Minutes of Meeting

Meeting was held at CEG, HO Jaipur between IE and Design Consultants of CTL on 9th October
2013 to discuss the various issues on proposed TCS and Geometric design of NH-113
Nimbahera-Pratapgarh and NH-79 Chittorgarh Neemuch border. Following Members were
Present in the meeting
Independent Engineer
1.
2.
3.
4.

Sh. Sukesh Gupta, Director

Sh. S. S. Khandelwal , Associate Director
Sh. Tarsem Singh, Highway Design Engineer
Sh. Sanjay Ekbote, G M Highways

Concessionaire
1. Sh. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, PM
Design Consultants, CTL
1. Sh. Venketeshwar Rao, Designer
2. Sh. R Singh

The issues discussed and decision taken are listed below.

NH 113
Sl.No.
1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Issues Discussed
Geometry for Bypasses was generally
found to be in order and can be approved
after raising of levels according to Clause
4.2.2 of IRC SP:73-2007
I E suggested to submit the P & P Drawings
in stretches of 10 or 20 Km each as and
when ready on priority basis to speed up
the process of approval.
Comments on TCS of NH-113 were
discussed in detail.
Width of utility corridor and footpath is
not mentioned in the TCS.
I E Requested to provide a separate TCS
for Flyover and approaches.
Toe berm of 1m wide to be provided in
TCS drawings.
Provide TCS schedule separately in tabular
form.
WMM need not to be extended to
granular shoulder.

Decision Taken
CTL agreed to submit the updated P & P
drawings for these section by 14 October
2013 with all compliance as discussed.

CTL agreed for the same.

CTL agreed to make necessary
modifications according to the comments.
CTL agreed to update with 2m wide
Footpath and Utility corridor.
CTL agreed for the same.
CTL agreed for the same.
CTL agreed for the same.
I E Agreed for same.

Template for all drawings should be

Template for all drawings should be similar similar with information viz. Revision no.
Drg. No. etc

Sl.No.
10

11

12
12

13
14
15
16

Issues Discussed
Design speed from 35 kmph to 100 kmph
is adopted in the design.
Horizontal geometric elements viz. Radius,
Transition length, Length of curve, Broken
back curves are not as per design
standards.
Vertical Geometry is not shown at various
chainages
Details of ground at 15m left and 15m
right is not shown in profile.
Existing and Proposed ROW, Toe line,
Amenities viz. Bus-bays, Truck lay-bys, Toll
plaza etc. are not shown.
Fly over drawing with proper junction
design details to be provided.
Structures are not shown properly on P &
P Drawings
HFL at major and minor bridges is not
shown in profile.

Decision Taken
80 kmph to 100 kmph speed is to be
maintained.
To be updated as per standards
Vertical profile is to be provided at all
chainages incorporating overlay design.
Provide additional details (viz. bands and
profile) of Ground at 15m left and 15m
right in the profile drawing.
Existing and Proposed ROW, Toe line,
Amenities viz. Bus-bays, Truck lay-bye, Toll
plaza etc. to be shown in plan.
Shall be incorporated in P & P drawings.
Provide structure details on both plan and
profile.
HFL at major and minor bridges is to be
shown in profile

NH-79

Sl.No.

Issues Discussed

Decision Taken
This is generally approved subjected to
minor corrections done as per comments.
Hence Ch. 210+147 to 222+082 can be
taken up on priority.
Land has been acquired as per concentric
widening as given in CA. Future six lane
with service road may not be possible due
to shift of centerline by 6.5m as unequal
ROW on both sides will prevail.

Widening of carriageway is done towards

the median side in TCS- 5A.

Concentric widening as per CA was

deviated to eccentric widening for Ch.
188+500 to 209+260 and 223+500 to
227+082

Drain cum foot path is shown as 600 mm

(min). Utility corridor is shown separately
without dimensions in TCS 1.

Drain cum Utility corridor with 2m foot

path is to be shown.

Median width for TCS - 2 & 3A is shown as

2m.

CTL agreed to provide Median width as per

availability of ROW. This should be verified
at site and finalized. W-Beam crash barrier
shall be required for 2.0 m wide median as
per fig. 9.7 of IRC SP: 84-2009

Sl.No.
5
6
7

Issues Discussed
Width of paved shoulder is shown as 1.5m
for TCS- 3B, 4B & 5B.
GSB layer is not continuous between
Carriageway and service road. For TCS- 3B,
4B & 5B
Toe berm of 1m wide to be provided in
TCS drawings.

Decision Taken
Paved shoulder should be 2m as per Table
2.3 of IRC SP: 84-2009.
GSB Layer to be continued across
carriageway and service roads. This cannot
be discontinued in divider.
CTL agreed for the same.