DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AT VYTTILA

JUNCTION
By

ABINASH
ABIN JOHN BEJOY
AKHIL BABU P B
AMAL A V
KASHIF HASAN N

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

DIVISION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Cochin, Kerala, PIN 682022

1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this is a bonafide record of the project work entitled “DESIGN OF

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AT VYTTILA JUNCTION” submitted by

ABINASH,ABIN JOHN BEJOY,AKHIL BABU P B,AMAL A V,KASHIF HASAN N in
partial fulfilment of the requirements to the award of Bachelor of Technology Degree in Civil
Engineering of Cochin University of Science and Technology.

Dr.Glory Joseph, Dr.Bindu C S

Head, Civil Engineering Division Project Guide

2
 Abstract

Vytilla is one of the major intersections in Kerala. The safety of pedestrians at the junction is
highly insecure. This project involves analysis of pedestrian safety and design of subway at
the Vytilla junction. Pedestrian and vehicular surveys are carried out for the analysis. The
PV2 values obtained were much higher than the permissible value (1x108-2x108) for each
stretch. A grade separated pedestrian crossing facility is designed by opting a pedestrian
subway at the junction in the form of a box culvert of size 3m x 3m to reduce pedestrian
vehicular conflict.

3
 Contents
Table of tables ............................................................................................................................ 6

Table of figures .......................................................................................................................... 7

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 9

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 9

1.1.1 Problems faced by pedestrians: ................................................................................. 9

1.1.2 Accident risk: ........................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 10

1.3 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................................... 10

1.5 Organisation of the Report ............................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 13

2.1 Pedestrian Speed ............................................................................................................ 13

2.2 Pedestrian Crossings ...................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings ................................................................................ 14

2.2.2 Grade Separated Crossings ...................................................................................... 14

2.3 Pedestrian Level of Service for Cross Movement Analysis ....................................... 14

2.4 Pedestrian Subways .................................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 Cross-section of subways for pedestrians only........................................................ 16

2.5 Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 3- FIELD STUDY ................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Study Of Location .......................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Problems Experienced By The Pedestrians At Present .................................................. 22

3.3 Data Collected ................................................................................................................ 22

3.3.1AccidentNumber ....................................................................................................... 22

3.3.2Road inventory data .................................................................................................. 23

3.3.3 Vehicular Volume Survey ....................................................................................... 23

4
 3.3.4 Pedestrian Volume Survey For Lateral And Cross Movements.............................. 25

CHAPTER 4- ANALYSIS OF DATA .................................................................................... 26

4.1 Pedestrian Level Of Service For Cross Movement Analysis By Waiting Time ............ 26

4.2 Pv2 Analysis (Pedestrian-Vehicular Volume Analysis) For Cross Movement .............. 26

4.3 Pedestrian Level Of Service For Lateral Movement Analysis ....................................... 27

CHAPTER 5- PROPOSAL AND DESIGN ........................................................................... 30

5.1 Proposals And Recommendations.................................................................................. 30

5.2 Design Of Pedestrian Underpass .................................................................................... 31

5.3 RCC Box Culvert ........................................................................................................... 31

5.3.1 Data Used For Calculations: .................................................................................... 31

5.3.2 Load Calculations .................................................................................................... 33

5.3.3 Moment Calculation ............................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 6- CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 45

5
 Table of tables
Table 1-LOS and Flow rate...................................................................................................... 15
Table 2-Dimensions of Subways ............................................................................................. 16
Table 3-Road Inventory Data................................................................................................... 23
Table 4-PCU Values ................................................................................................................ 24
Table 5-PCU values during peak hours on SATURDAY ....................................................... 24
Table 6-PCU values during peak hours on TUESDAY........................................................... 24
Table 7-Volume of pedestrian traffic on Tuesday ................................................................... 25
Table 8-Volume of pedestrian traffic on Thursday (Holiday) ................................................. 25
Table 9-Waiting time as per LOS ............................................................................................ 26
Table 10-PV2 Values on Working day..................................................................................... 27
Table 11-PV2 Values on Holiday............................................................................................. 27
Table 12-LOS Values on Working day ................................................................................... 28
Table 13-LOS Values on Holi day........................................................................................... 29
Table 14-Specifications ........................................................................................................... 31
Table 15-Distribution factors ................................................................................................... 38
Table 16-Moment Distribution Table ...................................................................................... 39
Table 17-Mid Span Moments (Total Loads only) ................................................................... 40
Table 18-Design Moments ....................................................................................................... 41
Table 19-Moment and Reinforcement at Salient Section ........................................................ 41

6
 Table of figures
Figure 1-Location of Vytilla Junction...................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-Proposed Location of Subway .................................................................................. 30
Figure 3-Cross section of Box Culvert .................................................................................... 32

7
 Acknowledgements
This project report on “DESIGN OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AT VYTTILA

JUNCTION” is an accumulation of many people’s endeavour. First and foremost we would

like to thank the Almighty and express my sincere gratitude to everyone who contributed in
preparing and making this project successful.

We thank Dr. M.R.R. Panicker, Principal, School of Engineering for the good will and
encouragement to us by introducing to the field of research. We also extend our sincere
thanks to Dr. Glory Joseph, Head of the Division of Civil Engineering, who gave us valuable
support for completing this project successfully.

We thank our guide Dr. Bindu C S for invaluable mentoring during course of this project

We also thankfully remember all the faculty members and friends who helped and provided
us with valuable suggestions for the of this project.

Abinash

Abin John Bejoy

Akhil Babu P B

Amal A V

Kashif Hasan N

8
 CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Non-motorized transportation (NMT) such as walking is essential for the development of
sustainable transportation systems, whether for short trips, access and egress to/from
motorized modes[4]. Walking is a basic human activity and pedestrians are a part of every
roadway environment. Everybody is a pedestrian at one point or another. Every year, a large
number of pedestrians are killed or seriously injured in crashes involving motor vehicles[4].
Pedestrian safety is an issue in many urbanized areas throughout the world. While this is
recognized by policy makers many tend to focus more on traffic congestion and finding
solutions to improve traffic flow.

Many countries have their own specifications for design and design standards for pedestrian
facilities. The very first document dealt with pedestrian’s safety was published by Indian
Road Congress (IRC) in 1988. Since then, adequate research work has not been undertaken in
understanding the pedestrian safety, needs, planning and integrating pedestrian friendly
features in transportation system and creating a safe environment for pedestrians. This
neglect is now resulting in 25,000 deaths and more than 1 lakh injuries every year all over
India. The worst aspect is that elderly persons, children and physically handicapped persons
are those vulnerable categories who put to a great accident risk on roads. The Motor Vehicles
Act of 1988 is the only source of legislation that provides limited protections to the
pedestrian’s in the absence of any specific law to protect the rights of pedestrians.

1.1.1 Problems faced by pedestrians:

There are a lot of problems faced by pedestrians. For example:

 The road side shops present in the sidewalks reduce the space on these walkways. It makes
a lot of inconvenience in the pedestrian flow due to which they choose roads to walk which
may cause accidents.

 In the absence of proper signalling system, careless crossing of pedestrians in the zebra
crossing also causes accidents. Especially school going children are more affected as
pedestrians.

 Foot paths have become narrow due to widening of roads to accommodate vehicles and in
some busy areas (near hospitals, schools, offices, industrial and commercial areas).

9
1.1.2 Accident risk:
Pedestrians choose to risk their lives on a daily basis by walking alongside fast-moving
vehicles instead of fighting for good sidewalks in the absence of adequate facilities. The
statistics suggest that more than 45% of all accidents that take place in the urban areas are
related to pedestrian. Almost two thirds of the 1.2 million people killed annually in road
traffic crashes worldwide are pedestrians. Most of the death is due to accidents occurring in
urban areas. Children under 15 years and the elderly, over 70 years, are at increased risk for
sustaining a pedestrian injury. Pedestrian deaths and injuries are often preventable, and
proven interventions exist, yet in many locations pedestrian safety does not attract the
attention it merits. Successful interventions to protect pedestrians and promote safe walking
for them require an understanding of the nature of risk factors for pedestrian crashes.

1.2 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of existing pedestrian facilities
at the Vytilla junction, Kochi, Kerala and suggest scientific improvement measures, location
and design of new pedestrian crossing structures based on the pedestrian traffic demand. The
subobjectives of the study are:

To identify major travel corridors with high pedestrian movements.

 To assess the pedestrian and vehicular conflict in the study area and to study the safety
issues faced by the pedestrians.

 To assess the efficiency of existing pedestrian cross movement facilities and walk ways.

 Design an underground pedestrian walkway within the limitations at the area.

1.3 Scope of the Study

Vytilla junction has been recognized as the busiest traffic junction in Kerala, both in terms
of traffic volume and also on the basis of spatial parameters.

 Though the District Administration had mooted a skywalk linking the 4 sides of the
junction with mobility hub, this proposal might pose problems when two flyovers and Metro
rail pass through the junction. Hence, proper implementation of the plan in a busy city like
Vytilla is a great concern.

10
 It is extremely important to keep pedestrian spaces in city centres of metropolises integrated
and continual, but hard to achieve especially where road resources on the ground are crowded
by vehicles for the efficiency.

 Implementation of proper drainage facilities as per the requirements of the junction is very
important for an efficient functioning of the system.

1.4 Methodology

The methodology includes two parts namely:

(1)Literature Review:

Includes different terms involved in pedestrian characteristics such as pedestrian speed,

pedestrian crossings, subways and previous studies on the topic.

(2)Field study:

Field study involved the collection of various data in the location of study such as road
inventory data ,pedestrian and vehicular survey using mobile application.

1.5 Organisation of the Report

The report presented is organised into 6 chapters. After this introductory chapter, chapter 2
describes previous studies on this topic. The inferences from previous studies are used for
analysis of data collected.

Chapter 3 Summarises field study conducted at the area. Data collected includes vehicular
volume, pedestrian volume and road inventory data. Problems experienced by pedestrians
identified.

Chapter 4 Analyses the data collected by PV2 analysis for cross movement level of service for
lateral movement analysis. The obtained value for cross movement and lateral movement
analysis were much higher than the permissible values.

Chapter 5 Proposes a grade separated pedestrian crossing, it recommends a 3m x 3m box

culvert. Design of box culvert also included in this chapter taking into account three load
conditions in underground structures:

11
(1) Box empty, live load surcharge on top slab of box and superimposed surcharge load
on earth fill.
(2) Box inside full with water, live load surcharge on top slab and superimposed
surcharge load on earth fill.
(3) Box inside full with water, live load surcharge on top slab and no superimposed
surcharge on earth fill.

12
 CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW
Walking is a universal phenomenon but generally not considered as a transport mode because
it does not employ vehicles as modes[2]. Extensive intermixing of non-motorized and
motorized traffic on urban roads leads to traffic congestion increase in journey time and in
accidents. At city level, each and every resident is a pedestrian but treated as neglected road
user[6]. About 60% of all fatalities in urban areas belong to pedestrians. Hence pedestrian
safety is a challenge for transport planners, traffic engineers, town planners, urban local
bodies and policy makers to make city safer. Due to expansion of city boundary and urban
sprawls, the single mode of transport is neither viable nor efficient as the spatial separation
between commuters and work places has increased. Hence, public transport has become multi
modal which combines two or more modes to provide comfort, rapid and environmentally
compatible movement of the commuters. Similarly, integration of pedestrian with public
transport enhances share of nonmotorized modes and reduces use of personalized vehicles[2].
Hence, pedestrian safety is an integral part of overall transport system.

Pedestrian characteristics

Pedestrian’s characteristics can be divided into various groups such as it can be divided
according to physical space required, walking ability, walking speed depends on age, gender,
physical condition. There are various activities occur in the walkway area like vendors doing
business, shopping, parking, construction and other social activities[6].

2.1 Pedestrian Speed

The rate of walking by pedestrians in a street when crossing is an important consideration in
designing pedestrian facilities. The average walking speed ranges from 0.75 to 1.8 m/s. Some
authorities recommend that walking speeds below 0.9 m/s should not be used for/in designing
pedestrian facilities[5]. The walking speed of pedestrians depends on age and gender. It was
observed that normal walking declined from 274 ft./min for the age of 20-25 to 215 speeds
per minute for 70 to 80 year group. The speed declined occurs mostly after the age of 60 in
Indian cities and 65 in western countries. Various factors may influence walking speeds such
as terrain or slope, traffic intensity, traffic density and speed and number of pedestrian at
crossing. The comparative speeds of pedestrian at installed cross walk markings and its
absence can be observed. The pedestrian walk speed makes a different with

i. A single pedestrian

13
ii. Group of pedestrians

iii. With vehicular volume

2.2 Pedestrian Crossings

Where complete segregation of pedestrians from vehicular traffic is not possible, some form
of planned roads sharing principle must be applied. Being the most vulnerable road user,
pedestrian should increasingly be given the place and time to legally claim the right to cross
the road[7]. Pedestrian crossings need to be provided where they will be well used. Pedestrian
crossings could be broadly classified as:

2.2.1 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings

At grade crossings are those where the pedestrians cross the carriage way at the same level
as that of vehicular movement. A pedestrian crossing or crosswalk is a designated point on a
road at which some means are employed to assist pedestrians wishing to cross. They are
designed to keep pedestrians together where they can be seen by motorists, and where they
can cross most safely across the flow of vehicular traffic.

2.2.2 Grade Separated Crossings

The grade separated crossings are those where the pedestrians are required to cross the
carriage way at a level different from that of vehicular movement. Thus, it may be in the form
of a pedestrian subway or a foot over bridge across the road. A grade-separated pedestrian
facility allows pedestrians and motor vehicles to cross at different intervals, either over or
under a roadway. It provides pedestrians with a safe refuge for crossing the roadway without
vehicle interference.

2.3 Pedestrian Level of Service for Cross Movement Analysis

Pedestrian level of service indicates the environmental qualities of a pedestrian space and
serves as a guide for development of standards for pedestrian facilities. The planning and
design methods for pedestrian suggested by many researchers were based primarily on

14
vehicular traffic flow theory. Additional environmental factors that contribute to the walking
experience and therefore to the perceived level of service, such as comfort, convenience,
safety, security and attractiveness, should also be considered.

There are six levels of service from A to F reflecting the circulation and queuing area for
pedestrians as detailed below:

1. LOS A is a pedestrian environment where ideal pedestrian conditions exist and the factors
that negatively affect pedestrian LOS are minimal.

2. LOS B indicates that reasonable pedestrian conditions exist but a small number of factors
impact on pedestrian safety and comfort. As LOS A is the ideal, LOS B is an acceptable
standard.

3. LOS C indicates that basic pedestrian conditions exist but a significant number of factors
impact on pedestrian safety and comfort.

4. LOS D indicates that the poor pedestrian conditions exist and the factors that negatively
affect the pedestrian LOS are wide ranging or individually severe. Pedestrian comfort is
minimal and safety concerns within the pedestrian environment are evident

5. LOS E indicates that the pedestrian environment is unsuitable. This situation occurs when
all or almost all of the factors affecting pedestrian LOS are below acceptable standards.

6. LOS F, all walking speeds are severely restricted, and forward progress is made only by
shuffling. There is frequent, unavoidable contact with other pedestrian. Cross and reverse
flow movements are virtually impossible. Flow is sporadic and unstable. Space is more
characteristic of queued pedestrian than of moving pedestrian streams[3].

Table 1-LOS and Flow rate

LOS Pedestrian Space(m2/p) Flow Rate(p/min/m)

LOS A >4.9 ≤12
LOS B 3.3-4.9 12-15
LOS C 1.9-3.3 15-21
LOS D 1.3-1.9 21-27
LOS E 0.6-1.3 27-45
LOS F ≤0.6 Varies

15
2.4 Pedestrian Subways
Subway is normally a specially constructed underpass for pedestrians beneath a road or
railway, allowing pedestrians to cross safely. It is termed as rapid transit system for moving
pedestrians in a busy city. Subways provide full segregation of pedestrians and vehicular
movement and are potentially the safest form of crossing facility. They can provide high level
of safety (with the provision of appropriate measures like CCTV, lighting etc.) with
minimum disruption to traffic flow.

2.4.1 Cross-section of subways for pedestrians only

Three types of pedestrian subway may be used:

 A wide section, suitable for situations where a subway forms an extension to a footpath
system not less than 5.0m wide carrying large number of pedestrians or where for aesthetic
reasons the normal section is not considered suitable.

 A normal section, suitable for the majority of situations.

 A narrow section, for situations with small number of pedestrians where the normal section
could not be justified on cost grounds.

The minimum dimensions of subways for pedestrians only subway are shown in following
table

Table 2-Dimensions of Subways

Type of subway Length Height Width

Wide - 2.6 5.0
Normal <23 2.3 3.0
Normal >23 2.6 3.3
Narrow - 2.3 2.3

16
2.5 Case Studies
1. B.N. Sinha, R.P. Sharma (2009): In this study they studied about the design and
analysis of Box Culvert made with RCC, with Cushion and without Cushion using
numerical method and computerised method (Staad Pro). In this study full discussions on
the provisions in IRC Codes were made. Considerations and justification of all the design
aspects were made in this study such as consideration of load cases (box empty, full,
surcharge loads etc.) and factors like live load, effective width, braking force, dispersal of
load through fill, impact factor, coefficient of earth pressure, maximum bending moment
and shear force etc. They found that Box culvert more effective than that of slab convert.
Numerical and computerised designs are close to each other.
2. A Chakrabarti and others (2017):The study was about the design and detailing features
of pedestrian and vehicular underpasses under construction, to improve the durability
aspects. The journal discussed about the constructions of three cases of subway designs
in India, such as pedestrian subway at Raja garden, integrated pedestrian and vehicular
underpasses at Punjabi Bagh in Delhi and underground mass rapid transit system in
Calcutta. They compared the process adopted for the design and construction and
concluded their study as economical and safe design varies accordance with situations.
3. Anoop P. A. and others (2016): Pedestrian Exposure is defined as the exposure risk of
pedestrians with collision with motor vehicles. In this work, they discussed about the
problems of pedestrian crashes in Thrissur city to support the development and
assessment of effective pedestrian crash avoidance systems. They use traffic volume as a
quantity measure of flow. The increase in accident rate was due to reduction in road
width, median width and shoulder width. Number of accidents will directly vary with
traffic and pedestrian volume.
4. Aishwarya Fadnavis (2015): Population around India frequently shows the use of
pedestrian crossing facilities in many areas with heavy flow of traffic. This paper focused
on the study of pedestrian crossing facilities such as underpasses & overpasses and
aspects involved in these facilities. By constructing underpasses for pedestrians trip
through the busy roads is a deteriorating interchange. Public transport close to the
housing area, hospitals, colleges so that walking and using these facilities becomes the
main passage and underpasses/overpasses near this bus stop will surely advantage to the
pedestrians and assist them in saving the time.
17
5. Dipika Gupta and V. R. Patel (2014): This work was focused on identifying means to
reduce pedestrian delay. In signalized intersection crossing is more complicated issue to
analyse as compare to midblock crossing, because it involves pedestrians crossing the
street, intersecting sidewalk flows, and others queued waiting for the signal to change.
Research indicates that the average delay for pedestrians at signalized intersection
crossings is not constrained by capacity, even when pedestrian flow rates reach 5000
pedestrian per hour. LOS (level of service) criteria for pedestrians at signalized
intersections, based on pedestrian delay. When pedestrians experience more than a 30-s
delay, they become impatient, and engage in risk- taking behaviour. The higher the delay,
the poorer is the level of service.
6. K Singh and others (2011): Pedestrian LOS is an overall measure of walking conditions
on a route, path, or facility. In this work they studied about current practices for
providing pedestrian facilities and methodologies of assessing level of service (LOS) for
pedestrians. The current practices for evaluating pedestrian facilities can be grouped into
two types, (i) Capacity Based Methods-HCM Method (ii) Roadway Characteristics Based
Method. Pedestrian Environment Factors Capacity based methods use the principles of
highway capacity which have been suitably adjusted to evaluate pedestrian facilities.
They are helpful in planning pedestrian facilities but provide little information regarding
acceptability by pedestrians. Roadway Characteristics Based Methods are based on the
characteristics of the walkways or pedestrian facilities. These methods use pedestrian
perceptions and attempt to quantify the comfort level of pedestrians while encountering
certain roadway characteristics.
7. K.S Rakesh and others (2008): Pedestrian spaces are becoming increasingly rare
nowadays. The main objectives they focused on this study are to highlight issues relating
to pedestrian facility planning, to look at alternative approaches to pedestrian space
standards IRC guidelines, a report of the existing status of pedestrian facilities, and
analysis of the existing facilities from a qualitative viewpoint.
8. Kethan Kishore Sahu and Sradha sharma S (2015): The work was about the
comparison of box culverts of different aspect ratios. In the analysis of box culvert they
assumed that displacement and forces acting on the longitudinal section uniformly, and it
was true for some cases of loading. Accordance with the variation in this uniformity,
analysis of the structure is also varied. This work devoted to box culvert converted in
reinforced concrete, having one or two or multiple cell and varying their operation and

18
 analysis for their design. The cost of culvert by considering optimum thickness and
without considering optimum thickness were compared and most economical design
obtained was the culvert having optimum thickness.
9. NZ Transport Agency, pedestrian Planning and Design Guide (2008): In this guide
they sets out ways to improve New Zealand’s walking environment. It outlines a process
for deciding on the type of provision that should be made for pedestrians and provides
design advice and standards. Grade separation refers to infrastructure that puts
pedestrians and motor vehicles at different heights. This typically means underpasses
(tunnels and subways) and overpasses (bridges and elevated walkways).Underpasses are
perceived as providing less personal security than overpasses due to lower natural
surveillance. It can have drainage problems and can encourage high cycling speeds. It
can be cost effective when part of a new development. To overcome this skylights should
be provided in underpasses, pedestrians should always be able to see their whole route
without any obstructions or recesses, and (where possible) from a public place some
distance away, the route should include direction signs, closed circuit television
installations may be used, and each entry/exit should have ‟natural surveillance” from
adjacent buildings.
10. K.Swetha et.al (2012): In India where pedestrian fatalities constitute around 50-60% of
total fatalities and 30-40% of all reported road accidents occur on National Highways.
This work is mainly focused on facilities provided and safety for the pedestrians on
National Highways. Road traffic accidents are considered one of the most important
problems facing modern societies. Pedestrian crossings are of two types: (a) At grade
pedestrian crossing and (b) Grade separated pedestrian crossing. Control measures at mid
– block crossings are provided when peak hour volumes of pedestrians (P) and vehicles
(V) are such that PV2>108 for undivided carriageways and PV2>2 x 102 for divided
carriageways, approach speed of vehicles exceed 65 kph and waiting time of pedestrians
is too long.

Inference From Pedestrian Characteristics

1. Most of the pedestrian accidents occur while crossing the roads.

2. There are two types of crossings:
At grade pedestrian crossing and grade separated pedestrian crossings.
3. Grade separated crossings are best suitable for the safety of pedestrians.

19
4. LOS is the best tool for analysing the pedestrian cross movement.

Inference From Case Studies

1. In India where pedestrian fatalities constitute around 50-60% of total fatalities and 30-
40% of all reported road accidents occur on NHs.
2. Most of the studies recommended box culverts for under pass design.
3. While designing box culvert, care should be taken to consider different load conditions.

20
 CHAPTER 3- FIELD STUDY

3.1 Study Of Location

Reconnaissance survey was carried out to identify major roads in the study region, identify
major pedestrian activity areas, and plan necessary data collection and activity schedule. To
compile necessary inputs for the study, apart from review of secondary data, various primary
surveys were conducted in the study area. They included:

i. Pedestrian volume survey for lateral and cross movements

ii. Vehicular volume survey

Figure 1-Location of Vytilla Junction

21
3.2 Problems Experienced By The Pedestrians At Present
 Problems experienced by the pedestrians at present as per an opinion survey
conducted in the study area.
 Absence of handrails and kerbs in necessary areas keeps pedestrians in constant
exposure to vehicular traffic.
 Absence of zebra crossings at all the vital points at the junction is a risk.
 Due to the presence of heavy traffic, pedestrians are forced into long distances of
waiting before crossings are possible.
 Due to the absence of medians at certain portions in the mixed traffic, road
pedestrians are not given any refuge while they cross the road.
 The footpaths in the area is either very narrow or blocked by obstacles forcing the
pedestrians to use the road for walking further exposing them to the uncontrolled
traffic at the junction.

3.3 Data Collected

To compile necessary inputs for the study, various primary surveys were conducted in the
study area. They include:

 Accident number for past two years at the junction.

 Road inventory data
 Volume surveys
 Pedestrian volume survey for lateral and cross movements was done manually.
 Vehicular volume survey was done with the help of video camera which were later
counted.

3.3.1AccidentNumber
The pedestrian accident details occurred in the junction for past 2 years were collected from
the Highway Police Commissioner. The collected number is concerned with the number of
accidents occurred at the junction due to pedestrian-vehicular conflict. Pedestrian accident
numbers in the year:

 2017 : 17
 2016 : 19

22
 3.3.2Road inventory data
 An inventory of the area is prepared by collecting primary data on the present state of
the study area. The road inventory data were collected from The National Highway
Authority of India, Cochin. The pedestrian facilities present in the study area are
evaluated by the following physical characteristics shown in table.
Table 3-Road Inventory Data

Sl. Name of NH - 47 NH - 47 S-A road Vytilla–

No the road Kundanoor Palarivattom (Ernakulam) Thripunitura
Road
1. Type of PWD PWD PWD PWD
the road
2. Width of 8.5 m 8.5 m 7m 7m
the road
3. Median 1.2m 1.2m 1m 1m
4. Footpath 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m
5. Shoulder 1m 1m 1m 1m
6. Bus stop 1 1 2 1
7. Remarks Heavy Heavy pedestrian High vehicular Moderately high
pedestrian and and traffic flow. flow and vehicle and
traffic flow. moderately high pedestrian flow
pedestrian flow

3.3.3 Vehicular Volume Survey

Vehicular count was also done with the help of a mobile application and then was converted
to PCU (passenger car unit) equivalent. It was rather difficult to estimate the traffic volume
under mixed traffic flow unless the different vehicle classes are converted to one common
standard unit. It is a common practise to consider the passenger car as standard vehicle unit to
convert the other vehicle classes and this unit is called PCU. Passenger car unit (PCU) is the
metric used to assess traffic-flow rate or volume on a heterogeneous traffic highway. PCU
currently used in the design and analysis of signalized intersections in Kerala as well as in
India are based on the values given in the Indian Road Congress code, IRC SP 41. PCU
values given in IRC SP 41 are shown in table.

23
Table 4-PCU Values

Type of Vehicle PCU Value

Car 1
Bike 0.5
Bus 3
Light Commercial Vehicle 1.5
Heavy Goods Vehicle 4.5

Vehicular volume on 2-09-17 (Saturday) and 12-9-2017 (Tuesday) were calculated and is
converted in to PCU units as follows:

Table 5-PCU values during peak hours on SATURDAY

Type of Vehicle Towards Towards Towards Towards

Ernakulam Thripunitura Kundanoor Palarivattom
Car 1596 1128 2998 2556
Bus 324 245 84 408
Bike 1668 900 2616 2760
LCV 696 348 1236 1320
HGV 108 10 144 228
PCU 4932 2880 7060 8166

Table 6-PCU values during peak hours on TUESDAY

Type of Vehicle Towards Towards Towards Towards

Ernakulam Thripunitura Kundanoor Palarivattom
Car 1975 1235 3105 2707
Bus 330 251 87 417
Bike 2013 1150 2913 3040
LCV 736 410 1400 1392
HGV 110 16 163 260
PCU 5570.5 3250 7656 8736

24
3.3.4 Pedestrian Volume Survey For Lateral And Cross Movements
Manual method was adopted for passenger count. Collection of data was conducted on week
days mainly on Thursday (21-9-2017) and Tuesday (26-9-2017) as traffic is more these days.
Counts were taken in the morning and evening periods as suggested by the traffic police of
the city. The time was selected around an assumed peak hour based upon the working hours.

Table 7-Volume of pedestrian traffic on Tuesday

Time Pedestrians using Pedestrians using Pedestrians Pedestrians

NH47(Kundanoor) NH47(Palarivattom) using S A using
Road Tripunitura
Road
8:30-8:45 510 495 250 231
8:45-9:00 610 601 260 235
9:00-9:15 640 655 290 275
9:15-9:30 665 670 280 275
9:30-9:45 570 628 255 261
9:45-10:00 621 557 237 291
10:00-10:5 529 117 208 221
10:15-10:30 501 461 201 197
Table 8-Volume of pedestrian traffic on Thursday (Holiday)

Time Pedestrians using Pedestrians using Pedestrians Pedestrians

NH47(Kundanoor) NH47(Palarivattom) using S A using
Road Tripunitura
Road
8:30-8:45 145 121 68 85
8:45-9:00 172 115 71 101
9:00-9:15 212 118 59 110
9:15-9:30 197 116 91 97
9:30-9:45 190 131 80 79
9:45-10:00 159 131 81 89
10:00-10:5 167 97 69 85
10:15-10:30 150 117 69 76

25
 CHAPTER 4- ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 Pedestrian Level Of Service For Cross Movement Analysis By Waiting

Time
Pedestrian level of service indicates the environmental qualities of a pedestrian space and
serves as a guide for development of standards for pedestrian facilities. The planning and
design methods for pedestrian suggested by many researchers were based primarily on
vehicular traffic flow theory. Additional environmental factors that contribute to the walking
experience and therefore to the perceived level of service, such as comfort, convenience,
safety, security and attractiveness, should also be considered.

Pedestrian Level of service at road crossing (IRC 103-2012)

Table 9-Waiting time as per LOS

Level of Service Waiting time in sec

A ≤3
B >3 and 13≤
C >13 and 38≤
D >38 and 64≤
E >64 and 90≤
F ≥90

The Pedestrian Level of service at road crossings in the area considered was found to be LOS
E as per the above table, as the average waiting time of pedestrians were found to be 65
seconds(signal waiting time).

4.2 Pv2 Analysis (Pedestrian-Vehicular Volume Analysis) For Cross

Movement
For cross movement analysis of pedestrians, the value of PV2 has to be computed so as to
identify the necessary pedestrian facilities.

P = Number of pedestrians crossing

V = Vehicular traffic volume in PCU (Passenger Car Unit) per lane per hour
26
From the data collected we determined the peak hour volumes of vehicles for each road (V).
The obtained PV2 values for each stretch of roads for its peak hours are mentioned below:

Table 10-PV2 Values on Working day

Working Day P V PV2(108)

NH47(Kundanoor) 2496 7656 1463
NH47(Palarivattom) 2510 8736 1915
S A Road 1062 5570.5 329
Tripunitura Road 1102 3250 116

Table 11-PV2 Values on Holiday

Holiday P V PV2(108)
NH47(Kundanoor) 758 7060 378
NH47(Palarivattom) 496 8166 331
S A Road 311 4932 75
Tripunitura Road 375 2880 31

The permissible PV2 value is 1x108 – 2x108 in general cases. But the obtained value is much
higher than the permissible limit confirming that the junction is not safe for pedestrian cross
movement.

4.3 Pedestrian Level Of Service For Lateral Movement Analysis

Level of Service (LOS) in transportation engineering is a term used which describes existing
operating conditions (or suitability) for a mode of travel in a transportation system. Motor
vehicle LOS is primarily based on speed, travel time, and intersection delay. Calculation of
Pedestrian LOS is more complex, which represents the operating condition of pedestrian
facility and level of comfort pedestrians experience in using these facilities. The definition of
Pedestrian LOS does not include anything about mobility or

27
safety. This is an inherent bias of the LOS that strongly favours automobiles over pedestrians.
Pedestrian characteristics are represented by their flow, speed, space, and density. They are
determined from the observation of the 15-minute peak volume and width of the segment
using the equations (1) and (2) :

𝑣15
𝑄= (1)
15𝑊𝐸

VS
S= (2)
Q

where,

Q = Flow of pedestrian (p/m/minute)

𝑣15 = Peak 15-minute volume (p/15 minute)

𝑊𝐸 = Effective width of footpath (m)

𝑉𝑆 = Space mean speed (m/minute) (assumed as 1 m/s)

S = Space (m2/p)

The pedestrian LOS was calculated for each stretch of roads. It was determined on the basis
of flow of pedestrians (Q) and pedestrian space (S).

Table 12-LOS Values on Working day

Working Day V15 WE Q LOS SPEED SPACE LOS

M p/min/m m/min m2/p
NH47(Kundanoor) 624 1.5 27.7 E 60 2.16 C
NH47(Palarivattom) 628 1.5 27.9 E 60 2.15 C
S A Road 266 1.5 11.8 A 60 5.07 A
Tripunitura Road 275 1.5 12.2 B 60 4.89 B

28
Table 13-LOS Values on Holiday

Holiday V15 WE Q LOS SPEED SPACE LOS

M p/min/m m/min m2/p
NH47(Kundanoor) 189 1.5 8.4 A 60 7.14 A
NH47(Palarivattom) 124 1.5 5.51 A 60 10.8 A
S A Road 78 1.5 3.46 A 60 17.3 A
Tripunitura Road 94 1.5 4.17 A 60 14.3 A

29
 CHAPTER 5- PROPOSAL AND DESIGN

5.1 Proposals And Recommendations

Since the LOS values are higher than recommended value, the junction is in need of
Grade separated pedestrian crossing.
It can be broadly classified into two:
1. Underpass (tunnels and subways)
2. Overpass(bridges and elevated walkways)

Recommendations:
We recommend for an underpass due to the following reasons:

 Economical than overpasses.

 Easily accessible
 Does not interfere with future development of the junction
 Vertical clearance required is half that of overpass
 Shorter ramp

Figure 2-Proposed Location of Subway

30
 5.2 Design Of Pedestrian Underpass
As per the data collection and analysis done in the area considered, Vytilla junction is
recommended to use a grade separated pedestrian facility to solve its pedestrian problems and
to increase their safety and comfort. A pedestrian underpass could be constructed at the
Vytilla junction to aid the cross movements of pedestrians in the area. The pedestrian
underpass at Vytilla junction is designed as a box culvert due to economic reasons mentioned
below:

The box is a rigid frame structure and both the horizontal and vertical members are made of
a solid slab, which is very simple in construction.

In case of high embankments an ordinary culvert will require very heavy abutments that will
not only be expensive but also transfer heavy loads to the foundations

The box type of structure is suitable for an underpass.

The dead load and superimposed load are distributed almost uniformly over a wider area as
the bottom slab serves as a raft foundation, thus reducing pressure on soil[1].

A box culvert consists of an RCC box of square or rectangular opening. The top of the box
maybe at road level or it may be at a depth below the road level if the road is in embankment.
Since culvert pass through the earthen embankment, these are subjected to same traffic loads
as the road carries and therefore should be designed for such loads. Here box culvert made of
RCC without cushion is considered.

5.3 RCC Box Culvert

5.3.1 Data Used For Calculations:

Table 14-Specifications

Clear span 3m Thickness of wearing coat 0.065 m

Clear height 3m Carriageway 4 lane divided

Top slab thickness 0.4 m Concrete grade M25 25 Mpa

31
Bottom slab thickness 0.4 m Steel grade Fe 415 415 Mpa

Side wall thickness 0.4m E(Concrete) 8.33 Mpa

Unit weight of concrete 24 kN/m3 E(Steel) 200 Mpa

Unit weight of earth 18 kN/m3 Modular ratio 10

Unit weight of water 10 kN/m3 n (for depth of neutral axis) 0.294

Co-efficient of earth pressure at rest 0.5 j (for effective depth) 0.902

Total cushion on top 0.0 m k(for moment of resistance) 1.105Mpa

All dimensions are in meter unless mentioned otherwise.

All moments are in kN.m and shear in kN unless mentioned otherwise.

Figure 3-Cross section of Box Culvert

32
5.3.2 Load Calculations

5.3.2.1 Top Slab

Dead Load

(a)Weight of wearing course = 0.065 x 22 = 1.43 kN/m²

Adopt minimum of 2 kN/m²

(b) Self weight of top slab = 0.4 x 24 = 9.6 kN/m²

(c) Total = 11.6 kN/m²

Live Load

Consider moving load of 70R(T).

The dispersal and position of load shall be as under:

Dispersal perpendicular to span = 0.8 + 2 x 0.065 = 0.94 m

Dispersal in span direction = 4.57 + 2t +2d = 4.57 + 0.13 = 4.70 m

Note :

1) Since the length of wheel is more than total width of box at top that is 3.84 m further
dispersal by “2d” shall not be possible, hence not taken. In case where the length of load is
less than the width of box but works out more when “2d” is added, the dispersed length shall
be restricted to top width of box.

2) As the load of wheel after dispersal does not overlap, both wheels need to be taken
separately.

3) For dispersal refer IRC:21-2000 Clause 305.16.3.

4) Impact as per IRC:6-2000 Clause 211 shall be taken.

5) This shall be the load when α is zero and live load is taken to disperse through wearing
coat only.

Load per unit area = 350/4.7 x 0.94 = 70 kN/m²

Impact factor for 70R(T) shall be 25 % as per Clause 211.3 (a) (i) of IRC:6-2000

33
Load including impact = 87.5 kN/m²

Total Load (D.L.+L.L.)

= 11.6 + 87.5 = 99.1 kN/m²

3.3.2.2 Bottom Slab

Dead load

Load from top slab = 11.6 kN/m²

Load of walls = 2 x 3 x 0.4 x 24/3.8 = 15.16 kN/m²

Total Load = 26.76 kN/m²

Live Load The Live Load on top of box will disperse through walls and when arranged on the
carriage way (lengthwise of the box) the distribution shall be as under :

Taking reduction for simultaneous additional lane loadings at 20% (refer IRC:6-2000, Clause
208), the load on unit area of bottom slab for two track loading works out to 20.51 kN/m², if
one track without reduction is considered restricting area of dispersal the load per unit area
works out 19.8 kN/m². The dispersed live load on bottom slab can be taken to be 21 kN/m².

Total Load (DL +LL) = 26.76+ 21 = 47.76 kN/m²

Adopt 50 kN/m²

5.3.2.3 Side Wall

Case 1: Box empty, earth pressure with live load surcharge equivalent to 1.2 m height of
earth on both sides fills.

Earth Pressure at base due to live load surcharge = 1.2 x 18 x 0.5 = 10.8 kN/m²

Earth Pressure at base due to earth fill = 18 x 3.4 x 0.5 = 30.6 kN/m²

Case 2 : Box full, Live load surcharge on side fill.

Water pressure inside and outside will balance each other and hence not taken.

Earth Pressure at base due to live load surcharge = 10.8 kN/m²

Earth Pressure at base due to submerged earth = (18-10) x 3.4 x 0.5 = 13.6kN/m²

34
Case 3 : Box full, no live load surcharge on side fill.

Earth Pressure at base due to submerged earth = 8 x 3.4 x 0.5 = 13.6 kN/m²

Earth Pressure due to live load = 0

5.3.2.4 Base Pressure

Dead load

Load from top slab and walls including wearing course = 27.83 kN/m²

Self-weight of bottom slab = 0.4 x 24 = 9.6kN/m²

Total Load = 36.36 kN/m²

Live Load

There is no live load except coming from top slab without impact = 21 kN/m²

Base pressure = 58.91 kN/m² (Is safe for a S.B.C of 150 kN/m²)

5.3.3 Moment Calculation

Top Slab

Fixed end moment due to dead load = 11.6x 3.4 x 3.4/12 = 11.17 kN.m

Fixed end moment due to live load = 87.5 x 3.4 x 3.4/12 = 84.29 kN.m

Total fixed end moment = 95.46 kN.m

Mid span moment due to dead load = 11.6 x 3.4 x 3.4/8 = 16.76 kN.m

Mid span moment due to live load = 87.5 x 3.4 x 3.4/8 = 126.44 kN.m

Total Mid Span Moment = 143.20 kN.m

Bottom Slab

Fixed end moment due to dead load = 26.76 kN.m

Fixed end moment due to live load = 20.33 kN.m

Total fixed end moment = 46 kN.m

35
Mid span moment due to dead load = 36.67 kN.m

Mid span moment due to live load = 30.35 kN.m

Total Mid Span Moment = 69.02 kN.m

Side Wall

Case 1 : Box empty, surcharge load on side fill.

F.E.M at top due to dead load =

30.6x3.4x3.4
30
=11.19 kN.m

F.E.M at top due to live load

= 10.8 x 3.4 x 3.4/12 = 10.4 kN.m

Total F.E.M at top = 22.19 kN.m

F.E.M at base due to dead load =

30.6x3.4x3.4
20

=17.67 kN.m

F.E.M at base due to live load = 10.4 kN.m

Total F.E.M at base = 28.09 kN.m

Mid span moment due to dead load =

30.6x3.4x3.4
16

= 22.11 kN.m

Mid span moment due to live load

= 10.8 x 3.4 x 3.4/8 = 15.03 kN.m

Total Mid Span Moment = 37.17 kN.m

Case 2 : Box full, live load surcharge on side fill.

36
F.E.M at top due to dead load

= 13.6 x 3.4 x 3.4/30 = 5.24 kN.m

F.E.M at top due to live load = 10.4 kN.m

Total F.E.M at top slab = 15.64 kN.m

F.E.M at base due to dead load

=13.6 x 3.4 x 3.4/20 = 7.86 kN.m

F.E.M at base due to live load = 10.4 kN.m

Total F.E.M at bottom = 18.26 kN.m

Mid span moment due to dead load

= 13.6 x 3.4 x 3.4/16 = 9.83 kN.m

Mid span moment due to live load = 15.03 kN.m

Total Mid Span Moment = 24.86 kN.m

Case 3 : Box full, no live load surcharge

F.E.M at top due to dead load = 5.24 kN.m

F.E.M due to live load = 0

Total F.E.M at top = 5.24 kN.m

F.E.M at base due to dead load = 7.86 kN.m

F.E.M at base due to live load = 0

Total F.E.M at base = 7.86 kN.m

Mid span moment due to dead load = 9.83 kN.m

Mid span moment due to live load = 0

Total Mid Span Moment = 9.83 kN.m

37
5.3.2.4 Distribution Factors
Table 15-Distribution factors

Junction Members 4EI/L=Kd3/L SUM 4EI/L Distribution

factors
A&B AB/AD, K0.43/3.4 2K0.43/3.4 0.5
BA/BC 0.5
C&D DA/DC, K0.43/3.4 2K0.43/3.4 0.5
CD/CB 0.5

5.3.2.5 Moment Distribution

F.E.M Due to Dead Load

MAB = MBA = 11.17 kN.m

MDC = MCD = 25.77 kN.m

MAD = MBC = 11.79 kN.m (case 1), 5.24 kN.m (case 2), 5.24 kN.m (case 3)

MDA = MCB = 17.69 kN.m (case 1), 7.86 kN.m (case 2), 7.86 kN.m (case 3)

F.E.M Due to Live Load

MAB = MBA = 84.29 kN.m

MDC = MCD = 20.33 kN.m

MAD = MBC = 10.4 kN.m (case 1), 10.4 kN.m (case 2), 0 (case 3)

MDA = MCB = 10.4 kN.m (case 1), 10.4 kN.m (case 2), 0 (case 3)

F.E.M Due to Total Load

MAB = MBA = 95.46 kN.m

MDC = MCD = 46 kN.m

MAD = MBC = 22.19 kN.m (case 1),15.64 kN.m (case 2), 5.24 kN.m (case 3)

38
 MDA = MCB = 28.09 kN.m (case 1),18.26 kN.m (case 2), 7.86 kN.m (case 3)

Table 16-Moment Distribution Table

A B C D

Joint (kN.m) (kN.m) ( kN.m) ( kN.m)

Member AB AD BA BC CB CD DC DA

D.F 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500

F.E.M -95.46 22.19 95.46 -22.19 28.09 -46 46 -28.09

DIST. 36.635 36.635 -36.635 -36.635 8.955 8.955 -8.955 -8.955

C.O. -18.327 -4.475 18.327 4.475 -18.327 -4.475 4.475 18.327

DIST. 11.401 11.401 -11.401 -11.401 11.401 11.401 -11.401 -11.401

C.O. -5.7 -5.7 5.7 5.7 -5.7 -5.7 5.7 5.7

DIST. 5.7 5.7 -5.7 -5.7 5.7 5.7 -5.7 -5.7

C.O. -2.85 -2.85 2.85 2.85 -2.85 -2.85 2.85 2.85

DIST. 2.85 2.85 -2.85 -2.85 2.85 2.85 -2.85 -2.85

C.O. -1.425 -1.425 1.425 1.425 -1.425 -1.425 1.425 1.425

DIST. 1.425 1.425 -1.425 -1.425 1.425 1.425 -1.425 -1.425

FINAL -65.751 65.751 65.751 -65.751 30.119 -30.119 -30.119 30.119

39
Moment Distribution for Total Load for Top & Bottom Slabs and Case 1 Loads for
Walls

Table 17-Mid Span Moments (Total Loads only)

Member Case 1

MAB 143.2 – 65.751

= 77.45 kN.m

MDC 69.32 – 30.119

= 39.201 kN.m

MAD 37.17 - (69.32 + 30.119)/2

= (-)12.54 kN.m

5.3.2.6 Braking Force

LOAD: 70R(T), one wheel load is considered as there is no over lapping.

No impact as per IRC:6-2000 Clause 214.2.

The braking force shall be 20 % for the first lane load

The braking force = 350 x 20/100 = 70 kN

Load on top of box which will affect the box = 3.8 x 70/4.7 = 56.6 kN

Moment Due to Braking Force

MAD = MDA = MCB = MBC = 56.6 x 3.4/2

= 96.22 kN.m

The moments at top and bottom slab ends shall all be zero.

40
After distribution of moments among all the members a moment of 48.1 kN.m is obtained at
all ends. This moment is added to the maximum moments obtained for various combination
of loadings at the ends of members to get design moments. Since braking force can also act
from the reverse direction the moment at junctions are added irrespective of its sign.

5.3.2.7 Design Of Section

Table 18-Design Moments

Load Case Maximum Distributed Moments at Supports

MAB MDC MAD MDA
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m)
Total Load Maximum of 77.45 39.201 77.45 39.201
all cases
Braking Distributed 48.1 48.1 48.1 48.1
Force Moments at
Support
Design Support 113.85 78.219 113.85 78.219
Moments Moments
Including
Braking

Table 19-Moment and Reinforcement at Salient Section

Member MAB MDC Midspan (kN.m)

(kN.m) (kN.m) AB DC AD
Moment in 113.85 78.219 95.09 51.18 31.57
kN.m

Area of 1849.6 1299.8 1456 841.8 483.4

steel in
mm2

41
Top Slab

Maximum moment support/mid span including breaking = 113.85 kN.m

√𝑀
𝐷=
√𝑏𝑅
√113.85 × 106
=
√1000 × 1.105
= 320.9 mm

Provided 362 mm is safe

𝑀 113.85 × 106
𝐴𝑠𝑡 = = = 1743.36mm
𝜎st𝑗𝑑 200 × .902 × 362

Check for Shear

Shear force at deff from face of wall

108.04{3 − 2(0.362 + 0.05)}

=
2

= 1849.6 mm2

Shear Stress = 0.3247 N/mm² > 0.312 N/mm² permissible

Steel percentage
1743.36 × 100
=
1000 × 362
= 0.48

Permissible shear stress

(0.511 − 0.50)0.05
= 0.31 +
0.25

= 0312 N/mm2

Increase tension steel to increase permissible shear stress.

42
Required steel

(0.3247 − 0.31)0.25
= + 0.5
0.05

= 0.5735 %

Steel area

0.5735 × 1000 × 362

=
100

= 2076 mm2

Hence, provide tension steel = 2076 mm²

Bottom Slab

B.M. (Max) = 78.22 kN.m

√(78.22 × 106 )
𝑑=
√(1000 × 1.105)
=266.05 mm

Provided 337 mm is O.K.

78.22 × 106
𝐴𝑠𝑡 =
200 × 0.902 × 337

=1286.62 mm2

Check for Shear

Shear Force

48.83{3 − 2(0.337 + 0.05)}

=
2

= 54.53 kN

Shear Stress = 0.1613 N/mm² < 0.2715 N/mm² permissible, hence safe.

Side Walls

Moment at junction are same as slabs hence same tensile bars shall continue

43
Check for Shear
RA =
10.8 × 3.4 1 1
+ × 30.6 × 3.4 ×
2 2 3
= 35.53 kN

RD = 53.14 kN

SF at deff from
D=
30.78 + 27.07
𝑅𝐷 − × 0.412 − 10.8 × 0.412
2

= 53.56 – 11.92 – 4.45 = 37.19 kN

S.F at deff from
A=
1
R A − × 3.708 × 0.412 − 4.45
2
= 30.796 kN
Maximum Shear Stress (near base) = 0.100 N/mm² (safe)

44
 CHAPTER 6- CONCLUSION
1. Field Study Analysis:

Based on preliminary studies conducted at the junction, the NH-47 stretch was found as the
major travel corridor for pedestrian movement and the junction has a poor condition of foot
for the pedestrians. The accident numbers at the junction due to pedestrian-vehicular conflict
is rapidly increasing every year. The vehicular flow was often interrupted by careless
pedestrian crossing. From the results of safety analysis it was evident that the pedestrians in
the junction are not safe. The following results were obtained from the data analysed:

 The PV2 values obtained were much higher than the permissible value(1x108-2x108) for
each stretch.

 The LOS for lateral movement was found to be ranging from LOS E – A in accordance
with IRC 103-1988

Hence it can be concluded that the pedestrians crossing the junction is unsafe and they lack
enough space for movement. The lateral movement is mostly unsafe at the NH-47 stretch.
Owing to the growing financial capacities of the common man, more and more vehicles are
coming out on the roads. And thus, there is a need to increase the road infrastructure with
necessary steps to protect pedestrians of the area. A grade separated pedestrian crossing
facility is designed by opting a pedestrian subway at the junction in the form of box culvert in
order to improve the pedestrian flow and to reduce pedestrian-vehicular conflict.

2.Design of box culvert:

 The design was based on three general load conditions occur in underground structures:
(1) Box empty, live load surcharge on top slab of box and superimposed surcharge load
on earth fill.
(2) Box inside full with water, live load surcharge on top slab and superimposed
surcharge load on earth fill.
(3) Box inside full with water, live load surcharge on top slab and no superimposed
surcharge on earth fill.
 The designed structure proved to be satisfactory according to the checks conducted.
 Recommended 3m x 3m box culvert and designed it according to the specifications.

45
 REFERENCE

[1] B.N. Sinha, R.P. Sharma (2009): “Rcc Box Culvert - Methodology and Designs Including
Computer Method”, Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, Paper No:555, pp 189-220.

[2] Dipika Gupta and V.R. Patel (2014): „Pedestrian simulation in congested urban
area‟,International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, Vol. 2, No 3, March
2014, pp.111-115.

[3] K Singh (2011): „Methods of assessing pedestrian Level of Service‟, Journal of

Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. 2, No 1, January-March 2011.

[4] Luisf. Mirand-Moreno, Patrick Morency, Ahmed (2011), “The link between built
environment, pedestrian activity and pedestrian-vehicle collision occurrence at signalized
sections”, Department of civil engineering and applied mechanics, McGill university,
Canada, Accident Analysis and Prevention, pp 1624-1634.

[5] SatishChandraa, Anish Kumar Bhartib (2013), „Speed Distribution Curves For
Pedestrians During Walking And Crossing‟, 2nd Conference of Transportation Research
Group of India (2nd CTRG), www.sciencedirect.com,Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 104 ( 2013 ) 660 – 667.

[6] S.S Bhagath, Manoj L Patel, Palak S Shah (2014): „Pedestrian Priority in Urban Area
and Usefulness Towards Community‟, International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 03, No 01, Jan-2014, pp.526-530.

[7] T. Subramani (2012): “Pedestrian Study on Road Links in Major Urban Center”, IOSR
Journal of Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp. 750-754.

[8] A Chakrabarti, B.C. Roy, S.S. Mondal (2017), „Design And Detailing For Durability:
Concrete Subways And Underpasses‟, Concrete model code for Asia, pp.101, 8092.

[9] AishwaryaFadnavis (2015): „Success and failures of crossing facilities for pedestrians‟
International Journal Of Research In Engineering And Technology, Vol. 04, No 9, September
2015, pp.321-327.

46
[10] Anoop P.A, Aswathy T.B, Rachana K.B, VidhyaChandran and Bybin Paul (2016):
„Analysis of pedestrian risk exposure in Thrissur city‟, International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, No 4. April-2016, pp.2468-2471.

[11] K.Swetha, K.L.A.V.Harnadh, and DR. T.ChandraSekharRao (2012): „Analysis of

accident survey on pedestrians on national highway -16 using statistical methods‟, Elk Asia
Pacific Journals.

[12] KethanKishorSahu and Shradha Sharma (2015), „Comparison and Study of Different
Aspect Ratio of Box Culvert‟,International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology,Vol 3, Issue 7,2015/ ISSN Online-2321-0613.

[13] NZ Transport Agency, pedestrian Planning and Design Guide (2008).

[14] Rakesh K.S. and Abdul Razak Mohamed (2008): „Comfort and the pedestrian
environment– Adopting a qualitative approach –analysis of pedestrian networks in Adyar,
Chennai‟, International Journal on Design and Manufacturing Technologies, Vol.2, No.1,
July 2008.

47