PAPER NO.

690

Innovative Solution for Box Abutments of Flyovers in

strata with low bearing capacities on NH-48

Dhananjay A Bhide1 Sandeep N Todankar2

Abstract
The stretch from Ahmedabad to Vadodra along NH-48 is with mainly sandy/silty stratum all along. Hard founding stratum
is not available at shallow depths. As a result, invariably pile foundations would be adopted for foundations. For bridges
this is probably inevitable due to waterways, scour requirements etc. However for flyovers no such constraints exist. Shallow
foundation over available stratum was therefore a possibility that needed to be explored. The open foundation has many
advantages over conventional pile foundations such as; reduced cost, easy & faster constructability lesser construction
materials with reduced carbon footprint or greater sustainability etc. The heights of approach embankments generally vary
between 8.0 to 9.5 m. The conventional open foundation for structure would require a minimum safe bearing capacity of 25
to 30t/m2. An option was explored from these considerations i.e. suitable where base pressure would be around 15t/m2. The
basic requirement was to engineer the structure so that the base pressure would be, within small capacity of the foundation
stratum. This paper explains how the solution and detailed engineering evolved to achieve the same.

1. Introduction not be suitable, leading to a very costly option of pile

The National Highway, NH-48 between Ahmedabad and foundations. The box abutments with multiple cells and
Vadodra was not included for converting from 2 lanes raft at bottom and closed with slabs at road level are
to 4 lanes in project Golden Quadrilateral, may be due generally provided where foundation capacities are low.
to an existing 4 lane expressway in between two cities. However foundation levels are relatively deep.
Subsequently NHAI planned to develop Ahmedabad – In light of the foregoing an effort was made to find an
Vadodra section of NH-48 to six lanes. For this a number of alternative solution for the abutment foundations that
flyovers, vehicular underpasses and pedestrian underpass would be somewhat lighter option imparting pressures
were proposed to ensure smooth unhindered traffic flow. around 15t/m2 and would be within the bearing capacity of
The flyovers were with spans ranging between 20 m to the stratum at shallow depths of 1 to 2.5 m. An alternative
46 m. For such spans most suitable deck system would be of box structure was successfully developed to suit the said
girder and slab deck and was adopted accordingly. The said requirements. This paper presents various considerations
structures have a significant vertical load. This coupled that led to the formulation of the same along with its design
with earth pressure effects at abutments would need a and detailing aspects.
heavy foundation. The stratum throughout the project
2. THE STRUCTURE
stretch was silty sand and alike, i.e. not a hard foundation
stratum. The safe bearing capacity of this stratum, at The project corridor had the flyovers/interchanges as
shallow depths, of 1 to 2 m would be around 15/m2or little tabulated in table no.1. Most of the structures had two
more. The heights of approach embankments generally independent carriageways of 13.4 m. The minimum
vary between 8.0 to 9.5 m. Conventionally abutment clearance over at grade road was 5.5 m, as per relevant
pier with pile foundation and RE wall to retain approach code. The abutments were to support spans ranging from
embankments would be the options. The conventional 20 m to 35 m. For 13 flyovers with two carriageways
open foundation for structure would require a minimum total 52 abutments were required. One flyover at Ch.
safe bearing capacity of 25 to 30t/m2. For the available 108+ 800 km, was with single carriageway and for one
stratum, conventional open or shallow foundation would flyover, at Ch. 7+380 km, open foundation was feasible on
1
Vice Precedent (Structure Design) (Retd.), Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd.; Subsidiary of IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd;
E-mail: [email protected]
2 
Principal Consultant, SPECTRUM Techno Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai; E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019 15

 PAPER NO. 690
one side only. For these two structures only 4 abutments tempting proposal from all considerations, viz cost, time
were required. For the latter pile foundation on other side and ease of construction. The bid was submitted allowing
was unavoidable as underground utilities were fouling for this and proposal was successfully implemented during
with bottom slab and those could not be shifted as well. actual execution of the concession.
Providing open foundations, instead of pile foundations,
Locations of various flyovers with relevant details are
for such large number of abutments was certainly a
tabulated in table 1.
Table 1: Showing the flyover details and soil parameters
Sr. Design Span No. of No. Box Formation Ground Raft Base Rubble Pressure at Allowable SBC
No. Chainage Arrangement Carriageways Abutments Level Level Bottom Pressure Soling bottom of from plate load
(KM) (m) provided (M) (M) Level below Raft Thickness Soling tests
(M) (t/m2) (m) (t/m2) (t/m2)
1 7.380 1 x 26m Two Two 51.814 43.672 42.622 15.5 0.5 14.14 16.7
2 11.320 1 x 46 + 2 x Two Four 48.4 40.1 39.2 15.45 0.5 13.67 16
20m
3 34.020 1 x 35m Two Four 35.19 26.863 25.663 20.6 0.75 18.93 28
4 42.600 1 x 35m Two Four 37.924 28.424 27.274 18 0.75 16.38 45
5 52.700 1 x 35m Two Four 41.454 31.954 30.804 18 0.75 16.38 18.5
6 58.710 1 x 35m Two Four 43.439 34.585 33.485 19.23 0.75 17.75 22.7
7 66.940 1 x 26m Two Four 46.393 38.282 37.282 15.5 0.5 14.5 26
8 74.370 1 x 35m Two Four 48.743 40.227 39.177 16.3 0.75 14.97 21
9 77.540 1 x 26m Two Four 49.869 41.901 40.851 15.45 0.5 13.18 22.7
10 90.740 1 x 26m Two Four 48.035 39.468 39.388 15.9 0.5 15.15 20
11 102.54 1 x 46 + 2 x Two Four 48.789 39.916 38.866 17.45 0.5 16.15 22.7
20m
12 105.49 1 x 35m Two Four 47.98 38.809 37.659 20.7 0.5 19.5 25
13 108.800 2 x 35m + One Two 48.328 40.012 38.962 15.6 0.5 14.8 23
10 m
14 109.490 2 x 26m Two Four 51.814 43.672 42.622 15.5 0.5 14.77 16

Fig. 1: Showing Bore Logs at Typical Flyover Locations

3. GEOLOGY AT STRUCTURAL LOCATIONS the bores at that depths. Typical borehole details at two
The geological investigations were carried out with bore random locations, along the stretch are shown in figure
holes at each of the flyover locations at abutment end, no. 1 to provide an idea about ground profile. Since the
conforming to specifications as per MoRTH Specifications stratum at depths of 1 to 2 m was with N values of around
and guidelines of IRC:78-2000. The strata below depth 10, plate load tests were conducted at each of the abutment
of 6m were generally with N value of more than 20 at locations at proposed foundation levels. Rabble soling
depths of around 10 m hence it was decided to terminate was proposed below each raft as a ground strengthening

16 Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019

 PAPER NO. 690
measure. The thickness and size in plan of this soling was c) All flyovers were in urban or semi urban areas.
decided such that the maximum pressure below soling The available ROW was limited. The slip/service
would always remain less than observed Safe Bearing roads alongside flyovers had to be near the approach
Capacity of that stratum. embankments with a 1m wide kerb separating the
two. The approach embankment was to be with RE
4. DESIGN AND DETAILING walls at all locations. To relieve earth pressure effects
Typical details of the box abutments, one for 26 m span on the abutments, RE wall behind the abutments is
are as shown in Fig 2. The box abutments were for full routinely adopted. The load from the vehicles is never
formation width. Similar box structure was provided in transferred to these RE walls. For this approach slabs
median portion as well. have to be made to rest on abutment dirt walls or
some corbels from it. RE wall essentially ends below
4.1 Various Considerations for Proposal
it. However for box type solution it was not feasible
These considerations shall be read in conjunction with the as box had to be behind the span, not encroaching
Fig. 2. within it. Therefore it was decided to make the box
a) For any abutment foundation the principle loads structure to retain the approach embankment.
contributing towards base pressure are self-weight, load d) Use of box structure, obviously a cellular structure,
from decking, earth fill over structure and earth pressure. is certainly not new for bridge abutments. The
Except the load of earth fill, all other are unavoidable approach fills from behind are generally retained
and have to be accounted for as resulting from the behind as well as on sides. This requires closed
arrangement. The load of earth fill can be controlled or sides. For abutments of these flyovers, RE walls
minimized by providing a hollow space. This lead to were proposed, akin to return walls. As such
concept of hollow box abutment. retaining earth on sides was not at all necessary.
b) The flyover spans varied between 20 m to 35 m. It was therefore possible to delete the side walls,
All flyovers were obviously conducive to in-situ keeping box structure open in transverse direction.
construction. The overall numbers and the project In other words the box structure with opening,
length did not allow for centralized precasting coupled similar to culverts or bridges was possible.
with constraints for transportation of precast girders. e) For flyover the clear opening is provided between
The construction method for superstructure of all the faces of the components, usually pier or abutment
flyovers was therefore to cast girders either within the caps. The foundation projecting in the clear gap but
span or precast the girders along the location and erect below the ground is certainly feasible. For an open
or cast entire decking for each of the carriageways in foundation of any earth retaining structure, a toe slab
one single operation with formwork for all the girders i.e. projection away from fill always helps to control
and deck slab. With this sequence, prestressing of the the maximum base pressure as well as improves factor
deck / girders, in their final position was unavoidable. of safety against overturning. A similar toe slab, as an
The proposed detailing had to cater for facilitating extension of raft or bottom slab beyond box would
prestressing operations, generally in form of casting also serve for similar effect and was adopted. While
the dirt / front walls at abutment after prestressing of designing it was found to contribute substantially
entire span was complete. towards controlling maximum pressure.

Fig. 2: Showing Box Abutment for Flyover with 26 m Span

Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019 17

 PAPER NO. 690
f) of safety against overturning. A similar toe slab, as an the deformation of the slab at edges, though this was
extension of raft or bottom slab beyond box would neglected in the design and only moments generated
also serve for similar effect and was adopted. While by earth pressure along the unsupported edge were
designing it was found to contribute substantially accounted for in the design.
towards controlling maximum pressure.
4.2 Detailed Analysis and Design
g) For this type of structure, the earth pressure as well
as loads from decking causes additive overturning Abutment box was considered like a rigid frame
effects. Normally the stabilizing effect is provided supported on elastic soil springs. This frame was analyzed
by the self-weight of the abutment structure and the with STAAD. The structure is very similar to that of
associated earth fill weight. In present case the latter box culverts. However there is one major difference in
is reduced substantially. To control overturning effect behavior and loading. The loads from super structure are
a heel slab with earth fill above it was found to be transferred to box at fixed locations, viz bearing pedestals.
necessary. Though the said fill added to vertical load, The earth pressure is acting on one side of the box only.
an overall optimization was achieved with provision
Since the other side of the box is free this box acts like a
of heel slab.
flexible structure, unlike box culverts that acts restrained
h) The hollow space within the box is a key element in by earth pressure on two opposite sides. Due to this
this type of structure. It is therefore obvious to have as specific condition the structure had to be analyzed for
large hollow space as possible. This can be achieved active pressure effects only.
by providing top slab of the box, as close to FRL as
possible. The top of deck and top of slab will then be at a) Effect of load from decking:
same level. The front and rear walls will also be up to
said level. This would cause some undesirable features In case of the box abutment structure reactions from
in the arrangements. The support for decking will be superstructure would be very predominant loads. The
at lower level. To support decking brackets need to be maximum reaction would be on the outermost pedestal
added at girder bottom level, within front wall and will due to eccentric live load position on deck. Reactions on
lead to local bending moments of substantial magnitude pedestals would be dispersed through wall. In light of
in the wall. The wall, if constructed for full height i.e. this the load from each of the pedestals was considered
complete box structure then space for stressing the to be effective over a finite width of the box. Taking a
cables in the girders will not be available. If wall is clue from effective width concept the said finite width was
initially cast up to bracket level then portion of the box
considered as half the distance between pedestals on either
above bracket level has to be cast only after all stressing
operations are complete i.e. after decking is completed sides for intermediate pedestals and half the width plus the
for all practical purposes. Thus a substantial load will length of the box beyond pedestal for end pedestals.
act on the structure prior to establishing the box action. b) Earth pressure effects:
Wall in front would be subjected to loads as a vertical
free standing wall with eccentric load from self-weight This type of the structure would be with earth fill only
of decking. on one side of the box. Absence of earth fill rendered
i) An alternative was to have box top till bearing bottom the structure as a flexible structure since restraint from
level and to place the bearing pedestals directly opposite side was absent. Thus the effect of earth pressure
on the wall and transfer the vertical load to wall in on structure was that of active earth pressure. Therefore
concentric condition to the wall. Thus a box action active pressure effects were considered for design.
would be established prior to loading from deck and
c) Subgrade modulus:
hence load would be distributed evenly at raft level.
This required fill above top slab up to FRL and a dirt The raft slab of the box was considered as supported on
wall from the top slab to retain the same in front. soil springs. The spring constants i.e. stiffness of the springs
Small local moments would act on top slab and it had were proportioned from contributory area of the raft. The
to support weight of the fill as well. stratum at foundation was generally sandy silt with relatively
j) This alternative was found to be more economical and low safe bearing capacity. As such it was categorized as
provided substantial simplification in construction the loose sand. The corresponding subgrade modulus from
also. table 9.1 of book “Foundation Analysis and Design” by J.
k) The fill above top slab required retaining it on sides as E. Bowel was considered for analysis purpose.
well. Side walls had to be provided along the length d) Base preparation:
of the box over top slab. The advantage of this wall
was to provide edge stiffening and indirectly control The bottom of the raft was contemplated at 1m below

18 Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019

 PAPER NO. 690
existing ground level. In order to enhance the safety, a Load Comb 9. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdl
rabble soling layer was also proposed. Thickness of this Load Comb 10. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + SuPdl + Supsidl
layer varied from 0.5m minimum to 0.75m. This layer
Load Comb 11. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdl + Supsidl
provided a firmer base to structure as well as enabled to
+ Supll + Llsur
distribute the load on parent stratum over a larger area,
with increased dimension of 1m to 1.5m in both directions. Load Comb 12. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdl + Supsidl
This helped in reducing the effective pressure at base. + Supll +Llsur +Tempr
e) Various loads considered for the analysis and Load Comb 13. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdl + Supsidl
design: + Supll +Llsur +Tempf

i. Self-weight of box and dirt wall above- (DL), Load Comb 14. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdl + Supsidl
+ Supll + Shkg
ii. Weight of backfill soil above toe slab up to top of
slab (during construction) and active earth pressure Load Comb 15. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdlseism
on back wall- (Soil-1), Load Comb 16. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdlseism +
iii. Vertical and horizontal reaction from superstructure Supsidlseism
due to DL in normal case - (SupDLnorm), Load Comb 17. Dl + Soil-2 + Soil-3 + Supdlseism +
iv. Vertical and horizontal reaction from superstructure Supsidlseism + Supllseism + LLsur
due to SIDL in normal case -(SupSIDLnorm),
g) Base pressures and design of individual
v. Vertical and horizontal reaction from superstructure
components:
due to live load in normal case -(SupLLnorm),
vi. Vertical and horizontal reaction from superstructure The base pressures for each of the load combinations
due to DL in seismic case - (SupDLseism), were checked. Uplift was not allowed for any of the
vii. Vertical and horizontal reaction from superstructure combinations and maximum pressures were ensured to be
due to SIDL in seismic case -(SupSIDLseism), within allowable SBC. For pressure below the rabble mat
viii. Vertical and horizontal reaction from superstructure a dispersion of 1V to 1H was considered. Plan size of the
due to live load in seismic case -(SupLLseism), mat was provided accordingly.
ix. Weight of backfill soil above heel slab up to FRL Detailed RC design for each of the components was made
(during service) and active earth pressure on back as per provisions of IRC:21-2000.
wall-(Soil-2),
h) Toe & Heel slab:
x. Weight of soil above top slab and active earth
pressure on dirt retaining the same-(Soil-3), It may be observed from the Fig 2 that toe and heel slabs
xi. Earth pressure due to Live load surcharge on back are proposed for the box abutments. The loads on super
wall and dirt wall-(LLsur), structure are transferred to box abutment on its front
side. This causes an eccentric effect adding to moment
xii. Uniform Temperature rise-(TempR),
acting on the structure as well as overturning effect. The
xiii. Uniform Temperature fall-(TempF),
toe slab helped in controlling the these effects as with its
xiv. Shrinkage of top slab concrete-(Shkg). provision, the C G of the structure shifted nearer to point
f) Load combinations: of load transfer from superstructure, thereby reducing the
maximum base pressure, increasing minimum pressure
Load Comb 1. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1
and reduced overturning effects.
Load Comb 2. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1 + Tempr
The heal slab, if provided causes the reverse effects to
Load Comb 3. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1 + Tempf
the beneficial effects of providing toe slab to the extent of
Load Comb 4. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1 + Shkg shift in C G, away from front side. In addition the vertical
Load Comb 5. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1 + Supdl load also increases on the structure but with additive
Load Comb 6. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1 + Supdl stabilizing moments. The important benefit from heel
+ Tempr slab was increased frictional resistance due to increased
Load Comb 7. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1 + Supdl vertical load and added stability against sliding.
+ Tempf Optimal lengths of both toe and heel slabs were determined
Load Comb 8. Dl (Without Dirtwall) + Soil-1 + Supdl by trial and error to obtain the best possible benefits from
+ Shkg the effects explained.

Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019 19

 PAPER NO. 690
i) Typical details of the reinforcement: to 150 mm below haunches with top slab.
Typical details of the reinforcement in box abutment are vi. Cast top slab.
as shown in Fig 3. vii. Complete pedestals and install bearings.
j) Construction Sequence: viii. Complete deck of the flyover span.
i. Complete excavation. ix. Cast dirt / front wall and side walls.
ii. Complete rubble soling. x. Complete earth fill behind abutments. Activity of
iii.
Lay PCC. earth fill up to top slab can be in parallel to that of
deck construction.
iv. Cast raft/bottom slab of box abutment till 100 to
150 mm above top of haunches with walls. xi. Complete approach slab and balance items of
v. Cast walls in suitable lifts, generally 2.5m till 100 road crust.

Fig. 3 Showing typical reinforcement details of the box abutment

Fig. 4 Showing Close View of Box Abutment Fig. 5 Showing Flyover at Ch. 58+710

20 Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019

 PAPER NO. 690

Fig. 6 Showing Curved Flyover at. CH. 108+800 Fig. 7: Showing Flyover with Box Type Abutment
on One End and Abutment with Pile Foundation at
Other End at CH. 7+380

5. ADVANTAGES OF BOX ABUTMENT RE wall; whereas at A2 box type abutment was adopted.
The proposal for box abutment was made with This provided an opportunity to assess the benefits in a
definitive manner.
anticipated advantages towards the cost of the
structures, construction time and ease of construction. a) Cost Advantage:
For the flyover at Ch. 7+380, for one of the abutments The actual executed quantities for both, abutment with
location (A1) underground utilities were fouling at pile foundation and box abutment were available from
shallow depth. These could not be shifted due to various flyover at Ch. 7+380. The cost various items are tabulated
reasons. Hence it was proposed to adopt pier with pile in table 2. The cost is based on execution done during
foundation at A1, with embankment behind retained with years two years, 2014 and 2015.

Table 2 Showing cost of various items for alternatives with pile foundation and box abutment
Item Unit Rate Per Quantity for Cost for Alt. of Quantity Cost for Alt.
Unit Alt. of Pile Pile Foundation for Alt. of of Box Type
(Rs.) Foundation (Rs.) Box Type (Rs.)
Piles, including boring, concrete etc., Rm 14,500 88 12,76,000 0.0 0.0
including reinforcement
Concrete for Pile Cap or raft of box Cum 5,000 46.9 2,34,500 54.9 2,74,500
PCC levelling course Cum 3,900 2.8 10,920 12.3 47,970
Excavation Cum 135 68 9,180 218 29,430
Concrete for abutment structure, cap dirt Cum 5,750 77.0 4,42,750 141.5 8,13,625
wall or walls and top slab of box
Reinforcement MT 58,000 10.8 6,26,400 17.7 10,26,600
RE walls on sides and behind abutment Sqm 2750 180 4,95,000 0.0 0.0
(10.5m high)
Friction slabs for RE walls Rm 15000 4 60,000 0.0 0.0
Cost of permanent works 31,54,750 21,92,125
Difference in cost of
Pile foundation and Box abutment for 9,62,625
Abutment on One Side

Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019 21

 PAPER NO. 690

Test piles (2 nos.) for initial load tests Rm 14,500 44 6,38,000 0.0 0.0
Pile Initial Load Tests No. 5,50,000 2 11,00,000 0.0 0.0
Pile Routine load tests No. 2,00,000 2 4,00,000 0.0 0.0
Additional cost per flyover location 21,38,000 0.0

The cost of permanent works for abutment with box ii.  he construction was very simple as all of it was
T
type is lesser than abutment with pile foundation by almost from ground level and above.
Rs. 9,62,625/-. For the project with 56 nos. of the abutment iii. Shallow depths of excavations reduced traffic hazard
the advantage would be Rs. 5.39 Cr. to traffic on slip roads substantially.
The piles tests were not necessary at 9 locations where iv. The speed of construction was very high as compared
flyovers were with single span, not requiring any to tedious pile foundation alternative.
intermediate pier foundations with piles. The advantage v. The most desirable aspect was that this accrued the
on this account would be Rs. 21,38,000/- per location and contemplated cost advantage. The cost of abutment
a total of 1.925 Cr. was found to be about 70% of the alternative with
pile foundations. All expected advantages were
b) Time Advantage: realized for the project.
For construction of abutments for flyover at Ch. 7+380, vi. The enclosed space generated within box abutment
the abutment with pile foundation required a total 75 days can be put to use for purposes like storage or alike. It
(including tests on piles) and for box abutment 45 days. can serve as walkways, independent of traffic below
Saving of construction time of 30 days at each of the 9 flyover.
flyover location helped the project schedule in a long 7. BIBILOGRAPHY
way. i. IRC: 6-2010 “Standard Specifications and
c) Ease of Construction: Code of Practice for Road bridges- Section II- Loads
and Stress”
The construction of pile foundations necessitates dumping ii. IRC:78-2000 “Standard Specifications and Code of
of removed wet muck near location and then removing Practice for Road bridges-Section VII – Foundations
to safe dumping site. This was totally eliminated leading and Substructure”
to cleaner construction. Further almost all the activities iii. IRC:21-2000 “Standard Specifications and Code
for box abutment are in open and thereby eliminate any of Practice for Road bridges-Section III – Cement
uncertainties during construction. Concrete (Plain and Reinforced)”
6. CONCLUSIONS iv. IS: 1888-1982 “Methods of Load Test on soil”
i.  he box type abutment was found to be very effective
T v. IS: 6403 - 1981 “Code of Practice for Determination
viable alternative for the abutments founded over of Breaking Capacity of Shallow Foundations”
weak foundation stratum. vi. “Foundation Analysis and Design” by J. E. Bowel

CALL FOR TECHNICAL PAPERS

The Indian Roads Congress (IRC) invites Technical Papers for publication in its periodicals i.e. Indian Highways
(monthly), IRC Journal (quarterly) and HR Journal (half yearly). The contents of papers should cover the additional
knowledge, information and ideas so that highway fraternity gets benefitted from them. The papers should be properly
structured and should avoid dwellings at length on facts broadly known to highway engineers. The papers may deal
with important case studies, new design concepts/principles, new construction techniques, modern quality control,
modern maintenance techniques applied in highway projects, besides traffic engineering, transport planning, etc.
Authors and Co-authors should be members of IRC and their Roll Numbers should be mentioned in the forwarding
letter. Even non-members, who are Experts in any relevant field or who have specialized knowledge on any subject
related to highway engineering are also welcome to contribute Technical Papers.
For more details and rules for contribution of Technical Papers please visit IRC Website: www.irc.nic.in. For further
Contact E-mail: [email protected] Tel. 011 2618 5273.

22 Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, January-March 2019