Irc Gov in 073 1990 PDF
Irc Gov in 073 1990 PDF
Irc Gov in 073 1990 PDF
GEOMETRIC DESIGN
STANDARDS
FOR
RURAL (NON-URBAN)
HIGHWAYS
https://archive.org/details/govlawircy1990sp73_0
IRC { 73-1980
GEOMETRIC DESIGN
STANDARDS
FOR
RURAL (NON-URBAN)
HIGHWAYS
Published by
THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS
Jamnagar Honse, Shahjahan Road,
New DeShi-110011
1990
Price Rs. 120/-
(Plus Packing & Postage)
IRC 73-1980
:
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Scope ... 2
3*
5. Design Speed ...
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
No.
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page
No.
11. Dr. R.K. Ghosh Deputy Director & Head, Rigid and Semi Rigid Pave-
ments Division, Central Road Research Institute
12. B.R. Govind Director of Designs, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch, AHQ
13. I.e. Gupta Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana P.W.D., B &R
14. S.A. Hoda Project Manager-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State
Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd.
15. M.B. Jayawant Synthetic Asphalts, 24, Carter Road, Bombay-400050
16. D.R. Kohli Manager, Electronics Data Processing, Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
17. S.B. Kulkarni Manager (Asphalt), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
18. F.K. Lauria Addl. Chief Engineer (N.H.), Rajasthan P.W.D.
19. H.C. Malhotra Engineer-in-Chief & Secy, to the Govt., H.P. P.W.D.
20. M.R. Malya Development Manager, Gammon India Ltd., Bombay
21. O. Muthachen Poomkavil House, P.O. Punalur (Kerala)
22. K. Sunder Naik Chief Engineer (Retd.), Indranagar Bangalore
23. K.K. Nambiar '*Ramanalaya*', 11, First Crescent Park Road, Gandhi-
nagar, Adyar, Maidras-600020
24. T.K. Natarajan Deputy Director & Head, Soil Mechanics Division,
Central Road Research Institute
25. M.D. Patel Secretary to the Govt, of Gujarat Buildings and
Communication Department
26. Satish Prasad Manager, Indian Oil Corporation
27. S.K. Samaddar Chief Project Administrator, Hooghly River Bridge
Commissioners, Calcutta
28. Dr. O.S. Sahgal Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh
Princii)al,
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. "Geometric design" deals with the visible elements of
a highway. Sound geometric design results in economical opera-
tion of vehicles and ensures safety.
1
IPC: 73-1980
2. SCOPE
2.1. The publication is based primarily on existing standards
and recommendations of the Indian Roads Congress, with suitable
modifications and additions in the light of current engineering prac-
tice. The standards prescribed are essentially advisory in nature
but may be relaxed somewhat in very difficult situations if conside-
red judicious. Effort in general should, however, be to aim at stand-
ards higher than the minimum indicated.
2.2. The text deals with geometric design standards for rural
highways**, i.e. non-urban roads located predominantly in open
country outside the built-up area. The alignment may however
pass through isolated stretches of built-up nature as long as charac-
ter of the road as a whole does not change. The standard is not
applicable to urban roads or city streets. It is also not applicable
to expressways. Geometric design elements of road intersections
are not considered in the standard either.
**These should not be confused with Rural Roads which refer commonly to
Other District Roads and Village Roads. While geometric design elements of
Rural Roads are duly covered in this publication alongwith roads of higher
category, more comprehensive guidance about different facets of design and
construction of the Rural Roads can be had from the IRC Special Publication
No. 20, ** Manual on Route Location, Design, Construction and Maintenance
of Rural Road^ (Other District Roads and Village Roads)**.
2
IRC : 73-1980
4. TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION
The geometric design of a highway is influenced signi-
4.1.
iicantly by terrain conditions. Economy dictates choice of different
standards for different types of terrain. Terrain is classified by the
general slope of the country across the highway alignment, for which
the criteria given in Table 1 should be followed. While classifying
a terrain, short isolated stretches of varying terrain should not be
taken into consideration.
1. Plain 010
2. Rolling 10-25
3. Mountainous 2560
4. Steep Greater than 60
5. DESIGN SPEED
5.1. Choice of design speed depends on the function
of the
road as also terrain conditions. It is the basic parameter which
determines all other geometric design features. Design speeds for
various classes of roads should be as given in Table 2.
3
IRC : 73-1980
terrain
Minimum
design speed
ous
,c
km/h
5'
c
3 3
,
O a
Sj
o o
.s Minimum!
design speed
Design
fc
flj
Rolling
Mmimum
design speed
errain
a
8 g
Ruling design speed
a ^
_ ep
a
.2 u
Z C/3
o
IRC : 73-1980
6. CROSS-SECTIONAL ELEMENTS
6. 1 . Road Land, Building Lines and Control Lines
6.1.1. Road land width (also termed the right-of-way) is the
land acquired for road purposes. Desirable land width for different
classes of roads is indicated in Table 3.
Mountainous and
Plain and rolling terrain
steep terrain
s. Road
No. classification Open areas Built-up areas
Open Built-
areas up areas
5
IRC : 73-1980
Mountainodis and
Plain and rolling terrain
steep terrain
1 2 3 4 5 6
Notes : 1. *If the land width is equal to the width between building lines
indicated in this column, the building lines should be set-back 2.5 from m
the road land boundary.
2. See Fig. 1 for position of building lines, control lines and set-
back distance relative to the road centre line and road land boundary.
IRC : 73-1980
INIl lOMlNOO
JMll ONlOlinf
3Nil lOVXNOd
IRC : 73-1980
Roadway width
S, No. Road classiiication
(metres)
8
IRC : 73-1980
Roadway width
S. No. Road classification
(metres)
Notes: (1) The roadway widths given above are exclusive of parapets (usual
width 0.6 m) and side drains (usual width 0.6 m).
(2) The roadway widths for Village Roads are on the basis^of a single
lane carriageway of 3 m. If a higher pavement width is adopted,
the roadway width should be increased correspondingly.
9
IRC : 73-1980
Village Roads
minimum ... As given in Table 6
desirable ... 4.25 m
6.3.3. Bridges (greater than 6 m span): At bridges, the clear
width of roadway between kerbs should be as under:
10
IRC: 73-1980
11
IRC : 73-1980
6.6.3. Ill rolling and hilly country, the median width will be
dictated by topography and the individual carriageways could be at
different levels.
12
IRC : 73-1980
13
IRC : 73-1980
Capacity
S. No. Type of road (Passenger car units per
day in both directions)
8. SIGHT DISTANCE
8.1. General
Visibility is an important requirement for the safety of
8.1.1.
travel on highways. For this, it is necessary that s-ight distance of
adequate length should be available in dilTerent situations to permit
drivers enough time and distance to control their vehicles so that
there are no unwarranted accidents.
14
.
IRC : 73-1980
Safe stopping
Perception and
Speed Braking sight distance
brake reaction
(metres)
20 2.5 14 0.40 4 18 20
25 2.5 18 0.40 6 24 25
30 2.5 21 0.40 9 30 30
40 2.5 28 0.38 17 45 45
50 2.5 35 0.37 27 62 60
60 2.5 42 0.36 39 81 80
65 2.5 45 0.36 46 91 90
80 2.5 56 0.35 72 118 120
100 2.5 70 0.35 112 182 180
15
IRC : 73-1980
40 9 6 15 165
50 10 7 17 235
100 14 9 23 640
16
IRC : 73-1980
40
25 50
30 60
35 80
uv/
40 90
50 120
60 160
65 180
80 240
100 360
Singlejiwo-lam roads
8.5.2. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for the
application of overtaking sight distance since this will depend on
site conditions, economics etc. It will be good, engineering practice
however to use overtaking sight distance in the case of following
situations:
Divided highways
17
IRC : 73-1980
design for somewhat more liberal values, say upto twice the values
given in Table 1 1.
18
IRC : 73-1980
9. HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
9.1. General
9.1.4. As
a normal rule, sharp curves should not be introduced
at the end of long tangents since these can be extremely hazardous.
19
IRC : 73-1980
9.1.10. The siting of the bridges and the location of the ap-
proaches should be properly co-ordinated keeping in view the overall
technical feasibility, economy, fluency of alignment and aesthetics.
The following criteria may be followed in general:
(i) For major bridges above 300 metres span, proper siting of
the bridge should be the principal consideration and the
approach alignment matched with the same;
(ii) For small bridgesless than 60 metres span, fluency of the
aiignment should govern the choice of the bridge location;
and
(iii) For spans between 60 and 300 metres, the designer
should use his discretion keeping in view the importance
of the road, overall economic considerations and aesthe-
tics.
9.3. SupereleYation
20
IRC : 73-1980
^
-
225 R
where
e = superelevation in metre per metre,
V = speed in km/h, and
R = radius in metres
20 50 60 70 90 100
25 70 90 110 140 150
30 100 130 160 200 240
35 140 180 220 270 320
40 180 240 280 350 420
50 280 370 450 550 650
65 470 620 750 950 1100
80 700 950 1100 1400 1700
100 1100 1500 1800 2200 2600
21
IRC : 73-1980
22
IRC : 73-1980
^ ^ 127 {e^-f )
where
V = vehicle speed in metre per second
R = radius in metres
23
( (
IRC : 73-1980
bound
areas
Snow
O tN
terrain
! I Cl
1
G
Steep
uinuiiufi^ o TT
not by tn a
3W
o
s ed
a
sn(
Area
affect
O O
ro
o
rs
p .1
'75
G uinuiiai)^ Q r> 3
9 aintosov
a
terrai
o
a 8 m
IS
o T3
a a
o
[ountai]
*- >
ainiofiov a
w *> n
snt o
Area
affect
o
00
o O
m o
(S
/
2 r4
B
a
uinuiiaiiA{ S S
terrain
ainiosQ V "5 V9
a
'i
M
a
.
O
m n
c
S3 c
"o SiTf |t\'VT .2
-
C4
go
r
$ a
errain *"l"=4 V
e ^ .s
t
uinuiiuip'^
O O
m r>
Plain
m (N
3 3
1 CO
43
^oads
< to
0
o Hi Qg ea
* V
00
1-5 <^
National
Highwaj i2
s
55
State ways trict trict
eg ctf
OS 1 en
24
IRC : 73-1980
J _ 0.02 15
- ~CR
F
where
I. = length of transition in metres
V = speed in km/h
R = radius of circular curve in metres
80 ( subject to a maximum of 0.8 and
C =
15-\-V minimum of 0.5)
_ 2.7
J
- T~
For Mountainous and Steep Terrain:
1.0 Fa
25
0^
25
(km/h) 1
1
ipeed 30
s;
s
0) 2
9 ^ |!3
radii
(mcti ^ S in 2 2 S iCi SS29 S?. 9 9S222
1j
^ ^ *N
^ 1^ ^ 1^ 1^
"e
1 1
1
I i
Tn
80 NA 90 75 60 55 45 35 35 30 30 30 NR
(metres)
Curve radius
1000 1200 1500 1800 2000
R 45 60 90 100 150 170 200 240 300 360 400 500 600 700 800 900
<^
K
IRC : 73-1980
27
IRC : 73-1980
Extra
width (m)
Two-lane 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 Nil
Single-lane 0.9 0.6 0.6 Nil Nil Nil
28
IRC : 73-1980
where 6 = ^
Z{^j\-n)
radians;
29
IRC : 73-1980
30
IRC : 73-1980
IRC : 73-1930
10.1. General
10.1.1. The vertical alignment should provide for a smooth
longitudinal profile consistent with category of the road and lay
of the terrain, Grade changes should not be too frequent as to
cause kinks and visual discontinuities in the profile. Desirably,
there should be no change in grade within a distance of 150 m.
10.2. Gradients
10.2.1. Grades should be carefully selected keeping in view
the design speed, terrain conditions and nature of traffic expected
32
IRC : 73-1980
s. 13 111 in (* T 1111\t\no
L^Ii tY\ 1 III 2^ Jlj AWCp 1 1 U Ual
Terrain
No. gradient gradient gradient
1. Plain or rolling 3.3 per cent 5 per cent 6.7 per cent
(1 in 30) (1 in 20) (1 in 15)
2. Mountainous terrain, and
steep terrain having ele-
vation more than 3,000 m
above the mean sea 5 per cent 6 per cent /'
per cent
level (1 in 20) (1 in 16.7) (1 in 14.3)
33
,
IRC : 73-1980
34
IRC : 73-1980
^- ~4A'
where N deviation angle, i.e. the algebraic difference
between the two grades
L = length of parabolic vertical curve in metres
Case (ii) When the length of the curve is less than the
required sight distance, i.e. L is less than S
^ - "9X
Case (ii) When the length of the curve is less than the
required sight distance, i.e. L is less than S
L=2S- N
10.5. 1 . TJie length of valley curves should be such that for night
travel, the headlight beam distance is equal to the stopping sight
35
IRC : 73-1980
Case (i) When the length of the curve exceeds the required
sight distance, i.e. L is greater than S
1.50 + 0.035 ^
Case (ii) When the length of the curve is less than the required
sight distance, i.e. L is less than S
, 1.50 H- 0.035 S
l^2S -j^
In both cases
(e) Gradient
Maximum ... 1 in 40 (2.5 per cent)
Minimum ... 1 in 200 (0.5 per cent)
36
IRC : 73-1980
37
IRC : 73-1980
12.1.2. On
lower category roads in hill areas having compara-
tively narrow shoulders,
it will be desirable to increase the roadway
38
PLATE 2
>
(0) PAVEMENT REVOLVED ABOUT CENTRELINE
LEGEND
CROSS SECTION *T -NORU*L CMSCII
CROSS SECTION *T SS-IOVERSC OMStR RCMOVIO
OUTER EOOC OF fVEMENT
CROSS SECTION AT CC-SURCRCLevOTION EOUtL TO CtHtCK
CROSS SECTION *T OD-rULL SURCRCLCV'TION ACHIEVIO
CENTRELINE or r*VEHENT
PLAN
ROFILI
,
'''^
1
^ J
lb)
^
SAME AS (0) BUT INVOLVING A SERIES OF
CURVES VERTICES OF HORIZONTAL ANO
VERTICAL CURVES COIN CIDE . "'OCUCING
pj^^^
'
1*
1
-^-''-.T^^,,
"""""^^^^
(
HAZARDOUS LEVEL CROSSING
(OR ROAD IflTERSECTlON) AND SHARP
HORIZONTAL CURVE ARE OBSCURED
FROM ORIVFr's VIFW BYtimLiiT.
CURVE. DANGEROUS SITUATION.
^
p'cOf'lE
(cl SIMILAR TO Ibi BUT ONE PHASE PLAN HORIZONTAL CURVE IS HIDDEN
PLAN 5 --f^ SKIPPED IN T'-E HORIZONTAL PLANE. ^ FROM DRIVER'S VIEW, CAUSING A
' '
^
} ^ VERTICES Of CURVES STILL CCINCIOE. DISJOINTED EFFECT.
"-.;^'*'''~''''"'**-^:.,H-l'^^^
.,,r-"">'>'>nm,,rrf<^" A SATISFACT'.RY APPEARANCE RESULTS.
PROFILE
PROFILE