NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

ALIGNMENT APPROVAL

 
Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study / Preparation of Detaled Project Report and
providing pre-construction services for upgradation of newly declared National Highway,
Tharthri-Kahaljugasar-Kilhotran (70 km, District – Doda, J & K) to Makhan-Chachool
(10 km, District-Chamba- Himachal Pradesh) to 2-Lane with paved shoulder including
Feasibility study cum DPR of Tunnel of approx. length 4 km near Kahaljugasar in the state
of Jammu and Kashmir.

 
JV
 PROJECT LOCATION

• The Project Road falls in the states of Jammu & Kashmir

and Himachal Pradesh.

• The Project road falls under the district of Doda and

Kishtwar in J&K and Chamba District in Himachal Pradesh.

State District Length

Doda 65 km
J&K
Kishtwar 5 km

Himachal Pradesh Chamba 10 km

 PROJECT ROAD DESCRIPTION

• The Project Road starts at the Chainage KM82 of NH244

• Start Point –
– Coordinate
• 0574492 E, 3667771 N
– Location : Thathri in the Doda district
– Passes through the villages Donadi, Kahara, Bhatri, Bhatiyas
Malikpura, Gandoh, Gawadi, Goel Bhad, Seeru and Kahal Jugaser Start Point - Thathri

• End point of Project Road

– As per TOR Makkan (0595731 E, 3636652 N)

Which has been extended to SANWAL (0586987 E, 3646515 N)

Chainage Road CW width

0+000 to 52+300 Existing Road 3.6m to 5.5m

52+300 to 80+000 Undefined Track

 EXISTING PROJECT ROAD
FEATURES
• The existing road is present only on the J & K side SEERU VILLAGE

– Existing Road ends at Seeru Village at KM52+300

– Steep terrain
MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN

– Formation widths ranging from 4m to 11m in certain

sections;

EXISTING ROAD
– while at the local Built-up areas, it ranges from 7m to 9 m.

– The road is predominantly of poor condition with a few

stretches that can be described to be of fair condition.
CHENAB RIVER TRIBUTARY
 LAND USE
• The Existing is passing through Steep/mountainous terrain in entire
stretch. The details of land use pattern along the existing road are shown in
the following Table
Type of Land Length (km) Percentage (%)

Agricultural 0.5 0.95

Arboriculture 0.3 0.57
Habitations 6.6 12.60
Barren 41.8 79.77
Forest 3.2 6.11
Total 52.4 100
 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
• The details of existing ROW is collected from concerned departments
during the Reconnaissance is shown in the following table.

Chainage ROW
S. No.
From To LHS(m) RHS(m) Total (m)

Thathri to Gawadi 0+000 to 36+000

1 0+000 36+000 7.2 7.2 14.40

Gawadi to Seeru 36+000 to 52+300

2 36+000 52+300 5 5 11.00

EXISTING FORMATION WIDTHS
The tentative lengths of Existing Formation Widths of the existing road are
given below
Formation Width (m) Length
4 TO 5 1.5
5 TO 6 6.7
6 TO 7 3.5
7 TO 8 9.1
8 TO 9 11.3
9 TO 10 13.6
10 TO 11 3.5
11 TO 12 0.4
12 TO 13 0.5
u/c 2.2
Undefined Track 27.7
 Existing Structures
• 8 Minor bridges, 114 culverts
Details of Major and Minor Bridges
Major Bridge
Chainage Existing Span Arrangement (No. of Length of Bridges
Sl. No. Type
(km) Span x Span Length) (m) (m)

1 7+100 Steel 1 x 26 26

2 18+221 Steel 1x22 22

3 23+635 Steel 1x20 20

4 23+888 Steel 1X48 48 Minor Bridge

5 33+232 Steel 1X20 20

6 35+172 Steel 1X22 22

7 35+698 Steel 1X48 48

8 41+320 Steel 1 x 60 60

• The culverts are mostly choked.

Culvert
 Land Slide Zones
• Around 4.6km of the existing road consists of Land slide zones

Sl. No. From To

1 0+800 1+000

2 4+400 4+900

3 5+100 5+600

4 14+300 15+100
Landslide Zone
5 15+500 15+900

6 16+100 16+200

7 17+200 17+500

8 18+100 18+200

9 18+900 19+000

10 19+400 19+500

11 21+600 21+900

12 22+800 22+900
Landslide Zone
13 32+100 32+500

14 33+000 33+800
 Existing Protection Work
• Breast walls and retaining walls are presently in poor
condition.
• It was observed that cut and fill method was adopted.
• To Retain the filling retaining wall (Dry RR) has been
provided using available cut materials
• To retain the slope on the hill side in land slide zones, breast
walls have been constructed
Details of Retaining Walls
Retaining Walls
Total % in
Total % in 52
S. No Type Length Retaining
Km
wall

1 DRRW With Column 12,521 m 57.23% 24.07%

2 DRRW without Column 6,135 m 28.04% 11.79%
3 RR Wall 2,990 13.66% 5.75%
4 Gabion Wall 230 m 1.05% 0.44%
Details of Breast Walls Breast Walls
Total % in Total % in 52
S. No Type Length
Breast Wall Km

1 DRRW With Column 7,131 m 80.77% 13.71%

2 DRRW without Column 1,126 m 12.75% 2.16%

3 Gabion Wall 571 m 6.46% 1.09%

 BUILT UP AREAS
Chainage
Sl. No. Name of Settlement Length(km)
From To
1 Thathri 0+000 1+000 1
2 Donadi 6+800 7+200 0.4
3 Kahara 12+500 13+600 1.1
4 Bhatri 16+700 17+300 0.6
5 Jhakyas 18+800 22+200 3.4
6 Bhambu 20+100 20+300 0.2
7 Bhatyas 22+200 23+400 1.2
8 Old Malikpura 23+400 23+700 0.3
Kahara
9 New Malikpura 23+700 26+000 2.3
10 Gandoh 29+200 30+900 1.7
11 Bangroo 31+500 32+000 0.5
12 Saei 33+800 34+000 0.2
13 Gawadi 34+900 35+700 0.8
14 Changa 35+700 37+100 1.4
15 Soti 37+100 39+800 2.7
16 Goel Bad 39+800 41+400 1.6
17 Tipri 45+000 48+600 3.6
18 Seeru 49+500 51+500 2 Gandoh
19 Kahal Jugaser 52+200 52+400 0.4
20 Makkan/Chachool 79+00 80+000 1km
 Forest Area
• The details collected through local enquiry regarding the
forest area.

S.No Location Village Name Side

1 Donadi Km 7+500 to 7+700 RHS
Km 24+300 to 24+800
2 Malikpura LHS
Km 25+200 to 25+500
3 Soti Km 38+500 to 39+000 Both Sides
4 Goelbaad Km 41+400 to 41+600 Both Sides
5 Khaljuhesar Km 51+000 to 52+000 Both Sides
6 Chachool - RHS
ALIGNMENT PLAN
ALIGNMENT MAP
DESIGN CRITERIA
Summary of Design Codes
Sl. No. Design Criteria Design Code
1 Typical Cross-sections IRC SP 73 -2018
2 ROW IRC 48 - 1998
3 Horizontal Alignment IRC 48 - 1998
4 Vertical Alignment IRC 48 - 1998
5 Design Speed IRC 48 - 1998
6 Pavement Design IRC 37 - 2018
IRC SP 73 -2018, IRC 112:
7 Structures
2011, IRC 6-2017 etc.

8 Tunnels IRS SP 91 - 2010

 1. TERRAIN
• The Terrain considered for the Project Road is Steep -
having a cross slope greater than 60% - for the
majority of the project road.
 2. RIGHT OF WAY
Right of Way:
The ROW Considered are as per IRC 48-1998
– 18m at Built-up areas
– 24m at Open terrain, Bypasses and Re-
alignments
– The arrangement is such that
• On the Valley Side – 9m from Center Line
• On Hill side – 15m from the Center Line
 3. Typical Cross Sections
Normal Sections
Carriageway 7m
Paved Shoulder 1.5 m both side
Road Width: The Total Road Cross- Earthen Shoulder 1.0 m one side
section adopted is as per IRC SP 73-2018 At Built-up area
and has been detailed in the table shown. Carriageway 7m
Raised Footpath 1.5 m both side
At Bridge Locations
Carriageway 13.00 m
Footpath 1.5 m both sides
Safety Kerb 2 x 0.5 = 1 m
Crash barrier 2 x 0.5 = 1 m
Camber/Cross Slope
Paved Carriageway/Shoulder 2.5 %
Earthen Shoulder 3.0 %
 4. Horizontal Alignment
• IRC 48-1998 has been used as the standard for the design of Horizontal Alignment
• The Project Road is considered to be resting on a steep terrain. Therefore, the Design Speed has
been considered as follows
– Ruling: 40 kmph
– Minimum: 30 kmph
• A minimum radius of 30m has been used in the design alignment in accordance to a design speed
of 30 kmph
• The hair-pin bends, where unavoidable, would be designed either as a circular curve with
transition at each end, or as a compound circular curve.
The minimum design parameters for hairpin bends are as follows.
a) Minimum deign speed 20 km/h
b) Minimum roadway width at apex 11.5m
c) Minimum radius for the inner curve 14.0m
d) Minimum length of transition curve 15.0m
Maximum gradient 1 in 40 (2.5%)
e)
Minimum gradient 1 in 200 (0.5%)
f) Super-elevation 10%
 5. Vertical Alignment

• IRC 48-1998 has been used as the standard for the design of
Vertical Alignment

•The Longitudinal Gradient used is as follows.

Classification of Gradient Steep terrain

Ruling gradient 4-6%
Limiting gradient 7%

• In general, “ruling gradient” would be adopted for the design. The

limiting gradients would be adopted where topography compels or
where the adoption of gentler gradients would add enormously to the
cost.
 6. Widening Scheme
• The proposed alignment tries its best to follow the existing road except in areas where
geometrics tend to be poor.
• The widening strategy is to widen on the hill side wherever hard rock is present and on
the valley side at landslide zones.
• In urban areas, or areas of settlements the following widening scheme is adopted.
Sl. No. Village Widening Side

1 Kahara Valley side

2 Bhatri Hill side

3 Jhakyas Hill side

4 Gandoh Concentric

5 Bangroo Valley side

6 Saei Hill side

7 Seeru Hill side

 ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION

Alignment Features Length

Use of Existing Road 37.15 km

Realignments
At Donadi 0.9 km

Tipri 1.85 km

Bypasses

At Gowadi 8.4 km

Tunnel Portion 4.67 km

Greenfield Alignment 21.1 km

 Improvements
• Geometric Improvements
– Realignments
• At Donadi : Design Ch. KM6+600 to KM7+500
• At Tipri : Design Ch. KM 436+950 to 45+800
– Bypasses
• At Gowadi:Design Ch. KM 33+600 to KM 42+000
– Curve Improvements
• Structures
– Viaducts
– Protection Work
– Bridges
 Geometric Improvements
• Major Realignment at Donadi
-Coordinates
•Start Point : 0579372 E , 3666559 N
•End point : 0579643 E , 3666321 N

– Ch. KM6+600 To KM7+600

– Submergence zone due to a dam currently being constructed at the location.
The details of the Realignment are given in the
table below.
DETAILS OF DONADI REALIGNMENT

Sl. No. Parameters Re-alignment Existing

1 Length 1 km 0.8 km

2 Geometrics NH Standard can be adopted Poor/Sub-standard

3 Structures(Bridges) One(45m) One(25m)

4 Land Acquisition Greenfield alignment Road is submersible in dam catchment

5 Gradient Upto 5% 6%
MAJOR REALIGNMENT AT DONADI
 Geometric Improvements Cont..
• Tipri Realignment
– Coordinates
• Start Point: 0588161 E, 3646040 N
• End Point: 0589568 E, 3645429 N
– The Realignment will help in avoiding the small built-up
areas alongside the present project corridor.
– Geometrically the proposed realignment is also viable as it
would reduce the overall length as well as blind curves and
hairpin bends that lie along the existing road.
TIPRI REALIGNMENT
 Geometric Improvements Continued..
COMPARISON OF TIPRI REALIGNMENT OPTIONS

Sl. No. Parameters Realignment Existing

1 Length 2.000 km 3.620 km

Poor/Sub-standard – 3 hairpin bends & 6 Sharp

2 Geometrics NH Standard can be adopted
Curves

3 Gradient Upto 6% Greater than 7%

4 Utility Shifting Not Required Required

5 Land Acquisition Greenfield alignment Partial LA

7 Acquisition of Houses Minor (Approx: 5 Houses) Extensively Required (Approx: 25 Houses)

8 Hairpin bends None 3

9 Bridges/Structures 2 Culverts required 2 Culverts

Cemeteries are located right at the edge of the

10 Religious Structures Avoided
project road and 1 Masjid
 BYPASSES
Gowadi Bypass
• Coordinates
– Start Point – 0585781 E, 3651976 N
– End Point – 0586987 E, 3646515 N
• The Bypass has been proposed to avoid the built-up section
of Changa , Soti and Goelbaad
• The Proposed Bypass will also help in avoiding various
hairpin bends that lie in the present project road in that
section
GOWADI BYPASS
 BYPASSES CONTINUED..
Comparison of Gowadi Bypass Options
Sl. No. Parameters Gowadi Bypass Existing Road
1 Length 8.4 km 8.42km
2 ROW 24m 11m
3 Gradient Upto 6% Greater than 7% at Sotti Village
4 Geometrics NH Standard can be adopted Poor/Sub-standard – 8 hairpin bends
5 Utility Shifting Not Required Required
6 Land Acquisition Greenfield alignment Partial LA
Extensively Required (Approx no. of Houses
7 Acquisition of Houses Not Required
= 215)
8 Commercial/Industrial Power Station avoided To be shifted
9 Hairpin bends None 8
10 Bridges/Structures 4 Minor Bridge 1 Major and 1 Minor Bridge
Cemeteries are Located at the edges of the
11 Religious Structures Avoided
project road
12 Forest Land Protected forest involved Protected forest involved
Special Precautions are mandated in
13 Problems During Construction order to avoid damages to the habitation Large Number of Houses to dismantle
below
 Geometric Improvements Cont..
Narrow Stretch
• Chainage: 4+050 to 4+150 (around 100m)
• Carriage way width: 3.5 m
• Coordinate: 0577759.716 E , 3668020.497N Vertical Cut
• Formation width: 4 m.
• This stretch is known to be a Black spot in the Alignment.
• Left Side: High hill with vertical slope and Hard Rock
• Right Side: River flowing abutting to the formation.
• Bad Geometrics: Overlapping of Horizontal and Vertical
Curves Narrow Stretch

Widening with River Training

The existing road will be widened by Road filling and a
retaining wall. River training work up to 200m will be done in
order to protect the retaining structures. A 25-30m widening +
approach structure will also be constructed just before the
retaining wall widening stretch.
 Geometric Improvements Cont..
• Curve Improvements
– The table below gives an outline of the
total improvements proposed in the
existing section of the road

Existing Road (52.300

Proposed alignment (46km)
km)
Speed Curve
S. No. Percentage Percentage on
km/h radius No. of
on total no. No. of curves total no. of
curves
of curves curves
1 40 50-500 320 67.8 385 87.90
2 30 30-50 110 23.3 49 11.19
3 20-30 <30 42 8.9 4 0.91
  Total 472 100 438 100.00
 STRUCTURES
• VIADUCTS
– A total of 8 Viaducts have been proposed at the locations
shown below
S. No. Proposed Ch.(km) Length(m) Remarks
1 16+820 30 Geometric Improvement
2 18+100 30 Geometric Improvement
3 18+950 40 Geometric Improvement
4 20+290 40 Geometric Improvement
5 20+540 40 Geometric Improvement
6 24+436 50 Geometric Improvement
7 51+900 30 Entry to Tunnel
8 56+563 40 Exit from Tunnel
 STRUCTURES CONT...
• MINOR BRIDGES: A total of 12 Minor Bridges has
been proposed.
S. No. Proposed Ch.(km) Length(m) Remarks
1 7+180 40 Donadi Realignment
2 23+200 20 Reconstruction
3 33+800 25 New Proposed
4 34+850 15 New Proposed
5 37+455 10 New Proposed
6 39+800 20 New Proposed
7 44+750 15 Tipri Realignment
8 45+560 15 Tipri Realignment
9 47+150 15 Reconstruction
10 49+800 15 New Proposed
11 51+300 15 New Proposed
12 61+900 20 New Proposed
 TUNNEL OPTIONS

• The tunnel proposed at Kahal Jugaser consists of

– Portal Entry on the J&K side at Kahal Jugaser
Easting= 0594522
Northing = 3638649
Elevation = 2340m
– Portal Exit on the Himachal Pradesh Side at Makkan
Easting = 0592593
Northing = 3642931
Elevation = 2450m
TUNNEL OPTIONS
 Comparison Of Tunnel Options

No. Of
Length Length of Gradient of Length of
Tunnel Gradie Gradient of Hairpin
of Approach Approach in Approach Approach in
Option nt of Bends in Remarks
Tunnel road in road in
No. Tunnel J&K J&K Approach
(m) J&K (m) HP(m)
road

2 4670 1.00 3000 Upto 6% 7850 Upto 6% 2 *RECOMMENDED

Falls under Snow boundregion

3 4000 1.86 4550 Upto 6% 11250 Upto 6% 4 and Difficult in construction
both Jammu and HP side

*Recommended due to
•1. Tunnel option 2 has been recommended considering the upper portal being beyond the
snowbound region where as the lower portal will be 700m in the snowbound region.
•2. The geotechnical

•Height of peak in tunnel portion = 3500m

•Maximum Overburden = 1088 m
IRC:SP-91 prescribe 3% gradient, whereas IRC:SP-84 prescribe maximum 2.5% tunnel gradient.
TUNNEL PORTION
 BACKGROUND ON ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS FOR TUNNEL

• 6 Alignment options were studied at the Inception Stage.

• In the meeting held on 31.12.2018 at NHIDCL Headquarter, it
was decided to carryout a comprehensive study with regard to
cost, engineering and risk parameters on Option No. 2 and 3 only.
• Team under the guidance of tunnel expert as the alignment was
visited twice by the geologist .
• Improved version of alignment options-2 &3, are shown in the
next slide.
Improved Version of Tunnel Option 2 & 3
GENERAL VIEW OF OPTIONS
COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTION No. 2 and 3
OPTION No. 2
● Portal on Jammu side was accessible during
March, after crossing a snow bound area.
New location chosen due to elaborate
treatments in the proposed one.
● Portal on Himachal side was also accessible
during March, but covered with land/snow
slides around, except hilly side, which was
clear.
● Bridges are required at both portals to cross
streams, but unlike other option; separate
platform is not required to handle muck.
● construction of escape tunnel will as easier
as that of main tunnel.
OPTION No.3
● Portal on the Jammu side was not accessible
even during summer due to its location – (i) high
elevation (ii) immediately above the stream and
(iii) difficulty in reaching because of to steep
slopes.
● Portal on Himachal side was also not easily
accessible as it is located above the adjoining
stream and the terrine and steep gradient
approach road will cost more.
● Apart from permanent bridges platforms have to
be built for handling of muck, at an elevation
above the ground and also there is lack of space,
which makes it more costlier, in spite of shorter
length.
● Construction of escape tunnel, will be as difficult
and costlier, will add to final cost irrespective of
length
 COMPARISON between OPTION No. 2 and 3 Contd.
• The strata, fault zones and treatment in both the options are similar.
• Hence cost per unit length for excavation, will be the same in both the
options. Tunnel in Option-2 is longer by 759 m than Option-3 making it
costlier by 19.70%, but the cost muck-platform and approach road will
makeParameters
this option moreOption-2
costlier and non-viable.
Option-3 Remarks
Tunnel as well
Approaches as well Option-2
Engineering as approach
portals non-viable recommended
normal
Option-2
Risk 100 100
recommended
Option-2
Cost 100 135*
recommended
Maintenance and Option-2
100 80
safety recommended
 Option-2: Himachal side portals

Alternative 2 Himachal side portal. Location Alternative 2 Himachal side portal

 Option-3, Himachal side portals

Alternative 3 Himachal side portal. Location Alternative 3 Himachal side portal

Option-2, Jammu side portals: initially proposed in the inception stage

Alternative 2 Jammu side portal. Location Alternative 2 Jammu side portal. Option 1 (rejected)
 Option-2: Jammu side portals - Final recommendation

Alternative 2 Jammu side portal. Location Alternative 2 Jammu side portal. Option 2 (approved)
Further Studies
DESIGN OF TUNNEL PORTALS
PROPOSED SECTIONS FOR TUNNEL
 Comparison of Proposed Tunnel Section
Alternate-
Criteria Alternate-1b Alternate-2 Alternate-3 Remarks
1a

Emergency
Terrain will Emergency
Safety Self sufficient activities
not allow activities difficult
difficult

Cost per meter

length in Rs. 2529.9 2530.2 1863 1864.2
lakh

Proposed
With the
configuration, as per
present
TOR, is for 2-lane
terrain it will
Highway, so twin
be difficult
tunnel not suitable, Lane width will
Disadvantage to provide Recommended
requires separate be sub-standard
such escape
tunnel for
tunnels
emergency
 Water Bodies above proposed tunnel

• During traverse on the mountain above the proposed

tunnel, 2 non-perennial streams were found, which were
dry due to summer.
• No other bodies like lake was visible due to cover of snow.
• Non-perennial lakes flow only 2-3 months of a year, due to
protective lining proposed these will not affect the tunnel.