ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Road Safety Audits

PresentedBy

T.LOKESH 11121A01A8T.THEJARATHNAM 12125A0122P.REDDYSADDAM 11121A0187

P.JAYARAM 11121A0179S.RAVIKUMAR 11121A0195

Under the guidance ofMr. Eswar

Syndicate no : 3

”On what goes wrong in road design and how to put it right safely”

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT(RSA)

IN-SERVICE AUDIT

NH 205

Section Bhakarapet (KM 77/4) - Rangampet (KM 93/6)

17 Oct. 2014

2

INTRODUCTION• As part of Mini Project, our Syndicate did Road Safety Audit

(RSA) of NH 205, in the stretch Bhakarapet (KM 77/4) -Rangampet (KM 93/6)

• Site visits

– First visit : Jun 15, 2014

– Second visit : Aug 20, 2014

– Third visit : Sep 17, 2014

• Reviews– Zeroth review : Aug 22, 2014

– First review : Sep 19, 2014

– Final review : Oct 17, 2014

3

Google satellite view of selected stretch Bhakarapet (KM 77/4) – Rangampet (KM 93/6)

NH 205

4

RangampetKM 93/6

BhakarapetKM 77/4

5

KM 84

KM 93/6

KM 77/4 KM 88

KM 86

KM 82

S1 S2 S3

S4

S5

Road Safety Audit

• Road Safety Audit (RSA)

⁻ is a Sys Procedure,

⁻ which brings knowledge of Experts into the Rd planning and design process,

⁻ with the purpose of preventing accidents.

• Is carried out by

⁻ an Independent team of trained specialists

⁻ to address the safe operation of a roadway and

⁻ to ensure safety for all road users.

6

Stages in RSA

There are Five Stages at which a RSA can be conducted,

a) Feasibility stg.

b) Draft Design stg.

c) Detailed Design Stg.

d) Pre-Opening Stg.

e) Audit of an Existing Rd.

The Earlier the Better– The Earlier a Rd is Audited within the Design and

Development Process ….the Better. 10-Nov-14 Eswar/BTech4/TEM/U7(B)_RSA 7

Procedure for RSA

10-Nov-14 Eswar/BTech4/TEM/U7(B)_RSA 8

PM/ Designer to DETERMINE LEVEL OF RSA

ARRANGE JOINT RSA 1/2-PM/ Designer to provide All necessary Docu

ARRANGE RSA1/2 – PM/ Designer to provide all necessary Docu

OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR ISA by Capital Pgme Bd

PM/ Designer CONSIDER THE RSA and complete an Exception Report respondingto ALL concerned

2 Experience Engrs UNDERTAKE ISA for proposed Scheme

To NEXT Slide To NEXT Slide

10-Nov-14 Eswar/BTech4/TEM/U7(B)_RSA 9

If applicable, ARRANGE SEPARATE RSA2/3 Post Detailed Design –CONSIDER RSA and complete an EXCEPTION REPORT Corresponding to ALL of the RECOMMENDATIONS

CONSIDER ISA RECOMMENDATIONSAnd complete an EXCEPTION REPORT Responding to ALL of the ISSUES raised

From PREVIOUS Slide From PREVIOUS Slide

CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF APPROVED SCHEME

ARRANGE ISA STG 4 once the Scheme has been completed – CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS or ARRANGE STG 4 RSA if appropriate

Undertake ANNUAL COLLISION MONITORING as part of the Capital ProgramImplementation Process

RSA STAGE 5

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

PART - I

BY

THEJA RATHNAM

10

S.NO LOCATION OBSERVATIONS IMPLICATIONS RECOMMEN

DATIONS

PHOTO

REFERE

NCE

CHECKLIST

REFEREN

CE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1.. KM 82 /0 Sight distance

I.S.D <<Standard

Accident spot

Prev. accident

– 04-10-2014

Driver cannot

see the

vehicle

coming from

the opposite

direction.

Problem is

severe at

night times

Vertical

gradient should

be minimised

Cutting is

recommend

ed.

P-3.1.1 S.NO-15

P-3.1.1

ISD<<STANDARD

VERTICAL GRADIENT SHOULD BE MINIMISED

12

+101.1799.28

96.6191.75

84.7

81.50

78.8175.08

Existed gradient 1 in 13.7=(101.17-75.08)/355

Suggested gradient 1 in 22.7=(96.00-75.08)/475

Proposed RL+ 96.00

KM 82 82.6 82.95 83.45 84.35 84.90 85.25 85.55 85.85 86.15 86.45 86.75

Exhibit no – 1.1

LONGITUDINAL GRADIENT OBSERVED AT SITE

15

S.NO CHAINAGE B.S I.S F.S RISE FALL RL

1. BM 2.43 +100

2. 0 0.41 2.02 +102.02

3. 15 1.26 0.85 +101.17

4. 45 3.15 1.89 +99.28

5. 60 0.62 3.89 0.74 +98.54

6. 70 1.45 0.83 +97.71

7. 80 2.55 1.1 +96.61

8. 90 0.25 3.76 1.21 +95.40

9. 135 0.22 3.9 3.65 +91.75

10. 180 0.29 3.78 3.56 +88.19

11. 225 0.11 3.91 3.49 +84.70

12. 265 2.6 2.49 +82.21

13. 275 0.8 3.31 0.71 +81.50

14. 290 1.5 0.7 +80.80

15. 310 0.1 3.49 1.99 +78.81

16. 350 0.23 0.13 +78.68

17. 370 3.82 3.60 +75.08

18.

19. 4.82 29.86 2.02 27.93

GRADIENT=

(102.02-75.08)/370

=1/13.7 = 1 IN 13.7 (<EXCEPTIONAL) 16

• Gradients Categories

– Ruling . Design Gradient

– Limiting. When topography compels steeper Gradients.

– Exceptional. Extra ordinary situations. Stretch of 100m max

– Minimum. From Drainage point of view

17

18

2. KM 86/0 Delineation

Horizontal curve

just beyond a

vertical curve.

Longitudinal

gradient

Vertical gradient >

exceptional

gradient

Accident spot

prev. accidents –

15-09-2014

Difficult for

drivers to

anticipate the

road alignment.

Efficiency of

vehicle will

reduce.

Improve

delineation with

signs, chevrons.

No sight

distance

warning sign

should be

placed.

P-3.1.2

Refer

exhibit no

– 2.1

S.NO -10

13

P-3.1.2

VERTICAL CURVE SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED BY HORIZONTAL CURVE

19

Improving delineation with

signs, chevrons.

P-3.1.8

VERTICAL GRADIENT MORE THAN THE EXCEPTIONAL GRADIENT

20

Cutting cannot be done, since the vertical curve is followed by horizontal curve on either side

SITE CONSTRAINT

22

3. KM 84/4 Formation width

Formation width is

eroded due to

excess rainfall.

Insufficient

berm width.

Accident spot

Prev accidents :

10-8-2014

Vehicle

collision with the

side hill

Retaining

wall to be

constructed to

increase

formation

width.

Formation

cutting is costly

because of steep

rocky hill

beside.

P-3.1.3

P-3.1.16

Refer

exhibit no

– 3.1

- 3.2

S.NO -10

13

P-3.1.3 23

Accident happened due to collision of vehicle with side hill

P-3.1.16

CHANCE OF VEHICLE TO FALL INTO VALLEY AT NIGHTS

24

Formation width eroded due to rain water

25

A1

A2

B2

B1

Existing Retaining wall

Formation width is less due to retaining wall

Stoney steep hill

Vehicle collision with the side hill

New retaining wall proposed after the standard formation width is attained

Longitudinal drainage for rain water

Plan of road section – 84/4

Exhibit no – 3.1

Rain water

culvert

26

Existing retaining wall

Proposed new retaining wall

Insuff. formation width

Elevation of the section – 84/4

Suff. formation width

Exhibit no – 3.2


Part II

CONTINUED

By

SADDAM

27

4. KM 86/8 Extra widening

No extra widening

at curves.

Overturning

and sliding of

vehicles

Extra

widening

should be

provided and it

is sufficient

even for large

wheel base

vehicles also.

P-3.1.9 S.NO-4

5. KM 85/8 Intervisibility

Intervisibility at

curves is less than

standard.

Accidents will

happen since the

driver cannot see

the vehicles

coming from

opposite

direction.

Intervisibility

should be

provided by

cutting trees and

speed limit

warning is to be

placed.

P-3.1.10 S.NO-15

P-3.1.9

AFTER EXTRAWIDENING

29

1.5m

Extra Widening

30

Extra width=nl2/2r + V/9.5√rFor r=45m, l=6m, V=45kmph

=2x62 /2x45 + (45)/9.5x√45Extra width= 1.5 m

Exhibit no – 4.1

Standards of Extra Widening

31

P-3.1.10

INSUFFICIENT SIGHT DISTANCE DUE TO OCCUPATION OF TREES

OBSTRUCTION TO LINE OF SIGHT

TREES OBSTRUCTING LINE OF SIGHT SHOULD BE CLEARED

32

6. KM 81/0

KM 86/8

Erosion of

Berms

Drains not

provided.

Berms at this

location are

eroded.

Overturning

and sliding of

vehicles.

Causes accidents

Longitudinal

drain of min 1

km is

recommended.

Solid berms

are

recommended.

P-3.1.3.1

P-3.1.4

P-3.1.5

S.NO-12

P-3.1.3

INSUFFICIENT BERM WIDTH

34

P-3.1.4

EROSION OF BERM

LEVEL DIFFERENCE MAY CAUSE ACCIDENTS

35

P-3.1.5

POOR DRAINAGE FACILITY

36

PROPER LONGITUDINAL DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED

EROSION OF BERM

Solid berms recommended


PART III

CONTINUED BY

RAVI

37

38

7. KM 89/8

KM 86/8

KM 83/6

Curve

indication

There are sharp

curves

Without

indications.

Guidance not

available to the

driver about the

road ahead.

Causes

accidents.

Chevrons,

curve warning

signs, edge lines

are to be placed.

P-3.1.6

P-3.1.7

P-3.1.13

S.NO-13

P-3.1.6

CURVE SIGN POST SHOULD BE INSTALLED

SHARP CURVE AHEAD

39

P-3.1.13

CURVE WARNING SIGNS SHOULD BE INSTALLED

41

P-3.1.14

NO CURVE WARNING SIGN CAUSE ACCIDENTS AT NIGHTS

CHEVRONS SHOULD BE PLACED

42

8. KM 84/4

KM 86/4

KM 86/8

Deep Valley

Unguarded deep

valley adjacent to

road.

Accident spot

Major accident -

vehicle loaded ran

into the valley

Date: 12-7-14.

Hazard for a

vehicle to ran into

the valley during

poor visibility and

rains.

Guard rails are

to be provided to

prevent the

vehicle from

falling and

rumble strips are

to be provided to

alert the driver

near the valley.

P-3.1.16

P-3.1.17

P-3.1.18

S.NO-19

P-3.1.17

GUARD RAILS SHOULD BE PROVIDED

VALLEY

44

P-3.1.18

GUARDRAIL SHOULD BE PROVIDED

VALLEY

45

CHECKLISTS

BY LOKESH

CHECKLIST-5 stage-5 AUDIT OF EXISTING ROAD

Project:- ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Date:- 20-8-2014

Auditor:- Syndicate no -3

SNO. Description OK Comments

1. Carry out an inspection

-don’t forget to take the results of

accident analysis and relevant checklists

with you

Accident analysis is carried out

2. Does the actual function of the road

correspond to its intended function?

3. Is the prevailing speed level as

desired?

yes No, as the upward moving

vehicles cannot attain desired

speed at km 86/8

Refer photo km-86-16

Km-86-25

4. Is there sufficient

extra widening at curves?

yes No, there is no sufficient extra

widening at curves, need to be

improved at km 86/8


5.

Do road users park in ways that

could constitute hazards?

no Not relevant

6. Do plantations obscure visibility or

mask the view of signs?

yes Yes at km stone 79

Refer photo km-79

7. Are the surface and carriageway

markings in good condition (signs of

rutting, poor drainage)?

Yes, signs of rutting are clearly

observed at

km 79/2 and 86/8

Refer photo km-79-3

Photo km-86-14

Photo km-86-15

8. Are there any signs that road users

drive over islands or kerbs or that the

routes taken by motorists through

junctions and bends are less than

ideal?

Not a relevant aspect

9. Are there signs of other conflict

situations and minor accidents (skid

marks, broken glass/plastic, etc.)?

Yes, broken glass marks are clearly

seen at

km 89/8 and

Refer photo km-89-4

Photo km-89-5

10. Are the specified distances to rigid

obstacles maintained (plantations and

road equipment, etc.) for all groups of

road user?

Is there prior indication of horizontal

curve?

No, the distance is not

sufficiently maintained at

km 83

Refer photo km-83-1

No, curve warning signposts

are to be mounted at km

86/8

Refer km-86-11

11. Is overtaking prevented at all points

where prevention is necessary?

Yes, overtaking prohibited

sign posts are established at

Km 81/4

Refer photo km-81-4

12. Are the berms satisfying their intended

function?

No, some of them are

eroded and some are

occupied by plantations at

km 86/8


Photo km-86-15

13. Are the sign posts provided are

sufficient?

No, curve indicating signposts

are to be established

at km 86/8

refer photo km-86-17

14. Does the width of berm

adequate?

No, at some areas width of berm

is insufficient at

Km 79/8 and at km 81

Refer photo km-79-9

Photo km-81-1

15. Does the alignment satisfy any

demands on visibility at junctions

and sight distances at free

sections?

No, sufficient sight distance is to

be provided at km 82

Refer photo km-82

16. Will it be possible to carry out

maintenance work safely and

without using carriage way or

cycle path?

No separate cycle paths are

there.

17. Is there a suitable gradient or is the

carriage way laid at a suitable

height above the shoulder?

No, since the established gradient

is too steep at

km 86/8


18. Are there any unlit areas that could

conceal hazards?

Not relevant

19. Guardrails hedges and railings:

a) Are all vulnerable areas

protected?

b) Are bridge pillars steel posts etc.,

protected by guard rails

necessary?

c) Are there places where hedges are

necessary to prevent pedestrians

from crossing?

d) Are the chosen hedges or guard

rails light enough?

b)No, guard rails should be provided

at necessary lines

At km 86/8 and at 84/4


Photo km-86-20

Refer photo km-84-4

20. Plantations:

a) Will plantations obscure visibility?

b) Will plantations be able to

encroach on markings or lighting?

c) Will fully grown trees or any other

rigid obstacles be observed?

d) Can maintenance be carried out

safely?

a)Yes, plantations are obscuring

visibility of signposts and berms at km

79 and at 79/8

Refer photo km-79

Photo km-79-9

c)No, there is no sufficient sight

distance to observe the rigid obstacles

at km 83/2

Refer photo km-83-2

Photo km-83-3

CONCLUSION

In our judgement, consideration of the findings should improve the overall safety of the Route NH 205 section (KM 77.4 – KM 93.6) especially at KM 86/6 to 87/2 as the accidents are recorded at these spots.

55

REFERENCES

56

1. IRC_SP_88_Road Safety Audit Checklist.

2. IRC-67-2012 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ROAD SIGNS.

3. NHAI Safety manual march 2011.

4.IRC-SP-44 HIGHWAY SAFETY CODE.

5.REPORT OF THE IRC WORKSHOP FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY.

6. HIGHWAY ENGINEERING BY KHANNA AND JUSTO.

7. IRC SP 88 MANUAL ON ROAD SAFETY AUDIT.

8. Road Safety Audit Guidelines –University of New Brunswick Transportation

Group.

9. Road Safety Audit journal by Arun S Bagi, Dheeraj N kumar

(Department Of Civil Engineering, Dayananda Sagar College OfEngineering)

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Engineering

Transcript of ROAD SAFETY AUDIT