IRC:65 -2017 IRC:65-2017

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING

AND
DESIGN OF ROUNDABOUTS
(Firsf Revigion)

[EEE9aR
rncss+otz
T
o

tlriluttlilfrllfriliilffi mrnttl
rD ,oN CONGRESS
 06{2-.F.c
IRC:65-2017

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING

AND
DESIGN OF ROUNDABOUTS
(First Revision)

s"

Published by:

INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

Kama Koti Marg,
Sector-6, R.K. Puram,
New De'lhi-1 10 022

NOVEMBER, 2017

Price : T 400/-
(Plus Packing & Postage)
IRG:65-2017

First Published April, 1976

Reprinted December, 1990
Reprinted September, 1998
Reprinted September,2OO2
Reprinted August, 2005
First Revision November,2017

(Att rued. No part of thispubtication shalt be reproduged,

Righfs Rese
translated or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
permission of the tndian Roads Congress)

Printed by India Offset Press, Delhi - 110 064

500 Copies
 IRC:65-2017

CONTENTS

S.No. Description Page No.

Personnel of the Highways Specifications and Standards Committee i-ii

1. General 2

2. Defi nitions and Terminologies 3

2.1 Geometric Parameters 3

2.2 Flow Parameters 4

2.3 Driver Behavior Parameters 4
2.4 Performance Parameters 6

3. Roundabouts 6

3.1 Single Lane Roundabouts 6

3.2 Multilane Roundabouts 7

4. Rotary Intersection 8

5. Planning Consideration I
5.1 Intersection Hierarchy I
5.2 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) for Roundabout 11

5.3 Site Selection for Roundabouts 11

6. Geometric Design 12

6.1 Central lsland and Circulatory Carriageway 12

6.2 Positioning of Central lsland 14

6.3 Entry and Exit Design 14

6.4 Splitter/Channelizing lslands 16

6.5 Entry Flaring 17

6.6 Entry Angle 18

6.7 Weaving Width in Rotary 19

6.8 Design Speed 20

6.9 Design Vehicle 21

6.10 Path Alignment 22

6.11 Sight Distance 22
6.12 Grade of lntersecting Road 26
6.13 Camber and Super-elevdtion 26
 IRC:65-2017

CONTENTS

S.No. Description Page No.

Personnel of the Highways Specifications and Standards Committee i-ii

1. General 2
2. Defi nitions and Terminologies 3
2.1 Geometric Parameters 3

2.2 Flow Parameters 4

2.3 Driver Behavior Parameters 4
2.4 Performance Parameters 6

3. Roundabouts 6
3.1 Single Lane Roundabouts 6
3.2 Multilane Roundabouts 7

4. Rotary lntersection 8
5. Planning Consideration 9
5.1 Intersection Hierarchy I
5.2 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) for Roundabout 11

5.3 Site Selection for Roundabouts 11

6. Geometric Design 12

6.1 Central lsland and Circulatory Carriageway 12

6.2 Positioning of Central lsland 14

6.3 Entry and Exit Design 14

6.4 Splitte/Channelizing lslands 16

6.5 Entry Flaring 17

6.6 Entry Angle 18

6.7 Weaving Width in Rotary 19

6.8 Design Speed 20

6.9 Design Vehicle 21

6.10 Path Alignment 22

6.11 Sight Distance 22
6.12 Grade of Intersecting Road 26
6.1 3 Camber and Super-elevation 26
 IRC:65-2017

614 Drainage 27

6.15 Kerbs 28

6.16 Road Signs and Pavement Markings 28

7. Non-motorized Transportation at Roundabout 29

7.1 Pedestrians 29

7.? Cyclists 30

8 Rotl rdabout Performance I ndicators 32

8.1 Critical GaP 32

8.2 Follow-up Time 33

8.3 Lag 33

8.4 Forced GaP 34

8.5 Static Entrance 34

8.6 Floating Entrance 34

I Capacity Estimation 34

10 Delay 36

11 Level of Service (LOS) 37

12 lllumination 38

13 Landscaping 38

14 Safety 39

14.1 General Considerations 39

14.2 Speed Control 40

References 42

{
 IRC:65-2017

PERSONNEL OF THE HIGHWAYS SPECIFICATIONS

AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(As on 23.06.20171

,,' Kumar, Manoj Director General (Road Development) & Special Secretary to Govt. of
(Convenor) India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi

? Singh, B.N. Addl. Director General (lncharge), Ministry of Road Transport and
(Co-Convenor) Highways, New Delhi

va Verma, Dr. S.K. chief Engineer (R) s,R & T, Ministry of Road rransport & Highways,
(Member Secretary) New Delhi
Members
4 Bamezai, Prof. (Dr.) Gita R&D, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi
5 Basar, Toli Chief Engineer, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh
6 Bhanot, Balraj Chairman, TED, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
7 Bonginrvar, P.L. Secretary (Retd.), PWD Maharashtra

8 Gupta, D.P.
DG(RD) & AS (Retd.), Ministry of Road rransport and Highways,
New Delhi
I Jain, Prof. (Dr.) S.S. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
10 Jain, R.K. Chief Englneer (Retd.), PWD Haryana
Chief Executive, L.R. Kadiyali & Associates, New Delhi
11 Kadiyali, Dr. L.R.
(Expired on 1 8.02.201 6)
12 Lal, Bhure Chairman, Environment Pollution Control Authority, Delhi
Eng neer-i n-c h ief, G u ru g ram Metropol ita n Development Authority,
.13 Lal, Chaman
i

Haryana
14 Narain, Sunita DG, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi
15 Nashikkar, J.T. JMD, Maharashtra state Road Development corporation Ltd., Mumbal
16 Pandey, R.K. Member (Projects), National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi
17 Parida, Prof. (Dr.) M. Dean, SRIC, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
18 Pateriya, Dr. l.K. Director (Tech), National Rural Roads Development Agency, New Delhi
19 Pawar, Ajit Secretary (Retd.), PWD Maharashtra
20 Porwal, Dr. S.S. (VSM) ADG (Retd.), Border.Roads Organisation, New Delhi
21 Raju, Dr. G.V.S. Engineer-in-Chief (Retd.), Roads & Building, Andhra pradesh
22 Rawat, M.S. Executive Director, AECOM India P!rt. Ltd.
23 Sarangi, D. CGM, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi
24 Sharma, M.P. chief Engineer, Ministry of Road rransport ano Hignways, New Delhi

25 Sharma, S.C.
DG(RD) & ss (Retd.), Ministry of Road rransport and Highways,
New Delhi
IRC:65-2017

26 Sheokand, Balbir Singh Executive Engineer, PWD Haryana

27 Singh, Nirmaljit
DG(RD) & SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi
28 Singh, Pawan Kumar GM, 3M India Ltd.

29 Sinha, A.V.
DG(RD) & SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi

30 Tawade, D.O. Member (T), National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi
The Director,
31 Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi
(Chandra, Dr. Satish)
The Director General,
32 Border Roads Organisation, New Delhi
(Shrivastava, Lt. Gen. S.K.)
The Director General,
33 Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures, New Delhi
(Mathur, Vishnu)

The Engineer-in-Chief,
34 Military Engineer Services, New Delhi
(Sharma, Lt. Gen. Suresh)
35 Tickoo, Bimal Secretary (T), PWD Jammu

36 Tiwari, Prof. (Dr.) Geetam Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi
Superintending Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
37 Varshney, Sharad
New Delhi
38 Verma, G.L. MD, Engg and Planning Consultants Ltd., New Delhi

Corresponding Members
1 Baluja, Dr. Rohit President, Institute of Road Traffic Education, New Delhi
2 Bhowmik, Sunil Engineer-in-Chief (Retd. ), Tripura
DG(RD) & SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
3 Kandasamy, C
New Delhi
The Director,
(Patil, Capt. (Dr.) Rajendra B. Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune
Saner)

Ex-Officio Members

President, (Pradhan, N.K.), Engineer-in-Chief cum Secretary, Works Department,

Indian Roads Congress Odisha r

Director General (Road

Development) & Special (Kumar, Manoj), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
Secretary to Govt. of India
Secretary General,
Nirmal, Sanjay Kumar
Indian Roads Congress
 IRC:65-2017

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING

AND DES]GN OF ROUNDABOUTS

The IRC:65 "Recommended Practice for Traffic Rotaries" was first published by Indian Roads
Congress in 1976. For the last three decades, India is witnessing massive road development
program to improve the mobility and connectivity. New vehicle models have been entered
into road system and vulnerable road users are exposed to high speed traffic movement.
All these result in road crashes and it is reported that more than 50% of road accidents are
junction related accidents. Therefore, a need was felt to revise the IRC:65 for rotary which is
a safer junction control where two road of comparable traffic volume is intersecting as well as
junction having considerable right turning traffic. Accordingly, the work of revision of IRC:65
was taken up by the Road Safety and Design Committee (H-7) during the tenure 2015-
2017 under the Convenorship of Shri Nirmaljit Singh. A subgroup comprising Dr. Sewa Ram
(Subgroup Chairman), Dr. Geetam Tiwari, Dr. Manoranjan Parida, Shri Jacob George, Dr.
P KAganral have developed the draft. The draft prepared by the subgroup was discussed
in various meeting of H-7 committee and the document was subsequently approved by H-7
Commiftee in its meeting held on 18.03.2017 for placing before the HSS Committee.
The Composition of H-7 committee is given below

Singh, Nirmaljit Convenor

Manrvah, S.K. Co-Convenor
George, Jacob Member-Secretary

Members
Aganrval, Prof. (Dr.) P.K. Ram, Prof. (Dr.) Sewa
Agrawal, C.P. Ramana, Venkata'
Balakrishnan, Bina C. Reddy, S. Srinivas
Elango, Tango Roychowdhury, Anumita
Gupta, Kamini Shemar, O.P.
Jain, N.S. Singh, Parampreet
Joint Commissioner of Police Singh, Pawan Kumar
(Traffic), Delhi Sridhara, B.T.
Kirori, R.R.D. Tiwari, Prof. (Dr.) Geetam
Mitra, Prof. (Dr.) Sudeshna Velmurugan, Dr. S.
\
Parida, Prof. (Dr.) M. Verma, Mohit
Pateriya, Dr. l.K.
Corresponding Members
Arkatkar, Dr. Srinivas Sidhu, H.S.
Bhanot, Balraj Singh, Prof. (Dr.) Indrasen
Sakthivelu
IRC:65-2017

Ex-Officio Members
President, (Pradhan, N. K.), Engineer-in-Chief
Indian Roads Congress cum Secretary, Works Department,
Odisha
Director General (Kumar, Manoj), Ministry of Road
(Road Development) & Special Transport & Highways
Secretary to Govt. of India
Secretary General, Nirmal, Sanjay Kumar
Indian Roads Congress
The Highways specifications and standards committee approved the draft in its meeting
held on 23d June, 2017.The Member secretary of HSS forwarded extensive comments and
the subgroup incorporated all of them. The Executive committee in its meeting held on 13h
July, 2017 considered and approved the same document for placing it before the Council.
The Council of IRC in its212th meeting held at Udaipur on 14th and 15th July,2017 approved
the draft and the final version of the document submifted to IRC for publishing.

l GENERAL
A roundabout is a specialized form of at-grade intersection where vehicles from the converging
arms are forced to move round a central island in one direction in orderly and regimented
manner and move/weave out of the roundabout into their desired direction. In conventional
roundabout, traffic at entry seek suitable gap in the circulating btream to negotiate the
central island. Instead of entering trafiic seeking suitable gap with circulating stream, rotary
intersection of larger central islands permits weaving maneuvering. The self-regulating form
of roundabout is safe because of reduced crossing conflict points dnd aesthetically pleasing
in appearance. When a cross road is converted into a roundabout, the number of conflicts can
be reduced from 32 to 8 as illustrated in Fig. 1.1, wherein potential right-angle collision will be
converted into angular-collision. For these reasons, roundabouts are more safe compared to
uncontrolled cross road junction.

ao
{a
\
ta

a Diverging I a 4.
C 4
O Merging 8 i1 0
.-i crossing 16 d
'32
Fig. 1.1 Gonflict points in cross Road Junction Vs. Roundabout

2
 IRC:65_2017

2 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGIES

The basic definitions and terminorogies associated with
determination
the roundabouts/rotary and
of its capacity and rever o1service are discussed
in this section.
2.1 Geometric parameters
The geometric elements of a typical roundabouUrotary
are given in Fig. 2.1.
' centrar lsrand: rt is the raised portions around which
the vehicres maneuver
to negotiate
loyards their respective destination.
centrar isrand is to convert the direct conflict points
Th; ;J; f;tion
of the
points and reduce severity of conflict points. into anluia. connict
rt is atso meantior providing
appropriate turning radius to the vehicle.
' circuratory carriageway: The crockwise curved path
fotowed by vehicres
to move around the central isl rnd.
' circuratory Garriageway width: The width between
the outer ecrge of the
kerb face of inscribed diameter and the central
island kerb face.
' circurating path Radius: The minimum radius on the fastest through path
around the central island.

" Give Way Line

'--- lnscribed circle

diameter
- Non Weaving width
(Crrculatory width)
" .- - Splift+r fgland or
DeflectinE lsland

Fig.2-1 Geometric Erements of Roundabout

Entry Radius: lt is radius of curvature provided
to entry arm so that vehicle
entering from approach road decelerates and
enters the roundabout at
designated speed.
Entry width: lt is the width of the carriageway
at the entry of the roundabout.
Exit Angle: lt is the angle by which traffic is
deflected from the weaving
section towards exit of the roundabout.
IRC:65-2017

Exit Radius: lt is the radius of curvature provided to exit side of the roundabout
so that vehicle from roundabout is accelerated to leave the roundabout.
Exit Width: lt is the width of the carriageway at the exit of the roundabout.
Inscribed Gircle Diameter: The inscribed circle diameter is the basic
parameter used to define the size of a roundabout. lt is measured between
the outer edges of the circulatory path.
Non-Weaving Width : lt is the width of the carriageway used by the circulating
traffic. lt can also be defined as the width of the road from the edge of the
central island to the deflecting island as shown in Fig . 2.1 .

Splitter or Deflecting lsland: lt is kerbed island and associated road

markings on the carriageway, located between an entry and exit on the
same roundabout arm. lt is shaped so as to deviate and separate opposing
vehicles onto and from the circulatory carriageway of roundabout.
Weaving Length: lt is the length of the weaving section in rotary.
Weaving Section: lt is the road section used by the traffic wherein either
the merging or diverging of traffic takes place within the rotary. lt can also
be defined as the section where the traffic from both the approach arm and
non-weaving enters.
Weaving Width: lt is the width of the carriageway of the weaving section in
rotary.
Giveway Line: A line of demarcation separating the traffic approaching the
roundabout from the traffic in the circulatory carrigeway. The Giveway line
is usually defined by dotted edge line pavement marking. Entering vehicles
must give way to circulating traffic.

2.2 Flow Parameters

Girculating Stream: The two circulating stream in the roundabout are defined
as the near and far major streams, with respect to the entering vehicles or
the give way line. For the case of two entry lanes, the inner and outer minor
lane are so defined that the outer lane is the one closest to the kerb face.
Entry Flow: The traffic inflow from an entry to a roundabout.
Non-Motorized Traffic (NMT) Grossing: The dedicated roadway section
across the vehicular motion for pedestrian and bicycle (preferably separately)
near the splitter island.

2.3 Driver Behavior Parameters

. Classification of Gap Acceptance: Gap acceptance parameters are
affected by geometry of the entry. These parameters are function of the
circulating flow and measured in seconds.
. Critical Gap: Critical gap is defined as the minimum headway in the circulating
flow while an entering vehicle can safely enter a roundabout, assuming all
entering drivers are consistent and homogeneous (refer Fig. 2.2).
 IRC:65-2017

[Source: CRRI (2017) "lndian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)"]

Fig.2.2 Entry & Circulating Headway and Gap

Floating Entrance: lf the driver finds a gap and does not have to stop at
the entry arm, the vehicle is defined as floating vehicle. lt is the first vehicle
entering a gap while the succeeding vehicles are known as follow-ups
vehicle.
Follow-up Time: Follow-up time is the time span between two queued
vehicles entering the circulating stream in the same gap. lf more than one
vehicle from minor stream uses a gap then the succeeding vehicles are
referred to as follow-ups. lt can only be measured when there is a queue
situation.
Gap Acceptance: All gaps greater than or equal to the critical gap would be
accepted.
Gap Rejection: All gaps less than the critical gap would be rejected.
Gap: A gap is the time span between two consecutive circulating vehicles
that create conflict with an entering vehicle. The described time span is
measured only when the entering driver is at the give way line when the gap
begins. (Fig. 2.2)
Headway: lt is the time betwden two following vehicles and is measured
from the first vehicle's front bumper to the following vehicle's front bumper.
Lag: A lag is the time between the arrival of entering vehicle at roundabout
entry and the arrival of successive conflicting vehicle in the circulating flow.
Static Entrance: lf a vehicle has to stop at the give way line and wait for
a sufficient gap before entering the roundabout, it is referred to as static
entrance.
IRC:65-2017

2.4 Performance Parameters

. Delay: Delay is a parameter used to measure the performance of a
experienced at roundabouts,
roundabout. There are two types of the delays
namely queuing and geometric delay'
. is the maximum traffic inflow
Entry capacity: Entry capacity at roundabouts
flow at that entry is sufficient
from an entry to a roundabout when the traffic
to cause queuing in its approach road'
by slowing down
. Geometric Deray: Geometric deray is the deray caused
after accepting the gap to
the vehicres to stop at the end of queue (if any)
and then accelerating back to
negotiate, proceeding through the roundabout
to waitfor an acceptable gap'
normal operating speed. lt excludes the time
qualitative traffic flow
. Level of service (Los): Level of service offers the
condition at roundabout, i.e. free flow, stable
flow, unstable flow or force
frow. At roundabouts, rever of service (LOS)
is expressed in terms of average
delaY Per vehicle.
. due to waiting of vehicles
eueuing Deray: eueuing deray is the deray caused
to accept a gap in the circulating path'

3 ROUNDABOUTS

Roundaboutmaybec|escribedasanen|argedjunction,wherea||enteringvehic|essha||
before they move
in one direction
gi;; ;;tand find suitable gaps to move around an island
radiating from the island' Con.trary to the
out of the traffic flow into tneii respective directions
works uiron the weaving behavior of
functioning of roundabout, tnl toiuw t'p" of intersection
shall be large enough to ensure the weaving
entry and circulating traffic. ine tnscri6"d circle
inrotary.Basedondiameterof|nscribedCircleDiameter(lCD)roundaboutsarefurther
categorized to single lane and double lane roundabouts'

3.1 Single Lane Roundabouts

Thistypeofroundaboutischaracterizedashavingasing|e-|aneentryatalllegsandone
typical single lane roundabout having
circulatory lane. Fig' 3'1 shows the features of a
design typically includes raised
a diameter ranging from 2g m to 40 m. The geometric
sp|itteris|ands,"non-'o,ntaotecerrtrat-islandandpedestriancrossing.Thesizeofthe
roundabout is largely i"trr"n""J by the choice of
a design vehicle and. available Right
ofWay(RoW).|nordertoincreasethecircu|atingradiusofsma||ervehic|es,as|ight|y
raisedcircu|arconcretepavedpathalongthecircumferenceofthecentralis|andca|led
Truck Apron can be provideO, ii requireO, which
would help long vehicles to mount upon
them to turn safelY.

6
 IRC:65-2017

.- Raised Splitter lsland

Truck Apron
(if required)
" Non-Mountable Central lsland

Fig. 3.1 Typical Single Lane Roundabout

3.2 Multilane Roundabouts

Multilane roundabouts are with two or more entry lanes. In some cases, the roundabout
may have different number of lanes on one or more approaches (e.g., two lane entry on
the major approach and one lane entry on the minor road). They also include roundabouts
with entries on one or more approaches that flare from one to two or more lanes. These
require wider circulatory roadways to accommodate more than one vehicle travelling side
by side. Fig. 3.2 shows the features of a typical multi-lane roundabout having a diameter
ranging from 40 m to 70 m. The speeds at the entry on the circulatory roadway and at the
exit are similar or may be slightly higher than those for the single lane roundabouts. The
geometric design will include raised splitter islands, a non-traversable bentral-island. and
appropriate entry path deflection.

Number of circulatory roadway lanes

based up on approach lane configuration

Raised Splitter lsland Non-Mountable Central lsland

Two entry lanes on one

or more approaches

Fig. 3.2 Typical Multilane Roundabout

IRC:65-2017

4 ROTARY IITTERSEGIXN

Roundabout and rotary are two different types of road intersedim. Rorrdabout pdmadly
functions based upon give way behavior by entering bafic gMr1g ptixity b cirollating
traffic. A vehicle on approaching the circulatory caniageway, seize the gap in the circulatory
movement in order to enter the circular carriageway and always functions based on gap
acceptance. Hence compliance to "Priority Rule" is vital for efiective function of roundabout.
On the other hand, a rotary intersection of large central island works on weaving, wherein
a vehicle while entering need not necessarily wait on give way line, rather can merge to
circulatory movement and then weave so as to change the lane. Weaving section of rotary
has one more lane than non-weaving section. Table 4,1 presents key difierences between
roundabout and rotary. The need of gap acceptance in roundabout configuration can be
appreciated from Fig. 4,1 whereas opportunities for weaving in rotary layout are depicted in
Fig.4.2.

ICD - Inscribed Circle Diameter

CID - Central lnscribed Diameter
CCW - Circulatory Carriageway Width

Fig. 4.1 Need of Gap Acceptance in Roundabout Gonfiguration

Fig.4.2 Weaving Opportunities in a Rotary

I
 IRC:65-2017

Table 4.1 Key Differences Between Roundabout and Rotary Intersections

Roundabout Rotary
1. Smaller in Size 1. Rotary is bigger in size
2. Works on gap acceptance and "priority 2. Works on weaving behavior between
from rule" is vital for effective function entering traffic from approach road
and circulating stream
3. Maintain relatively low speeds (.40 kmph) 3. Higher speeds allowed (t+O kmph)
4. No pedestrian activity on central island 4. Some large traffic circles allow
pedestrian crossing to and from the
central island.
5. Large entry angle helps to create entry 5 Relatively small entry angle
deflection to control speed through the
roundabout
6. Inscribed Circle Diameter (lCD) 6. Inscribed Circle Diameter (lCD) more
. Single lane (28-a0 m) than 70 m
. Double lane (40-70 m)

5 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

5.1 Intersection HierarchY

Generally the life cycle of a junction from at-grade intersection to grade sdparated intersection
to interchange composed of roundabout and signalized intersections is depicted in Fig. 5.1.
Moving from unsignalized intersections towards roundabout, channelization of trafiic takes
place ind cross conflict points are converted into angular conflict points as all the vehicles
move in clockwise direction. When the entering vehicle at the roundabout are finding difficulty
to get suitable gap and delay starts occurring, signalization of roundabout can be a solution.
Signalized roundabout is preferred at location where delay occurs during few hours of the
day and in remaining maximum time, especially off-peak hour, it can work as conventional
roundabout based on priority from right rule. Fig. 5.1 presents a general hierarchy of
intersections and interchanges based upon the capacity handled.

Fig, 5.'l General Hierarchy of Intersections Based Upon Traffic Gapacity

It can be observed that signalized intersections and roundabouts have an overlapping region
where either of the forms of intersection can be used interchangeably based upon specific
IRC:65-2017

site requirements. The planning guide for selection of roundabout as an intersection on

various road types is given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Roundabouts as an Intersections Type in Various Types of Roads

Intersecting Road Arterial/Rural Sub-Arterial/ Gollector Local Road

with Traffic Volume Highway Rural Road Road (1800
(3600 PGU/hr) (2e00 PGU/hr) PGU/hr)
Carriageway D E E E
(1200 PCU/hr)
Arterial/Rural Highway B B C C
(3600 PCU/hr)
Sub-Arterial/Rural Road B B C
(2900 PCU/hr)
Collector Road A B
(1800 PCU/hr)
Local Road A
Notation:
A. Likely to be an appropriate choice
B. May be an appropriate choice
C. Not likely to be an appropriate choice
D. Not appropriate on at-grade
E. Not tikely to have a roundabout between carriageway and this road type

Fig. 5.2 exhibits the comparative capacity handled by different types of roundabouts

Sigtrralized Roundabout 1
and Rotary

I
I

'
i
40000 ; .Doubl aad
({
Rural) \
q ' SinglelaneRurall - 1,-
:

a
o) Roundabout , l' \
E
g*o Single lane
Roundabout
Urban-. :

F
o

0 10 20 30 ,fo 50 60 70 S0 90 10o

. Diameter (m) *
Fig. 5.2 Capacity of different types of Roundabouts

10
 IRC:65-2017

5.2 Passenger Car Unit (PGU) for Roundabout

The PCU of any vehicle is a function of vehicular dimensions and speed of the vehicle only, in
case of roundabouts, PCU is also dependent upon turning behavior and conflicts. The PCU
value of difierent modes is dynamic in nature and also depends upon size of roundabout,
share of heavy vehicles and overall traffic flow at intersection.
Based on the static and dynamic characteristics, the vehicles in an urban intersection can be
classified as two wheelers, three wheelers, big cars, small cars, Light Commercial Vehicles
(LCVs), trucks, buses, bicycles etc. The Passenger Car Units for different types of vehicles,
based on five important parameters namely traffic flow, headway, conflict angle of vehicles
negotiating the roundabout, vehicular speed and composition of traffic have been given in
Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Passenger Car Units for Roundabout

Diameter,
o L
o o (E
=
D (m) e
+,
E o .9 o L *.
€OL o L
E e .Y fl ct L
9f -c (g e o o L
o (u
.No fr= o L
TE 9o - t o
(E

-9
o
o o o o
o EE E$
o= G E FE (E o
E
c E
(E
g
o s5 =tr E
@
.9
o 3sI o
- o r(E
o= o
I
20<D<30 0.18 1.88 3.65 1.12
30<D<40 0.21 1.65 3.45 1.31
0.32 0.83 1.00 1.40 2 4 3
40<D<50 0.25 1.53 3.20 1.56
50<D<70 0.28 1.46 3.05 1.74
[source: cRRl (2017) "lndian Highway capacity Manual (lNDo-HcM)']

5.3 Site Selection for Roundabouts

Roundabout may be an appropriate choice of traffic management in an at-grade intersection
in following situations:
i) At intersections where traffic volumes on the intersecting roads are such
that:
a) In case of "Stop" or "Give Way" signs or the "T" junction rule result
in inordinate delays for the minor road traffic, roundabouts would
decrease delays to minor road traffic, but increase delays to the major
road traffic.
b) Traffic signals may result in greater delays than'a roundabout. lt shall
be noted that in many situations roundabouts provide a similar capacity
to that of signals, but may operate with lower delays and better safety,
particularly in off-peak periods.

11
IRC:65-2017

ii) At intersections where there are high proportions of right-turning traffic:

Unlike most other intersection types, roundabouts can operate efficiently
with high volumes of right-turning vehicles.
iii) At rural cross intersections (including those in areas with high desired
speeds) which are prone to accidents involving crossing or right turn (versus
opposing) traffic. However, if the traffic flow on the lower volume road is less
than about 211vehicles per day, staggered "T" type intersection is preferred.
iv) At intersections of arterial roads in outer urban areas where traffic speeds
are high and right turning traffic flows are high. A roundabout could have an
advantage over traffic signals in reducing right angle collision type accidents
and also in reducing overall delays.
v) At "T", "y" or cross intersections where the major traffic route turns through a
right angle. In these situations, the major movements within the intersection
are turning movements
vi) At locations where traffic growth is expected to be high and where future
traffic patterns are uncertain.
vii) At intersections of local roads where it is desirable not to give priority to other
road.
viii) At intersections with more than four legs, if one or more legs cannot be
closed or relocated or some turns prohibited, roundabouts may provide a
convenient and effective solution whereas:
a) With "Stop" or "Give Way" signs, it is often not practical to define
Priorities adequatelY;
b)Signa|smaybe|essefficientduetothe|argenumberofphasesrequired
resulting in a high percentage of queuing delay'
However, care should be taken in assessing the future traffic volumes and their patterns. lt is
possible that a site considered appropriate for a roundabout now, may become inappropriate
in the future, requiring extensive modifications. Designers should consider the potential to
build in flexibility in thl design to accommodate possible future changes, particularly when
junction having
land use alter tiaffic patterni considerably. Roundabout is not desirable at
considerable pedestrian crossing as pedestrian will not get priority to cross a roundabout
junction, as traffic ply continuously. Roundabout requires more land than other intersection
type of similar capacity, but would have very good safety performance'

6 GEOMETRIC DESIGN

6.1 Central lsland and Girculatory Garriageway

The diameter of the roundabout is the diameter of the central island of roundabouUintersection
for capacity and LoS estimation.

12
 IRC:65-2017

6.1.1 Circulating Road widthAAlidth of non-weaving section

It is the width of the carriageway used by the circulating traffic. lt can also be defined as
the width of the road from the edge of the central island to the edge of deflecting island.
The width of the circulating carriageway depends on several factors, the most important of
which are the number of circulating lanes and the radius of vehicle swept paths within the
roundabout. Circulating road width is typically between 1.0 and 1 .2 times the maximum entry
width. Catering all these, Inscribed Circle Diameter and Circulatory Carriageway Width for
different category of roundabout assuming 90" angle between approach arms and no more
than four arms at intersection is given in Table 6'1.

Table 6.1 Inscribed Circle Diameter & Girculatory Garriageway Width

lnscribed circle Width of Girculatory

Gategory of RoundabouURotaries diameter range in m Garriageway (CCW),
(rcD) inm
Urban single lane Roundabout 28-40
12mto8m
Rural single lane Roundabout 35-40
Urban/Rural double lane Roundabout 40 -70 1-1 .2 times entry width
Multilane Rotary >70

6,1.2 In order to ensure the maneuverability of design vehicle for single lane roundabout
of Inscribed Circle Diameter (lCD) upto 40 m, a combination as given in Table 6.2 shall be
followed between Inscribed Circle Diameter and Central lsland Diameter. lt is desirable to
provide a Truck Apron for single lane roundabout having smaller Central lsland Diameters,
which would ensure adequate deflection for light vehicles.

Table 6.2 Inscribed Circle Diameter and Central lsland Diameter for Single Lane Roundabout

Inscribed Circle Gentral lsland Width of Girculatory

Diameter (m) Diameter (m) Garriageway(m)

28 4** 12

30 8 11

32 12 10

36 18 I
40 24 8

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 1 6107,2007]

** Desirable to provide a Truck Apron to ensure the deflection of light vehicles

13
IRC:65-2017

6.2 Positioning of Gentral lsland

6.2.1 ldeally the Central lsland should be located in such a way that center lines of
approach road passes through the center of Inscribed Circle. The size and position of Central
lsland shall be such that all approach vehicles will have to be deflected even that approaching
from extreme left lane on the approach road.

6.2.2 lt is desirable to equally space the angle between entry arms of roundabout.

6.3 Entry and Exit Design

The roundabout entry design depends upon various variables like entry width, entry flaring
and entry angle.

6.3.1 Entry Width

The entry width is the width of the carriageway at the point of entry. lt is measured from the
point "A" at the right hand end of the give way line along the normal to the nearside kerb as
given in Fig. 6.1.

6.9.2 One lane width at the give way line (measured along the normal to the nearside
kerb, as for entry width) must be not less than 3 m or more than 4.5 m, with the 4.5 m value
appropriate at single lane entries and values of 3 to 3.5 m appropriate at multilane entries.

6.3.3 Exit Width

The exit width is the width of the carriageway on the exit and is measured in a similar manner
to the entry width. lt is the distance between the nearside kerb'and the exit median (or the
edge of any splitter island or central reserve) where it intersects with the outer edge of the
circulatory carriageway.

6.3.4 The downstream link in a undivided two way road with a long splitter island of
a normal roundabout should be between 7 m and 7.5 m. The exit should taper down to a
minimum of 6 m allowing traffic to pass a broken down vehicle. lf the link is an all-purpose
two-lane dual carriageway, the exit width should be between 10 m and 11 m and the exit
should taoer down to two lanes wide. The width should be reduced in such a way as to avoid
exiting vehicles encroaching onto the opposing lane at the end of the splitter island. Normally
the width would reduce at a taper of 1:1.5 to 1 :20. Where the exit is on an up gradient, the exit
width may be maintained for a short distance before tapering in.

6.3.5 The carriageway width at entrance and exit of a roundabout is governed by the
amount of traffic entering and leaving the roundabout. While deciding upon the width, the
possible growth of traffic in the design period should be considered. lt is recommended that
the minimum width of carriageway be at least 5 m with necessary extra widening to account
for the curvature of the road. Table 0.3 gives the value of the width of carriageway at entry
inclusive of widening needed on account of curvature.

14
 IRC:65-2017

6.3.6 Radius of Entry Curve

It is measured as the minimum radius of curvature of the curve as shown in Fig. 6.1. The
provision of an appropriate radius on the entry curve encourages drivers to slow down before
reaching the roundabout. Radius of curve at the entry is critical for design speed, amount of
superelevation and the coefficient of friction. The values of coefficient of friction for roundabout
approaches shall be higher than for other locations. Based on overall considerations, Table
6.3 gives guidance for the selection of radii of curves at entry.

6.3.7 Radius of Exit Curve

It is measured as the minimum radius of curvature of the curve as shown in Fig. 6.1. Values
for the exit kerb radius should exceed the largest entry radius. In areas where there are no
pedeskians, the exit from a roundabout should be as easy to negotiate as practicable. After
having been slowed down by the entry and circulating curves, vehicles should be able to
accelerate on the exit. Therefore, the radius of the exit curve should generally be greater
than the circulating radius. In areas where there are pedestrians, the exit speed should be
minimized. The best solution to minimize the exit speed is to provide radii similar to those at
entrances as given in Table 6,3,

Table 6.3 Radius of Entry & Exit Gurve & Width

Intersecting Road Number of Roundabout Radius of Width of

Approach Design Speed Entry and Exit carriageway
Lane(s) (kmph) Gurve'(m) at entry and
exit (m)
2lane Undivided Road One 20-30 20-40 6.5
4 lane Divided Road Two 25-40 30-75 8.0
6 lane Divided Road Three 30-45 50-100 13.0

Continuation of inside entry curve **

tangential to central isfand
Entry width-'
-uExit
curve radius
Entry curve radius
-"'
Outside entry curve tanoentialto outside - -' LOutside curve tangential to outside
edge of circdlatory roadfiray edge of circulatory roadway

Fig. 6.1 Radius of Entry and Exit Curve

15
 IRC:65-2017

6.4 Splitter/Ghannelizing lslands

6'4'1 Splifter and channelizing island are provided on each arm of roundabout to
direct and separate opposing trafiic movements onto and from a roundabout. Splifter island
shall be of physical islands where there is sufficient space to accommodate kerbed island.
Fig. 6.2 demonstrates the use of splitter islands on roundabout, which would prevent wrong
right turning.

Fig. 6.2 use of sprifter lsrands to Discourage Hazardous wrong way Movements

6:4'2 Kerbed splitter islands should be provided on all appfoaches as theywoutd provide
shelter for pedestrians, assist in controlling entry speed, and guide traffic
ontoihe roundabout
and also deter right-turners from taking dangerous ,,wrong way,,short cut
movements through
the roundabout.

6.4.3 On urban arterial road roundabouts, the kerbed splitter island should be
of sufficient
size to shelter a pedestrian (at least 2.4 m wide) and be highly visible
to approaching traffic.
A minimum area of 8 m2 to 10 m'zshourd be provided on any arteriar road approach.
on
roundabout approaches from local roads, the general minimurnarea
of kerbed splitter island
is 5 m2 to 8 m2. In extremely constrained cases, it is preferable to provide
a keibeo splitter
island smaller than the general minimum rather than provide no island
at all.

6'4'4 In high speed areas the splitter island should also be relatively long to give
early
warning to drivers that they are approaching an intersection and must
slow doin. preferably
the splitter island and its approach pavement markings should extend
back to a point where
drivers would be expected to start to reduce their soelo.

6'4'5 The kerb line of splifter island or median in case of a divided carriageway
should
lie on arc which when projected foruvard meets the central island tangentially-
as shown in
Fig. 6.3

16
 IRC:65-2017

lsource: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK,TD 16107,2OO4

Fig. 6.3 Arc Projecting Forward from the Splitter lsland and Tangential to Central lsland

6.4.6 The details of geometric design of splitter island are given in Fig. 6.4 and Fig. 6.5

Fig. 6.4 Minimum Size of Splitter lsland Fig. 6.5 Minimum Splitter lsland Nose Radii
and Offset

6.5 Entry Flaring

Entry flaring is localized widening at the point of entry. Normal Roundabouts usually have
flared entries with the addition of one or two lanes at the give way line to increase capacity.

6.5.1 The average efiective flare length, l', is the average length over which the entry
widens. lt is the length of the curve CF', shown in Fig. 6.6

17
 IRC:65-2017

I'

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK,TD 16t07,2004

Fig. 6.6 Average Effective Flare Length

6'5.2 Procedure to determine the average effective flare length, l': As shown in Fig, 6.6,
construct curve GD parallel to the median HA (centre line or edge of central reserve or splitter
island) and distance v from it; then construct curve cF' parallel to curve BG (the nearside
kerb) and at a constant distance of lz BD from it, with F'the point where cF, intersects line
DG. The length of curve cF' is the average effective flare length 1,. The total length of the
entry widening (BG) will be about twice the average effective flare length.

6'5.3 A minimum flare length of about 25 m is desirable, but capacity will be the
determining factor. Effective flare lengths greater than 25 m may improve tire geometric
layout but have little efiect in increasing capacity. lf the efiective flaie length exceeds 100 m,
the design becomes one of link widening

6.6 EntryAngte
The entry angle, serves as a geometric proxy for the conflict angle between entering and
circulating traffic streams. There are two difierent methods for its measurement, depending
on the size of the roundabout.

6'6.1 Procedure to determine to determine entry angle: For large roundabout like that
given in Fig. 6.7 construct the curve EF as the locus of the mid- poini between the nearside
the median line (or the edge of any splitter island or ceniral reserve); then construct
lgb "19
BC as the tangent to EF at the give way line; construct the curye AD as the locus of the mid-
point of (the used section of) the circulatory carriageway (a proxy for the average
direction of
travel for traffic circulating past the arm); the entry angle, Angb AcB is the ent-ry angle
 IRC:65-2017

lsource: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16/07, 20071
Fig. 6.7 Entry Angle at a Larger Roundabout

6.6.2 For Single Lane Roundabouts, the entry angle is measured as shown in Fig. 6.8.
This construction is used when there is insufficient separation between entry and adjacent
exit to be able t0 define the path of the circulating vehicle clearly. In this case, circulating
traffic which leaves at the following exit will be influenced by the angle at which that arm joins
the roundabout. The angle between the projected entry and exit paths is measured and then
halved to find entry angle.

lsource: Design Manualfor Roads & Bridges, UK,TD 16107,2004

Fig. 6,8 Entry Angle at a Smaller Roundabout
t
6.6.3 The entry angle should lie between 20 and 60. Entry angles should be larger than
I exit angle.

6.7 Weavlng Wldth In Rotary

The width of the weaving section of the rotary should be one trafiic lane (3.5 m) wider than
the mean entry width thereto as shown in Fig. 6.9

19
IRC:65-2017

Fig. 6.9 Weaving Width in Rotary

6.8 Design SPeed

preceding and
6.8.1 Roundabouts operate at speeds lower than that of the network
vehicles are
su"ceeaing it as it requires give way behavior and gap acceptance. _Generally,
expecteO not to run more than 30 km/h around urban roundabouts. Rural
roundabouts may
to be
have higher operating speeds but still the speed of vehicles at roundabouts is expected
lesser than that of mid-block sections.

6.s.2Baseduponsightdistanceandspecificturningradius,thedesignspeedscanbe
reduced but excessively reduced speeds may result into increased delay at roundabouts
between
and in turn deteriorated level of service. Fig. 6.10 presents the typical relationship
operating speeds at roundabout and radius of Central lsland'

o I|o {o 60 s 100 12"

n.i!||3 (|n)
.l c..o02
-6:.0.02
e stands for suPer-elevation
at Roundabout
Fig. 6,10 Relationshlp between Radlus of Gentral lsland and operating speeds
20
 IRC:65-2017

6.9 Design Vehicle

6.9.1 The design vehicle and consequently the swept path requirements may be different
for various paths through the roundabout. Because travel through roundabouts involves
complex reverse-turn movements, particular care is needed in the use of simple turning
path templates to achieve a satisfactory layout. Fig. 6.11 and Table 6.4 shows turning width
required for a Single Lane Roundabout for ICD diameter upto 36 m.

6.9.2 A roundabout of Inscribed Circle Diameter from 28 m to 36 m can facilitate

minimum turning radii requirement including U-turn for Design Vehicle upto Large Semi trailer
Wheel Base (WB)-15 of 2.58 m overall width, 16.7 m overall length and 13.7 m minimum
turning radius.

a Main central lsland

b Central oveffun area, where provided
c Remaining circulatory cariageway
width = 1.Q-1.2 x maximum entry width
d Vehicle
e 1m minimum clearance
f lnscribed Circle Diameter

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16107,2004

Fig. 6.11 Turning widths required for Normal Roundabout

Table 6.4 Turning Radii required for a Normal Roundabout

Central lsland Rl (m) R2 (m) Minimum IGD (m)

Diameter (m)
4.0 3.0 13.0 28.0
6.0 4.0 13.4 28.8
8.0 5.0 13.9 29.8
10.0 6.0 14.4 30.8
12.0 7.0 . 15.0 32.0
14.0 8.0 15.6 33.2
16.0 9.0 16.3 34.6
18.0 10.0 17.0 36.0
lSource: Desiqn Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK, TD 16107,20071

6,9.3 A roundabout of Inscribed Circle Diameter above 36 m can cater all movement
including U-turn of even Design Vehicle of Large Semi tailor (WB-18) of 2.58 m overall width,
19.7 m overall length and 18.2 m minimum turning radius.
IRC:65-2017

6.10 Path Alignment

6.10.1 Drivers select their paths to obtain the largest

p their path

to maximize their speed, ;;i;i"Jin Fig' 6'12' lt has s tvpically

";
travel to maintain tne torrJng ii"t"n.". bJtween
the edge particular

geometric features:

' 0.5 m from a road centerline'

' 0.5 m from the face of concrete kerb and channeling'
' 0 m from a painted edge line or chevron'

Bridges' UK' TD 16/07' 20071

lsource: Design Manual for Roads &
Fig.6.{2DeterminationofEntryPathRadiusforAheadMovementata4-armRoundabout
AssuminganaverageVehic|eis2mwide,thefo|lowingdistancesfromthecenter|ineofthe
vehicle to the above geometric features result:

' 1.5 m from a road centerline,

' 1.5 m from concrete kerb and
' 1 m from a painted edge line or chevron'

6.11 Sight Distanc

Sight distance is essentially the sight '
driver who does not have the right of w
vehicle or bicyclist. Roundabouts have an a
there are fewer conflicts to check for sight d
sight distance is actually preferred in order to kt
distance principles must be applied to the con.
landscaping, poles and other
at roundabouts. These criteril-atect the positioning of signs,
roadside furniture.

22
 IRC:6$2017

6.11 .1 The alignment on the approach should be such that the driver has a good view of
both the splitter island, the central island and desirably the circulating carriageway. Adequate
Approach Sight Distance (ASD) should be provided to the give way lines and pedestrian
crossing as shown in Fig. 6.{3 for the approach speed given in Table 6.5.

Fig. 6.13 Measurement of Approach Sight'Distance on Curved Approach

Table 6.5 Required minimum Approach Sight Distance Criteria

*Speed (km/h) ** Approach Sight Distance (m)

40 30
50 40
60 60
70 70i
80 105
90 130
100 160
110 190
120 230
*On the geometric element prior to the entry curve.
**Measured from a passenger car eye height of 1.15 m to an object cut-off height of 0 m.

6.1'1.2 OtherVisibilityConsiderations
A driver, stationary at the stopping line, should ftave a clear line of sight (using a passenger
car eye height of 1.15 m) to traffic on any previous approach (an object height of 1.15 m
passenger car eye height). The desirable minimum length of this line of sight is based on the
distance travelled in 4 seconds (observation time plus reaction time) at the 85th percentile
speed plus the stopping distance (measured along vehicle paths from previous approaches).
The absolute minimum length of this line of sight is based on the distance travelled in 2.5
seconds (observation time plus reaction time) at the 85rh percentile speed plus the stopping
distance. Desired and absolute minimum sight distance at 85th percentile speed is as given
in Table 6.6.

23
IRC:65-2017

at 85th percentile speed

Table 6.6 Absolute and desired minimum sight distance

85th Percentile Speed Griterion for Minimum sight Distance in m

(km/h) Desirable Minimum - 4s
Absolute Minimum - 2.5s
Observation & Reaction Observation & Reaction
Time Time

Manual, Queensland]
[Source: Road Planning & Design
as given in
6.11.3 Traffic'plying within circulatory roadway should have sight distance
Fig. 6.14.

d1-Sight Distance for

circulatory traffic

Bridges, uK, TD 1 6107,20071

[source: Design Manual for Roads &
Fig.6.14circu|atoryVisibi|ityRequirement
as given in
6,11.4 Traffic approaching a pedestrian crossing should'have sight distance
Fig. 6.15.

24
 IRC:65-2017

d1- Sight distance to pedestrian crossing

lsource: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK' TD 16i07, 20071
Fig. 6.15 Measurement of Visibility required at Entry to Pedestrian Crossing

6.11 .5 Intersection sight distance as given in Fig. 6.16 shall be ensured for drivers to see
the confl icting vehicles

d1= Sight distance of entering vehicle (A-B)

d2= Sight distance of circulating;vs61sle (C-B)

[Source: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, UK' TD 16/07,2007]

Fig. 6.16 Measurement of Intersection Sight Distance

6.11,6 lt is preferable to position a roundabout in a sag rather on a crest. lt is important

to avoid placing a roundabout just over a crest where the layout is obscured from the view of
approaching drivers.

25
 9Z
lnoqepunou oue'I olouls u! Joquec LL'g '6!J
/t'9'6H
ur uaoqs se puelsr lBJluee uorJ Ie^ e Jjounl ocelns eql utelp ol pept^ord eq,uec % L ol %g'o
repJo eql Jo Joqurec leuo[carp lun 'ocl ul 0t oldn ]noqepunou euel elouts Jol
l.€].9
uolle^ol+ledns pue raquec t t'g
'sarllnclJtlp o6euterp e^eq pue speeds burqceoldde leleelO ecnpur o1 lp1rl
eJe lnq 'selorqen burqceordde oLll ol iv\et^ ;;n; e eprno.rd s{e4e s[e;;en ut slnoqepunoJ rol
'lnoqepunoJ oql Outleel ellq/v\ uotleJalocce pue Durqceotdde ellqm
uorleJolecop lsrsse suo[ecol qcns Jr,uuns e uo pe]ecol aq sobeluenpe qlran '[eu lnoqepuno.t
V leluozrJoLl or.ll ol suoneurlcur luoroJ;rp 6urneq seue;d oA l ut pelecol oq lnoqepunol e lerlt
elqeJrsop lou lo^o/v\or]'s! ll '09 ur I ueql eJoul lou le lBluozuor] eql ol pautlcut st r]9 .l/v\
eue;d e uo orl ol polrs eq Ieur 11 'punol6 lo^el uo pelecol oq Ilqetele.rd plnoqs lnoqepunoJ V
peog bu;lcesralul lo opetC Zl.9
ecueJeJlelur srql pro^e
ol palecol eq lsnur pue Igr;rqrsrn Lllliv\ eJe;.telut os;e Ieur '9le sluoullueque 'selnlcnlls 'slerd
lcelord o1 posn sJorJJeq rtleles {uV 'laul oJe slueulellnbel ecuelstp lrlbls er.l} leql aJnsus
ol ue)el eq lsnu oJBc '^ltltqtst^ s,le^trp e lcnrlsqo lq6ru qcrqm puelst le4uec eq1 ur (terd
'6'e) e.rn1cru1s e oq eleql eteqm {pelncryed 'qnoqepunor peleledos epe.r6lV L.lJ'g
^eu
Lr0z-99:cul
 IRC:65-2017

6.13.2 Camber for Rotary and Bigger Roundabout

For all roundabout with ICD above 40 m and rotary since the curvature is opposite to that of
entry and exit, vehicles, especially heavy buses and trucks, experience difficulty in changing
over from one cross-slope to another in the opposite direction. lt is, therefore, recommended
that the algebraic difference in the cross-slopes be limited to about 5%. The super-elevation
should be limited to the least amount consistent with design speed. The crownline which is
the line of meeting of opposite cross-slopes should, as far as possible, be located such that
vehicles cross it while travelling along the common tangent to the reverse curve. Channelizing
islands should be situated on the peak with the road surfaces sloping away from them to
all sides. Whenever possible, the cross-slope at an entrance should be carried around on
the outer edge of the roundabout to the adjacent exit, altering the slope slightly to suit the
curvature in the rotary and the exit. A typical disposition of cross-slopes in a roundabout is
indicated in Fig. 6.18.

Fig, 6.18 Camber and superelevation in Two lane Roundabout and in Rotary

6.14 Drainage
Drainage at roundabout is a crucial part of planning and design. The reasons to provide a
sound and longJasting drainage system are:
. To preventflooding ofthe road and ponding on the road surface.
. To protect the bearing capacity of the pavement and the sub grade material.
. To avoid the erosion of side slopes.
For more details on drainage, reference may be made to IRC:SP:42 "Guidelines of Road
Drainage" and IRC:SP:50 "Guidelines on Urban Drainage".

27
 8Z
lnoqepunor ouel e16u;g peuJB-t erol ueld 6u;1.leq pue u6;g lec;drt1 6L'9'6!l
'noIel Lrelo.r pue noqepunoJ.ro; ueld buqleut pue
u6ls lecldAl e /v\ol.ls OZ'g '6ll pue 6l'9 '6!l fp4pedsel ,,subtg peou JoJ erllceJd lo epoC,,
/g:CUl pue ,,s6utyey1 peou roJ erlceJd lo epoC,, 9€ CUI u! uenl6 seulleprn6 oql led se
pep4ord eq [er.u 6u1u6;s pue 6u14reur eue-l ot{I'cge4 peldrulelutun o1 eprn6 pue plenOe;es
ol suollsJol elqelns pue luetuo^uoc 1e paceld eq lleqs 6u;1.reu lueuened pue subts peog
s6u;1.ren lueureled pue su6;g peog 9l'9
'syels qoeoJdde eql lo 6uueg oql eleqrrn lutod oql uJo4 tu
'ed& Fqpen
0t lo ocuelsrp rlnurlurur e o1 dn sqtel q1m pep;nold oq plnor.ls seqceoldde eql
eql Jo oq Alqe.relerd plnoqs speol qceo.rdde eql lP pup Ilelol 1o se6pe lelno eqt lp scuel eql
'perncsqo eq lou lleqs Alllqlsn ler{ uen;6 eq lleqs oJsr lsoun 'ed& olqEunou-uou eq
'sqral
lfer.ls pue ww gZZ ueql eJout oq lou lleqs pueF! lerlueo eql Jo qrel eql lQ ilOleq eql
elqelunou ro sqJol lectUel Jeqlte eq plnoqs spuelsl lPJluoo pue Dutzt;euueqc Jol sqJel eql
sqjoy 9l'9
Lroz-gg:cul
 IRC:65-2017

Fig. 6.20 Typical Sign and Marklng plan for a 4-armed Rotary

7 NON.MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION AT ROUNDABOUT

7.1 Pedestrians
It is essential that splitler islands (or medians) are provided for pedestrian crossing. In the
planning and design of roundabouts special consideration should be given to the movement of
pedestrians. Roundabouts are at least as safe for pedestrians as other forms of intersections.
This is possible as pedestrians are able to cross one direction of traffic at a time by staging
on the splitter islands. However, pedestrians must cross with care because, unlike traffic
signals, roundabouts do not give priority to pedestrians over through traffic movements.
To minimize pedestrian accidents at crossings of entries and exits, the entry and exit speeds
should be kept low. The best solution to achipve this is to provide small radius entry and exit
curyes.

Consideration may be given to providing priority crossings (e.9. zebra crossings), for
pedestrians where:
. Pedestrian volumes are high; I

. There is a high proportion of young, elderly or senior citizens wanting to

cross the road; or

29
 \;rn
I
0e
'noqepunor eql qonorql q/tlJ)l 09 peeoxe speeds oplr.lon
JO
:qnoqBpunoJ euel-ulnuJ e sr oJol.ll
llep red selclqe^ OOO'Ol speecxe 'eurnlo^ clJleJl qceordde 's [elnurnc eql
:ereql
elqersep sr slsr;cfc .ro; uogsgnord lepeds 'q/uD1 Ot ueql ssel eJe lnoqepunor eq1 qOnoql
speeds oplr.lo aJoqi slnoqepunor eue; e;6urs 1e perrnber fllereueb 1ou sr uorsrnord c4;cedg
'peurelqo eq ol uoucogep pue oJnlerunc &lue repeq 6ur;qeue lnoqepunoJ eql qbnolql
sqlplrn 6ugc;.r1ser 1o ebeluenpe poppe eql seq ]uourleoJl sll.ll 'slnoqepunor pe>|cuJal Ilr.lbltl
1elpelncr;red 'Aearebeurec peoJ eql urqlr/v\ eue; e;c{crq e ueql Joles ere sqled eplc eleredeg
osre ,,,v\ srdecuoc ,u,."0
"'.'li'i,"3fiffifi'"?f:.3;uli.ffi:3:ElEl7il5i5ffixilll1,:
eql secnper seqceordde uee/$leq ecuelsrp eqg Ourzrurrxeu pue 'sauel Ouuelnc.rc 1o Jequrnu
eq1 burzru.rruru.r 'seprqen Ouue;nclrc pue Ouuelue uee/nleq peeds errue;er eq1 Ouonpeg
'uorlecol eqg ro; ser6ele4s lueure6eueur clJJeJl llBJeAo eql
pue pe^lo^u! spEoJ or,ll lo uorlecursselc leuorlcunJ oql
:ureerls cgerl lelol eql u! slslplc lo uoryodotd eq1
:s AoU Jnoq )eed eql pue eurnlo^ cuJerl alclqe^ Ilrep aq1
:uo puedep ;1;nn fieles;o lenel elenbepe ue e^elqce ol
pepeeu ore sornseeur loJluoc cUJeJl Jo/pue slusuleeJl cr4euoe6 ;e;ceds qc;qarr ol lueya oql
le^e/$oH 's1s;lcIc le^el e;qegdeoce ue eprnold o1 peu6rsep eq uec slnoqepunou
ro1 Aleles Jo
s1s;;cIg Z'L
'pep;nold
eq uec Dursso.rc dol elqel pue suo[do lueu]eerl ocelns snouel'sJosn ppoJ eql ol uo4eui4ul
pue firlrqrssecce lesrenrun lo eles eql rol {peple eq1 Jo uoJplu.lc looLlcs }o slstsuoc cuJerl
ueulseped eql eJeqa eru1 {;lercedse sr srql 'luauleorl uollcosJo}ur enneuJelle ue Jo esn
eq1 o1 uenro eq plnoqs uo[pJeprsuoJ snoues 'q6;q are sounlo uerrlseped eJeq,$ !e^e,\ oH
'sueulseped se qcns
peoJ orll lo sJesn ,,lleurs,, eJncsqo ol lou se os uo4e1e6er pue subgs Ouuecol
pue :seqceordde eql osle nq
slemebepec 6uue;ncrrc eqlA;uolou soleurunll; qc;qrir6u;1q6;11ee4s 6urprnor6
:AItqrqn
reep eplnord ol slnoqepunor eql ol seqceoJdde eq] uo buryled 6u;1q;qor6
:s Aolle elrs eq1 se e6re; sE ere qc!q/v\ spue;sr regr;ds 6u;u6;seg
:opnpu! slnoqepunor 1e Ale;es uer4seped ooueque ol suo[ereplsuoo ubrsep.reqlg
'{;enrssaoxe
pe{elep burgeb ere pue bugsso.rc u; fi;nc;g;p bupuauedxe ere sueulseped .
Lr0z-99:cul
 IRC:65-2017

Photo 7.1 Roundabout with Separated Bicycle Lanes

This can be achieved by:
' Providing a path of access for cyclists separated from the road carriage way
as an alternative to the use of the road carriageway at the roundabout. In
most instances, and particularly in the case of large roundabouts, it would
be desirable for the path to be two-way, in order to provide cyclists with a
convenient choice of route to the road carriageway, and hence encourage as
many cyclists as possible to use thefacility. ,
' Using footpaths located adjacent to the roundabout where separate provision
is not possible. Fencing or landscaping between the path and carriage way,
is necessary to prevent 'ride-out';
' Providing traffic signals for bne or all entries to a roundabout, depending
on the predominant paths of cyclists and other traffic or depending on the
accident history;
' Providing a controlled crossing on critical approaches of very large
roundabouts on busy roads or grade separation where cyclist demand is
very high. A Live example is given in Photo 7.1 and also Fig. 7.1 where
separate cycle path in a rotary location is shown.

31
 zt,
'peldecce oq plno^ de6 lec!ilJc otll of ;enbe lo
ueLll.releel6 sde6 lle pue pelceler oq plnorvr de6 leclltJc otll ueLll ssol sde6 ;y
'sur6eq deO eql ueLln oull ferur enl6
eql le st JoAtJp Oupelue oql uoLlrvr {;uo poJnseou s! ueds otu!} poqucsop oql
'alotqa Ouuelue ue qll/vt lcl4uoc oleere leql solclqe^
Oulelncrrc enrlncosuoc o/rtl uee/vqeq ueds eurg er]l se peugep s1 de6 y
:sarnleoJ deg 'uo;lceslelur uen;6 e lo;
deb peldecce lselleus pue pelcelet lsabtel eq1 1o suo!]eruesqo Jo slseq eql uo pe]eulllse eq
uec de6 lec;yg 'de6 lecllpc aql o1 ;enbe .ro ueql telee.rb sdeb ldecce plnol pue de6 ;ecty.tc
erll ueql ssel sde6 lcele.r plnoin le^up relnctped V 'elqeldecce aq plnontt ]eql deb ulnullultu
erll q deb lecurJc s,Je^!rp eql 'snqf 'lnoqepunoJ e telue I1e;es uec qceoldde uorl elcltlo^
Ouuelue ue ueq/v\ rvrog 6u4elncltc aql ut leruolut oulll unu.llultu eq1 slueseldel de6 1ec;1113
deC lecllpC l,'g
suorvcloNl fcNvl luolufd rnogvoNnou I
ferne6eyreC oql uorl poleredes slstlcfC to qled 6u;rnoqg orn6lJ t'Z '6lJ
Lr0z-99:cul
 IRG:65-2017

Fig. 8.1 shows the relationship between Diameter of Roundabout and Critical Gap

!tr,t
c
Isls
g
o.
o
c'r
EI
P
t,l-
o5

20 :m /o
Roundabout Diameter in (m)

Fig. 8.1 Relationship between Diameter of Roundabout and Critical Gap

8.2 Follow-up Time

The time between the departure of one vehicle from the approach and the departure of the
next vehicle using the same gep in circulating floW under a condition of continuous queuing
condition, is called the follow-up time. lt is the headway that defines the saturation flow rate
for the approach if there were no conflicting vehicles on movements of higher rank. In order
to calculate entry capacity, it is required to calculate the critical gap and follow-up time for
the roundabout. The critical gap and follow-up time at a roundabout frimarily vary with the
diameter of the roundabout. For the purpose of planning and design, the values of critical gap
and follow-up time parameters for roundabouts of different diameters evolved based on the
studies done across 18 roundabouts are presented in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Critical Gap and Follow-up Time for Different Diameter Roundabout

Diameter, D (m) Gritical Gap (sec) Follow-up Time (sec)

20<D<30 2.01 1 .51
30<D<40 1.87 1.40
40<D<50 1.65 1.24
50<D<70 1.61 1.21

[Source: CRRI (2017) "lndian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)']

8.3 Lag
A lag is the time span between an entering vehicle and opposing circulating vehicle. Many
studies have shown that it is acceptable practice to combine lags and gaps into one data set
for analysis.

33
 vt,
:lnoqepunoJ Io AllcedBc fu1ue ;o uotleulllse
er.ll .rol lsfleue eql Iq posn eq uec (g 197) UICH Sn uroJl lepou ;etlueuodxe 6u;mop1o; eq1
'seleullse [grcedec e]eJncce ecnpord o] papuotuulocer {q6;q st eutl dn-alo;;o; pue deb
lecrlrJc Jo uolleJeprsuoc 'ecueur.roped lnoqepunoJ 6u;1cege elqetrel luec4tubts otll oq ol
sreedde Jorneqeq JoArJp sV 'anog Outlelncrc pue /nog {tlue ;o uotlcun; e st lnoqepunoJ
;o Ilrcedec eq1 '{lrcedec uo slceJJe Joutu.t o^eq e;6ue fu1ue eql pue Joleuetp elcllc
peqrrcsur eq1 'r$rcedec eql slceJle osqe q16ua1 oreg eql 'selctqen lo sol.lcunq ueen leq
sde6 re6uol epgnord os pue qcunq relqbtl u! reqlo qoee '/tlollo; :o 'epts6uo;e le^erl ol
solcrqel lrnolle sIe/$pBo.t fuo1e;ncrgc roplM 'euel e;6urs e lo leql se mog r$1ue Jo eler eql
ecra4 I;:eeu gruled seuel fu1ue om1 'lnoqepunor eql uo fu1ue eql le souel lo Jequlnu oql
.ro 'slerrnpeor fuo1e;ncrrc pue {.r1ue oql Jo qlpr/r eq} sr lueurele culeuoeb lueuoduJ! lsoul
eql '/r^ou fu1ue 1o eleJ oql lcoJJe osle lnoqepunoJ eql lo sluol.uole culeuloeo eq1 '[pe|;ut;g
'seseeJcep oslE Jelue usJ seprqo^
rlcnuv\ le eler OurpuodserJoc eql pue 'oseeJcop rnog Ouge;ncltc eq1 ut sde6 eql Jo ozts otll
'seseoJcur rrnog ouue;ncrrc et|l sv'de6 qceo Jolue {eu e;clqen euo ueq} eJouJ pue sopll,lo^
buuelue oql ol lnJesn eJou oJe ivrog buqe;ncro eql u! sdeb re6.re1 eq1 Ae;ep luecgubts
lnoqlr/n lnoqepunor eql Jeluo ol olqe aJE rttue eql le $e^!rp '/v\ol sr mog Ouue;ncrc otll uotl6
noqepunoJ or.ll Jo sluoulolo cl4euroe6
erll pue nog &lue aql qil,!\ slclguoe leql moqepunoJ oql uo /rAoU buqe;ncro eq1 fleueu
sJolceJ o Al uo spuedep ft1ue poqepunoJ e le pelepouluocce oq uec lBr.ll oleJ l oU uinulxeu
oql 'lnoqppuno.r 1o fircedec ftlue eql bururr.urelep rol sseoo.rd eql slueberd uorlces slrll
NOITVn[Sf Arr9vdv9 6
'sdn-/t'tolloJ eJe sopl.lo
Ourpeeccns aql 'olcrqe^ buneog E sr leql deb e Ouuelue olcr.lon lsJU eq1 Iluo sr 1; '6u11eog se
pou4opsr olcrqe^eq1 uOrsIervrenrbeqlledolsole Bqlouseoppuede6espu4Ja Upoqlll
ecueJluf 6u;1eo;1 g'g
'o.rueJluo cllels se pelreur sr lr lnoqepunoJ eq1 Ouuelue
eroJeq rncco o1 deb luercrgns e Jol lre/v\ pue ubrs fern eru6 eql le dols ol seq eplqe^ e Jl
ecuerluf cllEls 9'8
'sdeb luercgns 1o
)cel ol enp lnoqepunoJ eq1 Oupelue elqnorl e^Eq leql seprol Aq pesn f;ugeu ere sde6 pecro3
'elcr.lol Ouuelue eql olu! r.lserc lou o1 dols uene Jo u/vrop,vrols ol eleq selcrqe 6u[e;ncrtc
pue lnoqepunor oql olur se^lasureql ecJol seprqel Ouuelue eql 'cgJpJl Ounelncrrc eq1 ;o
uoqeJeprsuoc q6noue 6unl6 lnoqilnir lnoqBpunoJ eql Jelua eprqel e ueqn Jncco de6 pacrol y
deg pocrol ?'g
Lroz-gg:cul
 IRC:65-2017

C =A* Exp (-8.Q") (Eq e.1 )

A =3600/Tr (Eq e.2)
a= (1" - 0.5.1 y3600 (Eq e.3)

Where,
T. = Follow-up time in seconds
'1"
= Critical Gap in seconds
Q" = Circulating flow in PCU/hr

Using the average critical gap and follow-up time presented in the earlier section, the entry
capacity models/equations for varying range of diameters of roundabouts have been derived
in the Indian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM) and presented in Table 9.1. The
Nomograph for the direct estimation of entry capacity of the roundabouts of different sizes of
circulating flow is presented in Fig. 9.1

Table 9.1 Entry Gapacity Model for Varying Diameter of Roundabout

Diameter, Critical Follow-up A=3600/Tr B=(t- c = A*Exp(-B*Q")

D (m) G"p, t" (s) Time, T, (s) 0.5*Tf)/3600
20<Ds30 2.01 1.51 2388 0.00035 C = 2388* Exp (-0.00035 * Q")
30<D<40 1.87 1.40 2567 0.00032 C = 256/* E*p (-0.00032 * Q")
40<Ds50 1.65 1.24 2909 0.00029 C = 2909" Exp (-0.00029 * Q")
50<D<70 1.61 1.21 2981 0.00028 C = 2981* Exp (-0.00028 * Q")

[Source: CRRI (2017) "lndian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)']

- -- - 2l.30nr
. 3140llr
-
-..-.-. Jl.7O$r
tr -41.5O!n
H :ooo
R
X
.E
.F rsoo
*
()3
F
rI
,ooo

!o0

-roo looo lloo 2000 l_roo 3{xx} sJoo {000

Cilculatfurg Flow in PCUs/Hr

[Source: CRRI (2017) "lndian Highway Capacity

Fig. 9.1 Entry Gapacity fo

5 '' L.i ; i
.,,:i.
7 :;;.",,

35
 9e
'deO
elqeldecce ue JoJ lrel ol ourl oql sopnlcxo 11 'peeds Outleredo leruJou qceeJ
ol ror4ynl Ourlerolocce Alleug uoql pue lnoqepunor oW q6norql Oulpeecold
'peeds uo;1e;1o6ou orll ol OurleJolecce 'de6 e Ou;ldecce JoUe 'pue enenb eq1
Jo puo orll te dols ol u/rlop 6urmo;s sJo^rJp o1 Aelep eql - feleq ctJlotuooC
'cuJerl
Ouqe;ncrc oql u; de6 e ldecce o1 6u;1e^ srenup o1 felep oql - {elep Outneng
:s/v\ollol se st lnoqepunoJ le solcrr4o^ Ouuennouetu [q peruosqo {elep 1o sedfi luoJoJJlp oLlI
lnoqepunou 1o 6u;s;.rduo9 lrotn1oN e 6uoly elltoJd peedg eldueg t'0t '6!J
(u) retueC uorl ecuel$l0
08 0toz00z 09 08
01.
oza
oeT
or3
os3
og*
ot
'l'Ol '6ll ur u/tr\or1s sr lnoqepunor;o bursuduroc lJoaleu e
6uole elrlord peeds eldueg 'lnoqepunoJ eql q6norql Ourrenneueur e1rq4r ecueuedxe eplqa^
lenprnrpur ue lelep ;e1og o1 lcedser qlr^ pessosse sr lnoqepunoJ 1o ecueu.uoped llere^o eql
Av-l=to 0t,
Lr0z-99:cul
 IRC:65-2017

The comparison of delay offered by signalised intersection and roundabout is presented in

Fig. 10.2.

SINGLE LANE APPROACHES

E
o
to
go
t
ul
o
J
F
o
F

lffimru
eom .o
TOTAL ENTERING VOLUME (vph)
TOTAL ENTERING voLUME (vph)

Fig. 10.2 Comparative Delay Offered by Signalized Intersection and Roundabout

11 LEVEL OF SERVTCE (LOS)

The estimation of LoS is based on the vehicular delay model derived from studies conducted
at 11 roundabouts by taking into account the delay experienced by the vehicle from entry
point to reach the exit point of the roundabout.

The delay model empirically derived is as under:

y= O.8*eooolx (Eq 11.1)
Where,
y= Vehicular Delay in seconds.
x= Total Approach Traffic Flow in Veh/hr.

Fig. 11.1 reveals the LoS derived for roundabouts from the above equation and cluster analysis.
L.Z j

1?S
115
rlt
10$

95
:i
'6 *s
;s
E
8s

'fii
c65
r$g
q9g
lso
'= sj
?40
gt9
4 a:)
'Ffn
>ta

:ffi. €ffi
uour" r.arni. vT,*e (vffit*r/Hn.)
[Source: CRRI (2017) "lndian Highway Capacity Manual (INDO-HCM)"]
Fig. 11.1 Relationship Between Approach Traffic Flow and Average Vehicular Delay

37
 'lqOF Jo eurl reelc eql urelureur
ol sE os euop eq lsnul oulde3spue'l 'ruoLll uo pelueld saeJl o^eq lou plnoqs spuelsl
louueLlc^llnlolec
llEurs 'sourpunoJJns oql uro4 puElsr lBJluoc eql L{slnoulslp ol elqe sr re^up eql
leql os 'luoururord Jeedde'plnoqs puelsr le4uoc aql poJrnboJ sr uorlelueld elerrdoldde Jo
esn erolaJoql :Je^up eql ol perncsqo 106 lou plnoqs lnoqepunoJ or.ll Jo lnolel pue urol eql
cNldvcsoNv-l e l
',,seJnlcnJls pele^elf 8 sJoleredes epere
roJ lenueu\,, o6:ds:cHl ol epeur oq ecuaJe]eJ 'uorlPurulnllt uo sltelep lol 'lnoqepunor
eql uo4 Ourlrxe lsnf releurued pueq ^euUal pue spuelst leuueqc lleus uo peceld eq 1ou
plnoqs selod 6u4q6;1 'ero;ereql 'sop!qo^ qcns Jol spiezeq ou eJe ereq] leql os peuleluleul
oq plnoqs seuoz reelo elenbape 'oS 'slnoqepunoJ uo loJluoc Jo lno oO seplqe^ Jo lol V
'u.ue burlrxe eql lo luau,ruoJrluo
Uep oql ol ldepe ol alqe oq plnoqs eqs/eq 'lnoqepunor poleururnllr llo^ oql slrxe Jo^rJp or,ll
ueqM 'soseorcep l;lenper6 6u;1q6;; 1o llrsuelul eql ereq^ ,euoz uolllsueJl uotleutunllt, uB
e^eq plnoqs sure lrxa eql 'lsnu B eJe sJo)reu e^neeger 'esr/waqlg 'a;qrssod I peleululnlll
eq osle p;noqs burqrel io spuelsr pes;el {uy'puelst lerluoc eql uo posn eq p;noqs su6rs
pue sJelJeur o^llcogo; 'ure qceoldde dn grl e uo.4 Ouruoc e;lqlr lnoqepunoJ illun eql ees
ol elqe eq 1ou {eur re^Up oql asr^ roLllg 'il; 6uleq seqceo.rdde erou .lo euo qlt^t ltlun Uol
eq lou lsnur lnoqepunor eq1 'pe1q6rl llain aq plnoqs slee4s flpncas pue I1e;es Jo l ot^ ul
NotrvNtwn-r-il zt.
[,,(] CH-OONI) lenuey11 fircede3 Aerurqbrg uetpul,, QVOZ) IUUC :ocrnosl
99< I
99>p>9t f
9t>p>oz c
0z>p>91 c
9L > p > I I
9> V
cos u! qon rod ,p, feleq e6e.leny so'l
feleq luoroJJrp rol oc!ruos lo lo^a'l L'4, olqel
I se pouuep sr lnoqepunoJ or.ll Jo sol orll Aelop aql lo ssolpreoer o'! spoocxo auel E Jo oDet
(c7n) {1;cedec ol ournlo^ eql Jl 'l'lt
elqel ul uenr6 ele lnoqepunor eql ro; So'l f;Ourptoccy
'lnoqepunoJ uo /r^ou cuJe4lo oql luoseJdel o1 enbruqcel 6ur.re1sn;c 6ursn perlstlqelse
^lrlenb pue lnoqbpunol 1e Aelep relnclqo peruosqo
ueoq seq So'l '/'^oU cl;Jell butlte^eld ^q uo peseg
Lr0z-99:cul
 IRC:65-2017

The plantation along the approach and exit arm should be low in height so as to maintain a
clear line of sight for the driver. Large, fixed landscape elements such as big trees, rocks,
sculptures, etc. should be avoided in areas vulnerable to vehicle run off. Landscaping in corner
radii areas should be done to channelize pedestrians to crosswalk areas and discourage
pedestrians from jaywalking or from crossing to the central island.

For more details on clearances, reference may be made to IRC:SP:21 "Guidelines on

Landscaping and Tree Plantation".

Fig. 13.1 Typical landscape details on roundabout.

14 SAFETY

'14.1 General Considerations

In general, a well-designed roundabout is the safest type of intersection. 'Before and after'
type studies have shown that in general, fewer vehicle accidents occur at roundabouts than
at intersections containing traffic signals, stop or give way signs. The primary reason for this
is that the potential relative speeds of vehicles are considerably lower for a well-designed
roundabout than for other types of at-grade intersections.

39
 0v
'sr.llpr/r^ lrxe pue eql oulseaJceo o
'suJe uee/'4oq uolleJedes ^llue oJotu oulpr^oJd o
rolourerp puelsl leJluec eql oulseolcul o
'lnoqepunol eql qbnoJql uollcegepJeleorb 6u;p;nol4 o
'uue qceordde burpeceld eql uo orunc fu1ue sntpel Jelleuls e 6utptno.l6 o
'snlper erunc ftlue eql buonpeg o
:[q pecnpe.r eq uec qceordde
relncrped fue uo se;ctqen 6ugelnclrc pue 6upo]ue 1o peeds o Deler letluolod otll Z'Z'tl
oure;ncro pue Dutelue 1o peeds o^llerer ,"or"roo
"ilif"i":;lr53L:J:liJ::t;rit?il:il
76uuelue eql ezlurlurur llr/v\ solcrqel 6u4e;ncltc pue Ouuelue;o peeds ennelel leuuelod eq1
burzrrururyl 'selcrqen Eutle;ncltc pue 6ur.re1ue;o peeds enue;e.r ;er1ue1od eq1 o1 pelelel l1efue;
sr qceordde le;ncrped {ue uo o}er }ueptcce e;crqen buuelncltcT6uuelue eq1 lz'tl
lo.r1uog
peedg Z'tl
'fruouoce rol sB llo/\a se uoseel stql JoJ
pere;erd uego sr 6uuq6;1 ge4ue9 'solctl.lo Outle;nclo ol fillqlsln oJncsqo uego eutl 6u;p1oq
eq11o firurcrn eql ur sreuJeq r$e1es 'uotltppe u; 'uondo olqerlsep lseel eql eJe pue so^lesuleql
ur pJezeq e ere sreureq Ile1es qlr/v\ ueql Ouucelord 'a;qt6ue.4 uteql oleut Jo spJezeq eptspeoJ
o^oruor o1 elqrssod lou sl ll Jl 'e1q;6uet; ueql 6u!)eu o1 uentb oq plnoqs uollereptsuoc 'ouoz
ree;c perrnber eql oplslno pelecol eq louuec splezeq eptspeoJ Jl 'c1e spoddns u6ts pue seell
e6.re; 'se;od remod pue lq6ll epnpur slnoqepunoJ lP uotutltoc sprezeq optspeou 'Aernebeuleo
eql Jo aprs qceo uo spJezeq eprspeoJ ou eJe eJeql eJeq/ euoz Jeep lo slunoue elenbepe
e^eq ol olqeJrsep s! lr 'solctqo^ lolluoc-lo{no Jo Joqunu q6;q {;en;1e;et oql lo osneceg
'seseoJcop uorlcul
oprs Jo lunoure perrnber eql se eseercu! 'septqol lolluoc-lo{no en;onul fpueutuopetd qctqm
'sluoprcce elcrrlen e;6urg 'peeds q6rq eltnb qym serunc eseLll uo loABJl sJe^tJO 'lnoqepunoJ eql
qbno.rql qled pellene4 qcee JoJ serunc leluozuotl lper l1eus {;enue;el Jo requnu B Jo lslsuoo
slnoqepunoJ osneceq s1 s;q1 'sedfi uo4ces:eluileqlo o1 peleduoc q6;q ele slnoqepunor le
soler lueprcce e;crqen e;6urs 'slnoqepunoJ lol soleJ lueptvJe lleJolo /tlollo lxeluog ol.ll ulLlllM
'slnoqepunoJ 1o fuleuoeb eq1lo u6lsep
eql ol uouuoile ;erceds entb o1 luelrodur st eJoleJeqf 'uotlcesJelut epetble 1ue1erunbe ue
lo; ueql req6rq eq Allenlce uec slnoqepunoJ asoql le soler lueptcce elc;qer eld;1;ny1 'selctqe^
uao^qeq speeds o^rlelor lelluelod q6;q Ouqeerc lnoqepunor eql qOnotql speeds Ll6!q ul
sllnser uorlcogep Jo ernleruno fulue epll tllt/v\ lnoqepunoJ peu6tsep Apood e {lesleruo3
Lr0z-99:cul
 IRC:65-2017

'14.2.3 The exiting/circulating vehicle accident rate at any particular exit point of multi-lane
roundabouts is predominantly related to the potential relative speed of exiting and circulating
vehicles. Minimizing the relative speed of exiting and circulating vehicles will minimize the
exiting/circulating vehicle accident rate.

'14,2,4 Speed Consistency can be achieved by following general guidance given in

Fig. 14.1 , where R1 is the entry path radius on the fastest through path, R2 is the circulating
path radius, R3 is the exit path radius, R4 is the Right turn path radius and R5 is the left turn.
In the fastest path, it is desirable that entry path radius R1 to be smaller than R2. Exit Radius
R3 should not be less than Rl or R2 to minimize loss of control crashes. Radius of right turn
R4 ensure that maximum speed difference between entering R1 and circulating R2 is no
more than 20 kmpkh. The fastest left turn R5 shall be below the roundabout design speed
and not more than 20 kmph of conflicting R4 path radius.

if 0r

RS Gxit pn& nad*ue

R.C* pft
Rlght turn lars
RS Lefr.tsffii F*$ lue

Fig. 14.1 Vehicle Path Radii

41
 F
zv
,,serJelou clJJeJI JoJ octlceJd popuotutuocou,, gL6t-gg:cuI 0t
,,e6eureJq ueqJn uo soulloptnC,, t L0Z-09:dS:CUl 6
,,o6eureJ6 peou Jo sourloplng,, V;OZ-ZV:dS:CUl 8
,,su6rg peou JoJ ectlceld Jo opoC,, Z;OZ-L7:CUl L
,,s6urlrey\ peou JoJ octlceJd Jo opoC,, gLgZ-gt:CUl 9
,,uoflelueld ooJI pue Ourdecspuel uo seurleptnC,, 6002-rZ:dS:CUl I
,,soJnlcn4s pelenolf g sJoleJedeg opeJe Jol lenuB1711,, 0 L0Z-06:dS:CUl v
'S'n 'flrsrenrun olels e/v\ol 'uollecnp] pue qcJeosou
'uorleyodsuerl JoJ JoluoC 'slnoqepunou uJopoy\ JoJ sourloptne lonel 6utuuei6 t
glOZ'lenuey\ fircede3 {emq6rg uerpul z
vroz puelsueeno 'peou
sureyt1 pue
podsueJlJo luor,upedeq 'uolllpf lsJll 'lenuey\ u6rseg j Ouluueld peou ,
sfcNfufrfu
Ltoz-gg:cul