational facilities catering to nearby villages.
9 152+240 64+200 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Cattle pass Ghaibipur 5,423 958 Pond
10 157+000 68+900 Box type
(with 5.5m Sr.
Rd.)
1x7.0x4.5 Religious
structure Barwala 33,130 -
Public gathering and pedestrian movements were observed which may
pose safety hazard while crossing 4-lane road
11 Barwala bypass
77+200 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Cattle pass Barwala 33,130 -
Barwala Town is Tehsil HQ of Barwala Tehsil and have medical and educational facilities catering to nearby villages.
No road is present at the location but the propoased bypass is shall block
some earthen tracks through the fields. No passsage is present over a length of 2.8km, a cattle underpass is required for throughfare.
12 Hisar bypass 98+345 Box type 1x7.0x4.5 Village Road
Hisar 1,742,815 -
Hisar Town is District and Tehsil HQ of Hisar District & Tehsil and have
medical, educational, commercial, and agricultural facilities catering to
nearby villages.
13 Hisar bypass 104+080 Box type 1x7.0x4.5 Village
Road Hisar 1,742,815 -
Hisar Town is District and Tehsil HQ of Hisar District & Tehsil and have medical, educational, commercial, and agricultural facilities catering to
nearby villages. The road connects area of Agricultural University, Hisar
14 Hisar bypass 111+845 Box type 1x7.0x4.5 Village
Road Hisar 1,742,815 -
Hisar Town is District and Tehsil HQ of Hisar District & Tehsil and have
medical, educational, commercial, and agricultural facilities catering to
nearby villages.
15 210+400 133+900 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Samshan Chandausi 6,442 - Samshan
16 Barwa
bypass 140+335 Box type 1x7.0x4.5
Village
Road Barwa 11,009 -
Important village in the area having education and medical facilities
catering to nearby villages
17 Siwani
bypass 145+780 Box type 1x7.0x4.5
Village
Road Siwani 15,849 -
Siwani Town is Tehsil HQ of Siwani Tehsil and have medical and
educational facilities catering to nearby villages.
18 239+000 163+200 Box type 1x7.0x3.5 Cattle pass Jhunmpa 3,310 1,445 Pond
The width of the CUPs has been proposed as 7.0m as the underpasses are located in rural area and will also be used for movement of local agricultural vehicles.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-60 October 2012
8.10.5 Proposal for Flyovers
The project road crosses NH-71 near Narwana and NH-10 at Hisar. As per Clause 2.13.2 of IRC:
SP: 84-2009 flyovers are at proposed at both NH crossing locations.
As per the traffic studies and in view of the future development of Hisar town a flyover is proposed at the end point of proposed Hisar Bypass to have uninterrupted traffic flow to and
from the town on the project road.
The details of the flyovers are presented in Table 8.29.
Table 8.29: Details of Proposed Flyovers
Sl.
No. Location
Existing
Chainage
Design
Chainage
Name of
Intersecting
Roads
Proposed
Structure
Type
Proposed
span
arrangement
(m)
Total
width of
the
structure
(m)
1 Titram
Junction 33+250 0+000 SH-11
RCC T-
Beam 2 x 15.0 2 x 12.0
2 Narwana 0+000 32+400 NH-71 PSC
Girder 2 x 30.0 2 x 12.0
3 Hisar
Bypass
175+200
of NH-10 105+250 NH-10
PSC
Girder 2 x 30.0 2 x 12.0
4 Hisar
Bypass 198+900 122+400
Existing NH-65
PSC Girder
2 x 30.0 1 x 12.0
5 Siwani Bypass
148+790 Existing
NH-65
Existing
NH-65 Steel
Composite
1 x 30.0
(ROB
continuation)
2 x 12.0
8.11 Design of Culverts
There are total 206 nos. existing culverts in the proposed road corridor. A summary of the proposal is given in Table 8.30, and the development proposal for existing and new culverts are
presented in Table 8.31A and 8.31B respectively. The top width of culverts is presented in
Figure 8.27.
Table 8.30: Summary of Development of Culverts
Types of
Culverts
Number of Culverts and Condition
Total Reconstruction Widening
New
Construction
(on bypasses)
No
Improvement
Due to section
bypassed
Hume Pipe 14 128 51 35 228
RCC Slab 3 29 2 9 43
Box - 1 13 - 14
Total 17 158 66 44 285
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-61 October 2012
Figure 8.26: Cross Section of Culvert for 4-Lane Divided Highway at Road Level
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-62 October 2012
Table 8.31A: Development Proposals for Existing Culverts
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
1 33+080 0+178 Slab 1 x 0.7 11.9 Good Condition Widening
35.1
2 32+440 0+806 Slab 1 x 3.0 12 Good Condition Widening
20.0
3 31+255 1+988 Slab 1 x 0.65 12.2 Good Condition Widening
15.3
4 29+195 4+053 Slab 1 x 2.0 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
5 29+160 4+086 Slab 2 x 1.7 12 Fair Condition/Minor
Repairs Widening
15.5
6 28+915 4+336 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
7 28+700 4+530 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12 Good Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
8 28+400 4+843 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
9 28+340 4+901 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Poor Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
10 28+300 4+942 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
11 28+220 5+030 Slab 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
12 27+915 5+328 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
13 27+685 5+612 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
14 26+925 6+350 Slab 1 x 5.0 12 Good Condition Widening
90.2
15 26+365 6+880 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
16 25+940 7+303 Slab 1 x 1.0 12 Fair condition Widening
15.5
17 25+500 7+748 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-63 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
18 25+255 7+990 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
23.5
19 24+865 8+395 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening / Cleaning
23.5
20 24+760 8+500 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Poor Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 35.5
21 24+540 8+723 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12 Fair Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
22 24+010 9+251 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
23 23+460 9+790 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
24 22+730 10+538 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Fair condition Widening
15.5
25 22+100 11+145 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
26 21+930 11+334 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
27 21+630 11+615 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.0
28 21+275 11+971 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
29 20+920 12+332 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
30 20+560 12+688 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
31 19+600 13+656 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Chocked Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
32 19+425 13+824 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12
Partially
Chocked/Good
Condition
Widening /
Cleaning 15.5
33 19+170 14+081 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
34 18+365 14+847 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12 Good Condition Reconstruction 1 x 1.2 27.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-64 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
/ Pipe
35 18+020
Kalayat Bypass
Pipe 1 x 1.2 25 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
36 17+930 Pipe 1 x 1.2 25 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
37 17+600 Pipe 1 x 1.2 25 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
38 17+330 Pipe 1 x 1.2 25 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
39 15+910 Pipe 1 x 1.2 25 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
40 15+680 Slab 1 x 1.3 12 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
41 15+300 18+543 Slab 1 x 2.0 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
42 15+270 18+568 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
43 14+870 18+985 Box 1 x 4.0 12.5 Good Condition Widening
20.7
44 14+785 19+068 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
45 14+435 19+417 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
46 14+425 19+430 Slab 1 x 1.5 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
47 14+285 19+570 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
48 13+955 19+898 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good condition Widening
15.5
49 13+645 20+209 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
50 13+500 20+355 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-65 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
51 13+160 20+705 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
18.6
52 13+050 20+803 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
53 12+865 20+983 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
54 12+678 21+170 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
55 12+625 21+222 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
56 12+530 21+318 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Poor Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
57 12+870 21+658 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
58 11+600 22+192 Pipe 1 x 0.9 10 Good Condition Widening
17.5
59 11+380 22+403 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
60 10+670 23+025 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12 Fair Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
61 10+580 23+118 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
62 10+350 23+350 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
63 9+990 23+710 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
64 9+885 23+813 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
65 9+675 24+036 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
66 9+400 24+315 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
67 8+650 25+072 Slab 1 x 1.0 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
68 8+600 25+116 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-66 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
69 8+275 25+430 Slab 1 x 1.5 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
70 7+995 25+718 Slab 1 x 2.5 12 Poor Condition Reconstruction
/ Slab 1 x 2.5 27.5
71 7+785 25+930 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.45 Fair Condition Widening
13.05
72 7+490 26+222 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
73 7+010 26+700 Slab 1 x 3.5 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
74 6+500 27+311 Slab 1 x 5.8 12 Good Condition Widening
25.4
75 6+400 27+409 Slab 1 x 3.5 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
76 6+220 27+590 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
77 6+005 27+798 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
78 5+505 28+355 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
79 5+340 28+528 Slab 1 x 3.6 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
80 5+300 28+574 Slab 1 x 3.6 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
81 4+440 29+470 Slab 1 x 2.5 12 Poor Condition Reconstruction
/ Slab 1 x 2.5 27.5
82 4+340 29+572 Slab 1 x 2.5 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
83 3+812 30+100 Slab 1 x 3.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
84 3+750 30+154 Slab 1 x 3.0 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
85 3+640 30+268 Slab 1 x 3.0 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
86 3+427 30+412 Slab 1 x 1.0 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-67 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
87 2+950
Narwana
Bypass
Slab 1 x 1.5 12 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
88 2+725 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
89 2+580 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Poor Condition No
Improvement 0
90 2+300 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
91 2+050 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
92 1+850 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
93 1+710 Slab 1 x 1.0 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
94 1+300 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
95 1+200 Slab 1 x 2.0 12 Minor Repairs No
Improvement 0
96 1+250 Slab 1 x 0.7 12 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
97 121+573 32+558 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
33
98 121+783 32+786 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Chocked Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 45
99 122+147 33+150 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
33
100 122+482 33+485 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
33
101 122+602 33+605 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
33
102 122+997 34+000 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
33
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-68 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
103 123+092 34+095 Slab 1 x 0.5 12 Good Condition Widening
33
104 123+262 34+265 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
33
105 123+470 34+473 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
33
106 123+749 34+752 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
107 124+080 35+070 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
108 124+750 35+740 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
109 125+630 36+607 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
20.3
110 126+010 36+983 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
17.7
111 126+727 37+700 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12 Good Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
112 127+615 38+600 Slab 1 x 6.0 12 Good Condition Widening
58.0
113 128+700 39+665 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
114 129+540 40+520 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
115 129+750 40+730 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
16.0
116 130+330 41+315 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
117 130+630 41+610 Pipe 1 x 1.2 12 Good Condition Widening
18.5
118 130+970 41+952 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
18.5
119 131+210 42+192 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
120 131+500 42+480 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-69 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
121 131+600 42+590 Slab 1 x 3.0 12 Good Condition Widening
18.5
122 132+820 43+805 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
123 133+325 44+345 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
124 134+015 45+030 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
125 134+185 45+200 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
126 134+470 45+485 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
127 134+920 45+945 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
128 135+340 46+360 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
129 135+580
Dhnaudha
Bypass
Pipe 1 x 0.6 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
130 135+635 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
131 135+779 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
132 135+957 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
133 136+132 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
134 136+695 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
135 136+930 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
136 137+123 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No Improvement
0
137 137+755 Slab 1x 1.6 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-70 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
138 137+782 Slab 1 x 3.0 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
139 139+535 51+580 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12 Fair Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
140 139+545 51+595 Slab 1 x 3.0 11.1 Good Condition Widening
16.4
141 139+881 51+930 Pipe 1 x 1.2 15 Poor Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
142 140+090 52+145 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
143 140+645 52+650 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
144 140+890 52+908 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.5 Fair Condition Widening
13
145 141+155 53+175 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13 Fair Condition Widening
14.5
146 141+634 53+820 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
18.0
147 142+471 54+490 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
148 142+700 54+720 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.5 Fair Condition Widening
12.5
149 143+245 55+257 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.5 Good Condition Widening
13
150 143+630 55+640 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.8 Fair Condition Widening
12.7
151 144+030 56+005 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.5 Fair Condition Widening
13
152 144+980 56+950 Pipe 1 x 0.9 15 Good Condition Widening
12.5
153 145+110 57+083 Pipe 1 x 0.9 15 Good Condition Widening
12.5
154 145+280 57+255 Pipe 1 x 0.9 15 Good Condition Widening
12.5
155 145+360 57+335 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14 Good Condition Widening
13.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-71 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
156 145+480 57+455 Pipe 1 x 0.9 15.2 Good Condition Widening
12.3
157 145+670 57+645 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.8 Good Condition Widening
12.7
158 145+822 57+800 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.9 Good Condition Widening
12.6
159 146+100 58+045 Pipe 1 x 0.9 15 Good Condition Widening
12.5
160 146+200 58+150 Pipe 1 x 0.9 15.2 Good Condition Widening
12.3
161 146+320 58+270 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.3 Fair Condition Widening
13.2
162 146+640 58+588 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.6 Fair Condition Widening
12.9
163 147+296 59+250 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14.6 Good Condition Widening
12.9
164 148+281 60+232 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13 Fair Condition Widening
14.5
165 149+860 61+818 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13 Good Condition Widening
14.5
166 150+050 62+602 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13 Fair Condition Widening
14.5
167 152+035 63+987 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13.7 Fair Condition Widening
13.8
168 154+045 65+997 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13.8 Good Condition Widening
13.7
169 154+350 66+300 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13.8 Good Condition Widening
13.7
170 156+325 68+260 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13.7 Good Condition Widening
13.8
171 157+280 69+205 Slab 1 x 1.0 11.2 Fair Condition Widening
17.7
172 157+560 69+498 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.8 Fair Condition Widening
15.7
173 158+400 Barwala Bypass Pipe 1 x 0.9 12.1 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-72 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
174 159+000 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12.1 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
175 162+000 Slab 1 x 3.75 12.1 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
176 163+662 79+065 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12.1 Good Condition Widening
15.4
177 165+625 81+042 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12.5 Good Condition Widening
16.8
178 167+725 83+370 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.2 Good Condition Widening
19.3
179 168+450 83+812 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.2 Good Condition Widening
19.3
180 168+700 84+110 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12.3 Good Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 30.5
181 169+125 84+535 Pipe 1 x 0.6 12.3 Fair Condition Reconstruction
/ Pipe 1 x 1.2 27.5
182 171+170 86+584 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13.2 Fair Condition Widening
13.5
183 173+170 88+560 Pipe 1 x 0.9 13.6 Fair Condition Widening
13.9
184 174+100 89+520 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.7 Fair Condition Widening
15.8
185 176+650 92+085 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.6 Fair Condition Widening
15.9
186 177+100 92+513 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14 Fair Condition Widening
13.5
187 180+775 96+178 Slab 2 x 3.2 12.5 Good Condition Widening
15
188 180+900 96+303 Pipe 1 x 0.9 14 Fair Condition Widening
13.5
189 181+650 Talwandi Rana
Bypass
Pipe 1 x 0.9 14 Blocked No
Improvement 0
190 182+100 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.5 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-73 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
191 182+800 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.8 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
192 183+070 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.85 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
193 184+500 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12.8 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
194 184+700 Slab 1 x 6.2 12.5 Good Condition No
Improvement 0
195 185+500 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12.8 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
196 186+250 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
197 186+950 Pipe 1 x 0.9 11.8 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
Hisar Town Stretch
198 199+390 122+895 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
199 200+600 124+100 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
200 200+780 124+290 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
201 202+530 126+030 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
18.5
202 202+690 126+195 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
19.5
203 202+760 126+275 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
18.5
204 202+810 126+330 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
18.5
205 204+130 127+663 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
206 204+840 128+360 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-74 October 2012
Sl. No. Existing
Chainage (Km.)
Design
Chainage (Km)
Type of
Structures
Span
Arrangement
(Nos. x Length)
/ No. of Pipe
(m)
Width of
Culvert
(m)
Existing Condition Improvement
Proposal
Proposed Type
& Span
Arrangements
(m) / Dia of
pipe (mm)
Width of
Widening
(m)
207 205+600 129+140 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
208 207+560 131+085 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
209 207+700 131+225 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
210 210+100 133+593 Slab 1 x 1.0 12 Poor Condition Reconstruction 1 x 1.0 27.5
211 210+500 133+995 Pipe 1 x 0.9 12 Fair Condition Widening
15.5
212 215+700
Barwa bypass
Pipe 1 x 0. 4 10 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
213 216+000 Pipe 1 x 0. 4 10 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
214 216+180 Pipe 1 x 0. 4 10 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
215 216+350 Pipe 1 x 0. 4 10 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
216 216+500 Pipe 1 x 0. 4 10 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
217 216+750 Pipe 1 x 0. 4 10 Fair Condition No
Improvement 0
218 218+600 142+730 Pipe 1 x 0.9 10 Fair Condition Widening
17.5
219 238+890 163+075 Slab 1 x 4.2 12 Good Condition Widening
15.5
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-75 October 2012
Table 8.31B: Development Proposals for New Culverts
Sl. No. Bypass Location Design Chainage Type Size Remarks
1 Kalayat 15+200 Pipe 1 x 1.2
2 Kalayat 15+300 Pipe 1x1.2
3 Kalayat 16+000 Pipe 1 x 1.2
4 Kalayat 17+416 Pipe 1 x 1.2
5 Kalayat 18+100 Pipe 1 x 1.2
6 Narwana 30+900 Pipe 1 x 1.2
7 Narwana 31+244 Pipe 1 x 1.2
8 Narwana 31+244 Slab 1 x 4.5
9 Narwana 31+700 Pipe 1 x 1.2
10 Dhanaudha 46+515 Pipe 1 x 1.2
11 Dhanaudha 47+400 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
12 Dhanaudha 48+800 Pipe 1 x 1.2
13 Dhanaudha 49+537 Pipe 1 x 1.2
14 Dhanaudha 49+800 Pipe 1 x 1.2
15 157+800 69+770 Slab 1 x 3.0 Slab Culvert (Gas Pipe)
16 Barwala 70+600 Pipe 1 x 1.2
17 Barwala 72+100 Pipe 1 x 1.2
18 Barwala 72+410 Pipe 1 x 1.2
19 Barwala 74+700 Pipe 1 x 1.2
20 Barwala 75+700 Pipe 1 x 1.2
21 Barwala 76+100 Pipe 1 x 1.2
22 Barwala 77+100 Pipe 1 x 1.2
23 Hisar 97+350 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
24 Hisar 97+680 Pipe 1 x 1.2
25 Hisar 98+017 Pipe 1 x 1.2
26 Hisar 98+350 Pipe 1 x 1.2
27 Hisar 99+025 Pipe 1 x 1.2
28 Hisar 101+050 Pipe 1 x 1.2
29 Hisar 102+725 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
30 Hisar 104+700 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
31 Hisar 107+100 Pipe 1 x 1.2
32 Hisar 107+510 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
33 Hisar 107+900 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
34 Hisar 108+670 Pipe 1 x 1.2
35 Hisar 109+360 Pipe 1 x 1.2
36 Hisar 110+020 Pipe 1 x 1.2
37 Hisar 110+305 Pipe 1 x 1.2
38 Hisar 110+400 Pipe 1 x 1.2
39 Hisar 110+780 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
40 Hisar 111+250 Pipe 1 x 1.2
41 Hisar 111+510 Pipe 1 x 1.2
42 Hisar 115+290 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-76 October 2012
Sl. No. Bypass Location Design Chainage Type Size Remarks
43 Hisar 115+520 Pipe 1 x 1.2
44 Hisar 115+910 Pipe 1 x 1.2
45 Hisar 116+580 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
46 Hisar 116+680 Pipe 1 x 1.2
47 Hisar 117+145 Pipe 1 x 1.2
48 Hisar 117+710 Pipe 1 x 1.2
49 Hisar 118+566 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
50 Hisar 118+830 Pipe 1 x 1.2
51 Hisar 118+945 Pipe 1 x 1.2
52 Hisar 119+680 Pipe 1 x 1.2
53 Hisar 120+408 Pipe 1 x 1.2
54 Hisar 120+485 Pipe 1 x 1.2
55 Hisar 121+680 Pipe 1 x 1.2
56 Barwa 139+100 Pipe 1 x 1.2
57 Barwa 139+600 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
58 Barwa 140+700 Pipe 1 x 1.2
59 Barwa 141+300 Pipe 1 x 1.2
60 Siwani 143+900 Pipe 1 x 1.2
61 Siwani 144+210 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
62 Siwani 144+863 Box 1 x 3.0 x 3.0 To serve dual purpose
63 Siwani 145+020 Pipe 1 x 1.2
64 Siwani 146+868 Pipe 1 x 1.2
65 Siwani 146+990 Pipe 1 x 1.2
66 Siwani 147+608 Pipe 1 x 1.2
8.12 Road Furniture and Other features
8.12.1 Introduction
The road furniture, traffic safety features and other facilities included in the design are:
• Bus Bays
• Truck Lay byes
• Road Markings
• Traffic Signs
• Kilometre Stone Details
• 200m Stones and Boundary Stones
• Delineators and Object Markers
• Guard Post
• Crash Barrier
• Road Humps and Rumble Strips
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-77 October 2012
8.12.2 Bus Bays and Bus Shelters
Bus Bays are proposed as per the recommendations of IRC: 80-1981. The typical bus bay
consists of deceleration and acceleration lanes of 45m length with stopping lane of 5.0 m wide,
15m long in rural areas and 10m long in urban areas. A raised footpath of 2.0m wide is proposed
for the safety of waiting passengers. In urban areas, where the frequency of buses stopping is more, the length of the stopping lane has been increased to 30m to accommodate two buses
stopping at the same time. Adequate arrangements have also been made to drain off surface
water. The nearby village/town sections where bus laybye with bus shelters on both sides of the 4-lane road are proposed are presented in Table 8.32.
Table 8.32: Locations of Bus Bays with Bus Shelter
Sl. No. Existing Chainage
(km)
Design Chainage
(km) Village Side
1 32+600 0+650 Titram village Both side
2 28+543 4+700 Kelram Village Both side
3 25+465 7+780 Bata Village Both side
4 19+750 13+500 Kharak Pandwa village Both side
5 18+315 14+900 Klayat Village Both side
6 13+255 20+600 Pinjupura Village Both side
7 4+210 29+700 Dhakel village Both side
8 123+665 34+650 Narwana Town Both side
9 126+315 37+300 Badowal Village Both side
10 130+315 41+150 Sachhakhera Village Both side
11 135+082 46+100 Dhanauda Village Both side
12 141+982 54+000 Jajan Wala Village Both side
13 148+140 60+100 Kalar Bhaini Village Both side
14 152+170 64+125 Gaibipur Village Both side
15 157+560 69+500 Barwala town Both side
16 167+800 83+000 Sarsod Village Both side
17 173+822 89+300 Bado Patti village Both side
18 180+845 96+850 Talwandi Rana village Both side
19 Hisar Bypass 105+100 Hisar City Both side
20 Hisar Bypass 121+400 Ganguwa Village Both side
21 203+500 126+880 Muklan village Both side
22 209+800 133+300 Chaudhriwas village Both side
23 214+680 138+150 Barwa village Both side
24 219+255 143+300 Siwani town Both side
25 239+720 163+900 Jhunpa village/Bhairgram Both side
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-78 October 2012
8.12.3 Truck Lay Byes
Local consultations were held at the places of petty repair shops, restaurants/dhaba etc. and
subjective opinion of the drivers regarding necessity of truck lay bye is gathered. It consists of
deceleration and acceleration lane of length 45.0m with central parking area of 150.0m length
and 7.0m wide with 1.2m wide raised kerb island separating carriageway and Laybye. Sufficient working area and space for roadside establishments such as repair shops, vulcanising shops,
service centre, spare parts shops, telephone booth and light refreshments with first aid facilities
can be provided. Four truck lay-bye on both sides have been proposed and its location is presented in Table 8.33.
Table 8.33: Locations of Truck Laybyes
Sl. No. Nearest
Town
Existing
Chainage
(km)
Design
Chainage
(km)
Side
1 Narwana 124+910 35+900 Both side staggered
2 Barwala 164+000 79+400 Both side staggered
3 Hisar 199+950 123+450 Both side staggered
4 Siwani 225+890 150+200 Both side staggered
8.12.4 Road Markings
Road markings perform the important function of guiding and controlling traffic on a highway.
The markings serve as psychological barriers and signify the delineation of traffic paths and their lateral clearance from traffic hazards for safe movement of traffic. Road markings are therefore
essential to ensure smooth and orderly flow of traffic and to promote road safety. The Code of
Practice for Road Markings, IRC: 35-1997 has been used in the study as the design basis.
The location and type of marking lines, material and colour is followed using IRC: 35-1997 –
“Code of Practice for Road Markings”.
The road markings were carefully planned on carriageways, intersections and bridge locations.
8.12.5 Cautionary, Mandatory and Informatory Signs
Cautionary, mandatory and informatory signs have been provided depending on the situation and
function they perform in accordance with the IRC: 67-2001 guidelines for Road Signs.
8.12.6 Kilometre Stone Details
The details of kilometre stones are in accordance with IRC: 8-1980 guidelines. Kilometre stones are located on the left-hand side of the road as one proceeds from the station from which the
Kilometre count starts. On divided roads with a central median, kilometre stones would be
provided at the left on both sides of the road i.e., independently for each direction of travel.
Kilometre stones shall be fixed at right angles to the centre line of the carriageway.
8.12.7 200m Stones and Boundary Stones
The details of 200m stones and boundary stones conform to IRC: 26-1967 and IRC: 25-1967.
200m stones are located on the same side of the road as the kilometre stones. The inscription on
the stones shall be the numerals 2, 4, 6 and 8 marked in an ascending order in the direction of increasing kilometerage away from the starting station. The numerals shall be 80mm high. The
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-79 October 2012
colour of the numerals shall be black on a white background. Boundary stones shall be located
on either side of the road opposite every 200m stone and kilometre stone. In addition these shall be fixed at all angular points of the boundary. Where the boundary is on a curve or the land is of
significant value and likely to be encroached upon, the boundary stones, as required, shall be
installed at closer intervals.
8.12.8 Delineators and Object Markers
Roadway delineators are intended to mark the edges of the roadway so as to guide drivers on the
alignment ahead. Object markers are used to indicate hazards and obstructions within the vehicle flow path, for example, channelling islands close to the intersections.
Delineators and object markers are provided as per the details given in the drawings and are
provided in accordance with the provisions of IRC: 79-1981. They are basically driving aids and
should not be regarded as substitutes for warning signs, road markings or barriers. Delineators are provided for all curves of radius less than 600m. They are not provided at locations where
Chevron sign boards are provided.
8.12.9 Guard Post
Guard posts are proposed on embankments of height more than 1.0m, bridge approaches and
horizontal curves of radius greater than 161m. The spacing of guard post shall be 2.0m c/c in these areas. Typical Guard post consists of precast (M20) post of size 200mm x 200mm and a
height of 600mm above ground level. They are encased in M15 cement concrete for a depth of
450mm below ground level. Guard posts are painted with alternate black and white reflective paint of 150mm wide bands.
8.12.10 Crash Barrier
Metal Beam Crash Barrier is proposed at locations where the embankment height is more than
3.0m, at horizontal curves of radius less than 161m and also at major bridge approaches. Metal
beam rail shall be W-profile corrugated sheet steel beams complying with the following mechanical properties.
i. Tensile strength, Min = 483 MPA
ii. Elongation in 2 inches, Min = 12%
iii. Yield, Min = 345 MPA
The beam elements shall have nominal width of 483mm. Post consists of formed channel of size 150 x 75 x 5, 785mm long and space consists of formed channel of size 150 x 75 x 5, 330 mm
long. All members of the system should be hot dipped galvanised to have a minimum counting of
550g/sqm, each face in compliance to relevant MOST Specification (Cl. 810). The spacing of posts should be 2.0m c/c. Crash barrier system absorbs impact of vehicle and laterally restrains a
vehicle from veering off. This ensures minimum damage to the vehicle and passengers.
8.12.11 Road Humps and Rumble Strips
The Road Humps are formed by providing a rounded hump of 3.7m width (17m radius) and 0.10m height for the preferred advisory crossing speed of 25kmph for general traffic as per the
IRC: 99–1988 guidelines. The basic material for construction is bituminous concrete formed to
required shape. Road humps are located at T-intersections (and cross road intersections) on minor roads or perpendicular arms about 25m away from the inner edge of the carriageway.
Proper signs boards and markings are provided to advise the drivers in advance of the situation.
Road humps are extended across carriageway up to the edge of paved shoulder.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-80 October 2012
Rumble Strips are formed by a sequence of transverse strips laid across a carriageway. Maximum
permitted height of 15mm provided no vertical face exceeds 6mm. These rumble device produce audible and vibratory effects to alert drivers to take greater care and do not normally reduce
traffic speeds in themselves. The typical design details of rumble strips proposed are transverse
strips of Bituminous Concrete 500mm wide and overall thickness 15mm laid across a
carriageway up to the end of paved shoulder. There will be 6 such transverse strips spaced at 2.0m c/c. Rumble strips are proposed in advance of:
i. Sharp curves with radius less than 161m. ii. Transition zones (speed limit zones).
iii. Village/urban approaches
Proper sign boards and marking are proposed to advise the drivers in advance of the situation.
8.13 Design of Toll Plaza
Toll plaza location is one of the most important aspects of any toll scheme. The key factors that
govern the optimum location of toll plaza are:
� Minimum traffic diversion from project road to surrounding road network
� Revenue collection � Local issues and local tollable traffic
� Compatibility with National Highways Act
� Engineering issues
8.13.1 Toll plaza location
Location of toll plazas has been proposed based on the traffic dispersal pattern at the respective homogenous sections, road geometry and vertical profile of the road and the surrounding area.
Also while fixing the toll plazas for this project, the proposed Toll Plaza locations for the preceding and succeeding packages were considered. Interactions with the design Consultants of
the packages and NHAI was held to discuss the issues and fix the location of the toll plazas.
• Nearest Toll Plaza on Ambala - Kaithal section is at Km 64 (NH-65) i.e. 63 km apart for the
proposed toll plaza at Km 125.8
• Nearest Toll Plaza at Haryana/Rajasthan Border - Fatehpur section is at Km 103 (NH-65
from Fatehpur) i.e. only 44.85 km apart.
The locations for the toll plaza for the different section are given in Table 8.34:
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-81 October 2012
Table 8.34: Location and Section of Toll Plaza
Toll
Plaza
No.
Toll Plaza Locations
Distance from preceding
Toll Plaza (km)
Tolling length of Toll
Plaza (km) Existing Chainage
(km)
Design
Chainage
(km)
- Other Package
64+000 (NH-65) - - -
TP-1 125+790 (NH-65) 36+776.5
63.36 (via prop Kaithal
Byp.)
60.93 (if Kaithal Byp. not constructed)
56.800 (Kaithal to Surewala
Chowk)
TP-2 171+580 (NH-65) 87+000 50.20
66.100
(Surewala Chowk to
Hisar Bypass end)
TP-3 212+400 (NH-65) 135+900 48.90
43.359
(Hisar bypass end to
state border)
-
Other Package
103+000 (NH-65
from Fatehpur
side)
- 44.859
The location of the toll plazas is based on the following:
• Distance between the toll plazas
• Distance from nearest major settlements and municipal limits
• Maximum capture of tollable traffic to increase financial viability
• Avoidance of bridges and culverts
• Avoidance of junctions
• Avoidance of sharp curves
The distance between Toll Plaza-I (TP-I) and Toll Plaza-II (TP-II) is less than 60km as the
location of Toll Plaza II cannot be shifted more towards Rajasthan Border due to the following
reasons:
• Nearness of Talwandi Rana village at Km 181+700
• Start point of proposed Hisar Town Bypass at Km 181+100
• Toll Plaza cannot be proposed on the proposed Hisar bypass as the same will result in major
loss of tollable traffic destined for Hisar town
The distance between Toll Plaza-I (TP-I) and Toll Plaza-II (TP-II) is less than 60km as the location of Toll Plaza I cannot be shifted more towards Kaithal Town due to the following reasons:
• Nearness of Narwana Town at Km 122+400
• Proposed ROB at Km 123+000
The distance between Toll Plaza-IIII (TP-III) and succeeding is much less than 60km as the
location of Toll Plaza III cannot be shifted more towards Hisar due to the following reasons:
• Barwa village between Km 214+850 and 217+500 and proposed bypass of Bawa town
• Nearness of Siwani village at Km 222+000
• End point of proposed Siwani Bypass at Km 225+340
• Parallel railway line on right hand side
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-82 October 2012
8.13.2 Toll Plaza Design
A width of 3.2m between two upstand kerbs of tollbooth islands is considered optimum in order
to channel vehicles and to ensure they stop close enough to the toll collector. Provision of
different toll lanes width reduces the flexibility, and hence should have not been proposed.
One extra lane 4.5m width should be provided in each direction, in addition to toll lanes, for non-
tollable/exempt vehicles and oversized (extra wide) vehicles, which cannot pass through regular toll lanes.
Number of Toll Lanes
The minimum toll lanes required with semi-automatic toll system for the projected peak hour traffic of 20 years is as presented below in Table 8.35:
Table 8.35: Required Toll Lanes
Toll
Plaza
20 Year Tollable
Vehicle (nos.)
Peak Hour
factor (%)
Peak Hour
Traffic
(nos.)
Semi-automatic Toll
Lane @ 240 vph (nos.) in
each direction
I 25724 6.05 1556 4
II 36353 6.93 2519 6
III 20431 5.41 1105 3
In addition to the above one extra lane for oversized vehicles shall be added to both directions.
Land width for Toll Plaza
Land width for the toll plaza is to be acquired to permit the provision of toll lanes for projected peak hour traffic of 20 years subjected to a minimum number of 16 toll lanes and including all
other building and structures to be accommodated at the Toll plaza location.
General Layout
A flared entry and exit approach to the toll plaza should be laid out for the safe transition of
vehicles from the highway to toll plazas and vice versa. Various flare angles can be used however a flare angle of 1:10 is considered to be most appropriate for National Highways where
the average approach speed of vehicles is in the order of 61 – 90 km/hr. The total width at the toll
plaza axis is a direct function of the number of toll lanes required in the system.
8.14 Road Safety Audit
Road Safety audit has the greatest potential for improving safety and is most cost–effective when it is applied to a road or traffic design before the project is built. It can be conducted on any
design proposal that involves changes to the ways road users will interact, either with each other
or with their physical environment. It is a formal process using a defined procedure.
Road safety audit has been carried out for project road and sufficient measures has been taken for
improving detailed engineering design with respect to the road safety audit. The details of audit taken are described in Check list below:
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-83 October 2012
Checklist: Feasibility Stage Audit
Sl.
No. Contents Item Yes/No Comment
1. Aspects to be
checked
A. Safety and operational
implications of proposed
alignment and junction strategy with particular
references to expected road
users and vehicle types likely to use the road.
Yes
The design of the proposed
alignment takes care of the principal
factors affecting safety and operational implications as per
relevant IRC Codes.
B. Width options considered for
various sections.
Yes
As provisioned in IRC Codes.
C. Departures from standards and action taken.
Yes
Followed relevant IRC Codes.
D. Provision of pedestrians,
cyclists and intermediate
transport.
Yes
By providing paved shoulder and
service road in Urban areas and
paved shoulder in Rural areas.
E. Safety implications of the
scheme beyond its physical
limits i.e. how the scheme fits into its environs and road
hierarchy.
Yes
To the extent that the geometric
design of the road takes into account
safety aspects considering the existing tree lines, other
structures/electric poles, obstruction
created by landscaping etc. in town areas etc.
2. A1: General � Departures from Standards No
Followed relevant IRC codes.
� Cross-sectional variation Yes No abrupt variation to cause concern for safety.
� Drainage Yes Road grades and cross fails are
adequate for satisfactory drainage.
Provision of proper drainage system in urban and rural areas and earthen
drain along the road has been made.
� Climatic conditions Yes Design has taken care of temperature and rainfall.
� Landscaping NA To be taken care of at execution
stage ensuring the same does not
obstruct visibility.
� Services apparatus Yes Design is adequate in dealing with
overhead services.
� Lay-byes Yes Bus lay-byes, truck lay-byes at
appropriate locations have been provided.
� Footpaths Yes Provided at junctions & urban
sections.
� Pedestrian Crossings Yes Provided at junctions & near settlements.
� Access (minimize number
of private accesses)
Yes Service Roads provided.
� Emergency vehicles NA Not applicable at Design Stage.
� Public Transport
� Future Widening Yes
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Development Proposals
URS Scott Wilson 8-84 October 2012
Sl.
No. Contents Item Yes/No Comment
� Staging of Contracts NA
� Adjacent development Yes Access to major adjacent
developments has been designed.
3. A2: Local
Alignment
� Visibility
Yes Horizontal and vertical alignments
satisfy visibility criteria at all
locations.
� New/Existing road interface Yes Sufficient transition zone has been
proposed. All cross roads were
properly designed with main road.
� Safety Aids on steep hills. Yes Provisions of retaining wall and crash barriers have been made.
4. A3: Junctions � Minimise potential conflicts Yes
The major junctions have been
designed ‘at grade’ with priority
control and proper signages as per IRC Code.
� Layout Yes Followed IRC standards.
� Visibility Yes Horizontal and vertical alignments
are consistent with visibility. Standards are appropriate for speed.
Free sight line has been maintained.
5. A4: Non-motorized road
users provision
� Adjacent land
Yes Safe access to adjacent land has been designed.
� Pedestrians Yes Adequate visibility for safe crossings has been made by PUP &
FOB.
� Cyclists & Non-motorised
vehicles
Yes Provision of paved shoulder in rural
areas and service roads at urban areas have been done.
6. A5: Signs and
lighting
� Lighting
Yes Provisions have been made.
� Signs / Markings Yes Provisions have been made.
7. C6:
Construction
and Operation
� Build ability Yes
� Operational NA
� Network Management No Would be taken care in the DPR
stage.
Annexure – 8.1
Annexure – 8.1
Annexure 8.1E
AADTGrowth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %
BASE
YEAR2011 384 4.61 754 7.32 472 2.00 585 8.14 239 8.64
2012 402 4.61 809 7.32 481 2.00 633 8.14 260 8.64
2013 420 4.61 868 7.32 491 2.00 684 8.14 282 8.64
1 2014 440 4.61 932 7.32 501 2.00 740 8.14 306 8.64
2 2015 460 4.61 1000 7.32 511 2.00 800 8.14 333 8.64
3 2016 481 3.97 1073 6.76 521 1.00 865 7.51 362 8.01
4 2017 500 3.97 1146 6.76 526 1.00 930 7.51 391 8.01
5 2018 520 3.97 1223 6.76 532 1.00 1000 7.51 422 8.01
6 2019 541 3.97 1306 6.76 537 1.00 1075 7.51 456 8.01
7 2020 562 3.97 1394 6.76 542 1.00 1156 7.51 492 8.01
8 2021 584 3.41 1489 6.38 548 0.00 1243 7.08 532 7.58
9 2022 604 3.41 1584 6.38 548 0.00 1331 7.08 572 7.58
10 2023 625 3.41 1685 6.38 548 0.00 1425 7.08 615 7.58
11 2024 646 3.41 1792 6.38 548 0.00 1526 7.08 662 7.58
12 2025 668 3.41 1907 6.38 548 0.00 1634 7.08 712 7.58
13 2026 691 3.35 2028 6.14 548 0.00 1749 6.82 766 7.32
14 2027 714 3.35 2153 6.14 548 0.00 1869 6.82 822 7.32
15 2028 738 3.35 2285 6.14 548 0.00 1996 6.82 882 7.32
16 2029 763 3.35 2425 6.14 548 0.00 2132 6.82 947 7.32
17 2030 788 3.35 2574 6.14 548 0.00 2278 6.82 1016 7.32
18 2031 815 3.35 2732 5.96 548 0.00 2433 6.62 1091 7.12
19 2032 842 3.35 2895 5.96 548 0.00 2594 6.62 1168 7.12
20 2033 870 3.35 3068 5.96 548 0.00 2766 6.62 1252 7.12
0.5
0.75
Bus 0.09
LGV 0.13
2-Axle 2.00
3-Axle 5.99
M-Axle 11.37
BUS LGV
0.050 0.173 13 msa
0.066 0.231 17 msa
0.108 0.415 32 msa
0.158 0.662 51 msa
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches
under NHDP-IVB in the state of Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
DESIGN TRAFFIC IN MILLION STANDARD AXLE
Location/ Section: Location of Survey Km 18+000
Base Year/ Traffic Count Year: August 2011
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROJECTION IN AADT , BOTH DIRECTION
YEAR
Bus LCV 2-axle 3-axle Multi Axle
Cumulative Both Direction Traffic in MillionCumulative Both Direction Traffic in Million
Year BUS LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle
Constructi
on Period
8 years 1.492 3.491 1.539 2.850 1.202
10 years 1.941 4.684 1.939 3.856 1.635
15 years 3.203 8.394 2.939 7.058 3.039
20 years 4.692 13.393 3.938 11.512 5.037
Directional Distribution The Cumulative number of Standard Axles (N)
Lane Distribution (D)
VD
F V
alu
es (
F)
A= Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction
n= Design life in years
r = Annual growth Rate of Commercial Vechile
M-Axle TOTAL
8 years 1.153 6.403 5.126
21.480
10 years 1.45210 years 1.452 8.663 6.974
15.857 12.95915 years 2.201
20 years 2.950 25.864
Year 2-Axle 3-Axle
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STANDARD AXLES TO BE CATERED FOR DESIGN IN TERMS OF MSA PER LANE IN EACH
DIRECTION
30 years 6.523 23.894 3.938 21.854 10.020
( )[ ]FDA
r
rN
n
×××−+×
=11365
Scott Wilson
Annexure 8.1E
AADTGrowth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %
BASE
YEAR2011 369 4.61 865 7.32 758 2.00 1055 8.14 450 8.64
2012 386 4.61 928 7.32 773 2.00 1141 8.14 489 8.64
2013 404 4.61 996 7.32 789 2.00 1234 8.14 531 8.64
1 2014 422 4.61 1069 7.32 804 2.00 1334 8.14 577 8.64
2 2015 442 4.61 1147 7.32 820 2.00 1443 8.14 627 8.64
3 2016 462 3.97 1231 6.76 837 1.00 1560 7.51 681 8.01
4 2017 481 3.97 1315 6.76 845 1.00 1677 7.51 736 8.01
5 2018 500 3.97 1404 6.76 854 1.00 1803 7.51 794 8.01
6 2019 520 3.97 1498 6.76 862 1.00 1939 7.51 858 8.01
7 2020 540 3.97 1600 6.76 871 1.00 2084 7.51 927 8.01
8 2021 562 3.41 1708 6.38 880 0.00 2241 7.08 1001 7.58
9 2022 581 3.41 1817 6.38 880 0.00 2400 7.08 1077 7.58
10 2023 601 3.41 1933 6.38 880 0.00 2569 7.08 1159 7.58
11 2024 621 3.41 2056 6.38 880 0.00 2751 7.08 1246 7.58
12 2025 642 3.41 2187 6.38 880 0.00 2946 7.08 1341 7.58
13 2026 664 3.35 2327 6.14 880 0.00 3155 6.82 1443 7.32
14 2027 686 3.35 2470 6.14 880 0.00 3370 6.82 1548 7.32
15 2028 709 3.35 2621 6.14 880 0.00 3600 6.82 1661 7.32
16 2029 733 3.35 2782 6.14 880 0.00 3845 6.82 1783 7.32
17 2030 758 3.35 2953 6.14 880 0.00 4108 6.82 1914 7.32
18 2031 783 3.35 3134 5.96 880 0.00 4388 6.62 2054 7.12
19 2032 809 3.35 3321 5.96 880 0.00 4678 6.62 2200 7.12
20 2033 836 3.35 3519 5.96 880 0.00 4988 6.62 2357 7.12
0.5
0.75
Bus 0.08
LGV 0.36
2-Axle 4.31
3-Axle 8.41
M-Axle 10.19
BUS LGV
0.043 0.534 29 msa
0.056 0.717 39 msa
0.092 1.285 71 msa
0.135 2.050 114 msa
DESIGN TRAFFIC IN MILLION STANDARD AXLE
Location/ Section: Location of Survey Km 130+400
Base Year/ Traffic Count Year: August 2011
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROJECTION IN AADT , BOTH DIRECTION
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches
under NHDP-IVB in the state of Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
YEAR
Bus LGV 2-axle 3-axle M-axle
Cumulative Both Direction Traffic in Million
Year BUS LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle
8 years 1.434 4.005 2.472 5.140 2.263
10 years 1.865 5.374 3.114 6.954 3.079
15 years 3.078 9.630 4.720 12.729 5.722
20 years 4.509 15.364 6.325 20.761 9.484
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STANDARD AXLES TO BE CATERED FOR DESIGN IN TERMS OF MSA PER LANE IN EACH
DIRECTION
Directional Distribution The Cumulative number of Standard Axles (N)
Lane Distribution (D)
VD
F V
alu
es (
F)
A= Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction
n= Design life in years
r = Annual growth Rate of Commercial Vechile
M-Axle TOTAL
8 years 3.993 16.206 8.653
Constructi
on Period
10 years 5.030 21.924 11.772
15 years 7.623
Year 2-Axle 3-Axle
40.132 21.874
20 years 10.216 65.457 36.256
30 years 6.268 27.411 6.325 39.413 18.867
( )[ ]FDA
r
rN
n
×××−+×
=11365
Scott Wilson
Annexure 8.1E
AADTGrowth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %
BASE
YEAR2011 399 4.61 895 7.32 766 2.00 990 8.14 428 8.64
2012 417 4.61 961 7.32 781 2.00 1071 8.14 465 8.64
2013 437 4.61 1031 7.32 797 2.00 1158 8.14 505 8.64
1 2014 457 4.61 1106 7.32 813 2.00 1252 8.14 549 8.64
2 2015 478 4.61 1187 7.32 829 2.00 1354 8.14 596 8.64
3 2016 500 3.97 1274 6.76 846 1.00 1464 7.51 648 8.01
4 2017 520 3.97 1360 6.76 854 1.00 1574 7.51 700 8.01
5 2018 540 3.97 1452 6.76 863 1.00 1692 7.51 756 8.01
6 2019 562 3.97 1550 6.76 871 1.00 1819 7.51 816 8.01
7 2020 584 3.97 1655 6.76 880 1.00 1956 7.51 882 8.01
8 2021 607 3.41 1767 6.38 889 0.00 2103 7.08 952 7.58
9 2022 628 3.41 1880 6.38 889 0.00 2252 7.08 1024 7.58
10 2023 649 3.41 2000 6.38 889 0.00 2411 7.08 1102 7.58
11 2024 672 3.41 2127 6.38 889 0.00 2582 7.08 1186 7.58
12 2025 694 3.41 2263 6.38 889 0.00 2765 7.08 1275 7.58
13 2026 718 3.35 2408 6.14 889 0.00 2960 6.82 1372 7.32
14 2027 742 3.35 2555 6.14 889 0.00 3162 6.82 1472 7.32
15 2028 767 3.35 2712 6.14 889 0.00 3378 6.82 1580 7.32
16 2029 793 3.35 2879 6.14 889 0.00 3608 6.82 1696 7.32
17 2030 819 3.35 3056 6.14 889 0.00 3854 6.82 1820 7.32
18 2031 847 3.35 3243 5.96 889 0.00 4117 6.62 1953 7.12
19 2032 875 3.35 3436 5.96 889 0.00 4390 6.62 2092 7.12
20 2033 904 3.35 3641 5.96 889 0.00 4681 6.62 2241 7.12
0.5
0.75
Bus 0.08
LGV 0.06
2-Axle 2.60
3-Axle 5.90
M-Axle 14.54
BUS LGV
0.047 0.092 25 msa
0.060 0.124 34 msa
0.100 0.222 61 msa
0.146 0.354 99 msa20 years 6.221 43.084 49.170
10 years 3.063 14.431 15.965
15 years 4.642 26.415 29.665
Year 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle TOTAL
8 years 2.432 10.667 11.735
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STANDARD AXLES TO BE CATERED FOR DESIGN IN TERMS OF MSA PER LANE IN EACH
DIRECTION
Directional Distribution The Cumulative number of Standard Axles (N)
Lane Distribution (D)
VD
F V
alu
es (
F)
A= Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction
n= Design life in years
r = Annual growth Rate of Commercial Vechile
20 years 4.875 15.897 6.392 19.482 9.020
30 years
15 years 3.328 9.964 4.769 11.944 5.442
10 years 2.017 5.560 3.147 6.525 2.929
8 years 1.550 4.144 2.498 4.823 2.153
Constructi
on Period
Cumulative Both Direction Traffic in Million
Year BUS LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROJECTION IN AADT , BOTH DIRECTION
YEAR
Bus LGV 2-axle 3-axle M-axle
DESIGN TRAFFIC IN MILLION STANDARD AXLE
Location/ Section: Location of Survey Km 152+000
Base Year/ Traffic Count Year: August 2011
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches
under NHDP-IVB in the state of Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
6.778 28.362 6.392 36.984 17.944
( )[ ]FDA
r
rN
n
×××−+×
=11365
Scott Wilson
Annexure 8.1E
AADTGrowth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %
BASE
YEAR2011 607 4.61 1012 7.32 981 2.00 989 8.14 410 8.64
2012 635 4.61 1086 7.32 1001 2.00 1070 8.14 445 8.64
2013 664 4.61 1166 7.32 1021 2.00 1157 8.14 484 8.64
1 2014 695 4.61 1251 7.32 1041 2.00 1251 8.14 526 8.64
2 2015 727 4.61 1342 7.32 1062 2.00 1353 8.14 571 8.64
3 2016 760 3.97 1441 6.76 1083 1.00 1463 7.51 620 8.01
4 2017 791 3.97 1538 6.76 1094 1.00 1572 7.51 670 8.01
5 2018 822 3.97 1642 6.76 1105 1.00 1691 7.51 724 8.01
6 2019 855 3.97 1753 6.76 1116 1.00 1818 7.51 782 8.01
7 2020 889 3.97 1872 6.76 1127 1.00 1954 7.51 844 8.01
8 2021 924 3.41 1998 6.38 1138 0.00 2101 7.08 912 7.58
9 2022 955 3.41 2126 6.38 1138 0.00 2249 7.08 981 7.58
10 2023 988 3.41 2261 6.38 1138 0.00 2409 7.08 1056 7.58
11 2024 1022 3.41 2406 6.38 1138 0.00 2579 7.08 1136 7.58
12 2025 1056 3.41 2559 6.38 1138 0.00 2762 7.08 1222 7.58
13 2026 1092 3.35 2722 6.14 1138 0.00 2957 6.82 1314 7.32
14 2027 1129 3.35 2889 6.14 1138 0.00 3159 6.82 1411 7.32
15 2028 1167 3.35 3067 6.14 1138 0.00 3375 6.82 1514 7.32
16 2029 1206 3.35 3255 6.14 1138 0.00 3605 6.82 1625 7.32
17 2030 1246 3.35 3455 6.14 1138 0.00 3851 6.82 1744 7.32
18 2031 1288 3.35 3667 5.96 1138 0.00 4113 6.62 1871 7.12
19 2032 1331 3.35 3886 5.96 1138 0.00 4385 6.62 2004 7.12
20 2033 1376 3.35 4117 5.96 1138 0.00 4676 6.62 2147 7.12
0.5
0.75
Bus 0.080
LGV 0.059
2-Axle 2.595
3-Axle 5.897
M-Axle 14.536
BUS LGV
0.071 0.104 25 msa
0.092 0.140 34 msa
0.152 0.251 61 msa
0.222 0.401 99 msa20 years 7.967 43.041 47.102
10 years 3.923 14.416 15.294
15 years 5.945 26.389 28.418
Year 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle TOTAL
8 years 3.114 10.656 11.241
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STANDARD AXLES TO BE CATERED FOR DESIGN IN TERMS OF MSA PER LANE IN EACH
DIRECTION
Directional Distribution The Cumulative number of Standard Axles (N)
Lane Distribution (D)
VD
F V
alu
es (
F)
A= Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction
n= Design life in years
r = Annual growth Rate of Commercial Vechile
30 years 10.311 32.070 8.186 36.947 17.190
20 years 7.417 17.975 8.186 19.462 8.641
15 years 5.063 11.266 6.108 11.932 5.213
10 years 3.068 6.287 4.031 6.519 2.806
8 years 2.359 4.686 3.200 4.818 2.062
Constructi
on Period
Cumulative Both Direction Traffic in Million
Year BUS LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle
YEAR
Bus LGV 2-axle 3-axle M-axle
DESIGN TRAFFIC IN MILLION STANDARD AXLE
Location/ Section: Location of Survey Km 180+000
Base Year/ Traffic Count Year: August 2011
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROJECTION IN AADT , BOTH DIRECTION
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches
under NHDP-IVB in the state of Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
( )[ ]FDA
r
rN
n
×××−+×
=11365
Scott Wilson
Annexure 8.1E
AADTGrowth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %AADT
Growth
Rate %
BASE
YEAR2011 181 4.61 748 7.32 663 2.00 1066 8.14 593 8.64
2012 189 4.61 803 7.32 676 2.00 1153 8.14 644 8.64
2013 198 4.61 862 7.32 690 2.00 1247 8.14 700 8.64
1 2014 207 4.61 925 7.32 704 2.00 1348 8.14 760 8.64
2 2015 217 4.61 992 7.32 718 2.00 1458 8.14 826 8.64
3 2016 227 3.97 1065 6.76 732 1.00 1576 7.51 897 8.01
4 2017 236 3.97 1137 6.76 739 1.00 1695 7.51 969 8.01
5 2018 245 3.97 1214 6.76 747 1.00 1822 7.51 1047 8.01
6 2019 255 3.97 1296 6.76 754 1.00 1959 7.51 1131 8.01
7 2020 265 3.97 1383 6.76 762 1.00 2106 7.51 1221 8.01
8 2021 275 3.41 1477 6.38 769 0.00 2264 7.08 1319 7.58
9 2022 285 3.41 1571 6.38 769 0.00 2425 7.08 1419 7.58
10 2023 295 3.41 1671 6.38 769 0.00 2596 7.08 1527 7.58
11 2024 305 3.41 1778 6.38 769 0.00 2780 7.08 1643 7.58
12 2025 315 3.41 1891 6.38 769 0.00 2977 7.08 1767 7.58
13 2026 326 3.35 2012 6.14 769 0.00 3188 6.82 1901 7.32
14 2027 337 3.35 2136 6.14 769 0.00 3405 6.82 2040 7.32
15 2028 348 3.35 2267 6.14 769 0.00 3637 6.82 2189 7.32
16 2029 360 3.35 2406 6.14 769 0.00 3885 6.82 2350 7.32
17 2030 372 3.35 2554 6.14 769 0.00 4150 6.82 2522 7.32
18 2031 384 3.35 2710 5.96 769 0.00 4433 6.62 2706 7.12
19 2032 397 3.35 2872 5.96 769 0.00 4727 6.62 2899 7.12
20 2033 410 3.35 3043 5.96 769 0.00 5040 6.62 3105 7.12
0.5
0.75
Bus 0.08
LGV 0.13
2-Axle 4.86
3-Axle 8.39
M-Axle 14.65
BUS LGV
0.021 0.164 37 msa
0.027 0.219 50 msa
0.045 0.393 90 msa
0.066 0.627 145 msa20 years 10.085 65.971 68.646
10 years 4.966 22.096 22.289
15 years 7.526 40.447 41.416
Year 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle TOTAL
8 years 3.942 16.333 16.383
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF STANDARD AXLES TO BE CATERED FOR DESIGN IN TERMS OF MSA PER LANE IN EACH
DIRECTION
Directional Distribution The Cumulative number of Standard Axles (N)
Lane Distribution (D)
VD
F V
alu
es (
F)
A= Initial traffic in the year of completion of construction
n= Design life in years
r = Annual growth Rate of Commercial Vechile
30 years 3.075 23.704 5.532 39.824 24.862
20 years 2.212 13.286 5.532 20.978 12.498
15 years 1.510 8.327 4.128 12.861 7.540
10 years 0.915 4.647 2.724 7.026 4.058
8 years 0.703 3.463 2.162 5.194 2.983
Constructi
on Period
Cumulative Both Direction Traffic in Million
Year BUS LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle M-Axle
YEAR
Bus LGV 2-axle 3-axle M-axle
DESIGN TRAFFIC IN MILLION STANDARD AXLE
Location/ Section: Location of Survey Km 225+000
Base Year/ Traffic Count Year: August 2011
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROJECTION IN AADT , BOTH DIRECTION
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches
under NHDP-IVB in the state of Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
( )[ ]FDA
r
rN
n
×××−+×
=11365
Scott Wilson
Annexure – 8.2
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - I
(DESIGN CH. 27+700)Annexure 8.2
Inputs
Type of Concrete M40
Flexural Strength (Modulus of Rupture) of
Concretefcr 45 kg/cm2
Design Period 30 Years
Load Safety Factor 1.2
Design Traffic, % of the total Repetitions of
Comercial Vehicles25 %
98th Percential axle load 14 ton
Tyre Pressure 8 kg/cm2
CBR Value of subgrade 8 %
Thickness of Granular Sub-Base 15 cm
Thickness of DLC 15 cm
Trial Thickness of Pavement h 30 cm
Posson's Ratio of Concrete µ 0.15
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete E 300000 kg/cm2
Coefficent of Thermal expansion of
Concretea 0.00001 /
0C
Spacing of contraction joint (L) 450 cm
Width of Slab (B) 350 cm
Effective k over 150 cm DLC 41.7 kg/cm3
DESIGN OF PLAIN JOINTED RIGID PAVEMENTS
Modulus of subgrade reaction (kg/cm3)
(from Table 2)5.0 kg/cm3
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for
rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches under NHDP-IVB in the state of
Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - I
(DESIGN CH. 27+700)Annexure 8.2
SINGLE AXLE REAR ONLY
TOTAL
1 0.00 2.00 1 17 32.08 1916003 1 1.45 14270 0 0.00 0 1930273 1.20 1.628 0.04 Infinity 0.000
2 2.00 4.00 3 22 41.51 2479533 12 17.39 171237 4 15.38 385395 3036165 3.60 4.14 0.09 Infinity 0.000
3 4.00 6.00 5 6 11.32 676236 17 24.64 242586 4 15.38 385395 1304217 6.00 6.355 0.14 Infinity 0.000
4 6.00 8.00 7 7 13.21 788942 16 23.19 228316 8 30.77 770789 1788047 8.40 8.419 0.19 Infinity 0.000
5 8.00 10.00 9 1 1.89 112706 5 7.25 71349 3 11.54 289046 473101 10.80 10.377 0.23 Infinity 0.000
6 10.00 12.00 11 0 0.00 0 10 14.49 142698 3 11.54 289046 431744 13.20 12.249 0.27 Infinity 0.000
7 12.00 14.00 13 0 0.00 0 5 7.25 71349 2 7.69 192697 264046 15.60 14.051 0.31 Infinity 0.000
8 14.00 16.00 15 0 0.00 0 3 4.35 42809 2 7.69 192697 235506 18.00 15.797 0.35 Infinity 0.000
9 16.00 18.00 17 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 20.40 17.498 0.39 Infinity 0.000
10 18.00 20.00 19 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 22.80 19.161 0.43 Infinity 0.000
11 20.00 22.00 21 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 25.20 20.79 0.46 14335236 0.000
12 22.00 24.00 23 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 27.60 22.389 0.50 762043 0.000
13 24.00 26.00 25 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 30.00 3.959 0.09 Infinity 0.000
14 26.00 28.00 27 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 32.40 25.503 0.57 71229 0.000
15 28.00 30.00 29 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 34.80 27.022 0.60 30927 0.000
53 69 26
TANDEM AXLE
TOTAL
1 0.00 2.00 1 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 1.20 0.763 0.02 Infinity 0.000
2 2.00 4.00 3 1 1 62086 6.00 26 1425290 1487376 3.60 1.947 0.04 Infinity 0.000
3 4.00 6.00 5 0 0 0 7.00 30 1662838 1662838 6.00 2.955 0.07 Infinity 0.000
4 6.00 8.00 7 4 5 248346 6.00 26 1425290 1673636 8.40 3.876 0.09 Infinity 0.000
5 8.00 10.00 9 4 5 248346 1.00 4 237548 485894 10.80 4.742 0.11 Infinity 0.000
6 10.00 12.00 11 9 10 558778 0.00 0 0 558778 13.20 5.569 0.12 Infinity 0.000
7 12.00 14.00 13 4 5 248346 1.00 4 237548 485894 15.60 6.363 0.14 Infinity 0.000
8 14.00 16.00 15 7 8 434605 2.00 9 475097 909702 18.00 7.129 0.16 Infinity 0.000
9 16.00 18.00 17 10 11 620865 0.00 0 0 620865 20.40 7.871 0.17 Infinity 0.000
10 18.00 20.00 19 7 8 434605 0.00 0 0 434605 22.80 8.59 0.19 Infinity 0.000
11 20.00 22.00 21 8 9 496692 0.00 0 0 496692 25.20 9.289 0.21 Infinity 0.000
12 22.00 24.00 23 10 11 620865 0.00 0 0 620865 27.60 9.97 0.22 Infinity 0.000
13 24.00 26.00 25 14 16 869211 0.00 0 0 869211 30.00 10.635 0.24 Infinity 0.000
14 26.00 28.00 27 3 3 186259 0.00 0 0 186259 32.40 11.286 0.25 Infinity 0.000
15 28.00 30.00 29 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 34.80 11.924 0.26 Infinity 0.000
16 30.00 32.00 31 5 6 310432 0.00 0 0 310432 37.20 12.55 0.28 Infinity 0.000
17 32.00 34.00 33 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 39.60 13.166 0.29 Infinity 0.000
18 34.00 36.00 35 1 1 62086 0.00 0 0 62086 42.00 13.772 0.31 Infinity 0.000
19 36.00 38.00 37 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 44.40 14.27 0.32 Infinity 0.000
20 38.00 40.00 39 1 1 62086 0.00 0 0 62086 46.80 14.958 0.33 Infinity 0.000
21 40.00 42.00 41 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 49.20 15.539 0.35 Infinity 0.000
22 42.00 44.00 43 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 51.60 16.113 0.36 Infinity 0.000
23 44.00 46.00 45 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 54.00 16.68 0.37 Infinity 0.000
24 46.00 48.00 47 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 56.40 17.239 0.38 Infinity 0.000
25 48.00 50.00 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.80 17.608 0.39 Infinity 0.000
26 50.00 52.00 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.20
27 52.00 54.00 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.60
28 54.00 56.00 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.00
29 56.00 58.00 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.40
30 58.00 60.00 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70.80
88 23
0.000
SAFE
No. of Vehicles weighed =
No. of Vehicles counted =
Sample Size =
% of
Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
Stress,
kg/cm2
from
charts
Stress
RatioNumber of
Tandem Axles
% of Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
AL X 1.2
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Number of
Tandem Axles
MULTI AXLE
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of
Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of
Each
Category
Axle
Load
(AL) in
Tonnes
No. of Vehicles weighed =
Sample Size =
LCV
Axle Load Category
(Tonnes)AL X 1.2Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
3-AXLEMULTI AXLE
Stress
Ratio
Fatigue
life,
N
Fatigue life
consumedExpected
Repetitions
in Design life
2-AXLE
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
Fatigue life
consumed
Sl.
No.
Axle Load Category
(Tonnes)
Axle
Load
(AL) in
Tonnes
No. of Vehicles counted =
Stress,
kg/cm2
from
charts
% of Each
Category
CUMULATIVE FATIGUE LIFE CONSUMED
Fatigue Life Analysis
Sl.
No.
Fatigue
life,
N
URS / Scott Wilson
Annexure 8.2
URS / Scott Wilson
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
0 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
Design Wheel Load: Rear Single Axle Only
Rear Single Axle Load In Ton
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Fre
qu
ency
%
98 Percentile Load = 14 Ton
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - I
(DESIGN CH. 27+700)Annexure 8.2
LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle Multiaxle Bus
0-2 1 17 1 0 18 14.75 18.00 14.75
2-4 3 22 12 0 34 27.87 52.00 42.62
4-6 5 6 17 0 23 18.85 75.00 61.48
6-8 7 7 16 0 23 18.85 98.00 80.33
8-10 9 1 5 0 6 4.92 104.00 85.25
10-12 11 0 10 0 10 8.20 114.00 93.44
12-14 13 0 5 0 5 4.10 119.00 97.54
14-16 15 0 3 0 3 2.46 122.00 100.00
16-18 17 0 0 0 0 0.00 122.00 100.00
18-20 19 0 0 0 0 0.00 122.00 100.00
20-22 21 0 0 0 0 0.00 122.00 100.00
22-24 23 0 0 0 0 0.00 122.00 100.00
24-26 25 0 0 0 0 0.00 122.00 100.00
26-28 27 0 0 0 0 0.00 122.00 100.00
28-30 29 0 0 0 0 0.00 122.00 100.00
122Total
Total % Total
Cumulative
Total
Cumulative
Total %
Number of Axles
Analysis of Axle Load Survey for Rigid Pavement Design
Axle Load
(tonnes)
Average Axle
Load (tonnes)
Single Axles Rear only
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - I
(DESIGN CH. 27+700)Annexure 8.2
450 cm
350 cm
63.791 cm
7.054
1.036
15.8 o C
1.00E-05
24.55238 kg/cm2
15.79 kg/cm2
40.34 kg/cm2
45.00 kg/cm2
Highest Axle Load Stress
Check for Temperature Stresses
Total of Temperature Warping Stress and the highest
axle load stress=
Flexural Strength of Concrete=
Safe
Total of Temperature Warping Stress and the highest axle load stress is less
than the flexural strength, so pavement is safe under the combined action of
wheel load and temperature
Edge Warping Stress =
Spacing of contraction joint (L)
Width of Slab (B)
Radius of relative stiffness (I)
∴∴∴∴ L/Ι
Bradbury's Coefficent ( C )
Temperature Differential (t)
Coefficient of thermal expansion of cement concrete (α )
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
2
tCEα
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - I
(DESIGN CH. 27+700)Annexure 8.2
Corner Stress
Radius of relative stiffness, (l)
Radius of area contact of wheel,
Considering a Single Axle dual
wheel (a)
Tyre Pressure (q) 8 kg/cm2
98 percentile axle load 14 tonne
Wheel Load( Dual wheel), P 7 tonne
Load on one tyre, Pd 3.5 tonne
C/c distance between two tyres (S) 31 cm
a = 20.103 cm
l = 63.791 cm
CORNER STRESS 14.49 Kg/cm2
Flexural Strength of Concrete 45 Kg/cm2
The corner stress is less than the flexural strength of the concrete
It is safe
Check for Corner Stress
−=
2.1
2
21
3
l
a
h
P
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
5.05.0
5227.08521.0
+=
xq
PS
qx
Px dd
ππ
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - I
(DESIGN CH. 27+700)Annexure 8.2
Design wheel Load (Dual Wheel)
Percentage of Wheel load to transferred by Dowel bar
Width of Joint (z)
Diameter of Dowel bar (b)
Characteristic compresive strength of concrete (M40) Grade (fck)
Spacing between Dowel bar, (s) =
Distance of the first Dowel bar from the Pavement Edge
Total Load transferred by Dowel bar system
Load carried by the Outer dowel bar, (Pt)
Check for Bearing Stress
Moment of Inertia of Dowel bar, (I) = πb4/64
Modulus of Dowel/Concrete interaction (Dowel Support), (K)
Modulus of the Elasticity of the Dowel bar, (E)
DESIGN OF DOWEL BAR
7000Kg
% 40
cm 2
cm 3.2
cm 25
Kg/cm2 400
Kg/cm2 292.28
cm 15
cm 63.791
3
1.824 Pt
Kg 1534.840
cm4 5.147
Kg/cm2/cm 41500
Kg/cm2 283
Kg/cm2 2.0E+06
0.238
Allowable Bearing Stress on Concrete (Fb) = (10.16-b)*fck/9.525
Radius of Relative Stiffness, ( l )
Number of dowel bars participating in load transfer when load is just over the
dowel bar close to the edge of the slab, (n) = 1+ l /spacing
Relative stiffness of dowel bar embedded in concrete, (β) =
Bearing Stress between the concrete and dowel bar (σmax) =
Since Bearing Stres is less than the Allowable Bearing stress, Safe
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
4 4/ EIKb
( )ZEI
KPtβ
β
+24 3
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - I
(DESIGN CH. 27+700)Annexure 8.2
Design Parameters
Slab Thick ness cm 30
Coefficient of friction between pavement and the Sub-base/base, (f) 1.5
Lane Width, (b) m 3.5
Density of Concrete kg/m3 2400
Weight of Slab, (W) kg/m2 720
Allowable Tensile Stress in plain bars (as per IRC:21-2000), (S) kg/cm2 1250
Allowable Tensile Stress in Deformed bars (as per IRC:21-2000), (S) kg/cm2 2000
Allowable Bond Stress in plain tie bars, (B) kg/cm2 17.5
Allowable Bond Stress in Deformed tie bars, (B) kg/cm2 24.6
Diameter of Tie bar cm 1.2
Cross Sectional area of tie bar, (A) cm2 1.131
Perimetre of Tie bar, (P) cm 3.770
(A) Spacing and length of the plain bar
cm2/m 3.024
Spacing of Tie bars c/c, = A/As cm 37
Length of Tie bar, (L) = 2xSxA / BxP cm 42.86
cm 58.00
(A) Spacing and length of the Deformed Tie bar
cm2/m 1.89
Spacing of Tie bars c/c, = A/As cm 59
Length of Tie bar, (L) = 2xSxA / BxP cm 48.78
cm 64.00
DESIGN OF TIE BARS
Area of Steel bar per metre width of join to resist the frictional force
at slab bottom, (As) = bfW/ S
Increase length by 10 cm for loss of bond due to painting and
another 5 cm for tolerance in placement, Therefore the length is
Area of Steel bar per metre width of join to resist the frictional force
at slab bottom, (As) = bfW/ S
Increase length by 10 cm for loss of bond due to painting and
another 5 cm for tolerance in placement, Therefore the length is
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - II
(DESIGN CH. 86+000)Annexure 8.2
Inputs
Type of Concrete M40
Flexural Strength (Modulus of Rupture) of
Concretefcr 45 kg/cm2
Design Period 30 Years
Load Safety Factor 1.2
Design Traffic, % of the total Repetitions of
Comercial Vehicles25 %
98th Percential axle load 13 ton
Tyre Pressure 8 kg/cm2
CBR Value of subgrade 8 %
Thickness of Granular Sub-Base 15 cm
Thickness of DLC 15 cm
Trial Thickness of Pavement h 30 cm
Posson's Ratio of Concrete µ 0.15
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete E 300000 kg/cm2
Coefficent of Thermal expansion of
Concreteα 0.00001 /
0C
Spacing of contraction joint (L) 440 cm
Width of Slab (B) 350 cm
Effective k over 150 cm DLC 41.7 kg/cm3
DESIGN OF PLAIN JOINTED RIGID PAVEMENTS
Modulus of subgrade reaction (kg/cm3)
(from Table 2)5.0 kg/cm3
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for
rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches under NHDP-IVB in the state of
Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - II
(DESIGN CH. 86+000)
Annexure 8.2
SINGLE AXLE REAR ONLY
TOTAL
1 0.00 2.00 1 56 71.79 5756066 0 #DIV/0! 6 6.45 132026 0 0.00 0 5888092 1.20 1.628 0.04 Infinity 0.000
2 2.00 4.00 3 15 19.23 1541803 0 #DIV/0! 13 13.98 286057 4 10.81 464583 2292443 3.60 4.14 0.09 Infinity 0.000
3 4.00 6.00 5 6 7.69 616721 0 #DIV/0! 12 12.90 264053 8 21.62 929166 1809940 6.00 6.355 0.14 Infinity 0.000
4 6.00 8.00 7 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 14 15.05 308062 4 10.81 464583 772645 8.40 8.419 0.19 Infinity 0.000
5 8.00 10.00 9 1 1.28 102787 0 #DIV/0! 16 17.20 352070 7 18.92 813020 1267877 10.80 10.377 0.23 Infinity 0.000
6 10.00 12.00 11 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 19 20.43 418084 2 5.41 232291 650375 13.20 12.249 0.27 Infinity 0.000
7 12.00 14.00 13 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 10 10.75 220044 6 16.22 696874 916918 15.60 14.051 0.31 Infinity 0.000
8 14.00 16.00 15 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 2 2.15 44009 1 2.70 116146 160155 18.00 15.797 0.35 Infinity 0.000
9 16.00 18.00 17 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 1 1.08 22004 3 8.11 348437 370441 20.40 17.498 0.39 Infinity 0.000
10 18.00 20.00 19 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 1 2.70 116146 116146 22.80 19.161 0.43 Infinity 0.000
11 20.00 22.00 21 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 1 2.70 116146 116146 25.20 20.79 0.46 14335236 0.008
12 22.00 24.00 23 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 27.60 22.389 0.50 762043 0.000
13 24.00 26.00 25 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 30.00 3.959 0.09 Infinity 0.000
14 26.00 28.00 27 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 32.40 25.503 0.57 71229 0.000
15 28.00 30.00 29 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 34.80 27.022 0.60 30927 0.000
78 0 93 37
TANDEM AXLE
TOTAL
1 0.00 2.00 1 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 1.20 0.763 0.02 Infinity 0.000
2 2.00 4.00 3 0 0 0 11.00 35 3277564 3277564 3.60 1.947 0.04 Infinity 0.000
3 4.00 6.00 5 0 0 0 1.00 3 297960 297960 6.00 2.955 0.07 Infinity 0.000
4 6.00 8.00 7 6 6 595921 7.00 23 2085722 2681643 8.40 3.876 0.09 Infinity 0.000
5 8.00 10.00 9 11 12 1092521 6.00 19 1787762 2880283 10.80 4.742 0.11 Infinity 0.000
6 10.00 12.00 11 5 5 496601 3.00 10 893881 1390482 13.20 5.569 0.12 Infinity 0.000
7 12.00 14.00 13 3 3 297960 2.00 6 595921 893881 15.60 6.363 0.14 Infinity 0.000
8 14.00 16.00 15 5 5 496601 1.00 3 297960 794561 18.00 7.129 0.16 Infinity 0.000
9 16.00 18.00 17 12 13 1191841 0.00 0 0 1191841 20.40 7.871 0.17 Infinity 0.000
10 18.00 20.00 19 6 6 595921 0.00 0 0 595921 22.80 8.59 0.19 Infinity 0.000
11 20.00 22.00 21 10 11 993201 0.00 0 0 993201 25.20 9.289 0.21 Infinity 0.000
12 22.00 24.00 23 15 16 1489802 0.00 0 0 1489802 27.60 9.97 0.22 Infinity 0.000
13 24.00 26.00 25 9 10 893881 0.00 0 0 893881 30.00 10.635 0.24 Infinity 0.000
14 26.00 28.00 27 4 4 397280 0.00 0 0 397280 32.40 11.286 0.25 Infinity 0.000
15 28.00 30.00 29 2 2 198640 0.00 0 0 198640 34.80 11.924 0.26 Infinity 0.000
16 30.00 32.00 31 2 2 198640 0.00 0 0 198640 37.20 12.55 0.28 Infinity 0.000
17 32.00 34.00 33 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 39.60 13.166 0.29 Infinity 0.000
18 34.00 36.00 35 1 1 99320 0.00 0 0 99320 42.00 13.772 0.31 Infinity 0.000
19 36.00 38.00 37 1 1 99320 0.00 0 0 99320 44.40 14.27 0.32 Infinity 0.000
20 38.00 40.00 39 1 1 99320 0.00 0 0 99320 46.80 14.958 0.33 Infinity 0.000
21 40.00 42.00 41 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 49.20 15.539 0.35 Infinity 0.000
22 42.00 44.00 43 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 51.60 16.113 0.36 Infinity 0.000
23 44.00 46.00 45 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 54.00 16.68 0.37 Infinity 0.000
24 46.00 48.00 47 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 56.40 17.239 0.38 Infinity 0.000
25 48.00 50.00 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.80 17.608 0.39 Infinity 0.000
26 50.00 52.00 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.20
27 52.00 54.00 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.60
28 54.00 56.00 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.00
29 56.00 58.00 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.40
30 58.00 60.00 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70.80
93 31
0.008
SAFE
CUMULATIVE FATIGUE LIFE CONSUMED
Fatigue Life Analysis
BUS
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Sl.
No.
Fatigue
life,
N
Fatigue life
consumed
Sl.
No.
Axle Load Category
(Tonnes)
Axle
Load
(AL) in
Tonnes
No. of Vehicles counted =
Stress,
kg/cm2
from
charts
% of Each
Category
3-AXLEMULTI AXLE
Stress
Ratio
Fatigue
life,
N
Fatigue life
consumedExpected
Repetitions
in Design life
2-AXLE
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
Axle
Load
(AL) in
Tonnes
No. of Vehicles weighed =
Sample Size =
LCV
Axle Load Category
(Tonnes)AL X 1.2Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Number of
Tandem
Axles
MULTI AXLE
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of
Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of
Each
Category
% of Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
AL X 1.2
No. of Vehicles weighed =
No. of Vehicles counted =
Sample Size =
% of
Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
Stress,
kg/cm2
from
charts
Stress
RatioNumber of
Tandem
Axles
URS / Scott Wilson
Annexure 8.2
URS / Scott Wilson
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
0 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
Design Wheel Load: Rear Single Axle Only
Rear Single Axle Load In Ton
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Fre
qu
ency
%
98 Percentile Load = 13 Ton
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - II
(DESIGN CH. 86+000)Annexure 8.2
LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle Multiaxle Bus
0-2 1 56 6 0 62 36.26 62.00 36.26
2-4 3 15 13 0 28 16.37 90.00 52.63
4-6 5 6 12 0 18 10.53 108.00 63.16
6-8 7 0 14 0 14 8.19 122.00 71.35
8-10 9 1 16 0 17 9.94 139.00 81.29
10-12 11 0 19 0 19 11.11 158.00 92.40
12-14 13 0 10 0 10 5.85 168.00 98.25
14-16 15 0 2 0 2 1.17 170.00 99.42
16-18 17 0 1 0 1 0.58 171.00 100.00
18-20 19 0 0 0 0 0.00 171.00 100.00
20-22 21 0 0 0 0 0.00 171.00 100.00
22-24 23 0 0 0 0 0.00 171.00 100.00
24-26 25 0 0 0 0 0.00 171.00 100.00
26-28 27 0 0 0 0 0.00 171.00 100.00
28-30 29 0 0 0 0 0.00 171.00 100.00
171
Analysis of Axle Load Survey for Rigid Pavement Design
Axle Load
(tonnes)
Average Axle
Load (tonnes)
Single Axles Rear only
Total
Total % Total
Cumulative
Total
Cumulative
Total %
Number of Axles
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - II
(DESIGN CH. 86+000)Annexure 8.2
440 cm
350 cm
63.791 cm
6.897
1.019
15.8 o C
1.00E-05
24.14371 kg/cm2
20.79 kg/cm2
44.93 kg/cm2
45.00 kg/cm2
Total of Temperature Warping Stress and the highest
axle load stress=
Flexural Strength of Concrete=
Safe
Total of Temperature Warping Stress and the highest axle load stress is less
than the flexural strength, so pavement is safe under the combined action of
wheel load and temperature
Edge Warping Stress =
Spacing of contraction joint (L)
Width of Slab (B)
Radius of relative stiffness (I)
∴∴∴∴ L/Ι
Bradbury's Coefficent ( C )
Temperature Differential (t)
Coefficient of thermal expansion of cement concrete (α )
Highest Axle Load Stress
Check for Temperature Stresses
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
2
tCEα
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - II
(DESIGN CH. 86+000)Annexure 8.2
Corner Stress
Radius of relative stiffness, (l)
Radius of area contact of wheel,
Considering a Single Axle dual
wheel (a)
Tyre Pressure (q) 8 kg/cm2
98 percentile axle load 13 tonne
Wheel Load( Dual wheel), P 6.5 tonne
Load on one tyre, Pd 3.25 tonne
C/c distance between two tyres (S) 31 cm
a = 19.629 cm
l = 63.791 cm
CORNER STRESS 13.69 Kg/cm2
Flexural Strength of Concrete 45 Kg/cm2
The corner stress is less than the flexural strength of the concrete
It is safe
Check for Corner Stress
−=
2.1
2
21
3
l
a
h
P
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
5.05.0
5227.08521.0
+=
xq
PS
qx
Px dd
ππ
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - II
(DESIGN CH. 86+000)Annexure 8.2
Design wheel Load (Dual Wheel)
Percentage of Wheel load to transferred by Dowel bar
Width of Joint (z)
Diameter of Dowel bar (b)
Characteristic compresive strength of concrete (M40) Grade (fck)
Spacing between Dowel bar, (s) =
Distance of the first Dowel bar from the Pavement Edge
Total Load transferred by Dowel bar system
Load carried by the Outer dowel bar, (Pt)
Check for Bearing Stress
Moment of Inertia of Dowel bar, (I) = πb4/64
Modulus of Dowel/Concrete interaction (Dowel Support), (K)
Modulus of the Elasticity of the Dowel bar, (E)
Allowable Bearing Stress on Concrete (Fb) = (10.16-b)*fck/9.525
Radius of Relative Stiffness, ( l )
Number of dowel bars participating in load transfer when load is just over the
dowel bar close to the edge of the slab, (n) = 1+ l /spacing
Relative stiffness of dowel bar embedded in concrete, (β) =
Bearing Stress between the concrete and dowel bar (σmax) =
Since Bearing Stres is less than the Allowable Bearing stress, Safe
cm4 5.147
Kg/cm2/cm 41500
Kg/cm2 263
Kg/cm2 2.0E+06
0.238
1.824 Pt
Kg 1425.208
cm 15
cm 63.791
3
cm 3.2
cm 25
Kg/cm2 400
Kg/cm2 292.28
DESIGN OF DOWEL BAR
6500Kg
% 40
cm 2
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
4 4/ EIKb
( )ZEI
KPtβ
β
+24 3
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - II
(DESIGN CH. 86+000)Annexure 8.2
Design Parameters
Slab Thick ness cm 30
Coefficient of friction between pavement and the Sub-base/base, (f) 1.5
Lane Width, (b) m 3.5
Density of Concrete kg/m3 2400
Weight of Slab, (W) kg/m2 720
Allowable Tensile Stress in plain bars (as per IRC:21-2000), (S) kg/cm2 1250
Allowable Tensile Stress in Deformed bars (as per IRC:21-2000), (S) kg/cm2 2000
Allowable Bond Stress in plain tie bars, (B) kg/cm2 17.5
Allowable Bond Stress in Deformed tie bars, (B) kg/cm2 24.6
Diameter of Tie bar cm 1.2
Cross Sectional area of tie bar, (A) cm2 1.131
Perimetre of Tie bar, (P) cm 3.770
(A) Spacing and length of the plain bar
cm2/m 3.024
Spacing of Tie bars c/c, = A/As cm 37
Length of Tie bar, (L) = 2xSxA / BxP cm 42.86
cm 58.00
(A) Spacing and length of the Deformed Tie bar
cm2/m 1.89
Spacing of Tie bars c/c, = A/As cm 59
Length of Tie bar, (L) = 2xSxA / BxP cm 48.78
cm 64.00
DESIGN OF TIE BARS
Area of Steel bar per metre width of join to resist the frictional force
at slab bottom, (As) = bfW/ S
Increase length by 10 cm for loss of bond due to painting and
another 5 cm for tolerance in placement, Therefore the length is
Area of Steel bar per metre width of join to resist the frictional force
at slab bottom, (As) = bfW/ S
Increase length by 10 cm for loss of bond due to painting and
another 5 cm for tolerance in placement, Therefore the length is
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - III
(DESIGN CH. 159+100)Annexure 8.2
Inputs
Type of Concrete M40
Flexural Strength (Modulus of Rupture) of
Concretefcr 45 kg/cm2
Design Period 30 Years
Load Safety Factor 1.2
Design Traffic, % of the total Repetitions of
Comercial Vehicles25 %
98th Percential axle load 20 ton
Tyre Pressure 8 kg/cm2
CBR Value of subgrade 8 %
Thickness of Granular Sub-Base 15 cm
Thickness of DLC 10 cm
Trial Thickness of Pavement h 30 cm
Posson's Ratio of Concrete µ 0.15
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete E 300000 kg/cm2
Coefficent of Thermal expansion of
Concreteα 0.00001 /
0C
Spacing of contraction joint (L) 440 cm
Width of Slab (B) 350 cm
Effective k over 150 cm DLC 41.7 kg/cm3
DESIGN OF PLAIN JOINTED RIGID PAVEMENTS
Modulus of subgrade reaction (kg/cm3)
(from Table 2)5.0 kg/cm3
Project Road: Consultancy Services for preparation of Detailed Project Report for
rehabilitation and upgradation of NH stretches under NHDP-IVB in the state of
Haryana / Kaithal Rajasthan Border NH-65
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - III
(DESIGN CH. 159+100)
Annexure 8.2
SINGLE AXLE REAR ONLY
TOTAL
1 0.00 2.00 1 12 52.17 3091768 0 #DIV/0! 3 3.49 48246 0 0.00 0 3140014 1.20 1.628 0.04 Infinity 0.000
2 2.00 4.00 3 2 8.70 515295 0 #DIV/0! 8 9.30 128656 6 15.38 956230 1600181 3.60 4.14 0.09 Infinity 0.000
3 4.00 6.00 5 7 30.43 1803531 0 #DIV/0! 14 16.28 225147 7 17.95 1115602 3144280 6.00 6.355 0.14 Infinity 0.000
4 6.00 8.00 7 2 8.70 515295 0 #DIV/0! 21 24.42 337721 7 17.95 1115602 1968618 8.40 8.419 0.19 Infinity 0.000
5 8.00 10.00 9 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 11 12.79 176901 5 12.82 796858 973759 10.80 10.377 0.23 Infinity 0.000
6 10.00 12.00 11 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 11 12.79 176901 3 7.69 478115 655016 13.20 12.249 0.27 Infinity 0.000
7 12.00 14.00 13 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 10 11.63 160819 6 15.38 956230 1117049 15.60 14.051 0.31 Infinity 0.000
8 14.00 16.00 15 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 3 3.49 48246 3 7.69 478115 526361 18.00 15.797 0.35 Infinity 0.000
9 16.00 18.00 17 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 2 2.33 32164 2 5.13 318743 350907 20.40 17.498 0.39 Infinity 0.000
10 18.00 20.00 19 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 22.80 19.161 0.43 Infinity 0.000
11 20.00 22.00 21 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 2 2.33 32164 0 0.00 0 32164 25.20 20.79 0.46 14335236 0.002
12 22.00 24.00 23 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 1 1.16 16082 0 0.00 0 16082 27.60 22.389 0.50 762043 0.021
13 24.00 26.00 25 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 30.00 3.959 0.09 Infinity 0.000
14 26.00 28.00 27 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 32.40 25.503 0.57 71229 0.000
15 28.00 30.00 29 0 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 34.80 27.022 0.60 30927 0.000
23 0 86 39
TANDEM AXLE
TOTAL
1 0.00 2.00 1 0 0 0 3.00 8 807236 807236 1.20 0.763 0.02 Infinity 0.000
2 2.00 4.00 3 1 1 113135 12.00 32 3228945 3342080 3.60 1.947 0.04 Infinity 0.000
3 4.00 6.00 5 2 2 226271 8.00 22 2152630 2378901 6.00 2.955 0.07 Infinity 0.000
4 6.00 8.00 7 10 11 1131354 2.00 5 538157 1669511 8.40 3.876 0.09 Infinity 0.000
5 8.00 10.00 9 7 8 791948 2.00 5 538157 1330105 10.80 4.742 0.11 Infinity 0.000
6 10.00 12.00 11 0 0 0 4.00 11 1076315 1076315 13.20 5.569 0.12 Infinity 0.000
7 12.00 14.00 13 7 8 791948 4.00 11 1076315 1868263 15.60 6.363 0.14 Infinity 0.000
8 14.00 16.00 15 5 6 565677 1.00 3 269079 834756 18.00 7.129 0.16 Infinity 0.000
9 16.00 18.00 17 5 6 565677 1.00 3 269079 834756 20.40 7.871 0.17 Infinity 0.000
10 18.00 20.00 19 8 9 905083 0.00 0 0 905083 22.80 8.59 0.19 Infinity 0.000
11 20.00 22.00 21 6 7 678812 0.00 0 0 678812 25.20 9.289 0.21 Infinity 0.000
12 22.00 24.00 23 18 20 2036437 0.00 0 0 2036437 27.60 9.97 0.22 Infinity 0.000
13 24.00 26.00 25 8 9 905083 0.00 0 0 905083 30.00 10.635 0.24 Infinity 0.000
14 26.00 28.00 27 2 2 226271 0.00 0 0 226271 32.40 11.286 0.25 Infinity 0.000
15 28.00 30.00 29 1 1 113135 0.00 0 0 113135 34.80 11.924 0.26 Infinity 0.000
16 30.00 32.00 31 3 3 339406 0.00 0 0 339406 37.20 12.55 0.28 Infinity 0.000
17 32.00 34.00 33 3 3 339406 0.00 0 0 339406 39.60 13.166 0.29 Infinity 0.000
18 34.00 36.00 35 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 42.00 13.772 0.31 Infinity 0.000
19 36.00 38.00 37 1 1 113135 0.00 0 0 113135 44.40 14.27 0.32 Infinity 0.000
20 38.00 40.00 39 1 1 113135 0.00 0 0 113135 46.80 14.958 0.33 Infinity 0.000
21 40.00 42.00 41 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 49.20 15.539 0.35 Infinity 0.000
22 42.00 44.00 43 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 51.60 16.113 0.36 Infinity 0.000
23 44.00 46.00 45 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 54.00 16.68 0.37 Infinity 0.000
24 46.00 48.00 47 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 56.40 17.239 0.38 Infinity 0.000
25 48.00 50.00 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.80 17.608 0.39 Infinity 0.000
26 50.00 52.00 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.20
27 52.00 54.00 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.60
28 54.00 56.00 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.00
29 56.00 58.00 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.40
30 58.00 60.00 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70.80
88 37
0.023
SAFE
CUMULATIVE FATIGUE LIFE CONSUMED
Fatigue Life Analysis
BUS
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Sl.
No.
Fatigue
life,
N
Fatigue life
consumed
Sl.
No.
Axle Load Category
(Tonnes)
Axle
Load
(AL) in
Tonnes
No. of Vehicles counted =
Stress,
kg/cm2
from
charts
% of Each
Category
3-AXLEMULTI AXLE
Stress
Ratio
Fatigue
life,
N
Fatigue life
consumedExpected
Repetitions
in Design life
2-AXLE
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
Axle
Load
(AL) in
Tonnes
No. of Vehicles weighed =
Sample Size =
LCV
Axle Load Category
(Tonnes)AL X 1.2Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Number of
Tandem
Axles
MULTI AXLE
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of
Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design
life
Number of
Single Axles
(Rear Only)
% of
Each
Category
% of Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
AL X 1.2
No. of Vehicles weighed =
No. of Vehicles counted =
Sample Size =
% of
Each
Category
Expected
Repetitions
in Design life
Stress,
kg/cm2
from
charts
Stress
RatioNumber of
Tandem
Axles
URS / Scott Wilson
Annexure 8.2
URS / Scott Wilson
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
0 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
Design Wheel Load: Rear Single Axle Only
Rear Single Axle Load In Ton
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Fre
qu
ency
%
98 Percentile Load = 20 Ton
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - III
(DESIGN CH. 159+100)Annexure 8.2
LGV 2-Axle 3-Axle Multiaxle Bus
0-2 1 12 3 0 15 13.76 15.00 13.76
2-4 3 2 8 0 10 9.17 25.00 22.94
4-6 5 7 14 0 21 19.27 46.00 42.20
6-8 7 2 21 0 23 21.10 69.00 63.30
8-10 9 0 11 0 11 10.09 80.00 73.39
10-12 11 0 11 0 11 10.09 91.00 83.49
12-14 13 0 10 0 10 9.17 101.00 92.66
14-16 15 0 3 0 3 2.75 104.00 95.41
16-18 17 0 2 0 2 1.83 106.00 97.25
18-20 19 0 0 0 0 0.00 106.00 97.25
20-22 21 0 2 0 2 1.83 108.00 99.08
22-24 23 0 1 0 1 0.92 109.00 100.00
24-26 25 0 0 0 0 0.00 109.00 100.00
26-28 27 0 0 0 0 0.00 109.00 100.00
28-30 29 0 0 0 0 0.00 109.00 100.00
109
Analysis of Axle Load Survey for Rigid Pavement Design
Axle Load
(tonnes)
Average Axle
Load (tonnes)
Single Axles Rear only
Total
Total % Total
Cumulative
Total
Cumulative
Total %
Number of Axles
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - III
(DESIGN CH. 159+100)Annexure 8.2
440 cm
350 cm
63.791 cm
6.897
1.019
15.8 o C
1.00E-05
24.1 kg/cm2
20.8 kg/cm2
44.9 kg/cm2
45.00 kg/cm2
Total of Temperature Warping Stress and the highest
axle load stress=
Flexural Strength of Concrete=
Safe
Total of Temperature Warping Stress and the highest axle load stress is less
than the flexural strength, so pavement is safe under the combined action of
wheel load and temperature
Edge Warping Stress =
Spacing of contraction joint (L)
Width of Slab (B)
Radius of relative stiffness (I)
∴∴∴∴ L/Ι
Bradbury's Coefficent ( C )
Temperature Differential (t)
Coefficient of thermal expansion of cement concrete (α )
Highest Axle Load Stress
Check for Temperature Stresses
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
2
tCEα
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - III
(DESIGN CH. 159+100)Annexure 8.2
Corner Stress
Radius of relative stiffness, (l)
Radius of area contact of wheel,
Considering a Single Axle dual
wheel (a)
Tyre Pressure (q) 8 kg/cm2
98 percentile axle load 20 tonne
Wheel Load( Dual wheel), P 10 tonne
Load on one tyre, Pd 5 tonne
C/c distance between two tyres (S) 31 cm
a = 22.599 cm
l = 63.791 cm
CORNER STRESS 18.79 Kg/cm2
Flexural Strength of Concrete 45 Kg/cm2
The corner stress is less than the flexural strength of the concrete
It is safe
Check for Corner Stress
−=
2.1
2
21
3
l
a
h
P
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
5.05.0
5227.08521.0
+=
xq
PS
qx
Px dd
ππ
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - III
(DESIGN CH. 159+100)Annexure 8.2
Design wheel Load (Dual Wheel)
Percentage of Wheel load to transferred by Dowel bar
Width of Joint (z)
Diameter of Dowel bar (b)
Characteristic compresive strength of concrete (M40) Grade (fck)
Spacing between Dowel bar, (s) =
Distance of the first Dowel bar from the Pavement Edge
Total Load transferred by Dowel bar system
Load carried by the Outer dowel bar, (Pt)
Check for Bearing Stress
Moment of Inertia of Dowel bar, (I) = πb4/64
Modulus of Dowel/Concrete interaction (Dowel Support), (K)
Modulus of the Elasticity of the Dowel bar, (E)
Allowable Bearing Stress on Concrete (Fb) = (10.16-b)*fck/9.525
Radius of Relative Stiffness, ( l )
Number of dowel bars participating in load transfer when load is just over the
dowel bar close to the edge of the slab, (n) = 1+ l /spacing
Relative stiffness of dowel bar embedded in concrete, (β) =
Bearing Stress between the concrete and dowel bar (σmax) =
Since Bearing Stres is less than the Allowable Bearing stress, Safe
cm4 5.147
Kg/cm2/cm 41500
Kg/cm2 279
Kg/cm2 2.0E+06
0.238
2.649 Pt
Kg 1510.238
cm 15
cm 63.791
5
cm 3.2
cm 15
Kg/cm2 400
Kg/cm2 292.28
DESIGN OF DOWEL BAR
10000Kg
% 40
cm 2
( )4
2
3
112 k
Eh
µ−
=
4 4/ EIKb
( )ZEI
KPtβ
β
+24 3
URS / Scott Wilson
RIGID PAVEMENT AT TOLL PLAZA - III
(DESIGN CH. 159+100)Annexure 8.2
Design Parameters
Slab Thick ness cm 30
Coefficient of friction between pavement and the Sub-base/base, (f) 1.5
Lane Width, (b) m 3.5
Density of Concrete kg/m3 2400
Weight of Slab, (W) kg/m2 720
Allowable Tensile Stress in plain bars (as per IRC:21-2000), (S) kg/cm2 1250
Allowable Tensile Stress in Deformed bars (as per IRC:21-2000), (S) kg/cm2 2000
Allowable Bond Stress in plain tie bars, (B) kg/cm2 17.5
Allowable Bond Stress in Deformed tie bars, (B) kg/cm2 24.6
Diameter of Tie bar cm 1.2
Cross Sectional area of tie bar, (A) cm2 1.131
Perimetre of Tie bar, (P) cm 3.770
(A) Spacing and length of the plain bar
cm2/m 3.024
Spacing of Tie bars c/c, = A/As cm 37
Length of Tie bar, (L) = 2xSxA / BxP cm 42.86
cm 58.00
(A) Spacing and length of the Deformed Tie bar
cm2/m 1.89
Spacing of Tie bars c/c, = A/As cm 59
Length of Tie bar, (L) = 2xSxA / BxP cm 48.78
cm 64.00
DESIGN OF TIE BARS
Area of Steel bar per metre width of join to resist the frictional force
at slab bottom, (As) = bfW/ S
Increase length by 10 cm for loss of bond due to painting and
another 5 cm for tolerance in placement, Therefore the length is
Area of Steel bar per metre width of join to resist the frictional force
at slab bottom, (As) = bfW/ S
Increase length by 10 cm for loss of bond due to painting and
another 5 cm for tolerance in placement, Therefore the length is
URS / Scott Wilson
Chapter – 9
Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-1 June 2012
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
9.1 Background
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has been entrusted to implement the development of the project stretch from Kaithal to Rajasthan Border Section of National
Highway - 65 for rehabilitation and up-gradation under NHDP, Phase IV on BOT mode under
Package No: NHDP-IV/HR/DPR/02 in the state of Haryana. The entire project road lies in the
state of Haryana. The project road section starts from Kaithal and ends at Haryana-Rajasthan Interstate Border.
Four lane up-gradation of the project road from Kaithal to Haryana/Rajasthan Border Section of National Highway-65, may have adverse environmental impacts during construction and
operation phases. Therefore, for identification of environmental issues and impacts associated
with up-gradation of the project road, environmental screening has been carried out. Based on identified environmental impacts, environmental mitigation measures and environmental
management plan will be introduced in the design of the project road.
9.2 Project Description
National Highway (NH) 65 starts from Ambala (Punjab) and ends at Pali (Rajasthan). The
project road section under the scope of study starts from Kaithal, Km 44+000 (start of Kaithal Bypass) and ends at Haryana/ Rajasthan Border, Km 241+580. The Chainage of the Project road
decreases from Kaithal, km 44+200, to Narwana, Km 0+000. From this point it increases from
Km 121+400 to Rajasthan Border Km 241+480, where the project road section ends. The project road section is previously NH-65 and have been divided into two NH sections as per new
numbering of the National Highways as per MoRTH notification no. S.O. 542(E) dated
05/03/2010. The discontinuity in the km-stones observed is due to same. The section from
Kaithal to Narwana is NH-152 as per the new numbering and the km-stones are also observed as per the new NH number and chainage. The section from Narwana to Rajasthan Border is part on
NH-52. But the section from Narwana to Rajasthan Border has the old km-stones of NH-65.
Location plan of the project road is shown in Figure 9.1.
The existing length of the project road section is approx. 153.4 km considering the start point at
Km 33+400 i.e. end of the proposed Kaithal Bypass. The project road traverses through four
districts of Haryana, namely Kaithal, Jind, Hisar, and Bhiwani.
9.3 Corridor of Impact for Environmental Screening
The project road is four laning of existing two lane / with paved shoulder road. Corridor of
Impact (COI) for the Environmental Screening of the project road will be as given below:
Proposed RoW = 60.0m
Proposed RoW in some identified Built-up Area = 30.0m/ 45.0m
The widening plan considered for environmental screening is as given below:
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length (m) Widening
From To From To
33+250 31+000 2250 0+000 2+250 2250 Left
31+000 29+000 2000 2+250 4+250 2000 Right
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-2 June 2012
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length (m) Widening
From To From To
29+000 27+300 1700 4+250 6+000 1750 Left
27+300 26+800 500 6+000 6+500 500 Right
26+800 26+000 800 6+500 7+250 750 Left
26+000 25+300 700 7+250 7+950 700 Right
25+300 24+600 700 7+950 8+650 700 Concentric 4-Lane
with 7.0m SR
24+600 21+000 3600 8+650 12+250 3600 Right
21+000 20+500 500 12+250 12+750 500 Left
20+500 19+000 1500 12+750 14+250 1500 Right
19+000 18+120 880 14+250 15+100 850 Left
18+120 15+300 2820 15+100 18+550 3450 Kalayat Bypass
15+300 10+000 5300 18+550 23+700 5150 Left
10+000 8+550 1450 23+700 25+150 1450 Right
8+550 6+000 2550 25+150 27+800 2650 Left
6+000 4+800 1200 27+800 29+050 1250 Right
4+800 4+450 350 29+050 29+450 400 Left
4+450 3+410 1040 29+450 30+500 1050 Right
3+410 +0 3410 30+500 31+950 1450 Narwana Bypass
31+950 32+400 450 Narwana Bypass
121+400 121+850 450 32+400 32+850 450 Flyover Approach
121+850 122+530 680 32+850 33+530 680 Concentric 4-Lane
with 7.0m SR
122+530 123+540 1010 33+530 34+540 1010 Approach with SR
(5.5m)
123+540 124+000 460 34+540 35+000 460 Concentric 4-Lane
124+000 124+400 400 35+000 35+400 400 Approach with SR
(5.5m)
124+400 126+300 1900 35+400 37+300 1900 Left
126+300 130+400 4100 37+300 41+400 4100 Right
130+400 130+650 250 41+400 41+600 200 Realign on LHS
130+650 131+050 400 41+600 42+000 400 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR
131+050 135+350 4300 42+000 46+300 4300 Right
135+350 138+060 2710 46+300 50+100 3800 Dhanaudha Bypass
138+060 140+360 2300 50+100 52+400 2300 Left
140+360 140+760 400 52+400 52+800 400 Realign on LHS
140+760 142+600 1840 52+800 54+640 1840 Right
142+600 142+870 270 54+640 54+850 210 Realign on LHS
142+870 153+450 10580 54+850 65+400 10550 Right
153+450 156+800 3350 65+400 68+700 3300 Left
156+800 157+200 400 68+700 69+100 400 Approach with SR
(5.5m)
157+200 158+150 950 69+100 70+100 1000 Left
158+150 162+540 4390 70+100 71+450 1350 Barwala Bypass
71+450 72+150 700 Barwala Bypass
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-3 June 2012
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length (m) Widening
From To From To
72+150 73+650 1500 Barwala Bypass
73+650 74+350 700 Barwala Bypass
74+350 75+030 680 Barwala Bypass
75+030 75+730 700 Barwala Bypass
75+730 77+950 2220 Barwala Bypass
162+540 162+790 250 77+950 78+200 250 Left
162+790 163+690 900 78+200 79+100 900 ROB Approach
163+690 167+840 4150 79+100 83+250 4150 Left
167+840 169+000 1160 83+250 84+410 1160 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR
169+000 169+500 500 84+410 84+910 500 Right
169+500 172+700 3200 84+910 88+110 3200 Left
172+700 174+000 1300 88+110 89+410 1300 Right
174+000 178+000 4000 89+410 93+410 4000 Left
178+000 181+100 3100 93+410 96+500 3090 Right
181+100 198+900 17800
96+500 105+250 8750 Talwandi Rana Byp
105+250 106+150 900 Flyover Approach
106+150 109+500 3350 Hisar Bypass
109+500 110+500 1000 ROB Approach
110+500 117+720 7220 Hisar Bypass
117+720 118+620 900 VUP Approach
118+620 121+800 3180 Hisar Bypass
121+800 122+400 600 Hisar Bypass
198+900 199+250 350 122+400 122+750 350 Flyover Approach
199+250 200+700 1450 122+750 124+200 1450 Right
200+700 202+100 1400 124+200 125+600 1400 Left
202+100 203+130 1030 125+600 126+630 1030 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR
203+130 209+000 5870 126+630 132+500 5870 Left
209+000 209+500 500 132+500 133+000 500 Right
209+500 210+580 1080 133+000 134+080 1080 Left
210+580 211+500 920 134+080 135+000 920 Concentric 4-Lane
with 5.5m SR
211+500 212+300 800 135+000 135+800 800 Left
212+300 214+300 2000 135+800 137+800 2000 Right
214+300 214+850 550 137+800 138+350 550 Left
214+850 217+500 2650
138+350 138+610 260 Barwa Bypass
138+610 138+810 200 Barwa Bypass
138+810 140+235 1425 Barwa Bypass
140+235 140+435 200 Barwa Bypass
140+435 141+650 1215 Barwa Bypass
217+500 217+790 290 141+650 141+950 300 Realignment LHS
217+790 218+120 330 141+950 142+280 330 Left
218+120 218+540 420 142+280 142+700 420 Realignment LHS
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-4 June 2012
Existing Km Existing
Length
(m)
Design Km Design
Length (m) Widening
From To From To
218+540 218+790 250 142+700 142+950 250 Right
218+790 219+350 560 142+950 143+500 550 Left
219+350 225+340 5990
143+500 145+700 2200 Siwani Bypass
145+700 145+900 200 Siwani Bypass
145+900 146+450 550 Siwani Bypass
146+450 147+350 900 Siwani Bypass
147+350 148+300 950 Siwani Bypass
148+300 149+300 1000 ROB + Flyover
Approach
149+300 149+650 350 Siwani Bypass
225+340 229+550 4210 149+650 153+860 4210 Left
229+550 230+060 510 153+860 154+370 510 Concentric 4-Lane
230+060 230+520 460 154+370 154+830 460 Left
230+520 230+800 280 154+830 155+080 250 Realignment LHS
230+800 232+050 1250 155+080 156+330 1250 Left
232+050 232+900 850 156+330 157+180 850 Realign on LHS
232+900 233+400 500 157+180 157+680 500 Left
233+400 235+300 1900 157+680 159+480 1800 Realign on LHS
235+300 238+000 2700 159+480 162+180 2700 Left
238+000 240+200 2200 162+180 164+380 2200 Concentric 4-Lane
240+200 241+580 1380 164+380 165+759 1379 Left
153430
165759
9.4 Objective and Scope of Work of Environmental Screening
The purpose of Environmental Screening is to identify and evaluate the nature, magnitude and
significance of the potential adverse environmental and social impacts arising during construction and operation of the project road.
The environmental screening is carried out to assess the potential environmental impacts likely to be triggered by the project.
The Environmental screening is prepared in order meet the following objectives:
• to provide information about the general environmental settings along the project road as
baseline data;
• to provide information on potential impacts of the project and the characteristic of the
impacts, magnitude, distribution, who will be the affected group, and their duration;
• to determine the magnitude of environmental impacts so that due consideration can be given
to them during planning, construction and operational phase of project road.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-5 June 2012
Kaithal
Narwana
Barwala
Hisar
Siwani
Haryana-
Rajasthan
Border DELHI
ROHTA
PANIPA
KARNA
JIND
BHIWAN
KURUKSHETRA
AMBALA
Figure 9.1: Location Map for Project Road
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-6 June 2012
• to provide information on potential mitigation measures to minimize the impact including
mitigation costs;
• to assess the socio-economic conditions during planning and implementation phases,
• to identify alternative methods to minimize the impact on the environmental and socio-
economic factors, and
• to provide information on Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
Thus, the objective of environmental screening is to recognize those aspects and areas, which are
not environmentally or socio-economically significant and should not be considered further and
to ensure that proper and pointed attention is devoted to the relevant environmental and socio-economic aspects in the project planning and implementation stages.
The environmental screening study of the project road includes:
• The analysis of available information concerning the general population distribution,
concentration of tribal or cultural groups, concentration of low income communities, areas of
significant Right-of-Way (ROW) encroachments, sensitive and/or critical natural habitat (e.g.
national park, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, protected areas, forest, wet land, etc.), major
rivers and water ways, cultural heritage sites and potentially sensitive areas.
• Environmental screening and consultation.
• Identifying the list of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs), namely, air, water, land and
ecological, biological, social, cultural and the impact of the road widening on them.
• Consideration of alternatives and suggesting mitigative and compensation measures.
• Identifying the ‘hot spots’ of critical physical and natural resources and suggesting
alternative methods.
9.5 Regulatory and Institutional Regime
9.5.1 Applicable Environmental Regulations
Applicable environmental acts, rules and regulation to proposed four laning of Kaithal-Rajasthan
Border Section of NH 65 are as given below:
Sl.
No. Legal Framework
Coordinating
Agency Objectives/Highlights of Framework
Environment Legal Framework
1. Water (Prevention and
Control of pollution) Act 1974
CPCB, HSPCB Prohibits the discharge of pollutants into
water bodies beyond a given standard, and lays down penalties for non-
compliance.
2. Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977
CPCB, HSPCB Provides for a levy and collection of a
cess on water consumed by industries and local authorities.
3. Forest (Conservation)
Act 1980, Forest Conservation Rules,
1981
MoEF,
Regional, State Forest
Department
(SFD)
Restrictions on conversions of Forest for
uses other than reforestation, including use for roads.
4. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981
CPCB, HSPCB Provides means for the control and abatement of air pollution.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-7 June 2012
Sl.
No. Legal Framework
Coordinating
Agency Objectives/Highlights of Framework
5. The Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982
CPCB, HSPCB Defined the procedures for conducting
meetings of the boards, the powers of the presiding officers, decision-making
etc.
6. Environment
(Protection) Act 1986
Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF)
Ensure that appropriate measures are
taken to conserve and protect the environment before commencement of
operations.
7. Flyash Notification 2009
MoEF Mandates use of flyash in road construction.
8. The Environment
(Protection) Rules,
1986
MoEF, CPCB &
HSPCB
Lay down the procedures for setting
standards of emission or discharge of
environmental pollutants.
9. National Environment
Tribunal Act, 1995
National
Environment
Tribunal
To provide for strict liability for
damages arising out of any accident
occurring while handling any hazardous
substance.
10. Biodiversity Act 2002 National
Biodiversity
Authority/State authorities
To provide for conservation of
biodiversity, sustainable use of
resources fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from use of resources.
Social Legal Framework
11. NRRP 2007 MOEF Provide procedures for land acquisition
and compensation for project affected families.
9.5.2 Environmental Permits/Approvals Required For Project Road
The project road is 4 lane up-gradation with unpaved shoulder of Kaithal-Rajasthan Border
section of NH 65. Following environment related clearances will be required for proposed up-
gradation of the project road.
i. Environmental Clearance
As per Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006, amendment 2009, expansion of National Highways greater than 30 km, involving additional right of way greater than 20m
involving land acquisition require prior Environmental Clearance. The proposed four lane up-
gradation of the project road attracts Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006, amendment 2009. Therefore, prior environmental clearance is required for four laning of the
project road.
The project does not pass through wildlife sanctuary, national park or any other sensitive
locations. There is no eco sensitive location within 10 km radius. Further, there is no critically
polluted area, international or interstate boundary within 10 km distance from the project road.
ii. Consent to Establish/NOC
Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Rules & Amendments and Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, Rules & Amendments, ‘Consent to Establish/NOC will be obtained from Haryana State Pollution Control Board for proposed up-
gradation of the project road.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-8 June 2012
To obtain Consent to Establish/NOC under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
1974, Rules & Amendments and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, Rules &
Amendments, separate applications on prescribed format along the Demand Draft of mandatory fees will be submitted to Haryana State Pollution Control Board. After processing applications,
conditional Consent to Establish/NOC is issued by Haryana State Pollution Control Board.
iii. Forest Clearance for Reserved/Protected Forest Areas
The project road is passing through Reserved Forest. However, road side plantation is notified
protected forest, hence, prior forest clearance will be obtained under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for diversion of protected forest land for non forestry use.
iv. Permission of Cutting of Trees on Non Forest Land
For cutting of trees on non-forestry private /govt. land, application will be submitted to District
Collector/DFO after site inspection, permission for cutting of trees will be granted.
9.6 Description of the Environment
9.6.1 Introduction
Collection of baseline information on bio-physical, social and economic aspects of the project
area is the most important reference for environmental screening study. Based on the existing
environmental scenario potential impacts of road improvement will be identified and accordingly management plan will be proposed. The description of environmental settings includes the
characteristic of area in which the activity of up-gradation of existing road would be occur and
cover area affected by all environmental impacts. For conducting the environmental screening (ES), existing environmental conditions along the project road, have been obtained by intensive
site visits, primary data collection, monitoring, sampling and secondary data collection from
published source and various government agencies. Collection of baseline data was designed to satisfy information requirements and focused on relevant aspects that are likely to be affected by
the proposed up-gradation of existing road from Kaithal to Rajasthan Border Section of National
Highway-65.
9.7 Physical Environment
9.7.1 Topography and Physiography
The project road being situated on the Yamuna-Ghaggar plain, the terrain for the entire stretch is
plain with the soil composition being alluvial type. The area along the project road is level plain
and has mostly flat topography. The general slope of the area is from north to south-southwest direction. No rock outcrop is observed in the area.
9.7.2 Geology
The region is formed by the alluvium of the Quaternary age. The strata section of different tube
wells of the area indicates the presence of thick succession of alternate sequence of sand and clay. The thickness of these beds varies from place to place. The sedimentary sequence contains
alternate layers of sand and clay. The ground surface is formed by clay. The grain size of the
sediments becomes gradually finer in the upward direction. The area is not subjected to major
structural disturbance, so the sediments are neither folded nor joint and nor fractured.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-9 June 2012
9.7.3 Soil in the Area
Soil is usually differentiated into horizons of minerals and organic constituents of varying depth, which differ from the parent material below in morphology, physical properties and constituents,
chemical properties and composition and biological characteristics. The soil environment
describes the baseline aspects of the nature and geomorphic features, soil conditions and quality,
borrow and material resources and land use characteristics. Soil serves as a source of nutrients for vegetation plants and crops and also provides mechanical anchorage.
The soil quality assessment has been carried out during environmental screening to determine the potential of soil in the area and to identify the impacts of the proposed development on soil
quality.
For studying soil characteristics of the area, sampling locations were selected to assess the baseline soil conditions along the proposed road. The physical, chemical and nutrient
characteristics of soil samples were determined. The samples were collected by ramming a core-
cutter into the soil up to a depth of 15 cm.
Entire area along the project road is dominated by mostly agricultural and rural activities
followed by urban area. To understand the soil quality of the study area, 4 locations were selected for soil sampling. Composite sampling of soil up to root depth (10-15 cm) was carried
out at each location.
Soil Types of the Study Area
The soil of the study area consists of alluvial deposit dominated by sediment constituents. Soil in
the area is deep and generally very fertile and possesses mostly sand, sandy loam, clay loam and loamy texture. The colour of soil in the study area varies from brown to yellowish. The top
surface of soil consists of mostly sandy loamy to loamy sand in texture and are fertile.
Soil Quality in Study Area
The results of soil analysis are given in Table 9.1. Brief description of analysed parameters is
given below:
Moisture: Moisture content of soil ranges from 5.7 to 6.9%.
Bulk Density: Bulk density of soil samples ranges from 1.38 to 1.45 g/cc. Water Holding Capacity (WHC): Water holding capacity (WHC) of soil found to be in the
range from 37.9 to 41.5%.
pH: The pH of soil ranges from 7.6 to 8.0.
Electrical Conductivity: The electrical conductivity of soil ranges from 143 to 257 umho/cm. Alkalinity: Alkalinity of soil samples ranges from 1.58 to 1.84 meq/100g.
Acidity: Acidity of soil samples ranges from 0.83 to 1.54 meq/100g.
Calcium: Calcium content in the soil samples ranges from 0.058 to 0.090%. Magnesium: Magnesium content in the soil samples ranges from 0.048 to 0.074%.
Chloride: Chloride content in the soil samples ranges from 0.069 to 0.192%.
Sulphate: Sulphate content in the soil samples ranges from 0.019 to 0.041%. Organic Matter: Organic matter in the soil samples contents ranges from 0.88% to 1.2%.
Organic Carbon: Carbon contents in the soil samples ranges from 0.47 to 0.62%.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-10 June 2012
Table 9.1: Soil Quality in the Study Area
S. No. Locations Unit Kiathal Narwana Barwala Hisar Siwani
1. Moisture % 6.9 6.3 5.7 5.8 6.1
2. Bulk Density g /cc 1.42 1.39 1.45 1.43 1.38
3. WHC % 41.2 40.7 38.6 41.5 37.9
4. Texture Sandy
loam
Sandy
loam
Loamy
Sand
Sandy
Loam
Sandy
5. pH 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.7 8.0
6. Electrical
Conductivity µmho/cm 169 209 143 156 257
7. Alkalinity Meg /100g 1.58 1.72 1.81 1.69 1.84
8. Acidity Meq/100g 0.88 1.32 1.54 0.83 1.26
9. Calcium (Ca) % 0.067 0.058 0.075 0.09 0.071
10. Magnesium (Mg) % 0.072 0.056 0.074 0.048 0.055
11. Chloride (Cl) % 0.069 0.123 0.142 0.192 0.126
12. Sulphate (SO4) % 0.019 0.037 0.041 0.034 0.027
13. Organic Matter % 0.98 0.92 1.2 1.1 0.88
14. Organic Carbon % 0.54 0.45 0.62 0.57 0.41
9.7.4 Drainage Pattern
Good natural drainage is available in the area along the project road. There are few distributaries
and minors in the area. The drainage pattern of the area is well managed by and other natural
streams.
9.7.5 Surface and Ground Water Hydrology
A. Water Resources
i. Surface Water Resource
There is no major river crossed by the project road. Hansi and Sirsa canal distributaries and few
other small local drains are crossed by project road.
ii. Rainfall
Table 9.2 gives the rainfall data for the area. The area receives on an average, 490.6 mm of rainfall annually mainly from south-west monsoon. The region is medium rainfall area. Nearly,
80.6 % of annual rainfall is received during June to September. Only about 5.4% of the normal
rainfall is received during the winter season. On an average, there are 28.5 rainy days in a year.
Table 9.2: Rainfall in the Area
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
13.4 15.5 12.1 5.6 20.6 42.9 140.7 146.9 65.0 14.8 6.1 7.3 490.6
1.1 1.2 1.3 0.6 1.3 3.0 6.9 7.5 3.5 0.9 0.5 0.7 28.5
Source : IMD Station, Hisar
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-11 June 2012
Graphical presentation of monthly rainfall and rainy day are shown in Figure 9.2 and
Figure 9.3, respectively.
iii. Ground Water Hydrology
Ground water is the most important water source in the study area. There are many borewells in
the area but dug wells are only few. The first or upper aquifer lies between the depth ranges of 4 to 92 m below ground level (bgl). The shallow aquifers in the study area are un-confined or semi-
confined and these are the water table aquifers. The drilling depth of most of the private
tubewells for irrigation ranges from 32 to 60 m deep on the basis of local hydrogeological conditions. The water level in the study area has been reported to show a decline of 0.5 to 1.5 m
from post-monsoon to pre-monsoon period and the same can be ascribed to ground water
withdrawal for domestic, agricultural and industrial use during dry season in the study area.
Figure 9.2: Monthly Rainfall (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall (mm)
Figure 9.3: Monthly Rainy Days
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-12 June 2012
B. Water Quality
Under natural conditions, surface water quality reflects environmental conditions to a great extent. Hydro-geochemical factors influence colour, odour, taste, temperature and the degree of
mineralisation of water derived from surface run off, springs, etc. Besides, human settlements,
overall land use, morphology of the basin area, seasonal distribution of rainfall and winds,
disposal of industrial effluents and sewage, etc. contribute a great deal in determining the quality of water. The quality of ground water is influenced by surface and sub-surface environmental
conditions. The quantity and quality of water entering the underground regime is another
important parameter which influences underground water quality.
The analysis results for ground water samples are given in Table 9.3.
The pH and TDS values range in between 7.9 to 8.2 and 497 to 568 mg/l, respectively and meet the drinking water relaxed standards. Chloride contents (75.5 to 112.7 mg/l) meet the desirable
limit (250 mg/l). Calcium and magnesium contents at all ground water sampling locations are
found in between the range from 27.6 to 38.7 mg/l and from 13.1 to 18.2 mg/l, respectively and are below the relaxed limits specified for drinking water.
Table 9.3: Ground Water Quality in the Study Area
S. No. Parameters Units Kaithal Narwana Barwala Hisar Siwani
1. pH 7.9 8.2 7.8 7.7 8.1
2. Colour Hazan <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
3. Odour Un Objectionable
Un Objectionable
Un Objectionable
Un Objectionable
Un Objectionable
4. Turbidity NTU <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
5. TDS mg/l 557 517 497 541 568
6. Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l 144 125 145 171 152
7. Nitrate as NO3 mg/l 1.2 1.7 0.9 1.3 1.8
8. Chloride as Cl mg/l 82.7 93.7.1 112.7 75.3 91.5
9. Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 21.6 23.8 18.9 19.7 22.3
10. Calcium as Ca mg/l 34.2 27.6 31.5 38.7 33.2
11. Magnesium as Mg mg/l 14.2 13.7 16.1 18.2 16.8
12. Iron as Fe mg/l 0.28 0.23 0.42 0.26 0.21
13. Fluoride as F mg/l 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.24
9.7.6 Climatology
Climatological (long-term) data is obtained from the closest Indian Meteorology Department
(IMD) station or from any other nearby station, which has been collecting meteorological data
for more than ten years.
Climatological data for Hisar IMD station is discussed in following subsections.
Seasons
The climate of area is characterised by an intensely hot summer, a cold winter and general
dryness throughout the year except during south-west monsoon season. Generally, the area experiences the following four seasons in a year:
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-13 June 2012
Summer : March to June
Monsoon : July to September
Postmonsoon : October and November Winter : December to February
Temperature
Table 9.4 gives the temperatures at Hisar IMD Station which is nearest IMD Station. June is the
hottest month, the mean daily maximum temperature in that month being 45.2oC. On individual
day in this May and June sometimes the day temperature may reach over 48oC. The nights are
also quite oppressive and they continue to be so even in the monsoon months. With the onset of
the monsoon after the middle of June the day temperature decrease by about five or six degree
centigrade but the night temperatures remains high. This continues till September. In October
while the day temperatures remain as warm as September, the nights become cooler. From November both day and night temperatures steadily drop. January is the coldest month, when the
mean daily maximum temperature is 27.3oC and the mean daily minimum is 1.7
oC. In association
with cold waves which affect the area in the wake of passing western disturbances, minimum temperatures sometimes drop as low as two degrees centigrade below the freezing point of water.
The frosts often occur particularly in January and early February. The hot weather begins by
March when temperature rise rather rapidly with the advance of the season.
Relative Humidity (RH)
Table 9.4 gives the relative humidity (RH) data at Hisar IMD Station. RH is highest during January months (82% at 8:30 hr) and lowest during April month (27% at 17.30 hr).
Table 9.4: Temperature and Humidity
Month
Mean Daily
Maximum
Temperature (oC)
Mean Daily
Minimum
Temperature (oC)
Relative Humidity (%)
08.30 17.30
January 27.3 1.7 82 50
February 30.8 3.4 76 43
March 36.7 7.7 68 39
April 42.1 13.4 51 29
May 45.0 18.7 46 27
June 45.2 21.8 55 34
July 42.1 23.1 75 58
August 39.1 23.2 81 66
September 38.6 20.3 76 56
October 37.6 13.2 68 44
November 33.2 6.3 69 45
December 28.0 2.7 78 50
Annual 45.6 1.3 69 45
Source : IMD Station, Hisar
Graphical presentation of monthly maximum and minimum temperatures is shown in Figure 9.4.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-14 June 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
January March May July September NovemberMax Min
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
January March May July September November
0830 hrs 1730 hr
Graphical presentation of monthly relative humidity is shown in Figure 9.5.
Wind Speed
Table 9.5 gives the wind speeds data at Hisar IMD Station. At Hisar IMD station, annual average
wind speed is 6.7 kmph. Highest average monthly wind speed is observed to be in June (10.1 kmph) while lowest (4.2 kmph) in November month.
Table 9.5: Wind Speed in the Area
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
5.2 6.1 7.0 7.2 8.2 10.1 9.1 7.2 6.2 5.1 4.2 4.5 6.7
Source : IMD Station, Hisar
Figure 9.5: Monthly Relative Humidity during Morning and Evening
Figure 9.4: Monthly Maximum and Minimum Temperatures
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-15 June 2012
Graphical presentation of mean monthly wind speed is shown in Figure 9.6.
Winds
Wind Pattern for the area is given in Table 9.6. The prevailing winds blow from NW -SW sector
towards SE-NE sector from October to June. During July and September winds blow from E-SE. Calm periods are high and observed from 6 to 33 % of the time.
Table 9.6: Wind Pattern in the Area
S. No. Months N NE E SE S SW W NW Calm
1. January 5 5 8 7 6 16 20 8 25
20 7 8 5 2 3 14 23 18
2. February 7 5 7 10 11 17 15 9 20
22 7 9 4 2 4 14 29 9
3. March 7 5 6 10 11 17 15 9 20
22 8 7 5 4 8 15 25 6
4. April 10 6 7 9 10 17 12 10 19
19 5 5 3 4 10 22 26 6
5. May 8 5 7 9 9 20 18 10 14
16 5 4 4 5 11 25 25 5
6. June 4 3 7 13 9 23 27 7 7
10 6 10 8 6 11 27 15 7
7. July 2 4 13 20 10 17 19 4 11
7 10 18 15 8 11 14 7 10
8. August 3 6 14 15 10 16 19 4 13
7 13 17 14 8 11 11 6 13
9. September 2 6 10 10 7 17 23 5 20
14 14 12 7 4 8 15 14 12
10. October 4 3 7 9 9 19 13 4 32
22 8 7 3 3 3 10 18 26
11. November 3 3 5 8 9 18 16 5 33
Figure 9.6: Monthly Wind Speed
Wind Speed (kmph)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-16 June 2012
S. No. Months N NE E SE S SW W NW Calm
20 5 5 3 2 2 11 19 33
12. December 3 4 8 9 4 18 18 6 30
15 6 8 3 1 2 12 20 33
Annual 5 5 8 11 8 18 18 7 20
16 8 9 9 4 7 16 19 15
Source: IMD Station, Hisar
Cloudiness
The skies are generally moderately to heavily clouded during the monsoon season and in winter
season. The skies are mainly clear or lightly clouded during the December to March months.
Special Weather Phenomena
Special weather phenomena are given in Table 9.7 for the area. Thunder occurs on an average 36.5 day in a year. Hail occurs on an average 1.1 day in a year and squalls are rare in the region.
Fog occurs for about 7.2 days. More than 0.3 mm precipitation is occurred on 43.6 days in a year.
Dust storm occurs for about 9.6 days in a year.
Table 9.7 : Special Weather Phenomena in the Area
Months PPT 0.3 mm or more Hail Thunder Fog Dust
Storm Squall
January 2.3 0.2 1.1 3.0 0.1 0
February 2.2 0.2 1.5 0.7 0.1 0
March 2.5 0.2 2.4 0.1 0.6 0
April 1.6 0.1 2.6 0 1.3 0
May 2.5 0 5.3 0.4 3.4 0
June 4.6 0 5.8 0 2.7 0
July 9.1 0 6.7 0.2 0.7 0
August 10.3 0 5.7 0 0.3 0
September 4.9 0 3.0 0.1 0.2 0
October 1.5 0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0
November 0.9 0 0.7 0.1 0 0
December 1.2 0 0.7 2.5 0.1 0
Annual 43.6 1.1 36.5 7.2 9.6 0
Source : IMD Station, Hisar
9.7.7 Ambient Air Quality
The ambient air quality with respect to the study area along the project road form baseline
information. The study area represents mostly urban, rural/residential environment. The sources of air pollution in the region are vehicular traffic, dust arising from unpaved road and domestic
fuel burning. The prime objective of the baseline air quality study is to establish the existing
ambient air quality along the project road. This will also be useful for assessing the conformity to
standards of the ambient air quality specified by CPCB due to the construction and operation of the project road.
This section describes the identification of sampling locations, methodology adopted for monitoring and frequency of sampling. The results of monitoring during the study period are also
presented in this section.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-17 June 2012
Selection of Sampling Locations
The baseline status of the ambient air quality has been established through a scientifically
designed ambient air quality monitoring network and is based on the following considerations:
• meteorological conditions on synoptic scale;
• topography of the study area;
• representatives of regional background air quality for obtaining baseline status; and
• representatives of likely impact areas along the project road.
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM) stations were set up at 5 locations with due
consideration to the above mentioned points.
Frequency and Parameters for Sampling
Ambient air quality monitoring has been carried out with a frequency of two days per week at 5
locations during the study period. The baseline data of air environment is monitored for the below mentioned parameters:
• Particulate Matter (PM2.5);
• Particulate Matter (PM10);
• Sulphur dioxide (SO2);
• Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX); and
• Carbon monoxides (CO);
Sampling and Analytical Techniques
PM2.5 and PM10 have been estimated by gravimetric method. Modified West and Gaeke method
(IS-5182 part-II, 1969) has been adopted for estimation of SO2. Jacobs-Hochheiser method (IS-5182 part-IV, 1975) has been adopted for the estimation of NOX.
Samples for Carbon Monoxide were collected as grab in glass tubes and NDIR techniques were
used for estimation.
The techniques adopted for sampling and analysis are given in Table 9.8 along with the
minimum detection limits for each parameter.
Table 9.8: Techniques Used For Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
S.
No.
Parameter Technique Minimum Detectable Limit
(µµµµg/m3)
1. Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Gravimetric Method 1.0
2. Particulate Matter (PM10) Gravimetric Method 1.0
3. Sulphur dioxide Modified West and Gaeke 5.0
4. Nitrogen Oxide Modified Jacob & Hochheiser 5.0
5. Carbon Monoxide Non Dispersive Infrared
Spectroscopy (NDIR)
1
Ambient air quality monitoring has been carried at Kaithal, Narwana, Barwala, Hisar and Siwani
locations along the project road. The ambient air quality monitoring stations were selected with major settlements and their population along the project road. Ambient air quality monitoring
results for PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NOx and CO concentrations are given in Table 9.9.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-18 June 2012
Monitored values are compared with National Ambient Air Quality Standards prescribed by
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for residential, rural and other areas.
On the basis of tabulated results following observations can be made:
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
The mean PM2.5 concentration at ambient air quality monitoring locations was found as 34.7
µg/m3. The maximum and minimum PM2.5 concentrations measured at various AAQM stations
were 41 and 29 µg/m3, respectively. 98%tile value of PM2.5 is 40.5 µg/m
3.
Particulate Matter (PM10)
The mean PM10 concentration at ambient air quality monitoring locations was found 66.6 µg/m
3.
The maximum and minimum PM10 concentrations measured at various AAQM stations are 72
and 60 µg/m3, respectively. 98 %tile value of PM10 is 71.6 µg/m
3.
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
The mean concentrations of SO2 at all ambient air quality monitoring locations found 16.0 µg/m
3.
The maximum and minimum SO2 concentrations measured at various AAQM locations are 18.3
and 13.4 µg/m3, respectively. 98 %tile value of SO2 is 18 µg/m
3.
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
The mean concentrations of NOx at all AAQM locations range from 21.9 µg/m3. The maximum
and minimum NOx concentrations measured at various AAQM locations are 24.2 and 18.9
µg/m3, respectively. 98 %tile value of NOx is 24.0 µg/m
3.
Carbon Monoxide
The mean concentrations of CO at all AAQM locations range from 1000 µg/m3. The maximum
and minimum CO concentrations measured at various AAQM locations are 1128 and 898 µg/m3,
respectively. 98 %tile value of CO is 1125 µg/m3.
Ambient Air Quality Status
National air quality standards for rural, residential and industrial area, along the project road are
met for monitored parameters (PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NOx and CO) for all AAQM stations.
Table 9.9 : Ambient Air Quality Along the Project Road
Locations Date PM2.5 PM10 SO2 NOx CO
µµµµg/m3 µµµµg/m
3 µµµµg/m
3 µµµµg/m
3 µµµµg/m
3
A. Prescribed Standard 60 100 80 80 2000
B. Monitored Results
Kaithal 23/09/2011 38 67 17.3 24.2 1058
28/09/2011 41 70 15.7 21.6 951
Narwana 23/09/2011 31 62 16.5 22.1 898
28/09/2011 36 68 18.2 23.8 957
Barwala 23/09/2011 29 60 15.4 19.8 1023
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-19 June 2012
Locations Date PM2.5 PM10 SO2 NOx CO
µµµµg/m3 µµµµg/m
3 µµµµg/m
3 µµµµg/m
3 µµµµg/m
3
28/09/2011 33 65 14.6 18.9 911
Hisar 23/09/2011 37 69 16.2 22.5 1113
28/09/2011 34 66 15.8 23.2 987
Siwani 23/09/2011 32 67 13.4 19.3 945
28/09/2011 36 72 17.5 23.4 1128
Max. 41 72 18.2 24.2 1128
Min. 29 60 13.4 18.9 898
Mean 34.7 66.6 16 21.9 1000
98%tile 40.5 71.6 18 24 1125
Graphical presentation of maximum, minimum and average values of air quality monitoring along the project road are shown in following Figure 9.7
9.7.8 Noise Measurements
A preliminary reconnaissance survey was undertaken to identify the major noise generating
sources in the area. The noise at different noise generating sources has been identified based on
the Industrial, commercial and residential activities, traffic and noise at sensitive areas. Sound Pressure Level (SPL) measurements were undertaken at all locations, with an interval of about 5
seconds over a period of 10 minutes per hour for 24 hr. The day noise level has been monitored
during 6 AM to 10 PM and night levels during 10 P.M. to 6 AM at all locations.
On the spot measurement device manufactured by Castle Associates, England was used. The
sound level meter measures the Sound Pressure Level (SPL), the maximum sound pressure level (Max) and the equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) by switching on the corresponding
function mode. Time constant for fast, slow, impulse and peak responses are provided and the
suitable response conditions can be selected by operating other switch. The operation of a
resetting button permits to erase the maximum hold and integrated values.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
PM2.5 PM10 SO2 Nox CO
Max. Min. Average 98 %tile
Figure 9.7 : Ambient Air Quality along the Project Road
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-20 June 2012
For noise levels measured over a given period of time interval, it is possible to describe important
features of noise using statistical quantities. This is calculated using the percent of the time
certain noise levels are exceeded during the time interval. The notation for the statistical quantities of the noise levels are described below:
• L10 is noise level exceeded 10% of the time;
• L50 is noise level exceeded 50% of the time; and
• L90 is noise level exceeded 90% of the time.
Equivalent Sound Pressure Level (Leq)
The Leq is the equivalent continuous sound level, which is equivalent to the same sound energy
as the actual fluctuating sound measured in the same period. This is necessary because sound from noise source often fluctuates widely during a given period of time. This is calculated from
the following equation:
L eq(hrly) = L50+ (L10 - L90)2/60
Also:
• Lday is defined as the equivalent noise level measured over a period of time during day (6
AM to 10 PM).
• Lnight is defined as the equivalent noise level measured over a period of time during night (10
PM to 6 AM).
Hourly measurements have been carried out in day and night time at Kaithal, Narwana, Barwala, Hisar and Siwani locations during environmental screening. Day and night-time Leq have been
calculated from hourly Leq values and compared with the stipulated standards as given in
Table 9.10.
Table 9.10: Ambient Standards in Respect of Noise
Area Code Category of Area Leq Limits in dB(A)
Day Time Night Time
A Industrial Area 75 70
B Commercial Area 65 55
C Residential Area 55 45
D Silence Zone 50 40
Note: 1. Day-time is reckoned in between 6:00 a.m and 10:00 p.m.
2. Night time is reckoned is between 10:00 p.m and 6.00 a.m.
3. Silence Zone is defined as areas upto 100 m around such premises as hospitals,
educational, institutions and Courts. The Silence Zones are to be declared by the
competent authority.
Table 9.11 gives the day and night-time Leq noise levels. Measured Leq noise levels are below the prescribed limit stipulated for residential area at all the locations on the project road.
Table 9.11 : Day and Night Time Leq in the Area
Locations Day Time dB(A) Night Time dB(A)
Kaithal 53.4 42.1
Narwana 51.7 41.2
Barwala 52.3 40.5
Hisar 52.9 42.4
Siwani 51.5 42.3
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-21 June 2012
Graphical presentation of day and night time noise levels along the project road is shown in
Figure 9.8.
9.8 Ecological Resources
9.8.1 Forest
There is no reserved forest-land involved in the proposed road.
9.8.2 Terrestrial Ecology
9.8.2.1 Reconnaissance Survey
The study area is mostly dominated by rural and agricultural activities. Botanically, the study
area lies in the Yamuna-Ghaggar plain and possesses very fertile soil and excellent sources of
irrigation. The area receives moderate rainfall from south-west monsoon. The vegetation in the area is tropical dry deciduous type.
9.8.2.2 Vegetation in the Area
The plants in the study area are sparsely distributed in a heterogeneous manner. Some plant
species like Eucalyptus hybrid, Albizia procera, Holoptelea integrifolia, Tamarix aphylla,
Prosopis juliflora, Pongamia pinnata, Albizia lebbek, Cassia festula, Acacia arabica, Carcica
Papaya, and Leucaena leucocephala are very frequently observed in the study area.
Some xerophytic species like Achyranthes aspera (Apmarg), Zizyphus nummularia, Balanites
aegyptica (Hingot) Adhatoda vasica (Arush), Manilkara haxandra (Khirni), and Capparis
zeylanca (Heens) are very common and are capable of regenerating themselves in various ways.
Some plant species like Anogeissus pendula, Cordia dichotoma, Eucalyptus hybrid, Cassia
fistula, Acacia arabica Polyathia longifolia, Pongamia globra, Pongamia pinnata, Dalbergia
sissoo, Holoptelea intergrifolia, Haplophragma adenophyllum, Psidium guajava, Nerium
indicum are quite common in and around the project study area. Acacia arabica, Prosopis
juliflora, Eucalyptus hybrid, and Pongamia pinnata are dominantly observed.
Figure 9.8: Ambient Noise Levels
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Kaithal Narw ana Barw ala Hisar Siw ani
Day Time dB(A) Night Time dB(A)
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-22 June 2012
Cynodon dacthylon (Dub) grass is commonly found along the crop fields whereas Desmostachya
bipinnata (Dab), Erianthus munja (Munj) and Saccharum spontaneum (Kans) grasses are also
observed in study area.
9.8.2.3 Terrestrial Wild Animals
Most of the part of the area is rural and dominated by agricultural activities. Only few species of common wild animals are observed in the study area. Rhesus Macaque, Naja Naja, Varanus
Griseus, Harpestes edwarids Felis Chary, Boselaphus tragocamelus, Cants aurelus,
Funumblulus pennadi and Lepus aphicadate are occasionally found in the area.
9.8.2.4 Aquatic Flora
Aquatic flora grows in the wetland and in stagnant water bodies and is of ecological importance. In the water bodies aquatic floras mobilise mineral elements from the bottom sediments and
provide shelter to aquatic invertebrates and fishes.
In the ponds and stagnant water of flowing water bodies, many species of aquatic flora are
observed. Hydrilla verticillata, Eichhornia carssipes, Walffia, Victoria regia,
PotamogetonMmicroscopia, Vallisneria spiralis, Utricularia, Myrio phylum, Trapabisposa,and
Nelumbium speciosum are commonly observed aquatic flora.
9.8.2.5 Protected Areas
There is no wildlife sanctuary, national park or any other ecological sensitive site along the
project road.
9.9 Socio-Economic Development
The economic deployment has taken place. Most of the population along the road is engaged in agricultural activity.
9.9.1 Agricultural Development
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood of the population along the project road. Wheat,
mustard, jowar and fodder are major crops cultivated in the area. There are three cropping
season, namely, kharif, rabi and Zayad. Kharif crops include, Jowar, Bazra, fodder, etc. while rabi crops include wheat, mustard, etc. Rabi crops are usually sown in November whereas Kharif
crops are sown with the beginning of the first rains in July.
9.9.2 Mineral Development
There are no mineral development activities carrying out along the project road.
9.9.3 Social and Cultural Resources
The growth of development activities in an area is bound to create its impact on the socio-economic aspects of the local population. The impacts may be positive or negative depending
upon the nature of the development activities. To assess the impacts of proposed up-gradation of
existing road on the socio-economic environment, it is necessary to study the baseline socio-
economic status of the area.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-23 June 2012
9.9.4 Archaeological and Historical Monuments
No archaeological and historical monument is located along the project road.
9.9.5 Cultural and Religious Structures
In the most of the length of project road is traversing in the populated and habitation area. Few religious and cultural structures are located along the road and may be affected due to four laning
of the project. During environmental screening, Mazar (Km 30.6), Shamshan (Km 22.4), Graves
(km 20.5 and km 18.2), temples (km 171.300, km 201.200, km 234.400) were observed along the project road and need to be avoided during four laning.
9.9.6 Socio-economic Environment
Demographic Details
Demographic details of census settlements along the project road are given in the Table 9.12 and discussed in following sections:
Data on settlements with number of households, population as well as literacy in the settlements located along the project road has been obtained from census records and presented in
Table 9.12. From the tabulated data following observations can be made:
A. House Holds
In the settlements located along the project road, there are total 108083 households as per census
records 2001.
B. Population
As per census records, the population of settlements along the project road is 579875. The male
population constituted nearly 54.04 % persons while the female population was only 45.96 % of
the total population.
C. Sex Ratio
As per census records, sex ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males. As per census records, sex ratio in settlements located along the project road was 851.
D. Schedule Cast
Along the project road 18.5% population is schedule cast population.
E. Schedule Tribe
There is no schedule tribe population along the project road.
F. Literacy
Literate population in the villages along the project road is given in Table 9.13 as per the census
records. Literacy among the population along the project road is 63.2%, out of which 59.8% amongst males and 40.2 % amongst females.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-24 June 2012
E. Employment Pattern
The employment pattern in the area is an indicator of number of persons employed in various
sectors. It also indicates the various categories of employment flourishing in the area. The
employment pattern in the settlements located along the project road is given in Table 9.13.
From tabulated data, it is observed that total workers in the area account for 33.6% (49.1% male
and 15.3% female) of the total population. Total non-workers account for 66.4 % of the total population (50.9% male and 84.7% female).
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-25 June 2012
Table 9.12: Demographic Details along the Kaithal-Rajasthan Border Section of NH 65
S.
No. Name of Settlements Type
House
Hold
Total Population Schedule Cast Schedule Tribe Literate
P M F M F M F M F
1 Kaithal Urban 21914 117285 63098 54187 9154 7738 0 0 43910 31246
2 Kalayat Urban 2955 17051 9119 7932 2067 1774 0 0 5635 3689
3 Peoda Rural 807 4672 2502 2170 366 300 0 0 1403 749
4 Pinjupura Rural 312 1710 930 780 189 158 0 0 507 253
5 Simla Rural 739 4184 2308 1876 543 447 0 0 1183 502
6 Titram Rural 646 4025 2239 1786 607 458 0 0 1434 737
7 Bahbalpur Rural 306 1768 946 822 90 73 0 0 703 391
8 Dhakal Rural 1256 7285 3903 3382 780 644 0 0 2193 1058
9 Dharamgarh Rural 299 1639 879 760 161 148 0 0 573 360
10 Dumarkha Kalan Rural 836 4874 2675 2199 707 524 0 0 1580 811
11 Hatho Rural 558 3157 1671 1486 320 274 0 0 856 468
12 Jajanwala Rural 461 2775 1457 1318 368 366 0 0 827 448
13 Narwana Urban 9092 50435 27073 23362 3847 3413 0 0 18662 12488
14 Siwani Urban 2845 15850 8463 7387 2631 2304 0 0 5488 3365
15 Barwala Urban 5847 33132 17500 15632 6576 5941 0 0 11193 7319
16 Bichpari Rural 463 2824 1478 1346 377 327 0 0 834 458
17 Chaudhriwas Rural 1005 5847 3081 2766 865 764 0 0 1724 916
18 Dhingtana Rural 418 2427 1288 1139 297 255 0 0 862 472
19 Gaibipur Rural 858 4923 2576 2347 1616 1538 0 0 1376 721
20 Gangwa Rural 3120 16715 8945 7770 1659 1468 0 0 6566 4239
21 Hisar Urban 49896 256689 140083 116606 20789 17877 0 0 104942 72986
22 Kallar Bhaini Rural 294 1662 885 777 272 226 0 0 576 319
23 Ludas Rural 474 2910 1568 1342 775 680 0 0 940 494
24 Muklan Rural 451 2705 1445 1260 285 253 0 0 987 499
25 Sarsod Rural 771 4630 2460 2170 547 452 0 0 1394 785
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-26 June 2012
S.
No. Name of Settlements Type
House
Hold
Total Population Schedule Cast Schedule Tribe Literate
P M F M F M F M F
26 Surewala Rural 562 3249 1781 1468 671 532 0 0 940 440
27 Talwandi Rana Rural 898 5452 2985 2467 928 859 0 0 1793 969
Total 108083 579875 313338 266537 57487 49793 0 0 219081 147182
Source: Census Record 2001
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-27 June 2012
Table 9.13: Occupational Pattern along the Kaithal-Rajasthan Border Section of NH 65
S. No. Name of
Settlements
Total
Workers
Total Main
Workers Cultivators
Agricultural
Labour
Other
Workers
Marginal
Workers Non Workers
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
1 Kaithal 30143 3613 27484 2812 620 37 460 48 26404 2727 2659 801 32955 50574
2 Kalayat 4277 817 3849 396 922 43 308 101 2619 252 428 421 4842 7115
3 Peoda 1281 1015 971 92 554 16 138 66 279 10 310 923 1221 1155
4 Pinjupura 462 328 389 101 166 79 64 18 159 4 73 227 468 452
5 Simla 1273 925 1151 589 694 360 277 206 180 23 122 336 1035 951
6 Titram 993 377 920 127 491 77 7 1 422 49 73 250 1246 1409
7 Bahbalpur 454 194 393 24 247 17 12 1 134 6 61 170 492 628
8 Dhakal 1994 1383 1700 651 1012 417 82 13 606 221 294 732 1909 1999
9 Dharamgarh 437 381 356 36 185 8 108 22 63 6 81 345 442 379
10 Dumarkha Kalan
1346 369 1147 152 423 127 145 3 579 22 199 217 1329 1830
11 Hatho 1106 941 841 622 489 385 182 117 170 120 265 319 565 545
12 Jajanwala 682 484 649 425 289 269 130 81 230 75 33 59 775 834
13 Narwana 12727 2736 11820 2027 1285 560 274 113 10261 1354 907 709 14346 20626
14 Siwani 4138 1073 3789 625 711 360 67 14 3011 251 349 448 4325 6314
15 Barwala 8469 1759 7447 882 621 35 570 104 6256 743 1022 877 9031 13873
16 Bichpari 739 578 674 448 374 330 25 10 275 108 65 130 739 768
17 Chaudhriwas 1714 1320 1305 466 652 283 249 35 404 148 409 854 1367 1446
18 Dhingtana 670 499 601 348 354 266 30 11 217 71 69 151 618 640
19 Gaibipur 1428 850 1217 582 292 138 230 147 695 297 211 268 1148 1497
20 Gangwa 4014 1615 3537 1129 516 383 98 20 2923 726 477 486 4931 6155
21 Hisar 70054 1604
6 66138
1268
9 525 122 520 249 65093
1231
8 3916 3357 70029 100560
22 Kallar Bhaini 423 321 361 205 157 29 60 19 144 157 62 116 462 456
23 Ludas 719 451 660 147 209 83 81 24 370 40 59 304 849 891
24 Muklan 769 559 751 539 375 339 143 129 233 71 18 20 676 701
25 Sarsod 1236 779 1184 655 685 496 212 84 287 75 52 124 1224 1391
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-28 June 2012
S. No. Name of
Settlements
Total
Workers
Total Main
Workers Cultivators
Agricultural
Labour
Other
Workers
Marginal
Workers Non Workers
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
26 Surewala 911 600 849 163 453 130 165 15 231 18 62 437 870 868
27 Talwandi
Rana 1545 910 1146 274 427 209 35 17 684 48 399 636 1440 1557
Total 15400
4
4092
3
14132
9
2720
6
1372
8 5598 4672 1668 122929
1994
0 12675 13717 159334 225614
Source: Census Record 2001.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-29 June 2012
9.10 Screening of Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
9.10.1 Impact on Physiography and Topography
Since proposed project is widening of existing road within available ROW, impact on the
physiography of the area would be insignificant during construction and operation phase. The design will consider the improvement of roadside drainage conditions through the improvement
of cross-drainage structures. Design of the cross drainage structures will follow IRC Guidelines
(IRC, 1995).
9.11 Potential Environmental Impacts on Soil
Soil is one of the most important components of the physical environment. During up-grading the existing road, the potential impacts on soil are discussed as given below:
9.11.1 Design and Construction Phase
a. Loss of Productive Soil
Four 4 laning of the project road, 679 ha land will be acquired. The area along the project road is
mostly culturable land. Therefore, some loss of productive soils is anticipated due to acquisition
of agricultural land. However, the productivity of crops in the region will not be affected by the 4
laning of the project road.
Efforts will be made to minimize acquisition of the productive land. The location of construction
camp and other construction sites shall not be located on productive agricultural land. The topsoil from areas to be permanently covered shall be stripped to a specified depth of 150 mm and stored
in stockpiles. The stored topsoil will be utilized for the redevelopment of borrow areas, top
dressing of road embankments, fill slopes and filling up of tree pits proposed as part of compensatory plantation.
Temporary loss of productive soil is likely if haul roads for the transport of borrow materials,
traffic detours during construction, etc. are routed through agricultural lands.
b. Soil Erosion
During the up-gradation of the project, some trees, shrubs and grasses will need to be cleared
along the project road, which may pose some soil erosion problem during first few rains. Suitable
mitigation measures will need to be implemented to prevent the soil erosion problem.
Excavations of earth from borrow pit areas may also lead to loss of topsoil and soil erosion
problem.
c. Contamination of Soil
In the project road, the contamination of the soil will be negligible. Further, the contractor shall initiate measures to minimize waste generation from all construction activities. At construction
sites, the vehicles and equipments will be maintained properly and refueled only at fueling areas,
without any spillages.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-30 June 2012
d. Compaction of Soil
During construction phase, at some places, soil in the adjoining productive lands beyond the ROW may be compacted by the movement of construction vehicles, machinery and equipment.
Mitigation Measures
During the construction phase, mitigation measures to prevent the soil erosion are:
• Re-plantation of trees,
• Good engineering & construction practices
• Turfing on embankment.
• Providing mild slopes, not flat nor steep slope,
These steps will efficiently mitigate the potential soil erosion problem and by the time the road
starts operating, the ecosystems will restore itself. Soil erosion should visually check on slops
and high embankment areas along the road during construction phase. In case soil erosion is
found suitable measures should be taken to control the soil erosion.
To avoid the soil contamination, at the wash down and re-fueling areas, “oil interceptors” shall be
provided. Unusable debris shall be dumped in nearest landfill sites.
To prevent any compaction of soil in the adjoining productive lands beyond the ROW, the
movement of construction vehicles, machinery and equipment will be restricted to the corridor.
Borrow Area and Quarries
For filling and embankment during construction phase, borrow pits need to be excavated along the project road. For construction of road, aggregate will be procured from nearest quarry
approved by State Pollution Control Board.
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the adverse impact during excavation of borrow pits, following mitigation measures should be taken:
• Indian Road Congress (IRC):10-1961 guideline should be followed for excavation of earth from borrow areas.
• Borrow areas should be excavated as per the intended end use by the owner. The following criteria have been used for selection of borrow pits and amount that can be borrowed. They are
as follows:
� Borrow areas should not be located on cultivable lands. However, if it becomes necessary
to borrow earth from temporarily acquired cultivated lands, their depth should not exceed
45 cm. The topsoil to a depth of 15 cm shall be stripped and set aside. Thereafter, soil may
be dug out to a further depth not exceeding 30cm and used in forming the embankment.
� Borrow pit shall be selected from wasteland at least 500m away from the road;
� Priority should be given to the borrowing from humps above the general ground level within the road land;
� Priority should be given to the borrowing by excavating/enlarging existing tanks;
� Borrowing should be from land acquired temporarily and located at least 500m away from
the road;
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-31 June 2012
� Borrowing should be from mounds resulting from the digging of well and lowering of
agricultural fields in vicinity of the road;
� In case of settlements, borrow pit shall not be selected within a distance 800m from towns
or villages. If unavoidable, earth excavation shall not exceed 30 cm in depth. � The haulage distance from site should not be too far.
Aggregate required for road construction should be procured from quarries approved by State
Pollution Control Board. Air and noise emissions from quarry should be well within the prescribed limit.
9.11.2 Operation Phase
No impact is anticipated on soil during the operation phase and therefore, no mitigation measure
is required. However, soil erosion should visually check on slops and high embankment areas along the road during operation phase. In case soil erosion is found suitable measures should be
taken to control the soil erosion.
9.12 Impacts on Water Resources
Four lane widening of project road may lead to two types of impacts on the hydrological
environment, i.e., surface water and ground water. These impacts are described below as:
9.12.1 Design and Construction Phase
Four lane widening of the project road is not likely to have any significant impact on existing
drainage system along the road. Further, adequate culverts and bridge for movement runoff
during rains will be provided at places.
Mitigation Measures
The contractor shall ensure that construction debris do not find their way in to the minor drainage channels which may get clogged.
To restore the surface water flow/drainage, proper mitigation measures will be taken along the
road, like:
• Drainage line will be constructed along the project road.
• Culverts will be proposed to accommodate the drainage requirement along the alignment.
• Drainage arrangements will be provided in respect of site conditions in the form of drainage
layer and sub-surface drains in the full width of formation or below the shoulder so as to
keep the pavement well drained.
• Good engineering and construction practiced should be followed.
9.12.2 Operation Phase
During the operation phase, drainage pattern or hydrology of the area will not be affected.
Therefore, no impact is anticipated during operation phase and no mitigation measures are
required.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-32 June 2012
9.13 Impact on Water Environment
9.13.1 Design and Construction Phase
Ground Water Resource
During design and construction phase, drainage pattern and run off flow conditions along the project road will not be significantly affected. Water requirement for the project road will be
temporary and meet through existing ground water sources available place to place along the
road. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated on the water resources of the area.
Use of Local Water Supply
No local water supply will be used for construction purposes. Therefore, the impact on the local water supply will be insignificant. During the operation phase, water requirement will be
negligible. Therefore, no impact is anticipated on local water supply during operation phase.
Water Quality Degradation
Widening activities may temporarily deteriorate surface water quality during rains in terms of turbidity along the road. However, this impact will be observed only up to first few rains.
Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated on water quality due to construction of project
road.
Construction of project road is expected to complete within the 3 years by deployment of local
labours. Therefore, no construction camp is anticipated along the road. However, if construction
camps are required, it should be located away from water bodies and basic sanitary facilities should be provided to the labour camps.
Mitigation Measures for Water Environment
Following mitigation measures are suggested to mitigate any adverse impacts during design and
construction phase:
• Provision should be made for proper drainage along the road.
• Construction camps, if any, should be properly located.
• Good engineering practices to be followed to avoid the clogging of drainage channels along
the project road.
• Water to be used for construction should have separate source.
9.13.2 Operation Phase
During operation phase, water quality, drainage pattern and run off flow conditions along the
project road will not be significantly affected and no impact is anticipated on water quality along
the project road. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for operation phase.
9.14 Impact on Ambient Air Quality
9.14.1 Design and Construction Phase
During construction phase, there will be two main sources of air emissions i.e. mobile sources and fixed sources. Mobile sources are mostly vehicles involve in construction activities while
emissions from fixed sources include diesel generator set, construction equipment (e.g.
compressors) and excavation/grading activities those produce dust emissions.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-33 June 2012
Certain amount of dust and gaseous emissions will be generated during the construction phase
from excavation machine and road construction machines. Pollutants of primary concern include Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and Particulate Matter (PM10). However, suspended dust particles
may be coarse and will be settled within a short distance of construction area. Therefore, impact
will be temporary and restricted within the closed vicinity of the construction activities along the
road only.
Considerable amount of emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbon, sulfur di-
oxide, particulate matters, nitrogen oxides (NOx), etc, will be generated from the hot mix plants. Hot mix plants should be located away from the populated areas and be fitted with the air
pollution control equipment, the emission shall meet National/ State Pollution Control Board
standards. Further, the hot mix plants must be sited at least 1 km in the downwind direction from
the nearest human settlement. It shall be ensured that the dust emissions from the crusher and vibrating screens from the stone quarries do not exceed the standards.
Mitigation Measures
� Vehicles delivering loose and fine materials like sand and fine aggregates shall be covered to
reduce spills on existing road. Water may be sprayed on earthworks, on a regular basis. During and after compaction of the sub-grade, water will be sprayed at regular intervals to
prevent dust generation.
� All slopes and embankments will be turfed as per best engineering practices will help to
minimize the dust generation during operation of the road. � During the construction phase of the project road, emissions due to earth works,
transportation of construction materials and vehicular movement along the stretch will have
temporary though significant impact on air quality. However, air quality level is anticipated to be within the prescribed limit.
The following mitigation measures will also be taken to mitigate the dust entrainment and fugitive emissions from the various sources:
• Asphalt and hot-mix plants will be located at least 1 km away from inhabited urban and rural
stretches along the road with the clearance from State Pollution Control Board.
• Sprinkling water will control fugitive dust emissions.
• Sprinkling of water on the dust prone areas and construction yard.
• Regular maintenance of machinery and equipment will be carried out.
Ambient air quality monitoring should be carried out during construction phase. If monitored
parameters are above the prescribed limited, suitable control measures must be taken.
9.14.2 Operation Phase
During the operation phase, air quality along the road will be affected by vehicular emissions on
the project road. Pollutants of primary concern will include NOx, CO, HC, PM2.5, PM10 and SO2. In the populated area, traffic congestion due to bottlenecks of constructed road may increase the
air pollution problem in the along the project road.
Emissions of Particulates Matter from the road will depend on the roughness of road. It is
suggested that roughness of project road should be as per IRC:SP:16-2004. As per IRC
guidelines roughness <2000 mm/km is considered good for bituminous concrete surface.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-34 June 2012
Mitigation Measures
For operation phase following mitigation measures are suggested to control the air pollution:
• Bottlenecks should be avoided for smooth flow of traffic.
• Plantation of pollutant adsorbing trees along the road,
Ambient air quality monitoring should be carried out during operation phase. If monitored
parameters are above the prescribed limited, suitable control measures must be taken.
9.15 Impact on Noise and Vibration
Some salient features related to potential noise impact of road development include:
• the road noise impact is greatest where road passes though populated areas,
• the range of noise level should be understood in relation to the habitation type also, for
example, road noise in industrial areas is not likely to be problematic but at sensitive location
like schools, hospitals, its impact may be significant,
9.15.1 Design and Construction Phase
Widening of the project road will be confined within the existing ROW. During the construction
phase, noise will be generated from the various activities, such as, site clearing activities,
excavation, erection and finishing. The typical noise levels from these activities are given hereunder:
Site clearing activities 85 dB(A) Excavation 90 dB(A)
Erection 80 dB(A)
Finishing 85 dB(A)
During the construction phase, the noise level is bound to increase by the use of construction
machines, etc. The increase in noise levels is expected to be between 10 - 20 %. However, these
noise levels will be temporary in nature mostly during daytime only.
For an approximate estimation of dispersion of noise in the ambient air, a standard mathematical
model for sound wave propagation is used. The sound pressure level generated by noise sources decreases with increasing distance from the source due to wave divergence. An additional
decrease in sound pressure level from the source is expected due to atmospheric effect or its
interaction with objects in the transmission path.
• Resultant Noise Level
The resultant maximum noise level for the above sources as calculated using combined effect equation
1 is 90 dB(A). Assuming no environmental attenuation factors, based on the equations,
calculations are made which shows that noise level at different distance will be as under:
1 The combined effect of all sources is determined using following equation: Lp(total) = 10 Log(10(Lp1/10) + 10(Lp2/10) + 10(Lp3/10) + …….) ………….(1) Where: Lp1, Lp2 and Lp3 are noise pressure level at a point due to different sources in dB(A).
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-35 June 2012
Area Permissible Limits (Day Time) Distance (m) from Source
Residential 55 dB (A) 22.4
Commercial 65 dB (A) 7.1
Industrial 75 dB (A) 2.7
Therefore, the impact of noise on surrounding area during the construction phase will be limited within 25 m, hence inferred as moderate. However, in the populated area residential structures
are located within 25 m from the road.
Mitigation Measures
Site Controls: Stationary equipment will be placed along un-inhabited stretches as per distance
requirements computed above as far as practicable to minimize objectionable noise impacts.
Scheduling of Project Activities: Operations will be scheduled to coincide with period when
people would least likely to be affected. Construction activities will be strictly prohibited between 10 P.M. and 6 A.M. near residential areas
.
Protection devices (ear plugs or ear muffs) will be provided to the workers operating in the
vicinity of high noise generating machines.
Construction equipment and machinery should be fitted with silencers and maintained properly.
Noise measurements should be carried out along the road to ensure the effectiveness of
mitigation measures.
9.15.2 Operation Phase
During the operation phase, noise will be generated through the vehicles movement. Noise levels will depend up on traffic density, number of traffic events. Plantation along the road and
improved road conditions will be helpful in reduction on noise levels during operation phase.
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate the impact of noise levels during operation phase, following mitigation measure are
anticipated:
• Emissions of SPM from the road will depend on the roughness of road. It is suggested that
roughness of project road should be as per IRC:SP:16-2004. As per IRC guidelines
roughness <2000 mm/km is considered good for bituminous concrete surface.
• Pressure horns in the populated area should be prohibited.
• Road should be designed in such a manner that no traffic congestion in the populated area
along the road.
• Developing trees barriers between the road and sensitive area, wherever it is possible.
• Noise measurements should be carried out along the road to ensure the effectiveness of
mitigation measures.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-36 June 2012
9.16 Impact on Flora, Fauna and Ecosystem
9.16.1 Design and Construction Phase
During the design and construction of the project road, vegetation in the form of trees, shrubs and
grasses will need be cleared.
Important positive and negative impacts on flora, fauna and ecosystem due to project road are:
• As an estimate about 20134 trees (depending upon type of widening) will need to be cleared
for construction of project road and will be compensated through compensatory afforestation while road does not passing through plantation areas.
• There will be no loss of bio-diversity since no rare/endangered plant or animal species is
going to be eliminated due to the proposed upgrading.
• There will be no loss of animal habitat by the project road itself, borrow pit areas and quarry
sites.
• The proposed project road will not affect migratory path of animal breeding zone or important
ecosystems.
• The aquatic ecology will not be damaged, as structures will be provided on the water bodies
crossed by project road.
• The loss of trees and herbal cover at least during the construction phase, is likely to produce
some negative impacts.
Mitigation Measures
Widening plan for project road should be prepared in such a way that trees cutting can be minimized up to maximum possible extent.
Careful and proper planning should be done for re-plantation of trees during design and right at
the commencement of construction and the phase wise removal of growing trees will mitigate the negative impacts.
Compensatory plantation should be started during construction phase parallel to the construction activities.
9.16.2 Operation Phase
During the operation phase, no adverse impact is anticipated on the flora and fauna of the area.
Plantation along the road on available space will enhance flora in the area.
Mitigation Measures
Compensatory afforestation should be done along the project road during operation phase, wherever it is possible. Monitoring of survival of trees should be done at regular interval and
suitable mitigation measures should be taken to protect the trees.
9.17 Construction Workers’ Camp
Upgrading of the project road will be completed within the 2 years by deployment of local
labourer, and therefore no construction worker camp may be needed. However in case construction camps are required, solid waste and sewage generated from construction camp may
pollute the surroundings of camp and cause health problems.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-37 June 2012
Following mitigation measures are suggested for construction workers camps:
• Water supply and toilet facilities at construction camps shall be provided,
• Lavatories shall be located away from settlement,
• Proper disposal of domestic refuse will be undertaken in the neared municipal waste landfill
site,
• Temporary medical facilities for the construction workers will be provided.
9.18 Impacts on Social Environment
Construction and operation phases of project road will have some beneficial impact on social environment. Some increase in income of local people is expected as local unskilled, semiskilled
and skilled persons may gain direct or indirect employment during construction phase. Since the
immigration of work force during construction phase is likely to be very small, the social impacts on literacy, health care, transport facilities and cultural aspects are expected to be insignificant.
9.19 Economic Impacts
Construction Stage
The relatively short-lived economic impacts of the construction phase are likely to be experienced in local communities for the duration of construction as workers make everyday
purchases from local traders. This is likely to give a short-lived stimulus to these traders that will
disappear as soon as the construction is complete. Wider, flow-on economic impacts will be experienced in other sectors of economy as a result of purchase of construction materials and the
payment of wages and salaries.
Operation Stage
Once the widening is complete, there is likely to be some long-term changes in the economic
structures of the urban and rural areas served by the road.
9.20 Impact on Land Use Pattern
For four lane widening of the existing road, 679 ha land acquisition is envisaged. Therefore,
adverse environmental impact is anticipated on the land use pattern along the project road.
During the operation phase some development activities are anticipated in the area along the road
and it will also have some impact on the land use pattern of the area.
9.21 Impact on Safety
Construction Stage
Adverse impact on safety of pedestrians and passage of traffic approaching or passing are likely if construction works are not managed properly. It is essential that works should be planned
before hand by the contractor with due considerations for safety of pedestrians and workers
during the night-time. Adequate warning signs, barricades, etc to inform the road users are essential in this regard.
Operation Stage
Once the construction work is complete, the safety aspects will include beneficial impacts. With
the project road, improve road conditions will be provided for the traffic, which would significantly reduce the accidents.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-38 June 2012
9.22 Institutional Requirements and Environmental Monitoring Plan
9.22.1 Institutional Arrangements
An institutional mechanism needs to be incorporated in the project road management and
execution system. The NHAI will be responsible for the implementation of all the mitigation and management measures suggested in EMP for project road. The NHAI is also responsible for
implementation the complete resettlement and rehabilitation for all those affected by the project.
The NHAI has certain organizational and institutional capacity to be able to satisfactory complete the implementation of the EMP.
To ensure the effective implementation of the mitigation measures and environmental
management plan during construction and operation phase of project road, it is essential that an effective Environmental Monitoring Plan be designed. Environmental Monitoring Plan for
various environmental parameters have been prepared.
9.23 Environmental Monitoring Plan
To ensure the effective implementation of the mitigation measures and environmental management plan during construction and operation phase of the project road, it is essential that
an effective Environmental Monitoring Plan will be designed and followed.
9.23.1 Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Monitoring
Ambient air quality parameters recommended for road transportation developments are PM2.5,
PM10, NOx, SO2 and CO. These are to be monitored at designated locations starting from the commencement of construction activities. Data should be generated twice in a week once during
construction phase at all identified locations in accordance to the National Ambient Air Quantity
Standards. The locations and pollution parameters to be monitored and the responsible institutional arrangements shall be detailed out in the Environmental Monitoring Plan.
9.23.2 Noise Levels Monitoring
The measurements of noise levels would be carried out at all designated locations in accordance
to the Ambient Noise Standards formulated by Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) as
given. Noise level would be monitored on twenty-four hourly basis. Noise should be recorded at “A” weighted frequency using a slow time response mode of the measuring instrument. The
measurement location, duration and the noise pollution parameters to be monitored and the
responsible institutional arrangements shall be detailed in the Environmental Monitoring Plan.
9.23.3 Soil Erosion
On slops and high embankment, soil erosion may be occurred during construction and operation phase of project. During and after rains, soil erosion will need to be check regularly.
9.23.4 Plantation
During construction and operation stage of project road, tree plantation will need to be impacted
to monitor the survival of plants planted along the project road.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-39 June 2012
9.24 Environmental Budget
The environmental budget for the various environmental management measures proposed for construction and operation of the 4 lane road from Kaithal-Rajasthan Border Section of NH 65 is
prepared tentatively. There are several other environmental issues that shall be addressed as part
of good engineering practices, the costs for which have been accounted for in the engineering
cost. The tentative cost of implementation of mitigation measures are as given below:
S. No. Details of EMP Components Cost (Rs.in Lakhs)
1.
2. Water Sprinkling during construction on road 25
3. Reclamation of borrow pits 28
5 Compensatory Afforestation and Median Plantation 326
6. Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control 122
7. Environmental Monitoring for Air, water, noise, etc. 18
8. Facility at worker camp, water, sanitation, fuel wood, etc. 25
9. Safety signs and boards 50
10. Supervision of Implementation of EMP 25
Total 619
Tentative cost of implementation of EMP is worked out to approximately Rs. 6.2 Crores
9.25 Findings of Environmental Screening
The analysis, interpretation and review of data collected during environmental screening along
the project road, the study of primary and secondary data collected from various sources and
consultation with the population along the project road provide basic understanding of the issues involved in four lane widening of Kaithal-Rajasthan Border section of NH 65. Some important
findings of environmental screening are given below:
The environmental screening indicates the project road will have following advantages:
• No major environmental impact is anticipated on the area. Anticipated impacts will be
mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures.
• There is no sensitive environmental issue due to upgrading of the project road. Biodiversity
and ecology of the area will be un-affected due to implementation of project.
• The project will provide improved road conditions and significant saving in the fuel and time
and thus reducing air pollution caused by vehicle traffic.
9.26 Environmental Issues
The key environmental issues, which need attention and further study for four lane widening of
Kaithal-Rajasthan Border section of NH 65, are listed hereunder:
• The cutting of nearly 20134 trees, along the road within the ROW at some places is an
important issue and methods should be evolved to minimize the cutting of trees. Wherever
possible effort should be made to minimize the cutting of matured trees by shifting the
alignment to other side of road where trees are less.
• Compensatory afforestation/plantation and green belt development should be done
simultaneously with construction phase of the project.
• During environmental screening, Mazar (Km 30.6), Shamshan (Km 22.4), Graves (km 20.5
and km 18.2), temples (km 171.300, km 201.200, km 234.400) were observed along the
project road and need to be avoided during four laning.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Environmental Screening and
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
URS Scott Wilson 9-40 June 2012
9.27 Conclusions
The proposed project road belongs to Category ‘A’ project as per Environmental Impact
Assessment Notification 2006, amended in 2009 under The Environmental (Protection) Act,
1986. Based on findings of the Environmental Screening study, EIA study for the project road
will require to be carried out after approval of TOR from MOEF and prior Environmental Clearance is required for the project. The Environmental Management Plan shall be prepared for
implementation during design, construction and operation phases.
Chapter – 10
Initial Social Assessment and Preliminary
Land Acquisition / Resettlement Plan
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-1 June 2012
10.0 INITIAL SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY LAND ACQUISITION/
RESETTLEMENT PLAN
10.1 Introduction
The roads and highways connect settlements of various hierarchical levels. They act as conduits
between settlements and people. Their improvement thus becomes imperative for an integrated
development of the economy. The basic objective of any such highway development and strengthening program is to improve the standard of living of people of the area. Nevertheless,
most such projects produce certain externalities by which socio-economic structure could get
disturbed. Due to these externalities generated, displacement and consequent involuntary
resettlement have to become the unintended companion of any such developmental effort. In a development project like widening and improvement of highways, the impact is not concentrated
at a place, rather it is distributed linearly and scattered in space.
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has been entrusted to implement the
development of the project stretch from Kaithal to Rajasthan Border Section of National
Highway - 65 for rehabilitation and up-gradation under NHDP, Phase IV on BOT mode under Package No: NHDP-IV/HR/DPR/02 in the state of Haryana. The entire project road lies in the
state of Haryana. The project road section starts from Kaithal and ends at Haryana-Rajasthan
Interstate Border.
Four lane up-gradation of the project road from Kaithal to Haryana/Rajasthan Border Section of
National Highway-65, may have adverse social impacts due to land and structures acquisition.
10.2 Background of the Project Region
10.2.1 Location and Extent
National Highway (NH) 65 starts from Ambala (Punjab) and ends at Pali (Rajasthan). The
project road section under the scope of study starts from Kaithal, Km 44+000 (start of Kaithal
Bypass) and ends at Haryana/ Rajasthan Border, Km 241+470. The Chainage of the Project road decreases from Kaithal, km 44+200, to Narwana, Km 0+000. From this point it increases from
Km 121+400 to Rajasthan Border Km 241+580, where the project road section ends.
The existing length of the project road section is approx. 153.4 km considering the start point at
Km 33+400 i.e. end of the proposed Kaithal Bypass. The project road traverses through four
districts of Haryana, namely Kaithal, Jind, Hisar, and Bhiwani.
The project road traverses mainly through plain terrain. Broadly, land-use along the project road
is predominantly agriculture land followed by built-up land. The percentage distribution of land
use is 78.7% and 21.3 % for agricultural and built up, respectively.
10.2.2 Profile of Haryana State
On 1 November 1966, Haryana was carved out on the basis of that the parts of Punjab which
were to be Haryana's "Hindi-speaking areas". Same example was followed in the creation of
Himachal Pradesh as well. Haryana state was formed on the recommendation of the Sardar
Hukam Singh Parliamentary Committee. The formation of this committee was announced in the Parliament on 23 September 1965. On 23 April, 1966, acting on the recommendation of the
Hukam Singh Committee, the Indian government set up the Shah Commission under the
chairmanship of Justice J. C. Shah, to divide and set up the boundaries of Panjab and Haryana. The commission gave its report on 31 May, 1966. According to this report the then districts of
Hissar, Mehendragarh, Gurgaon, Roahtak, and Karnal were to be a part of the new state of
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-2 June 2012
Haryana. Haryana became a new state of India on 1st November 1966 with Chandigarh as its
capital, since then it has made spectacular progress to become one of the most prosperous states of India. Haryana state lies in the northern part of India with its border extending towards Punjab
and Himachal Pradesh in the north, Rajasthan to the west and south and eastern border to
Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. It is also surrounds Delhi on three sides, forming the northern, western and southern borders of Delhi.
The population of Haryana, according to the 2001 census, is 21,144,000, with 11,364,000 males and 9,781,000 females. The population density is 477 people/sq km. Haryana, along with
neighboring Punjab, has a skewed sex ratio at 861, with many more men than women. Selective
abortion of female fetuses has a very high provenance, reflecting a widespread favor for the male
child. Hindus make up about 88.2% of the population, Sikhs 6.2%, Muslims 5.2%, Jains 0.3% and Buddhist 0.01%. [16] Muslims are mainly in the Mahendragarh district, while Sikhs are
mostly in the districts adjoining Punjab.
10.2.3 District-wise Profile along the Project Road
10.2.3.1 Profile of Kaithal District
Kaithal came to existence as district of Haryana in 1989. Kaithal district is situated in the North-
West of the state. Kaithal is located at 29°48′N 76°23′E and 29.8°N 76.38°E and It has an
average elevation of 220 metres (721 feet). This city is situated on National Highway NH 65. Presently Kaithal is spread over 2317 Sq. K.m. Geographical area. It’s total population according
to 2001 census is 945631, 80.61% population reside in villages whereas 19.39% population
reside in cities. Males constitute 54% of the population and females 46%. Kaithal has an average literacy rate of 65%, higher than the national average of 59.5%, male literacy is 70%, and female
literacy is 58%. In Kaithal, 14% of the population is under 6 years of age. There are 277 villages
and 253 Punchayats in Kaithal districts. Kaithal district consists of two tehsils namely Kaithal &
Guhla & five sub-tehsils namely Pundri, Rajaund, Dhand, Kalayat and Siwan.
Demographic details of Kaithal district are shown in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: Demographic Details of Kaithal District
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
1 No. of Household 164258 130775 33483
2 Total Population 946131 762649 183482
3 Total Population (Male) 510513 411628 98885
4 Total Population (Female) 435618 351021 84597
5 Population (0-6 years) (Total) 145487 118943 26544
6 Population (0-6 years) (Male) 81243 66239 15004
7 Population (0-6 years) (Female) 64244 52704 11540
8 Schedule Caste (Total) 203875 173213 30662
9 Schedule Caste (Male) 110372 93745 16627
10 Schedule Caste (Female) 93503 79468 14035
11 Schedule Tribe (Total) 0 0 0
12 Schedule Tribe (Male) 0 0 0
13 Schedule Tribe (Female) 0 0 0
14 Literate (Total) 472563 359050 113513
15 Literate (Male) 296857 230026 66831
16 Literate (Female) 175706 129024 46682
17 Illiterate (Total) 473568 403599 69969
18 Illiterate (Male) 213656 181602 32054
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-3 June 2012
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
19 Illiterate (Female) 259912 221997 37915
20 Total Worker (Total) 372011 316941 55070
21 Total Worker (Male) 259679 211865 47814
22 Total Worker (Female) 112332 105076 7256
23 Main Worker (Total) 268127 220580 47547
24 Main Worker (Male) 226272 183173 43099
25 Main Worker (Female) 41855 37407 4448
26 Main Worker Cultivator (Total) 118785 115327 3458
27 Main Worker Cultivator (Male) 99757 96488 3269
28 Main Worker Cultivator (Female) 19028 18839 189
29 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer (Total) 40482 38952 1530
30 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer (Male) 33016 31668 1348
31 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer (Female) 7466 7284 182
32 Main Worker Household Industry (Total) 4509 2978 1531
33 Main Worker Household Industry (Male) 3532 2315 1217
34 Main Worker Household Industry (Female) 977 663 314
35 Main Other Worker (Total) 104351 63323 41028
36 Main Other Worker (Male) 89967 52702 37265
37 Main Other Worker (Female) 14384 10621 3763
38 Marginal Worker (Total) 103884 96361 7523
39 Marginal Worker (Male) 33407 28692 4715
40 Marginal Worker (Female) 70477 67669 2808
41 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Total) 31053 30722 331
42 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Male) 5546 5510 36
43 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Female) 25507 25212 295
44 Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer (Total) 43466 42031 1435
45 Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer (Male) 14861 14252 609
46 Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer (Female) 28605 27779 826
47 Marginal Worker Household Industry (Total) 2153 1959 194
48 Marginal Worker Household Industry (Male) 455 384 71
49 Marginal Worker Household Industry (Female) 1698 1575 123
50 Marginal Other Worker (Total) 27212 21649 5563
51 Marginal Other Worker (Male) 12545 8546 3999
52 Marginal Other Worker (Female) 14667 13103 1564
53 Non Worker (Total) 574120 445708 128412
54 Non Worker (Male) 250834 199763 51071
55 Non Worker (Female) 323286 245945 77341
Source: Census Records 2001
10.2.3.2 Profile of Jind District
The district Jind lies in the North of Haryana state between 29°03′ to 29°51′ North latitude and
75°53′ to 76°45′30′′ east longitude. It is bounded by Patiala in the North and Sangrur district of Punjab in the northeast. It is surrounded by district Kaithal and Karnal of Haryana in east and
west respectively. In southwest it has a common boundary with district Hisar, whereas in south
and southeast it shares its boundary with Rohtak and Sonipat respectively. Jind district encompasses a geographical area of 2702 Sq.km. For the administrative convenience, the Jind
district, a segment of the Hissar division has been divided into four tehsils i.e. Narwana, Jind,
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-4 June 2012
Safidon and Julana. In order to streamline the rural development, these tehsils have been further
subdivided into seven blocks namely Narwana, Uchana, Alewa, Jind, Julana, Pilukhera and Safidon.
As per 2001 census the total population of the district is 11,89,827. The rural and urban population is 9,48,250 and 2,41,577 with an average density of 440-person/sq km. Out of total
population 6,42,282 are males and 5,47,545 are females. The male and female ratio of the district
as a whole was 1000:852. In Jind district 79% of the population is settled in 307 villages and the rest 21% of population is concentrated in five towns. There is no scheduled tribe population in
the district, as no part of the district is under tribal area. The population of schedule caste is
2,35,765 out of which 1,98,790 belong to rural and 36,975 to urban area. The percentage of
schedule caste population of the district is 19.81%. The literacy rate in the district is 52.33%. The area of Jind district is irrigated by two canal systems i.e. Western Yamuna canal and the
Bhakra canal.
Demographic details of Jind district are shown in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2: Demographic Details of Jind District
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
1 No. of Household 204942 161289 43653
2 Total Population 1189827 948250 241577
3 Total Population (Male) 642282 512205 130077
4 Total Population (Female) 547545 436045 111500
5 Population (0-6 years) (Total) 187560 152871 34689
6 Population (0-6 years) (Male) 103161 83620 19541
7 Population (0-6 years) (Female) 84399 69251 15148
8 Schedule Caste (Total) 235765 198790 36975
9 Schedule Caste (Male) 127176 107461 19715
10 Schedule Caste (Female) 108589 91329 17260
11 Schedule Tribe (Total) 0 0 0
12 Schedule Tribe (Male) 0 0 0
13 Schedule Tribe (Female) 0 0 0
14 Literate (Total) 622654 465690 156964
15 Literate (Male) 397972 304561 93411
16 Literate (Female) 224682 161129 63553
17 Illiterate (Total) 567173 482560 84613
18 Illiterate (Male) 244310 207644 36666
19 Illiterate (Female) 322863 274916 47947
20 Total Worker (Total) 521946 448361 73585
21 Total Worker (Male) 331142 270144 60998
22 Total Worker (Female) 190804 178217 12587
23 Main Worker (Total) 372049 306963 65086
24 Main Worker (Male) 281070 224903 56167
25 Main Worker (Female) 90979 82060 8919
26 Main Worker Cultivator (Total) 192638 187392 5246
27 Main Worker Cultivator (Male) 133866 130084 3782
28 Main Worker Cultivator (Female) 58772 57308 1464
29
Main Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Total)
39090 37273 1817
30 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer (Male)
28796 27432 1364
31 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer 10294 9841 453
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-5 June 2012
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
(Female)
32 Main Worker Household Industry (Total) 6204 4272 1932
33 Main Worker Household Industry (Male) 4823 3257 1566
34
Main Worker Household Industry
(Female)
1381 1015 366
35 Main Other Worker (Total) 134117 78026 56091
36 Main Other Worker (Male) 113585 64130 49455
37 Main Other Worker (Female) 20532 13896 6636
38 Marginal Worker (Total) 149897 141398 8499
39 Marginal Worker (Male) 50072 45241 4831
40 Marginal Worker (Female) 99825 96157 3668
41 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Total) 68435 67799 636
42 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Male) 17288 17153 135
43 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Female) 51147 50646 501
44
Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Total)
46650 45569 1081
45
Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Male)
16951 16444 507
46
Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Female)
29699 29125 574
47
Marginal Worker Household Industry
(Total)
2500 1748 752
48
Marginal Worker Household Industry
(Male)
697 478 219
49
Marginal Worker Household Industry
(Female)
1803 1270 533
50 Marginal Other Worker (Total) 32312 26282 6030
51 Marginal Other Worker (Male) 15136 11166 3970
52 Marginal Other Worker (Female) 17176 15116 2060
53 Non Worker (Total) 667881 499889 167992
54 Non Worker (Male) 311140 242061 69079
55 Non Worker (Female) 356741 257828 98913
Source: Census Records 2001
10.2.3.3 Profile for Hisar District
Hisar is located at 29°9’11” north latitude and 75°43’6” east longitude. It is situated 164
kilometers northwest of Delhi on the National Highway NH-10. NH 65 also passes through Hisar City. As regards topographical situation of this district total area of the district is 3983 sqr. Km.
This district is surrounded by State/District boundaries by Rohtak & Jind districts in the east,
Fatehabad & Sirsa in the north side, district Bhiwani and some area of Rajasthan State in the south and Hanumangarh district (Tehsil Bhadra), Churu District (Tehsil Rajgarh/Sadulpur) of
Rajasthan in the west.
As of 2001 India census, Hisar had a population of 15,37117. Males constitute 54.03% of the population and females 45.97%. Hisar has an average literacy rate of 54.80%, male literacy is
64.60%, and female literacy is 43.28%. In Hisar, 15.47% of the population is under 6 years of
age.
Demographic details of Hisar district are shown in Table 10.3.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-6 June 2012
Table 10.3: Demographic Details of Hisar District
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
1 No. of Household 272738 196821 75917
2 Total Population 1537117 1138999 398118
3 Total Population (Male) 830520 614605 215915
4 Total Population (Female) 706597 524394 182203
5 Population (0-6 years) (Total) 237820 183885 53935
6 Population (0-6 years) (Male) 129842 99980 29862
7 Population (0-6 years) (Female) 107978 83905 24073
8 Schedule Caste (Total) 338045 268279 69766
9 Schedule Caste (Male) 181245 144003 37242
10 Schedule Caste (Female) 156800 124276 32524
11 Schedule Tribe (Total) 0 0 0
12 Schedule Tribe (Male) 0 0 0
13 Schedule Tribe (Female) 0 0 0
14 Literate (Total) 842302 574642 267660
15 Literate (Male) 536521 378455 158066
16 Literate (Female) 305781 196187 109594
17 Illiterate (Total) 694815 564357 130458
18 Illiterate (Male) 293999 236150 57849
19 Illiterate (Female) 400816 328207 72609
20 Total Worker (Total) 665572 535530 130042
21 Total Worker (Male) 430818 324237 106581
22 Total Worker (Female) 234754 211293 23461
23 Main Worker (Total) 516817 400228 116589
24 Main Worker (Male) 382579 283231 99348
25 Main Worker (Female) 134238 116997 17241
26 Main Worker Cultivator (Total) 226299 223283 3016
27 Main Worker Cultivator (Male) 152219 149549 2670
28 Main Worker Cultivator (Female) 74080 73734 346
29
Main Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Total) 57194 54303 2891
30 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer (Male) 38741 36575 2166
31
Main Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Female) 18453 17728 725
32 Main Worker Household Industry (Total) 11379 6992 4387
33
Main Worker Household Industry
(Male) 8408 5147 3261
34 Main Worker Household Industry (Female) 2971 1845 1126
35 Main Other Worker (Total) 221945 115650 106295
36 Main Other Worker (Male) 183211 91960 91251
37 Main Other Worker (Female) 38734 23690 15044
38 Marginal Worker (Total) 148755 135302 13453
39 Marginal Worker (Male) 48239 41006 7233
40 Marginal Worker (Female) 100516 94296 6220
41 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Total) 63411 63156 255
42 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Male) 14714 14637 77
43 Marginal Worker Cultivator 48697 48519 178
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-7 June 2012
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
(Female)
44
Marginal Worker Agricultural
Laborer (Total) 43612 41432 2180
45 Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer (Male) 15481 14446 1035
46
Marginal Worker Agricultural
Laborer (Female) 28131 26986 1145
47 Marginal Worker Household Industry (Total) 4399 3390 1009
48
Marginal Worker Household
Industry (Male) 984 769 215
49 Marginal Worker Household Industry (Female) 3415 2621 794
50 Marginal Other Worker (Total) 37333 27324 10009
51 Marginal Other Worker (Male) 17060 11154 5906
52 Marginal Other Worker (Female) 20273 16170 4103
53 Non Worker (Total) 871545 603469 268076
54 Non Worker (Male) 399702 290368 109334
55 Non Worker (Female) 471843 313101 158742
Source: Census Records 2001
10.2.3.4 Profile of Bhiwani District
District Bhiwani was created on 22 December 1972. The district headquarter is situated in Bhiwani town. Bhiwani It is situated between 28.19° & 29.05° north latitudes and 75.26° and
76.28° east longitudes.. It has an average elevation of 225 meters (738 feet). The total area of
Bhiwani district is 5,099 km². The Bhiwani District is bordered by Hissar District on its north,
some area of Jhunjunu and Churu districts of Rajasthan on its west, Mahendergarh and Jhunjunu districts on its south and District Rohtak to the east. It is 124 kilometers from Delhi and 285
kilometers from Chandigarh.Bhiwani has 442 villages, with main towns being Charkhi Dadri,
Loharu, Bawani Khera and Tosham.
As of 2001 India census, Bhiwani had a population of 169,424. Males constitute 54% of the
population and females 46%. Bhiwani has an average literacy rate of 69%, higher than the national average of 59.5%; with male literacy of 76% and female literacy of 62%. 13% of the
population is under 6 years of age.
Demographic details of Bhiwani district are shown in Table 10.4.
Table 10.4: Demographic Details of Bhiwani District
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
1 No. of Household 246742 197505 49237
2 Total Population 1425022 1154629 270393
3 Total Population (Male) 758253 612789 145464
4 Total Population (Female) 666769 541840 124929
5 Population (0-6 years) (Total) 224226 186009 38217
6 Population (0-6 years) (Male) 121809 100892 20917
7 Population (0-6 years) (Female) 102417 85117 17300
8 Schedule Caste (Total) 279470 225665 53805
9 Schedule Caste (Male) 150085 121265 28820
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-8 June 2012
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
10 Schedule Caste (Female) 129385 104400 24985
11 Schedule Tribe (Total) 0 0 0
12 Schedule Tribe (Male) 0 0 0
13 Schedule Tribe (Female) 0 0 0
14 Literate (Total) 809896 632010 177886
15 Literate (Male) 510805 404919 105886
16 Literate (Female) 299091 227091 72000
17 Illiterate (Total) 615126 522619 92507
18 Illiterate (Male) 247448 207870 39578
19 Illiterate (Female) 367678 314749 52929
20 Total Worker (Total) 609320 527135 82185
21 Total Worker (Male) 373387 305914 67473
22 Total Worker (Female) 235933 221221 14712
23 Main Worker (Total) 425210 354627 70583
24 Main Worker (Male) 310301 249680 60621
25 Main Worker (Female) 114909 104947 9962
26 Main Worker Cultivator (Total) 220035 214665 5370
27 Main Worker Cultivator (Male) 151799 147872 3927
28 Main Worker Cultivator (Female) 68236 66793 1443
29 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Total) 28631 27340 1291
30 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Male) 20416 19422 994
31 Main Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Female) 8215 7918 297
32 Main Worker Household Industry (Total) 8709 6109 2600
33 Main Worker Household Industry (Male) 6510 4484 2026
34 Main Worker Household Industry
(Female) 2199 1625 574
35 Main Other Worker (Total) 167835 106513 61322
36 Main Other Worker (Male) 131576 77902 53674
37 Main Other Worker (Female) 36259 28611 7648
38 Marginal Worker (Total) 184110 172508 11602
39 Marginal Worker (Male) 63086 56234 6852
40 Marginal Worker (Female) 121024 116274 4750
41 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Total) 99237 98092 1145
42 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Male) 28573 28277 296
43 Marginal Worker Cultivator (Female) 70664 69815 849
44 Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Total) 41437 39247 2190
45 Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer (Male)
15963 15039 924
46 Marginal Worker Agricultural Laborer
(Female) 25474 24208 1266
47 Marginal Worker Household Industry (Total)
3878 3082 796
48 Marginal Worker Household Industry
(Male) 1133 831 302
49 Marginal Worker Household Industry
(Female) 2745 2251 494
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-9 June 2012
Sl.
No. Description
Total
Total Rural Urban
50 Marginal Other Worker (Total) 39558 32087 7471
51 Marginal Other Worker (Male) 17417 12087 5330
52 Marginal Other Worker (Female) 22141 20000 2141
53 Non Worker (Total) 815702 627494 188208
54 Non Worker (Male) 384866 306875 77991
55 Non Worker (Female) 430836 320619 110217
Source: Census Records 2001
10.2.4 Social And Cultural Resources
The growth of development activities in an area are bound to create its impact on the socio-
economic aspects of the local population. The impacts may be positive or negative depending upon the nature of the development activities. To assess the impacts of the project road on the
socio-economic environment, it is necessary to study the baseline socio-economic status of the
area.
10.2.5 Socio-economic Conditions along the Project Road
Social screening was carried out in order to understand socio-economic features along the project road. The purpose of the survey was carried to identify structures falling in proposed ROW and
to assess the physical and social and cultural impacts. In this regard, the relevant information
were gathered by interview with peoples and the self-assessment of the issues involved.
Socio–economic conditions, such as, household, population growth, population density, sex ratio,
occupational pattern, amenities available in the settlements located along the project road have
been compiled from census records.
10.3 Demographic Details
Data on villages with number of households, population as well as literacy in the settlements
located along the project road have been obtained from census records.
In the settlements located along the project road, there are total 108083 households as per census
records 2001. As per census records, the population of settlements along the project road is
579875. The male population constituted nearly 54.04 % persons while the female population
was only 45.96 % of the total population. As per census records, sex ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males. As per census records, sex ratio in settlements located along
the project road was 851. Along the project road 18.5% population is schedule cast population.
There is no schedule tribe population along the project road. Literacy among the population along the project road is 63.2%, out of which 59.8% amongst males and 40.2 % amongst
females.
10.4 Important Structures
10.4.1 Archaeological and Historical Monuments
No archaeological or historical monument is located along the project road of 4-laning of
Kaithal-Rajasthan Border Section of NH 65.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-10 June 2012
10.4.2 Religious Structures
During the environmental and social screening survey, few small religious structures were
identified along the project road. These structures are located within ROW, close to project road
and will need to be shifted or avoided for 4 laning of the Kaithal-Rajasthan Border section of NH 65.
10.4.3 Commercial Structures
During the environmental & social screening survey, it was observed that in populated areas,
many temporary shops, in the form wooden shop (khoka) are located within the ROW, which
need to be displaced for four laning of the project road. Such shops can be shifted after paying suitable compensation and resettlement of affected persons. During the survey, 169 small shops
were identified within the ROW along the project road. These are required to be avoided while
finalization of widening plan for the project road.
10.4.4 Residential Structures
About 317 temporary and pucca residential houses are also located within the ROW in populated
area along the project road. Houses found along the project road are following types.
• Bamboo Thatched House
• Wood Houses
• Bamboo and Tin sheet houses
• Brick Masonry Houses
On finalization of alignment and preparation of land acquisition plan, census and socio-economic
surveys will be conducted among the houses to be acquired, affected persons and families, and
will be covered in detail in Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) study for project road.
10.5 Employment Pattern
The employment pattern in the area is an indicator of number of persons employed in various
sectors. It also indicates the various categories of employment flourishing in the area. Total
workers in the area account for 33.6% (49.1% male and 15.3% female) of the total population.
Total non-workers account for 66.4 % of the total population (50.9% male and 84.7% female).
10.6 Social Composition
From reconnaissance survey and the study of strip plan showing the number of religious structure
in the project region, the religious composition of these districts shows that in there is mixture of
Hindu, Sikh and Muslim population; the Hindu culture predominate followed by Sikh and
Muslims. Although, the entire project stretch is dominated by Hindus, it is expected that there would not be a problem in project execution based on religion as design has been proposed in
such a manner that minimum disruption to religious properties could take place.
10.7 Economy
The economy along the project road is purely an agrarian one. Mainly the crops of project area are divided into Kharif and Rabi crops. The main Kharif crops are sugarcane, ground nut, paddy
and maize. Minor Kharif crops are chillies, bajra, jowar, pulses and vegetables. The Main Rabi
crops are gram, wheat, barley and oil seeds. Minor Rabi crops are massar, barseen, methi, onion
and winter vegetables.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-11 June 2012
The western Yamuna canal and the Bhakra canal system brings benefits to the cultivators in a
big way. The area has extensive tube well system. Agriculture dominates the economy of the area. The out put of food grains per hectare is much higher in area than the rest of the country
and the state is a kind of granary.
10.8 Social Vulnerability Aspects of Project Settlements
10.8.1 Education Facilities
Along the project road, all villages have primary level educational facilities. Many private
organizations are making significant contribution in the area for improving the educational
facilities. The urban areas, namely, Kaithal, Jind, Hisar and Bhiwani, have better education facilities. The university level educational facilities, engineering collage, medical collages, are
located at Hisar.
10.8.2 Medical Facilities
Presently, Primary Health Sub centers (PHS), Community Health Worker (CHW), Family Planning Center, and Registered Medical Practicener (RP) are available in the villages along
project road.
10.8.3 Drinking Water Supply
All villages along the project road have facilities for drinking water. Hand pumps are commonly
used for drinking water. However, few villages also have well, tube well and tank water facility.
10.8.4 Identification of Problematic Stretches in the Project Area Based on Field Visits
In order to understand problems such as the nature and extent of encroachments, proximity of settlements to the highway, vulnerability of various Project Affected settlements, degree of
congestion, accident prone areas, social and cultural land uses, field visits were made within the
Project Area. Mitigation measures and possible options of improvement, technical alternatives, nature of assistance and compensation to APs, provision for facilities and amenities along the
highway, resettlement sites are being envisaged based on personal observations and in
consultation with the community leaders and officials.
10.9 Land Requirements and Land Acquisition Plan
Even though land is required for provision of four laning, service roads to segregate local slow moving traffic from fast traffic, junction improvement and bypasses along the highways at
certain location. Land requirement for widening of project is estimated as 731 Ha.
10.9.1 Land Acquisition Plan
Proposed land acquisition will be done according to NHAI Act (Amendment) 1997. Land Acquisition act of 1894 will not apply in this case. According to the Act, where the Central
Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building,
maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land.
Land will be acquired by District Administration on behalf of NHAI for which consultant will be
preparing the land acquisition plan with the help of field maps of villages. The marked region along with details of area to be acquired shall be verified by Village Agricultural Officers of each
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-12 June 2012
village and will be submitted by NHAI (PIU) to District Administration. The District Authority
will issue notification under this Act, which will be followed by Public hearing.
Any person interested in the land may, within twenty one days from the date of publication of the
notification under sub-section [1] of Section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section.
Every objection under sub-section [1] shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an
opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all
such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks
necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Where no objection has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority
has disallowed the objection the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report
accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the lands should be acquired for the
purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section [1] of Section 3A
10.9.2 Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan
The basic objective of any developmental project is to enhance quality of living of the people
especially in the project area. Nevertheless, most developmental project also produces some externalities by which socio-economic structure could be disturbed. The resettlement aspect of
any project deals with the initiative efforts taken to minimize the above mentioned impacts
through engineering & social measures-these include where ever issues of resettlements arise. It will be reduced to minimal level or avoided altogether by effective and sensitive design of civil
works by altering or modifying the design. R&RP will provide details of compensation as per
NPPR 2007 and NHAI Resettlement Policy.
10.10 Budget for Implementation of RAP
Tentative budget cost for four laning of Kaithal-Rajasthan Border section of NH 65 have been estimated for implementation of Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). These cost estimates are very
rough estimates and may vary based on final alignment, design and engineering for four laning. It
will further vary based on extent of potential environmental impacts and suggested mitigation measures for construction and operation phase and quantum of land acquisition and displacement
of houses and structures, if any.
10.10.1 Estimated Cost for Implementation of R&RP
It is difficult to prepare an R&R budget at this stage where the exact amount of land requirement
is not known, evaluation of properties and identification of affected person are not done. However, for the feasibility analysis at social screening stage a rough R&R cost has been
estimated based on primary screening data and on-site observations. Local enquiry from land
record officials revealed the average land rates for different stretches as Rs. 64 lakhs/Ha for
Titram-Hisar stretch, Rs. 160 lakhs/Ha in Hisar town surrounding area and Rs. 38 lakh/Ha
in Hisar to border area. The land cost has been worked out based on the same. Details of
budget for implementation of R&RP are given in Table 10.5.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-13 June 2012
Table 10.5: Budget for Implementation of R&RP
Sl. No. Details of RAP Components Cost (in Rs. Lakhs)
1. Cost of Land (Private) 58107.5
2 Cost of Structures 522
3 R&R Benefits 1832
Total 60461.5
Say 604.615 Crores
Hence, tentative cost of R&RP (structure and private land) will be approx. Rs 604.615 Crores.
10.11 Socio-Economic Issues
Social screening survey along the project road reveals that following social issues need to be
handled carefully for four laning of Kaithal-Rajasthan Border section of NH 65.
Along the project road, in the villages, many temporary and permanent residential structures are
falling within the ROW. These need to be relocated and resettled properly before start the construction after paying suitable compensation. In rural area most of the houses and huts
belongs to the poor families and special attention will be required for paying the compensation
and implementation of Resettlement Action Plan (RAP).
Along the project stretch, many few religious structures are located. Shifting and relocation of
religious structures (if required) should be done after consultation and consent of local
community.
For acquisition of agricultural and non-agricultural land, the appropriate compensation/
resettlement needs to be paid, so that project affected person can up-lift and/or maintain their quality of life as before the acquisition of their land and property.
10.12 Implementation & Monitoring
The monitoring and evaluation is the most important aspect of project implementation.
Monitoring is done at different hierarchy. The Project Director is Executive Head of entire
project implementation of the project at PIU. Implementation and monitoring aspects could be done with close co-ordination with the heads of administrative units, local level leaders,
(Figure 10.1).
10.13 Conclusions
The social screening of the project stretch has been done to understand the nature and extent of
problems and issues that proposed highway improvement may produce. The present chapter also analyzed issues of resettlement, participation of stakeholders, viability of several alignment
alternatives and efforts to minimize resettlement. There are the following conclusions of social
screening:
� Encroachment is observed in the settlement areas along the project road.
� Within the 30 m ROW in populated area, houses and shops are located which may be affected during 4 laning of project road.
� Structures located within ROW can be shifted after paying suitable compensation.
� People consulted along the project road desire compensation at the prevailing market rates
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-14 June 2012
� Number of cultural features like Mazar, temple, grave, shamshan, etc. are located and need to be avoided carefully.
� Few ponds are located close to project road which will be avoided on finalization of
alignment.
Based on the above mentioned findings, it is undoubtedly envisaged that the feasibility of four
lane of Kaithal-Rajasthan Border section of NH 65 highway is viable so far resettlement and rehabilitation issues are concerned.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Initial Social Assessment and
Preliminary Land Acquisition/Resettlement Plan
URS Scott Wilson 10-15 June 2012
Process II
Initiative - I
Initiative - II
Initiative - III
Initiative - IV
Initiative - V
Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Problem Identification
Formulation of alternatives
Project awareness, Resettlement sites,
Rehabilitation, Assistance,
Compensation, Training
mobility, etc. Attempt
towards social cohesion.
Profiling Census Survey, data
collection, analyses
Projection
Likely loss, No.
of PAP, PAF and
vulnerables
categories
Evaluation, Monitoring
Mitigation and Management, Implementation
Land acquisition,
Displacement, Livelihood and
Employment of affected
person. Social and public
utilities, religions.
Budgeted cost, Real
expenditure, Inventory,
Supervision, Compatibility, Co-ordination
Figure 10.1: Social Impact Screening & R&R Monitoring
Chapter – 11
Cost Estimate
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Cost Estimate
URS Scott Wilson 11-1 October 2012
11.0 COST ESTIMATE
11.1 General
The project cost estimates have been prepared based on various items of works required for the
rehabilitation and up-gradation of the stretches of road starting from Kaithal (Km 33+300) and
ending at Rajasthan-Haryana Border (Km 241+580) of NH-65 to 4-lane configuration. The
existing chainage of the road is in two parts as below:
NH-152: Kaithal, km 33.250 to Narwana km 0.000 (Decreasing towards Hisar)
NH-65: Narwana, Km 121.400 to Rajasthan/Haryana Border Km 241.580 (Increasing towards
state Border)
Existing Length : 153.430 km
Design Length : 166.259 km
In general, the work is to be executed as per the “Manual of Specification & Standards for four
laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership” (IRC: SP: 84-2009) and Technical
Specifications contained in “Specifications Road and Bridge Works” (Fourth Revision – 2001,
Reprint March 2003) issued.
11.2 Estimation of Quantities
The quantities of major items of works have been worked out based on following:
• Site Clearance: The area considered for Site Clearance is the area within the proposed Right
of Way excluding the existing carriageway area.
• Earth Works: This item provides for roadway excavation, earthwork in embankment, sub-
grade and shoulders, medians, islands including disposal of surplus earth and unsuitable
material. In this stage, the construction of embankment height will be taken approximately
0.6m throughout the existing road widening stretches and 1.25m for new bypasses. Sub-
grade soil having a CBR ≥ 8 % will be taken from borrows area.
• The pavement quantities like GSB, WMM & Bituminous items etc. have been worked out
based on the geometrics and cross sections, pavement design done based on traffic and
laboratory investigations. The total earthwork in cut-and-fill has been determined from
average embankment height noted during road inventory survey.
• Culverts: The estimation of quantities for culverts is based on site condition & detailed
inventory. The detailed recommendations are given in proposed development scheme
chapter.
• Bridges and Structures: The estimates of quantities for bridges and other structures have
been worked out based on condition of structures. The detailed recommendations are given
in proposed development scheme chapter. In this stage the cost for structures has been
worked out based on Rate per square meter basis.
• Drainage and Protection Works: Quantities for the surface, subsurface and roadside drains,
drainage chutes in cement concrete and stone pitching at outfalls/escapes are as per actual
including pre cast drain at edge of RE wall.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Cost Estimate
URS Scott Wilson 11-2 October 2012
• Traffic Signs and Markings: Proper traffic signs were selected at required locations along
the project corridor and special signs at tollgates were designed. The quantity of traffic signs
and markings are calculated based on the detail drawings for the highway and junction to
ensure safety in the proposed highway facility.
• Truck lay-byes & Bus bays and Passenger Shelters: Truck lay-byes shall in general be
located near Toll Plaza, interstate borders and place of conventional stops of the truck
operators etc. In this item, the estimates of quantities are based on the standard layout given
in IRC: SP: 84-2009.
Bus bays and Passenger shelters shall be allowed to stop for dropping and picking up
passengers at bus bays location. In this item, the estimates of quantities are based on the
standard layout given in IRC: SP: 84-2009.
• Junctions Improvement and Toll Plaza: This item includes quantities of kerbs, railings,
median etc. at the location of junctions. The cost for junctions includes the cost for at grade
junctions, which need improvement along the project roads.
The estimates of quantities for toll plaza have been worked out based on design of rigid
pavement. The cost for the toll plaza includes cost of construction of tollbooths, electrical
works, high mast lighting, and toll administrative building with all other features as desired
Standards.
• Maintenance of Existing Roads: The provision under this sub-head has been made to
include reinforced cement concrete pipe duct, 300 mm dia in single row, across the road on
interval of 0.5 km & 2 km in Built-up and rural section respectively. This also includes
carrying out routine maintenance along the right of way based on present condition surveys
and other pavement investigations data. Lump Sum amounts for traffic diversion during
construction and planting of trees by the road side (Avenue trees) and flowering plants and
shrubs in central verge and Maintenance of flowering plants and shrubs in central verge has
been provided.
11.3 Preliminary Project Cost
The project cost on above items has been worked out based on development proposal of the
project corridor from Kaithal to Rajasthan/Haryana border (design length is 166.259 km) which
includes 7 Nos. of bypasses (Kalayat, Narwana, Dhanaudha, Barwala, Hisar, Barwa & Siwani
town/villages).
Abstract Cost Estimate
Sl.
No. Description Amount in Rs.
Amount in
Crores
A Civil Works 166.259 166.259
1 Site Clearance & Dismantling 54,684,431 5.47
2 Earth work 1,875,659,160 187.57
3 Base & Sub-base courses 2,199,192,159 219.92
4 Bituminous works 3,389,290,999 338.93
5 Culverts 171,773,950 17.18
6 Structures i.e. Bridges, ROBs, Flyover, FOBs,
VUPs & PUP/CUPs including RE Wall 1,744,084,725 174.41
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Cost Estimate
URS Scott Wilson 11-3 October 2012
Sl.
No. Description Amount in Rs.
Amount in
Crores
7 Drainage & Protection works 165,701,759 16.57
8 Traffic Signs and Road Appurtenances 359,591,694 35.96
9 Truck lay-bye & Bus bay with shelters 115,560,865 11.56
10 Toll Plaza & Junction 486,228,845 48.62
11 Repair & Maintenance work 148,394,831 14.84
12 Service Road (built-up location) 209,583,371 20.96
Total Civil Works (based on SOR 20011-12) 10,919,746,789 1091.97
Updated cost of civil works at level 2012-13
with 5% escalation 11,465,734,129 1146.57
Per km Civil Construction Cost 68,963,088 6.90
13 Contingencies @ 3% on civil work 343,972,024 34.40
14 Charges for Independent Engineer @ 1% of
(13+updated cost) 118,097,062 11.81
Total Cost 11,927,803,214 1192.78
B Non-Civil Works
15 Budget for EMP 61,900,000 6.19
16 Resettlement and Land Acquisition cost 6,075,666,394 607.57
17 Utility Relocation 227,320,000 22.73
Total Non Civil Works 6,364,886,394 636.49
Total Cost (A+B) 18,292,689,608 1829.27
Chapter – 12
Economic Analysis
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Economic Analysis
URS Scott Wilson 12-1 June 2012
12.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
12.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the general principles of cost benefit analysis (CBA) and outlines the
major costs and benefits considered for the economic appraisal of the project road. It discusses
the adjustments needed to convert the financial costs into economic costs.
Economic evaluation of a project attempts to take into account all the costs and benefits to the
society irrespective of who pay the costs and who receives the benefits. In the case of a road
project, the benefits accrue mainly to the road users (society in general) in the form of vehicle
operating cost savings and time savings. The costs are borne by the developer
(government/private operator).
12.2 Economic Costs
The cost of implementing a project to society is not necessarily the same as the costs in the
market place. In terms of economic costs, such market or financial costs are devoid of any tax
components and market imperfections. Thus, in the cost benefit analysis of an economic
appraisal, financial costs have to be adjusted to derive the economic costs. In a project of the
current nature many items are used in the construction with tax components known for certain
items and not for others. It is a general practice to adjust the financial costs of items with
unknown tax components by a standard conversion factor (SCF). A SCF of 0.9 is assumed for
this study. This is as suggested by Ministry of Surface Transport and National Highways
Authority of India for the road projects being implemented in India.
12.3 Homogenous Sections
The cost of improving the existing roads and development of bypasses along the project corridor
and the resultant benefits in terms of vehicle operating costs differ between various sections of
the project road. This variation is primarily due to the condition of the pavement of the particular
section and the quantum of heavy vehicles moving on it. Thus, the results of investigation of
pavement strength and traffic levels on various sections were combined and the project road has
been delineated in to homogenous sections as presented in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1: Homogenous Sections for Economic Analysis
Sec. No.
Section as per Existing Chainage Length
(Km) Name Start Chainage
(Km)
End Chainage
(Km)
HS-01 Kaithal to Barwala Start 33+300(NH-152) 159+000(NH-65) 70.90
HS-02 Barwala Start to Barwala End 159+000 163+200 4.20
HS-03 Barwala End to Hisar Start 163+200 182+200 19.00
HS-04 Hisar Start to Hisar End 182+200 199+500 17.30
HS-05 Hisar End to Jhnupa 199+500 241+580 42.08
12.4 Project Costs
The project costs such as construction; routine, recurrent and periodic maintenance; land
acquisition; environmental mitigation and rehabilitation etc. have been discussed in detail in
Chapter – 11: Cost Estimates. The SCF stated earlier was applied to these costs during the cost
benefit analysis.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Economic Analysis
URS Scott Wilson 12-2 June 2012
The costs in general include the costs of improvement of the existing 2-lane road to a 4-Lane
with 1.5 m paved shoulder on either side facility. The cost has been estimated for provision of
flyovers, underpasses, ROBs etc at appropriate locations.
12.5 Project Sections
Improvement options considered for each of the homogenous sections are as shown in Table 12.2
and Figure 12.1.
Table 12.2: Project Improvement Sections
Sl.
No. Section
Existing
Section
Existing
Average
Carriageway
Width
Proposed
Improvement
Length
(Km)
Improvement
Proposal
1 Kaithal to
Barwala Start HS-01 10.0
4-Lane with
1.5 m Paved
shoulder
70.90
Improvement
on the Existing
Alignment
2 Barwala Start to
Barwala End HS-02 10.0
4-Lane with
1.5 m Paved
shoulder
7.90 New Bypass
Link
3 Barwala End to
Hisar Start HS-03 10.0
4-Lane with
1.5 m Paved
shoulder
19.00
Improvement
on the Existing
Alignment
4 Hisar Start to
Hisar End HS-04 10.0
4-Lane with
1.5 m Paved
shoulder
26.30 New Bypass
Link
5 Hisar End to
Jhnupa HS-05 7.0
4-Lane with
1.5 m Paved
shoulder
42.08
Improvement
on the Existing
Alignment
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Economic Analysis
URS Scott Wilson 12-3 June 2012
12.6 Cost-Benefit Analysis Method
This analysis was carried out using the HDM-4 software. This appraisal included sensitivity
analysis to assess the impact of increased costs of construction and decreased benefits. The
analysis also considered the value of savings in travel time.
Economic benefits of the project were estimated in terms of savings in VOC and savings in travel
time for passenger and goods vehicles. The estimates of VOCs and time costs of each vehicle
type in with and without project scenario have been made using HDM-4.
Project Road
Kaithal to
Haryana / Rajasthan
Figure 12.1: Location Map of Project
Road
Kaithal
Narwana
Barwala
Hisar
Siwani
Haryana-
Rajasthan
Border DELHI
ROHTA
KK
PANIPAT
KARNAL
JIND
BHIWANI
KURUKSHETRA
HS-01
HS-02
HS-03
HS-04
HS-05
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Economic Analysis
URS Scott Wilson 12-4 June 2012
The HDM-4 software comprises a set of models for estimating various values which effect the
feasibility of road project, such as vehicle operating costs, travel time costs of passengers and
commodities in transit, and the effect of maintenance standards and improvement standards on
road condition and the resultant impact on VOCs etc. Various input parameters, which were
considered for this project and some salient input parameters, which were considered for this
project, are presented hereinafter.
Analysis Period : 25 years (2012-2036)
Construction Period : 24 months
Discount Rate : 12%
Comparable Alternatives : Alt-0 (Base)-Routine Maint. And Overlay
Alt-x (Project)-Improvement for widening to 4-Lane
with 1.5 m paved shoulder including New Bypass Links
Routine Maintenance : Scheduled (Every Year)
Periodic Maintenance - Overlay : Scheduled (Every 5th Year)
Salvage Value : 25%
The calibration factors for some parameters of HDM-4 software used for this analysis are as
indicated by ADB for some of the national highway projects undertaken in the recent past. These
are presented hereinafter:
Parameter Initiation Progression
Cracking 0.70 1.00
Raveling 0.40 1.10
Pot-holing 1.00
Rut depth 1.25
Edge repair drainage coefficient 1.00
Edge break coefficient 1.00
Road side friction 0.95
Effect of speeds 1.00
12.7 Cost-Benefit Analysis Results
The economic viability of the considered options for improving the traffic facility on the project
corridor have been evaluated in terms of Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and Net
Present Value (NPV) of the project benefits and the ratio NPV/Cost. The benefits of the project
were estimated in terms of VOC savings and monetary value of savings in travel time. The
economic returns of each section are presented in Table 12.3.
Table 12.3: Economic Returns of each Section and Project for flexible pavement option
Sec. Description
VOC + Time VOC
EIRR
(%)
NPV
(Rs. Millions) NPV/C
EIRR
(%)
NPV
(Rs. millions) NPV/C
HS-01 Kaithal to Barwala Start 48.83 2838.76 3.69 24.24 447.96 0.58
HS-02 Barwala Start to Barwala
End 14.95 16749.65 0.18 - - -
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Upgradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Economic Analysis
URS Scott Wilson 12-5 June 2012
Sec. Description
VOC + Time VOC
EIRR
(%)
NPV
(Rs. Millions) NPV/C
EIRR
(%)
NPV
(Rs. millions) NPV/C
HS-03 Barwala End to Hisar Start 58.11 2905.90 5.60 34.91 1005.60 1.94
HS-04 Hisar Start to Hisar End 34.71 38194.34 0.99 - - -
HS-05 Hisar End to Jhnupa 58.04 4357.36 5.50 34.61 1462.48 1.85
Project 44.88 9379.48 2.88 21.47 804.48 0.25
12.8 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis of economic returns of the project was carried out. The sensitivity scenarios
considered in this analysis are as presented here in after.
15% increase in costs
15% decrease in benefits
15% increase in costs and 15% decrease in benefits
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 12.4. The results indicate that the project EIRR
values, in the worst case of simultaneous increase in costs and decrease in benefits tune at 16
percent considering VOC savings alone and tune around 36 percent including value of travel
time savings. The bank (RBI - Reserve Bank of India) rate is varying between 6 and 11 percent
in the recent past and is the lower limit for a project to be economically viable. Hence the overall
project can be considered to be viable in economic terms as the EIRR values of the project in the
worst case is more than 15 percent. The comparative cost streams (output of HDM-4) of the Base
Alternative (Alt-0) with that of the proposed improvement options are presented in
Annexure 12.1.
Table 12.4: Sensitivity of Economic Returns
Section
VOC+Time (%) VOC (%)
Base C+15% B-15% C+15%
B-15% Base C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
HS-01 48.83 44.09 43.35 39.09 24.24 20.92 20.37 16.85
HS-02 14.95 12.83 12.49 10.47 - - - -
HS-03 58.11 52.71 51.88 47.03 34.91 31.39 30.84 27.59
HS-04 34.71 30.95 30.35 26.71 - - - -
HS-05 58.04 52.62 51.79 46.92 34.61 31.07 30.52 27.24
Project 44.88 40.56 39.88 35.94 21.47 17.38 16.57 16.35
Note: C-Cost, B-Benefit
Annexure – 12.1
Annexure 12.1
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
2012 555.67 555.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -555.67 -555.67 -555.67 -555.67 -555.67 -555.67 -555.67 -555.67
2013 370.45 370.45 0.00 0.00 28.73 0.18 0.00 -341.53 -341.53 -341.53 -341.53 -341.72 -341.72 -341.72 -341.72
2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 208.14 273.88 0.00 482.03 482.03 482.03 482.03 208.14 208.14 208.14 208.14
2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 232.53 309.85 0.00 542.39 542.39 542.39 542.39 232.53 232.53 232.53 232.53
2016 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 186.50 328.24 0.00 515.45 515.45 515.45 515.45 187.21 187.21 187.21 187.21
2017 -0.09 0.00 -0.09 0.00 195.20 359.89 0.00 555.18 555.18 555.18 555.18 195.28 195.28 195.28 195.28
2018 43.92 44.00 -0.09 0.00 217.80 393.64 0.00 567.53 567.53 567.53 567.53 173.88 173.88 173.88 173.88
2019 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 271.95 428.54 0.00 701.18 701.18 701.18 701.18 272.65 272.65 272.65 272.65
2020 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 265.57 463.91 0.00 730.19 730.19 730.19 730.19 266.28 266.28 266.28 266.28
2021 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 454.27 568.27 0.00 1,023.25 1,023.25 1,023.25 1,023.25 454.97 454.97 454.97 454.97
2022 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 517.04 614.98 0.00 1,132.72 1,132.72 1,132.72 1,132.72 517.74 517.74 517.74 517.74
2023 43.30 44.00 -0.70 0.00 613.53 668.09 0.00 1,238.32 1,238.32 1,238.32 1,238.32 570.23 570.23 570.23 570.23
2024 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 853.72 717.23 0.00 1,571.65 1,571.65 1,571.65 1,571.65 854.43 854.43 854.43 854.43
2025 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 877.98 743.84 0.00 1,622.52 1,622.52 1,622.52 1,622.52 878.68 878.68 878.68 878.68
2026 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 705.95 678.70 0.00 1,385.36 1,385.36 1,385.36 1,385.36 706.65 706.65 706.65 706.65
2027 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 478.56 578.95 0.00 1,058.21 1,058.21 1,058.21 1,058.21 479.26 479.26 479.26 479.26
2028 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 232.68 464.99 0.00 698.37 698.37 698.37 698.37 233.39 233.39 233.39 233.39
2029 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 -52.86 331.51 0.00 279.34 279.34 279.34 279.34 -52.16 -52.16 -52.16 -52.16
2030 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 -361.81 184.51 0.00 -176.60 -176.60 -176.60 -176.60 -361.11 -361.11 -361.11 -361.11
2031 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 -351.94 177.50 0.00 -173.74 -173.74 -173.74 -173.74 -351.23 -351.23 -351.23 -351.23
2032 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 -682.93 29.48 0.00 -652.76 -652.76 -652.76 -652.76 -682.23 -682.23 -682.23 -682.23
2033 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 -1,092.06 -134.69 0.00 -1,226.05 -1,226.05 -1,226.05 -1,226.05 -1,091.36 -1,091.36 -1,091.36 -1,091.36
2034 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 -1,597.14 -349.39 0.00 -1,945.82 -1,945.82 -1,945.82 -1,945.82 -1,596.43 -1,596.43 -1,596.43 -1,596.43
2035 -0.70 0.00 -0.70 0.00 -2,156.86 -538.97 0.00 -2,695.12 -2,695.12 -2,695.12 -2,695.12 -2,156.16 -2,156.16 -2,156.16 -2,156.16
2036 -232.23 -231.53 -0.70 0.00 -2,436.29 -602.47 0.00 -2,806.53 -2,806.53 -2,806.53 -2,806.53 -2,204.06 -2,204.06 -2,204.06 -2,204.06
EIRR = 48.83% 48.83% 48.83% 48.83% 24.24% 24.24% 24.24% 24.24%
NPV = 2838.76 447.96
NPV/C = 3.69 0.58
Comparision of Cost Streams - Base Alternative v/s Improvement Alternative (Kaithal-Barwala Start Section)
Decrease in
MT Time
Net
Exogenous
Benefits
VOC+Time Savings VOC Savings
Year C+R+S Capital Recurrent Special Decrease in
MT VOC
Page 1 of 6
Annexure 12.1
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
2012 526.50 526.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -526.50 -526.50 -526.50 -526.50 -526.50 -526.50 -526.50 -526.50
2013 351.00 351.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -351.00 -351.00 -351.00 -351.00 -351.00 -351.00 -351.00 -351.00
2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -24.98 104.88 0.00 79.90 79.90 79.90 79.90 -24.98 -24.98 -24.98 -24.98
2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -22.63 121.25 0.00 98.63 98.63 98.63 98.63 -22.63 -22.63 -22.63 -22.63
2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.15 139.39 0.00 121.24 121.24 121.24 121.24 -18.15 -18.15 -18.15 -18.15
2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -18.71 153.32 0.00 134.61 134.61 134.61 134.61 -18.71 -18.71 -18.71 -18.71
2018 34.34 34.34 0.00 0.00 -23.63 167.52 0.00 109.56 109.56 109.56 109.56 -57.97 -57.97 -57.97 -57.97
2019 -0.45 0.00 -0.45 0.00 -11.14 181.70 0.00 171.00 171.00 171.00 171.00 -10.70 -10.70 -10.70 -10.70
2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -12.27 197.32 0.00 185.05 185.05 185.05 185.05 -12.27 -12.27 -12.27 -12.27
2021 -0.45 0.00 -0.45 0.00 21.15 235.19 0.00 256.78 256.78 256.78 256.78 21.59 21.59 21.59 21.59
2022 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.82 254.72 0.00 282.54 282.54 282.54 282.54 27.82 27.82 27.82 27.82
2023 34.34 34.34 0.00 0.00 43.31 276.43 0.00 285.41 285.41 285.41 285.41 8.98 8.98 8.98 8.98
2024 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 168.01 298.85 0.00 466.86 466.86 466.86 466.86 168.01 168.01 168.01 168.01
2025 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 170.47 307.96 0.00 478.43 478.43 478.43 478.43 170.47 170.47 170.47 170.47
2026 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -13.27 245.71 0.00 232.44 232.44 232.44 232.44 -13.27 -13.27 -13.27 -13.27
2027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -223.93 168.74 0.00 -55.19 -55.19 -55.19 -55.19 -223.93 -223.93 -223.93 -223.93
2028 34.34 34.34 0.00 0.00 -439.21 85.65 0.00 -387.90 -387.90 -387.90 -387.90 -473.55 -473.55 -473.55 -473.55
2029 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -514.88 3.80 0.00 -511.07 -511.07 -511.07 -511.07 -514.88 -514.88 -514.88 -514.88
2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -809.67 -101.08 0.00 -910.75 -910.75 -910.75 -910.75 -809.67 -809.67 -809.67 -809.67
2031 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1,029.03 -165.83 0.00 -1,194.85 -1,194.85 -1,194.85 -1,194.85 -1,029.03 -1,029.03 -1,029.03 -1,029.03
2032 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1,320.02 -269.55 0.00 -1,589.56 -1,589.56 -1,589.56 -1,589.56 -1,320.02 -1,320.02 -1,320.02 -1,320.02
2033 34.34 34.34 0.00 0.00 -1,632.69 -383.13 0.00 -2,050.16 -2,050.16 -2,050.16 -2,050.16 -1,667.03 -1,667.03 -1,667.03 -1,667.03
2034 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1,789.57 -496.91 0.00 -2,286.48 -2,286.48 -2,286.48 -2,286.48 -1,789.57 -1,789.57 -1,789.57 -1,789.57
2035 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2,255.68 -636.41 0.00 -2,892.09 -2,892.09 -2,892.09 -2,892.09 -2,255.68 -2,255.68 -2,255.68 -2,255.68
2036 -219.38 -219.38 0.00 0.00 -3,393.78 -966.83 0.00 -4,141.23 -4,141.23 -4,141.23 -4,141.23 -3,174.40 -3,174.40 -3,174.40 -3,174.40
EIRR = 14.95% 14.95% 14.95% 14.95% - - - -
NPV = 167.50 -785.12
NPV/C = 0.18 -0.83
Comparision of Cost Streams - Base Alternative v/s Improvement Alternative (Barwala Start-Barwala End+Barwala Bypass Section)
Year C+R+S Capital Recurrent Special Decrease in
MT VOC
Decrease in
MT Time
Net
Exogenous
Benefits
VOC+Time Savings VOC Savings
Page 2 of 6
Annexure 12.1
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
2012 367.63 367.81 -0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -367.63 -367.63 -367.63 -367.63 -367.63 -367.63 -367.63 -367.63
2013 245.01 245.21 -0.20 0.00 21.17 0.12 0.00 -223.72 -223.72 -223.72 -223.72 -223.84 -223.84 -223.84 -223.84
2014 -0.38 0.00 -0.38 0.00 181.11 194.49 0.00 375.98 375.98 375.98 375.98 181.49 181.49 181.49 181.49
2015 -0.38 0.00 -0.38 0.00 201.63 220.65 0.00 422.66 422.66 422.66 422.66 202.01 202.01 202.01 202.01
2016 -0.38 0.00 -0.38 0.00 219.81 251.30 0.00 471.50 471.50 471.50 471.50 220.20 220.20 220.20 220.20
2017 -0.38 0.00 -0.38 0.00 240.21 281.29 0.00 521.89 521.89 521.89 521.89 240.60 240.60 240.60 240.60
2018 23.60 23.99 -0.38 0.00 272.37 314.03 0.00 562.80 562.80 562.80 562.80 248.76 248.76 248.76 248.76
2019 -0.85 0.00 -0.85 0.00 322.84 343.68 0.00 667.37 667.37 667.37 667.37 323.68 323.68 323.68 323.68
2020 -0.44 0.00 -0.44 0.00 335.57 373.59 0.00 709.60 709.60 709.60 709.60 336.01 336.01 336.01 336.01
2021 -0.85 0.00 -0.85 0.00 424.18 424.26 0.00 849.29 849.29 849.29 849.29 425.03 425.03 425.03 425.03
2022 -0.85 0.00 -0.85 0.00 498.13 475.98 0.00 974.96 974.96 974.96 974.96 498.98 498.98 498.98 498.98
2023 23.14 23.99 -0.85 0.00 599.76 522.64 0.00 1,099.26 1,099.26 1,099.26 1,099.26 576.62 576.62 576.62 576.62
2024 -0.85 0.00 -0.85 0.00 769.72 543.64 0.00 1,314.21 1,314.21 1,314.21 1,314.21 770.57 770.57 770.57 770.57
2025 -0.85 0.00 -0.85 0.00 667.39 500.68 0.00 1,168.92 1,168.92 1,168.92 1,168.92 668.24 668.24 668.24 668.24
2026 -0.85 0.00 -0.85 0.00 572.51 476.34 0.00 1,049.70 1,049.70 1,049.70 1,049.70 573.36 573.36 573.36 573.36
2027 -0.85 0.00 -0.85 0.00 414.73 425.11 0.00 840.69 840.69 840.69 840.69 415.58 415.58 415.58 415.58
2028 23.55 23.99 -0.44 0.00 234.99 363.34 0.00 574.79 574.79 574.79 574.79 211.45 211.45 211.45 211.45
2029 -0.44 0.00 -0.44 0.00 166.82 303.00 0.00 470.26 470.26 470.26 470.26 167.26 167.26 167.26 167.26
2030 -0.41 0.00 -0.41 0.00 -125.89 221.30 0.00 95.82 95.82 95.82 95.82 -125.48 -125.48 -125.48 -125.48
2031 -0.39 0.00 -0.39 0.00 -184.76 213.11 0.00 28.74 28.74 28.74 28.74 -184.37 -184.37 -184.37 -184.37
2032 -0.39 0.00 -0.39 0.00 -385.64 137.44 0.00 -247.81 -247.81 -247.81 -247.81 -385.25 -385.25 -385.25 -385.25
2033 -0.38 0.00 -0.38 0.00 -607.11 54.93 0.00 -551.79 -551.79 -551.79 -551.79 -606.72 -606.72 -606.72 -606.72
2034 -0.38 0.00 -0.38 0.00 -857.72 -43.83 0.00 -901.17 -901.17 -901.17 -901.17 -857.34 -857.34 -857.34 -857.34
2035 -0.38 0.00 -0.38 0.00 -1,159.19 -178.49 0.00 -1,337.30 -1,337.30 -1,337.30 -1,337.30 -1,158.81 -1,158.81 -1,158.81 -1,158.81
2036 -153.64 -153.26 -0.38 0.00 -1,244.50 -212.68 0.00 -1,303.54 -1,303.54 -1,303.54 -1,303.54 -1,090.87 -1,090.87 -1,090.87 -1,090.87
EIRR = 58.11% 58.11% 58.11% 58.11% 34.91% 34.91% 34.91% 34.91%
NPV = 2905.90 1005.60
NPV/C = 5.60 1.94
Decrease in
MT VOCSpecial Recurrent Capital C+R+SYear
Comparision of Cost Streams - Base Alternative v/s Improvement Alternative (Barwala End-Hisar Start Section)
Decrease in
MT Time
Net
Exogenous
Benefits
VOC+Time Savings VOC Savings
Page 3 of 6
Annexure 12.1
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
2012 256.23 256.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -256.23 -256.23 -256.23 -256.23 -256.23 -256.23 -256.23 -256.23
2013 170.82 170.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -170.82 -170.82 -170.82 -170.82 -170.82 -170.82 -170.82 -170.82
2014 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.00 47.93 74.96 0.00 122.93 122.93 122.93 122.93 47.97 47.97 47.97 47.97
2015 -0.15 0.00 -0.15 0.00 57.79 85.95 0.00 143.89 143.89 143.89 143.89 57.94 57.94 57.94 57.94
2016 -0.13 0.00 -0.13 0.00 69.51 98.77 0.00 168.41 168.41 168.41 168.41 69.64 69.64 69.64 69.64
2017 -0.08 0.00 -0.08 0.00 79.23 111.71 0.00 191.01 191.01 191.01 191.01 79.31 79.31 79.31 79.31
2018 16.66 16.71 -0.05 0.00 90.62 125.66 0.00 199.63 199.63 199.63 199.63 73.97 73.97 73.97 73.97
2019 -0.27 0.00 -0.27 0.00 110.38 137.43 0.00 248.09 248.09 248.09 248.09 110.66 110.66 110.66 110.66
2020 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 120.85 149.53 0.00 270.15 270.15 270.15 270.15 120.62 120.62 120.62 120.62
2021 -0.23 0.00 -0.23 0.00 151.45 172.97 0.00 324.64 324.64 324.64 324.64 151.67 151.67 151.67 151.67
2022 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 181.12 195.86 0.00 376.98 376.98 376.98 376.98 181.12 181.12 181.12 181.12
2023 16.48 16.71 -0.23 0.00 223.70 214.06 0.00 421.28 421.28 421.28 421.28 207.22 207.22 207.22 207.22
2024 -0.23 0.00 -0.23 0.00 297.23 219.19 0.00 516.64 516.64 516.64 516.64 297.46 297.46 297.46 297.46
2025 -0.24 0.00 -0.24 0.00 214.59 187.09 0.00 401.92 401.92 401.92 401.92 214.83 214.83 214.83 214.83
2026 -0.25 0.00 -0.25 0.00 95.36 154.72 0.00 250.33 250.33 250.33 250.33 95.61 95.61 95.61 95.61
2027 -0.26 0.00 -0.26 0.00 -26.05 116.58 0.00 90.79 90.79 90.79 90.79 -25.79 -25.79 -25.79 -25.79
2028 16.68 16.71 -0.03 0.00 -133.56 81.80 0.00 -68.44 -68.44 -68.44 -68.44 -150.24 -150.24 -150.24 -150.24
2029 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -192.64 46.89 0.00 -145.72 -145.72 -145.72 -145.72 -192.61 -192.61 -192.61 -192.61
2030 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -346.31 2.99 0.00 -343.30 -343.30 -343.30 -343.30 -346.30 -346.30 -346.30 -346.30
2031 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -450.49 -21.15 0.00 -471.63 -471.63 -471.63 -471.63 -450.48 -450.48 -450.48 -450.48
2032 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -581.77 -64.17 0.00 -645.94 -645.94 -645.94 -645.94 -581.76 -581.76 -581.76 -581.76
2033 16.71 16.71 0.00 0.00 -715.27 -110.36 0.00 -842.35 -842.35 -842.35 -842.35 -731.98 -731.98 -731.98 -731.98
2034 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -776.61 -156.20 0.00 -932.81 -932.81 -932.81 -932.81 -776.61 -776.61 -776.61 -776.61
2035 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -974.72 -214.16 0.00 -1,188.88 -1,188.88 -1,188.88 -1,188.88 -974.72 -974.72 -974.72 -974.72
2036 -106.76 -106.76 0.00 0.00 -1,460.52 -351.10 0.00 -1,704.86 -1,704.86 -1,704.86 -1,704.86 -1,353.75 -1,353.75 -1,353.75 -1,353.75
EIRR = 34.71% 34.71% 34.71% 34.71% - - - -
NPV = 381.94 -262.50
NPV/C = 0.99 -0.68
Comparision of Cost Streams - Base Alternative v/s Improvement Alternative (Hisar Start-Hisar End+Hisar Bypass Section)
Decrease in
MT Time
VOC+Time Savings VOC SavingsDecrease in
MT VOCSpecial C+R+SYear
Net
Exogenous
Benefits
Recurrent Capital
Page 4 of 6
Annexure 12.1
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
2012 560.61 560.90 -0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -560.61 -560.61 -560.61 -560.61 -560.61 -560.61 -560.61 -560.61
2013 373.63 373.93 -0.30 0.00 32.22 0.18 0.00 -341.23 -341.23 -341.23 -341.23 -341.41 -341.41 -341.41 -341.41
2014 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 276.61 296.63 0.00 573.83 573.83 573.83 573.83 277.20 277.20 277.20 277.20
2015 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 308.89 336.55 0.00 646.03 646.03 646.03 646.03 309.47 309.47 309.47 309.47
2016 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 336.47 383.30 0.00 720.35 720.35 720.35 720.35 337.05 337.05 337.05 337.05
2017 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 366.51 429.01 0.00 796.10 796.10 796.10 796.10 367.09 367.09 367.09 367.09
2018 35.99 36.58 -0.58 0.00 414.03 478.92 0.00 856.96 856.96 856.96 856.96 378.04 378.04 378.04 378.04
2019 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 486.52 524.08 0.00 1,011.19 1,011.19 1,011.19 1,011.19 487.10 487.10 487.10 487.10
2020 -1.29 0.00 -1.29 0.00 502.86 569.67 0.00 1,073.82 1,073.82 1,073.82 1,073.82 504.16 504.16 504.16 504.16
2021 -0.67 0.00 -0.67 0.00 631.03 646.77 0.00 1,278.47 1,278.47 1,278.47 1,278.47 631.69 631.69 631.69 631.69
2022 -1.29 0.00 -1.29 0.00 726.67 725.04 0.00 1,452.99 1,452.99 1,452.99 1,452.99 727.96 727.96 727.96 727.96
2023 35.29 36.58 -1.29 0.00 862.32 796.13 0.00 1,623.17 1,623.17 1,623.17 1,623.17 827.04 827.04 827.04 827.04
2024 -1.29 0.00 -1.29 0.00 1,097.23 825.78 0.00 1,924.30 1,924.30 1,924.30 1,924.30 1,098.52 1,098.52 1,098.52 1,098.52
2025 -1.29 0.00 -1.29 0.00 943.90 756.73 0.00 1,701.92 1,701.92 1,701.92 1,701.92 945.19 945.19 945.19 945.19
2026 -1.29 0.00 -1.29 0.00 843.49 723.90 0.00 1,568.68 1,568.68 1,568.68 1,568.68 844.79 844.79 844.79 844.79
2027 -1.29 0.00 -1.29 0.00 629.47 648.06 0.00 1,278.83 1,278.83 1,278.83 1,278.83 630.76 630.76 630.76 630.76
2028 35.91 36.58 -0.67 0.00 355.03 553.85 0.00 872.97 872.97 872.97 872.97 319.12 319.12 319.12 319.12
2029 -0.67 0.00 -0.67 0.00 255.98 462.17 0.00 718.82 718.82 718.82 718.82 256.65 256.65 256.65 256.65
2030 -0.62 0.00 -0.62 0.00 -189.56 337.67 0.00 148.74 148.74 148.74 148.74 -188.94 -188.94 -188.94 -188.94
2031 -0.60 0.00 -0.60 0.00 -281.77 325.06 0.00 43.89 43.89 43.89 43.89 -281.17 -281.17 -281.17 -281.17
2032 -0.59 0.00 -0.59 0.00 -588.11 209.66 0.00 -377.86 -377.86 -377.86 -377.86 -587.52 -587.52 -587.52 -587.52
2033 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 -925.85 83.83 0.00 -841.44 -841.44 -841.44 -841.44 -925.27 -925.27 -925.27 -925.27
2034 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 -1,308.07 -66.78 0.00 -1,374.26 -1,374.26 -1,374.26 -1,374.26 -1,307.48 -1,307.48 -1,307.48 -1,307.48
2035 -0.58 0.00 -0.58 0.00 -1,767.92 -272.15 0.00 -2,039.48 -2,039.48 -2,039.48 -2,039.48 -1,767.33 -1,767.33 -1,767.33 -1,767.33
2036 -234.29 -233.71 -0.58 0.00 -1,898.53 -324.31 0.00 -1,988.54 -1,988.54 -1,988.54 -1,988.54 -1,664.24 -1,664.24 -1,664.24 -1,664.24
EIRR = 58.04% 58.04% 58.04% 58.04% 34.61% 34.61% 34.61% 34.61%
NPV = 4357.36 1462.48
NPV/C = 5.50 1.85
Comparision of Cost Streams - Base Alternative v/s Improvement Alternative (Hisar End-Jhunpa Section)
Decrease in
MT Time
Net
Exogenous
Benefits
VOC+Time Savings VOC Savings
Year C+R+S Capital Recurrent Special Decrease in
MT VOC
Page 5 of 6
Annexure 12.1
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
C+0%
B-0%C+15% B-15%
C+15%
B-15%
2012 2266.64 2,267.11 -0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2,266.64 -2,266.64 -2,266.64 -2,266.64 -2,266.64 -2,266.64 -2,266.64 -2,266.64
2013 1510.91 1,511.41 -0.49 0.00 82.12 0.48 0.00 -1,428.31 -1,428.31 -1,428.31 -1,428.31 -1,428.79 -1,428.79 -1,428.79 -1,428.79
2014 -1.00 0.00 -1.00 0.00 688.82 944.83 0.00 1,634.66 1,634.66 1,634.66 1,634.66 689.82 689.82 689.82 689.82
2015 -1.11 0.00 -1.11 0.00 778.23 1,074.26 0.00 1,853.60 1,853.60 1,853.60 1,853.60 779.34 779.34 779.34 779.34
2016 -1.80 0.00 -1.80 0.00 794.14 1,201.00 0.00 1,996.94 1,996.94 1,996.94 1,996.94 795.94 795.94 795.94 795.94
2017 -1.13 0.00 -1.13 0.00 862.44 1,335.22 0.00 2,198.79 2,198.79 2,198.79 2,198.79 863.57 863.57 863.57 863.57
2018 154.51 155.61 -1.10 0.00 971.19 1,479.78 0.00 2,296.46 2,296.46 2,296.46 2,296.46 816.68 816.68 816.68 816.68
2019 -2.85 0.00 -2.85 0.00 1,180.55 1,615.42 0.00 2,798.82 2,798.82 2,798.82 2,798.82 1,183.40 1,183.40 1,183.40 1,183.40
2020 -2.21 0.00 -2.21 0.00 1,212.59 1,754.01 0.00 2,968.81 2,968.81 2,968.81 2,968.81 1,214.80 1,214.80 1,214.80 1,214.80
2021 -2.89 0.00 -2.89 0.00 1,682.07 2,047.46 0.00 3,732.42 3,732.42 3,732.42 3,732.42 1,684.96 1,684.96 1,684.96 1,684.96
2022 -2.84 0.00 -2.84 0.00 1,950.77 2,266.57 0.00 4,220.19 4,220.19 4,220.19 4,220.19 1,953.62 1,953.62 1,953.62 1,953.62
2023 152.54 155.61 -3.07 0.00 2,342.62 2,477.35 0.00 4,667.44 4,667.44 4,667.44 4,667.44 2,190.08 2,190.08 2,190.08 2,190.08
2024 -3.07 0.00 -3.07 0.00 3,185.91 2,604.69 0.00 5,793.67 5,793.67 5,793.67 5,793.67 3,188.98 3,188.98 3,188.98 3,188.98
2025 -3.08 0.00 -3.08 0.00 2,874.33 2,496.29 0.00 5,373.71 5,373.71 5,373.71 5,373.71 2,877.42 2,877.42 2,877.42 2,877.42
2026 -3.10 0.00 -3.10 0.00 2,204.04 2,279.37 0.00 4,486.51 4,486.51 4,486.51 4,486.51 2,207.14 2,207.14 2,207.14 2,207.14
2027 -3.10 0.00 -3.10 0.00 1,272.78 1,937.45 0.00 3,213.33 3,213.33 3,213.33 3,213.33 1,275.88 1,275.88 1,275.88 1,275.88
2028 109.77 111.61 -1.84 0.00 249.93 1,549.63 0.00 1,689.80 1,689.80 1,689.80 1,689.80 140.17 140.17 140.17 140.17
2029 -1.84 0.00 -1.84 0.00 -337.58 1,147.37 0.00 811.64 811.64 811.64 811.64 -335.73 -335.73 -335.73 -335.73
2030 -1.74 0.00 -1.74 0.00 -1,833.24 645.40 0.00 -1,186.10 -1,186.10 -1,186.10 -1,186.10 -1,831.50 -1,831.50 -1,831.50 -1,831.50
2031 -1.70 0.00 -1.70 0.00 -2,297.98 528.69 0.00 -1,767.59 -1,767.59 -1,767.59 -1,767.59 -2,296.28 -2,296.28 -2,296.28 -2,296.28
2032 -1.68 0.00 -1.68 0.00 -3,558.46 42.85 0.00 -3,513.94 -3,513.94 -3,513.94 -3,513.94 -3,556.79 -3,556.79 -3,556.79 -3,556.79
2033 49.38 51.04 -1.67 0.00 -4,972.99 -489.43 0.00 -5,511.79 -5,511.79 -5,511.79 -5,511.79 -5,022.36 -5,022.36 -5,022.36 -5,022.36
2034 -1.67 0.00 -1.67 0.00 -6,329.11 -1,113.11 0.00 -7,440.55 -7,440.55 -7,440.55 -7,440.55 -6,327.44 -6,327.44 -6,327.44 -6,327.44
2035 -1.67 0.00 -1.67 0.00 -8,314.37 -1,840.17 0.00 -10,152.87 -10,152.87 -10,152.87 -10,152.87 -8,312.70 -8,312.70 -8,312.70 -8,312.70
2036 -946.30 -944.63 -1.67 0.00 -10,433.61 -2,457.38 0.00 -11,944.70 -11,944.70 -11,944.70 -11,944.70 -9,487.32 -9,487.32 -9,487.32 -9,487.32
EIRR = 44.88% 44.88% 44.88% 44.88% 21.47% 21.47% 21.47% 16.35%
NPV = 9379.48 804.48
NPV/C = 2.88 0.25
Comparision of Cost Streams - Base Alternative v/s Project Improvement Alternative
Decrease in
MT Time
Net
Exogenous
Benefits
VOC+Time Savings VOC Savings
Year C+R+S Capital Recurrent Special Decrease in
MT VOC
Page 6 of 6
Chapter – 13
Financial Analysis on BOT Basis
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-1 October 2012
13.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ON BOT BASIS
13.1 Background
The Project Road starts from Kaithal at Km 33.250 of NH-152 at and terminates at near village
Jhumpa at Km 241.580 (Haryana/ Rajasthan Border) of NH-65 in the State of Haryana. Bypasses
of 52.35 km have been proposed at Kalayat, Dhanaudha, Narwana, Barwala, Talwandi, Hisar,
Barwa & Siwani town/villages. The existing chainage of the road is in two parts as below:
NH-152: Kaithal 33.250 km to Narwana km 0.000 (Decreasing towards Hisar)
NH-65: Narwana Km 121.400 to Raj/Har Border Km 241.580 (Increasing towards state Border)
The total existing length of the project highway is 153.430 km (Design length-166.259 Km) and
for Financial Analysis, it is considered in one package as given in Table 13.1.
Table 13.1: Project Length for Financial Analysis
Project Description Existing Length (Km) Design Length (Km)
From Km 33.250 (Kaithal) to Km 241.580
(Haryana / Rajasthan Border) 153.430 166.259
New MCA – The provisions of New MCA (April, 2009) with new Toll Policy (Dec, 2008) with
amendments in Dec, 2010 and Jan, 2011 have been considered for viability analysis.
13.2 Approach to Financial Evaluation on BOT Basis
The viability of each package depends on the working cash flows available to service the debt
and equity. This working cash flow is basically dependent upon the following:-
a. Project Cost
b. Traffic & Traffic Growth
c. Toll Structure
d. Operation and Maintenance expenses
e. Interest on Debt
f. Tax
The main objective of Financial Analysis is to examine the viability of implementing the project
on a BOT basis. The analysis attempts to ascertain the extent to which the investment can be
recovered through toll revenue and the gap, if any, be funded through Grant / Subsidy. This
covers aspects like financing through debt and equity, loan repayment, debt servicing, taxation,
depreciation, etc. The viability of the project is evaluated on the basis of Project FIRR (Financial
Internal Rate of Return on total investment). The FIRR is estimated on the basis of cash flow
analysis, where both costs and revenue have been indexed to take account of inflation. Financial
analysis has been carried out for the two individual packages with debt equity ratio of 70:30.
13.3 Cost of Civil Works
The total cost of the project includes cost of civil works including the improvement of existing
carriageway and cost of toll plaza. The estimated project cost is considered excluding shifting of
utilities, land acquisition, acquisition of structures, rehabilitation and resettlement and
environmental mitigation measures which are to be borne by NHAI. Cost of Civil Works at
2011-12 prices is given in Table 13.2.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-2 October 2012
Table 13.2: Total Civil Cost for Financial Analysis
Description Design Length (Km) Cost
(Rs / Crore) Per Km Cost (Rs / Crore)
From Km 33.250 (Kaithal) to
Km 241.580 (Haryana/ Rajasthan
Border)
166.259 1091.97 6.57
13.4 Cost Escalation
The base costs have been escalated at a rate of 5% per annum to obtain the actual costs in the year of expenditure. This is based on average WPI for the last 5 years.
13.5 Interest During Construction (IDC)
The interest during construction, which on the cost of funding incurred on the project, has been calculated on the basis of an interest of 11.75 percent per annum as per the current market rate for lending Highway Projects.
13.6 Total Project Cost
The total landed costs for each individual package at the end of the construction period has been estimated by adding Contingencies, IC & Pre-operative expenses, Financing Cost, Escalation, Interest during Construction (IDC) etc. The total landed cost at the time of commissioning is thus estimated as given in Table 13.3.
Table 13.3: The Total Landed Cost at the Time of Commissioning
Sl. No. Cost Package Cost
Rs. In Crores
A CONCESSIONAIRE COST
1 Total Civil Construction cost of 2011-12 1091.97
2 Add: Escalation for one year to upto 2012-13
@5%
1146.57
3 Contingencies @1% of Civil Cost 11.47
4 EPC Cost (2+3) 1158.04
5 IC/Pre-operative Expenses @1% of EPC 11.58
6 Insurance during construction @ 0.15% for 2.5
years
5.12
7 Financing Charges @ 1% of Debt 7.26
8 Interest During Construction @ 11.75% 91.50
9 Escalation During Construction Period @5% 91.46
10 Total Project Cost (Sum of 4 to 9) 1364.96
11 Per Km Cost 8.21
13.7 Toll Rates and Toll Analysis
Tolls can be set either to maximize revenue or maximize the utilization of the project without
causing congestion. However, in no case, tolls are set at a level higher than the perceived benefits
of using the facility. Toll rates are estimated based on the National Highways (NHAI)) Act, 1956
(48 of 1956). As per the new Toll Policy, the following toll rates shall apply for 2007-08 based
on WPI of 1st Jan, 2007 as given in Table 13.4.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-3 October 2012
Table 13.4: Toll Rates for the Project
Sl.
No Category of Vehicle
Basic Toll Rates per Vehicle per one
way trip (in Rupees per km) based on
WPI of Jan, 2007 (WPI 208.2)
1 Car 0.65
2 Light Commercial Vehicle (LCV) 1.05
3 Truck / Bus 2.20
4 with three axles truck 2.40
5 “Multi-axle truck” or “Heavy Truck” with four
to six axles
3.45
6 “Oversized Vehicles” with seven or more axles 4.20
Revision on account of variation in WPI shall be restricted to 40 % (forty per cent) of the
variation in WPI occurring between April 1 immediately following the date of this Agreement
and April 1 of the year of revision hereunder plus fixed 3 (three) percent of the basic toll rates
based on WPI of Jan, 2007 without compounding. Future WPI has been considered as 5%.
13.8 Concession to Local Traffic
The concessionaire shall allow the following discounts in user’s fee as per the new toll policy:
• The executing authority or the concessionaire, as the case may be, shall upon request provide
a pass for multiple journeys to cross a toll plaza within the specified period at the rates
specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 9.
• A driver, owner or person in charge of a mechanical vehicle who makes use of the section of
national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, may opt for such pass and he or she
shall have to pay the fee in accordance with the following rates as given in Table 13.5.
Table 13.5: Concession to Local Traffic
Amount Payable Maximum Number of One
Way Journeys Allowed Period of Validity
One and half times of the fee for
one way journey
Two Twenty four hours from
the time of payment
Two-third of amount of the fee
payable for fifty single journeys.
Fifty One month from date of
payment
• A person who owns a mechanical vehicle registered for non-commercial purposes and uses it
as such for commuting on a section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel,
may obtain a pass, on payment of fee at the base rate for the year 2007-2008 of rupees one
hundred and fifty per calendar month and revised annually in accordance with rule 5,
authorizing it to cross the toll plaza specified in such pass:
• Provided that such pass shall be issued only if such driver, owner or person in charge of such
mechanical vehicle resides within a distance of twenty kilometers from the toll plaza
specified by such person and the use of such section of national highway, permanent bridge,
bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, does not extend beyond the toll plaza next to the
specified toll plaza.
• Provided further that no such pass shall be issued if a service road or alternative road is
available for use by such driver, owner or person in charge of a mechanical vehicle.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-4 October 2012
• No pass shall be issued or fee collected from a driver, owner or person in charge of a
mechanical vehicle that uses part of the section of a national highway and does not cross a
toll plaza. Proper discount have been given in the Financial Analysis for the above
Concessions,
13.9 Grant and its Treatment
Maximum Grant – 40 % of the Total Project Cost subject to the following:-
A) Equity Support:
It shall be equal to the sum specified in the bid and as accepted by the authority but in no case
greater than the equity and shall be further restricted to a sum not exceeding 20% of TPC i.e.
maximum 20% of TPC (Total Project Cost). It shall be due and payable to the Concessionaire
after it has expended the Equity. Further it shall be disbursed proportionately along with the loan
funds.
B) O & M Support:
O & M support is fixed which is equal to 5% of equity support in quarterly instalments i.e. 20%
of equity support in a year. First instalment is due within 90 days of COD. Each instalment
equal to 5% of equity support is payable quarterly.
However as per the B.K. Chaturvedi Committee recommendations approved by the
Government, the entire grant is to be released during Construction period as Equity
support with no O & M support. Accordingly, entire 40% grant has been considered as
Equity support during construction period.
13.10 Traffic
Classified traffic volume count under project stretch, was conducted manually during 2011, at
Km.18 of NH 152, km 130.40, km 152, km 180 and at Km. 225 of NH-65 for 24 hrs on 7
consecutive days in both directions. The AADT in the base year 2011 are given in Table 13.6.
Table 13.6: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
Sl. No. Description Km 18 Km 130.4 Km 152 Km 180 Km 225
1 Car/Jeep 3109 2342 2673 4173 1638
2 Mini Bus 19 37 11 71 18
3 Bus 365 332 388 536 163
4 LCV 754 865 895 1012 748
5 Truck-2 Axle 472 758 766 981 663
6 Truck-3 Axle 585 1055 990 989 1066
7 Multi Axle 217 444 420 401 582
HME 22 6 8 9 11
8 Total 5543 5837 6151 8172 4888
9 Total PCU 9612 12149 12391 15161 11128
10 Non Tollable (PCUs) 2500 2221 2489 2723 1667
11 Total Traffic 12112 14371 14881 17884 12794
Tollable Traffic at Toll Plaza has been considered at Toll Plazas i.e. Km 130.4, km 180 &
km 225.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-5 October 2012
Toll Plaza Locations
Three Toll plazas have been kept at km 125.790, km 171.580 and km 212.400 of NH-65
(existing chainage).
Traffic Projections
5% Average Growth rates for projections of the traffic have been considered as per the
provisions of the new MCA.
Discounts have been considered based on NHAI Circular no. NHAI/11033/CGM (Fin)/ 2011
dated 29.04.2011, Corrigendum no. 1 dated 02.05.2011 and MORTH circular dated 16.11.2011
i.e. leakage for Car/Jeep/Van @ 10% and 5% for other vehicles. Further discount has been
considered @3% towards Revenue Loss due to Local Traffic for Car/Jeep/Van only.
13.11 Toll Revenue
The toll revenue is the product of the forecast traffic expected to use the road and the appropriate
toll fee for the vehicle category. A toll indexing pattern @ 40% of average WPI of 5% plus fixed
3 (three) percent of the basic toll rates based on WPI of Jan, 2007 without compounding, as per
New MCA has been adopted. Toll revenues have been calculated for each of toll fee structure
proposed above is given in Table 13.7.
Table 13.7: Toll Revenue for the Project
Year Toll Revenue Rs. Crore
2016 114.10
2021 178.89
2026 276.10
2031 421.06
2036 636.08
2040 879.92
Penalty for Overloading
No penalty for overloading is to be levied as per new toll policy. Accordingly, no effect has been
given in the viability analysis.
Differential Fees
No Differential fees are to be levied as per new toll policy.
Other Income
Apart from the Toll Income, there may be other streams of revenue generated by extending land
development rights to the Concessionaire and revenue from any other service facilities like
Advertisements, Truck Parking Terminals, Parking Areas, Automobile Service Centre, Petrol
Pumps and Cable Ducting etc. However, as per the policy of NHAI, no advertisements are
allowed in the project highway. Also for other streams of revenue there is no clear cut guidance
and accordingly no income on these accounts has been considered.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-6 October 2012
13.12 Tax Calculation Module Tax Rate
The tax rate adopted for this study is 33.22 following the deduction of depreciation and
amortization.
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT)
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) of 19.93 has been taken into account for the total concession
period.
13.13 Tax Exemptions (Under Section 80 IA)
According to the scheme under section 80-IA, 100% of the profit is deductible for ten years.
However the benefit deduction is available only for ten consecutive assessment years falling
within a period of twenty years from the year the Project begins its operations.
13.14 Proposed Sources of Finance
In general, the developer shall crystallize the sources of finance by optimizing his equity returns
keeping in view the project cash flows, terms, and conditions of various financing options
available. Further the market standing and financial strength of the Developer would largely
determine the terms and conditions of finance offered to the Developer by various lending
agencies. For the purpose of the study, following sources of finance have been taken:
• Equity: To be provided by the Developer
• Subsidy / Grant for viability of funding, to be provided by the client.
• Debt : To be arranged by the Developer / Concessionaire
13.15 Expenses
Expenses can broadly be classified based on the phases in which they are incurred, viz.
construction period expenses and operation & maintenance period expenses.
� Construction Period Expenses
• Preliminary and pre-operative expenses
• Contingency allowance
• Interest during construction period
• Finance Charges
� Operation and Maintenance Period Expenses
• Toll collection expenses
• Administrative expenses for day-to-day operation including insurances
• Maintenance expenses, which include routine and periodic maintenance
• Interest expenses incurred for servicing term loans
• Tax
• Concession Fee
Toll Collection Expenses
Toll collection expenses are estimated as Rs 160 Lacs per toll plaza.
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-7 October 2012
Insurance Expenses
Insurance expenses are estimated as 0.15% of the Project Cost.
Other Overhead Expenses
To meet out the other overhead expenses, provisions of Rs. 250 lacs per annum have been
considered.
Concession Fee
Concession Fee is payable @ Rs. 1 per year by the Concessionaire.
13.16 Operation and Maintenance Cost
Routine maintenance costs comprise of maintenance of the pavement, collection of litter, traffic
management (policing), accident repairs and all ancillary works including beautification.
The periodic maintenance costs include cost of overlay, repair/renovation of road furniture,
drains, buildings etc. The periodic maintenance includes periodic renewals at every 6 years.
Routine maintenance/ Periodic maintenance costs have been considered as per the MORT&H
guidelines. The details of the maintenance costs and administration charges (base year 2011-12)
are given in Table 13.8.
Table 13.8: Operation and Maintenance Cost
Sl.
No. Description
Amount
(Rs. in Lacs)
For 4 Lane
1 Routine maintenance in every year cost per km for the four
lanes with paved shoulder (Rs Lacs / Km) 3.50
2 Periodic maintenance every five years cost per km for the
four lanes with paved shoulder (Rs Lacs / Km) 35.00
3 Toll Collection Expenses (Rs Lacs /annum)/per toll plaza 160.00
4 Other Office Expenses 250.00
5 Patrolling/ Electricity Expenses (Rs Lacs / Km) 1.25
Escalation @ 5% per annum has been considered.
13.17 Resource Mobilization Schedule
The Project implementation period has been taken as 30 months. Based on the implementation
period, the project cost has been phased as given in Table 13.9.
Table 13.9: Scheduled Project Cost Phasing
Description 1st Year 2
nd Year
3rd
Year
(6 Months)
Percentage of total cost incurred 30% 40% 30%
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-8 October 2012
13.18 Minimum Return Criteria
Keeping in view the present market condition, the minimum return criteria for the B.O.T project
is considered as follows:-
Return on Equity (Equity IRR) : Minimum of 15%
Debt Service Coverage Ration (DSCR) : More than 1
13.19 Concession Period
Keeping in view of present/future traffic volume, Concession Period of 28 years including
Construction Period from 2013 – 2015 has been considered without capacity augmentation of 4
laning for Financial Analysis. Concession Period is fixed as per new MCA based on the end year,
the capacity of 4 laning (60,000 PCU) exceeds. The traffic projections are given in Table 13.10.
Table: 13.10: Traffic Projection for Concession Period
Year TP-I TP-II TP-III Average TP-I TP-II TP-III Average Concession
Period
Total Traffic Tollable Traffic
2011 14371 17884 12794 15016 12149 15161 11128 12813
2012 15090 18778 13434 15767 12756 15919 11684 13453
2013 15844 19717 14105 16556 13394 16715 12269 14126
2014 16636 20703 14811 17383 14064 17551 12882 14832 1
2015 17468 21738 15551 18252 14767 18428 13526 15574 2
2016 18341 22825 16329 19165 15506 19350 14202 16353 3
2017 19259 23966 17145 20123 16281 20317 14913 17170 4
2018 20221 25165 18002 21129 17095 21333 15658 18029 5
2019 21233 26423 18903 22186 17950 22400 16441 18930 6
2020 22294 27744 19848 23295 18847 23520 17263 19877 7
2021 23409 29131 20840 24460 19789 24696 18126 20870 8
2022 24579 30588 21882 25683 20779 25930 19033 21914 9
2023 25808 32117 22976 26967 21818 27227 19984 23010 10
2024 27099 33723 24125 28316 22909 28588 20984 24160 11
2025 28454 35409 25331 29731 24054 30018 22033 25368 12
2026 29876 37180 26598 31218 25257 31519 23134 26637 13
2027 31370 39039 27928 32779 26520 33095 24291 27968 14
2028 32939 40990 29324 34418 27846 34749 25506 29367 15
2029 34586 43040 30790 36139 29238 36487 26781 30835 16
2030 36315 45192 32330 37946 30700 38311 28120 32377 17
2031 38131 47452 33946 39843 32235 40227 29526 33996 18
2032 40037 49824 35644 41835 33847 42238 31002 35696 19
2033 42039 52315 37426 43927 35539 44350 32552 37480 20
2034 44141 54931 39297 46123 37316 46567 34180 39354 21
2035 46348 57678 41262 48429 39182 48896 35889 41322 22
2036 48665 60562 43325 50851 41141 51341 37683 43388 23
2037 51099 63590 45491 53393 43198 53908 39568 45558 24
2038 53654 66769 47766 56063 45358 56603 41546 47836 25
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-9 October 2012
Year TP-I TP-II TP-III Average TP-I TP-II TP-III Average Concession
Period
Total Traffic Tollable Traffic
2039 56336 70108 50154 58866 47626 59433 43623 50227 26
2040 59153 73613 52662 61809 50007 62405 45804 52739 27
2041 62111 77294 55295 64900 52507 65525 48095 55376 28
2042 65216 81158 58060 68145 55133 68801 50499 58144 29
Accordingly, Concession Period has been considered as 27 years based on average total
traffic and capacity of highway as 60,000 PCUs at Level of Service ‘C’.
13.20 Construction Period
Construction Period of 30 months has been considered effective from Jan, 2014.
13.21 Financial Viability
The main objective of undertaking this study is to assess whether the project is financially viable
or not. It is important to note that the proposal should be an attractive proposition for private
sector participation under Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) system. The basic methodology
followed for estimating the financial viability of the project is to calculate the FIRR (Financial
Internal Rate of Return) on the investment for the project.
The following assumptions are taken into consideration for the financial analysis:-
� Debt – Equity ratio :- 70:30
� Subsidy – maximum 40% during construction
� Concession period (Including 30 months construction period) – 27 years
� Escalation – 5%
� Interest on Debt – 11.75%
� Interest During Construction – 11.75%
� Loan Repayment period – 13 years
� Tax rebate – 10 years(100% exemption for 10 years out of block of 20 years)
� Moratorium – Construction period plus 6 months
� Depreciation by Straight line method - 100% during Operation Period
� Depreciation by Written down value method – 10%
� Financing costs - 1%
� Concession Fee – Re. 1 per year
� Insurance Charges – 0.15% of project cost per year
13.22 Capacity of the Project Highway
As per the IRC - 64, 1990, the capacity of the road is considered as under for Capacity
Augmentation as given in Table 13.11.
Table 13.11: Level of Service Projection for the Project
Lane Level of Service B Level of Service C
2 Laning 17,500 25,000
4 Laning 40,000 60,000
Preparation of DPR for Rehabilitation & Up-gradation Final Feasibility Report
of Kaithal – Rajasthan Border Section of NH–65 Financial Analysis of BOT Basis
URS Scott Wilson 13-10 October 2012
13.23 Results and Analysis
Based on the project structure traffic study and toll rate analysis, financial feasibility analysis has
been carried out as per the methodology outlined in earlier sections. The objective of the
financial analysis is to ascertain the existence of sustainable project returns, which shall
successfully meet the expectations of its financial investors. The analysis reveals various FIRR
values corresponding to each year of toll operation.
FIRR for the Returns on Investment and Returns on Equity for the years from 2014 to 2040
(concession period is 27 years including Construction Period) with maximum 40% subsidy.
Results for 4 laning with 27 years Concession Period is given in Table 13.12.
Table 13.12: Results for 4 Laning with 27 years Concession Period
SCENARIOS Post Tax FIRR
%
Return on Equity
%
NPV @ 12%
(Rs Crore) Average DSCR
With 40% Grant 17.16 19.22 414.82 1.95
For getting 15% return on equity, VGF upto 24% of TPC may be required.
13.24 Conclusion & Recommendation
It would be seen that the project is financially viable with VGF upto 24% of TPC to get Return
on Equity of 15 %. Hence project may be implemented on BOT (Toll) basis.
Top Related