Sultanate of Oman.

Highway Design Standards 2010

9
Grade Separated Junctions

9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1

9.1.1 General 9-1
9.1.2 Warrants for Grade Separation 9-1

9.2 alternative layout considerations 9-1

9.2.1 Design Influences 9-1

9.3 common alternative layouts 9-2

9.3.1 Diamond Junctions 9-2
9.3.2 Half Cloverleaf Junctions 9-2
9.3.3 Full Cloverleaf Junctions 9-2
9.3.4 Grade Separated Roundabout 9-2
9.3.5 Trumpet Junction 9-3
9.3.6 Single Point Junction 9-3
9.3.7 Other Grade Separated Junction Configuration 9-3

9.4 Design Controls 9-3

9.4.1 Junction Elements 9-3
9.4.2 Divergence from Mainline Flow – Exit Conditions 9-3
9.4.3 Merging with Mainline Flow – Entry Conditions 9-4
9.4.4 Ramp Geometry 9-6

9.5 traffic weaving 9-7

9.5.1 General 9-7
9.5.2 Further Design Information 9-7

9.6 references 9-8

List of Figures
List of Tables
Figure 9.3.1.1: Diamond Junction 9-2
Table 9.4.2.1: Single Deceleration Lane Length (m) for
Figure 9.3.2.1: Half Cloverleaf Junction 9-2 Mainline Design Speeds on Level to 2% Mainline Grade 9-4
Figure 9.3.3.1: Full Cloverleaf Junction 9-2 Table 9.4.2.2: Deceleration Length Adjustment to Allow for
Mainline Grade 9-4
Figure 9.3.4.1: Grade Separated Roundabout 9-2
Table 9.4.3.1: Acceleration Length (m) for Entry Ramp and
Figure 9.3.5.1: Trumpet Junction 9-3
Mainline Design Speeds on Level to 2% Mainline Grade 9-5
Figure 9.3.6.1: Single Point Junction (2-Level) 9-3
Table 9.4.3.2: Acceleration Lane Length Adjustment for
Figure 9.4.2.1: Single Lane Ramp - Parallel Exit 9-4 Grade 9-5
Figure 9.4.2.2: Two Lane Ramp Parallel Exit 9-4 Table 9.4.4.1: Guide Values for Ramp Design Speed (km/h)
Figure 9.4.3.1: Single Lane Ramp Parallel Entry 9-4 for Varying Mainline Speeds 9-6

Figure 9.4.3.2: Two Lane Ramp Parallel Entry without Table 9.4.4.2: Minimum Ramp Curve Radii (m) for Varying
Additional Mainline Downstream Lane 9-5 Design Speed and Super-elevation 9-6

Figure 9.4.3.3: Two Lane Ramp Entry with Provision of an Table 9.4.4.3: Single and Two Lane Ramp Widths (m) for
Additional Downstream Mainline Lane 9-5 Traffic Condition Types and Curve Radii - from AASHTO
A Policy on GDHS 2004 9-6
Figure 9.4.4.1: Ramp Cross Sections 9-7
 Sultanate of Oman. Highway Design Standards 2010

Grade Separated Junctions

9
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9.1.2.5 In circumstances where traffic growth projections are uncertain or may be subject to future step increases
which are dependent upon other development factors, it may be prudent to consider a staged construction
9.1.1. General approach to the provision of grade separation. This may in turn influence the layout of the junction in both its
interim and final forms.
9.1.1.1 By definition, a grade separated junction separates conflicting traffic streams in vertical space. Such
junctions may involve a number of merging, weaving and separating flows within their boundaries or may be free
flowing such that all through and turning traffic separates at the approach to the junction and merges with other 9.2 ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT CONSIDERATIONS
streams taking the same exit route from the junction, with no “in junction” interference between these two events.
9.2.1 Design Influences
9.1.1.2 In general, the less “in junction” interference experienced, the better able the junction is to handle
complex high traffic flows but the more costly it is to construct. 9.2.1.1 The factors which influence the type of configuration to be used in a particular situation will include:

n The number of intersection legs. (Initially and in the possible long term.)
9.1.1.3 An initial decision to construct a grade separated junction involves the need to design and construct
n The intersection movements required.
engineering works to separate conflicting traffic streams. This will include bridgeworks and either viaduct or
embankment construction or excavation of cuttings or even tunnels. Where space is limited, these works will n The route classification and character of each of the intersecting legs.
often necessitate extensive earth retaining structures to support embankments and cuttings. Consequent upon n The alignment constraints on the intersecting legs.
this will be possible modifications to utilities and drainage systems and to the existing local at grade road system. n The expected volumes of all through and turning traffic.
Subsequent decisions about the degree of sophistication to be provided will influence the scope and scale of n The traffic mix and type of truck traffic.
these engineering works. n The characteristics of the site (ie. urban/rural).
n The topography of the site.
9.1.1.4 The provision of grade separation will be the result of consideration of a balance between the costs
involved and the benefits to be obtained. n The environmental sensitivity and constraints of the site.
n The availability and cost of land for construction.
9.1.2 Warrants for Grade Separation n The possible need for staged construction.

9.1.2.1 Grade separation should initially be considered where: 9.2.1.2 The ability of the cross route/s to carry the additional traffic which will be generated from the junction
should be considered also. Traffic backing up from congestion on the minor roads can affect the operation of the
Conflict between heavy flows of traffic cannot be resolved by traffic signals or roundabouts without
n
junction which may in turn cause tail backs which obstruct the through flow on the main route. Any necessary
delays which are either politically or economically unacceptable or which involve vehicle operating
improvements to the cross route to avoid this happening should be considered by the designer as part of the
costs, the saving of which would offset the costs of construction.
design of the junction.
One or both of the roads is such that interruptions by at-grade junctions is unacceptable eg. Dual
n

carriageway National Routes or some dual carriageway Arterial Routes where the design group 9.2.1.3 In cases where junctions are close together (mainly in urban situations), they should be considered for
standard calls for grade separated junctions and there is a need for consistency along such a route. design purposes as a single system. Weaving and merging of traffic streams downstream of one junction can
n There is a history of accidents at an existing junction. have an effect on the performance of the downstream junction. The signing will need to take into account the
presence of the two (or more) junctions and will necessarily be more complex than for a single interchange. This
9.1.2.2 The costs involved will include the financial costs of design, land take, construction and additional
will introduce the need for the provision of adequate decision sight distance on the alignments affected.
maintenance over the analysis period, together with any environmental costs or disbenefits incurred through the
construction. 9.2.1.4 Traffic passing through an interchange should enjoy the same degree of utility and safety as on the
approaching highways. The design speed, horizontal and vertical alignment criteria and cross section should be
9.1.2.3 Grade separation can involve the creation of long lengths of visually intrusive barriers to movement
consistent with those of the approaching highways. This is often difficult to attain but should be maintained as a
across the lines of elevated or depressed highway. Grade separation will generally be accompanied by complete
design objective until every possibility for its achievement has been exhausted.
segregation of pedestrian traffic from the major vehicular traffic route and full access control to, from and across
the route, with junctions separated by at least 5 km to minimise disruption of the through traffic. In an urban 9.2.1.5 A number of grade separated junction layouts have developed and even gained their own names over
situation, even with the provision of additional pedestrian crossing points, this intrusion can be socially damaging the years and are in common use. Some of these are shown in sub-section 9.3. It should be noted, however, that
as it divides existing communities. these layouts have no intrinsic virtues over possible variations and other layouts which are different from those
shown. The limiting factor is the ingenuity of the designer in devising a form of junction which provides:
9.1.2.4 Once a decision to provide grade separation is made therefore, the design should attempt to minimise
these consequential effects and costs without compromising the design standards of the highway works. Where n Sufficient range of movement
possible, the most economical and least visually intrusive layout will carry the heaviest flows at the lower level. n Sufficient capacity
This may not always be possible, particularly in urban areas where lengths of elevated roadway may be required n Acceptable user vehicle operating costs
to carry a major route across a number of obstacles in close proximity. n Safety

9-1
 Ministry of Transport & Communications . DGRLT

Grade Separated Junctions

n Acceptable land take 9.3.3 Full Cloverleaf Junctions

n Acceptable construction costs
9.3.3.1 A layout which avoids the
n Acceptable environmental effects.
conflicts at the ramp/cross route
junctions inherent in diamond and
9.3 COMMON ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS half cloverleaf junctions is the “Full
Cloverleaf”. In order to achieve sufficient
9.3.1 Diamond Junctions radius on the ramp loops, this layout
requires a large land area which
9.3.1.1 The simplest form of junction giving access from the through route to the existing ground level road
spreads for a considerable distance
system is known as a “Diamond Junction”. Requiring a single bridge structure, this provides a clear through route
from the mainline centreline. Again,
for mainline traffic and ramp connection in all directions with a single cross route by means of at grade priority or
a single bridge is required and both
signal controlled junctions. A similar form of junction with roundabouts in place of the at grade priority or signal
the mainline and cross route traffic
junctions is known as a “Dumb Bell Junction”. An advantage of this layout is that mainline turning traffic leaves
pass through the junction without the
before joining traffic enters the through route so that there is no mainline weaving required.
need to deviate. Because joining traffic Figure 9.3.3.1 Full Cloverleaf Junction
enters the through route only a short distance before exiting traffic leaves it, there is only a short mainline
weaving length available for these two streams to cross. This can lead to congestion and delays on the through
route as well as for turning traffic. In addition, the considerable distance involved in passing around the loops can
give rise to significantly increased vehicle operating costs for junction users.

9.3.4 Grade Separated Roundabout

9.3.4.1 A layout which is probably the most common in many parts of the world is the “Grade Separated
Roundabout”. This requires two bridge structures but is compact, can be adjusted to deal with more than a single
cross route, allows full connectivity and avoids mainline merging. The layout is suitable for a situation in which
the mainline crosses a traffic stream which can be routed through the roundabout. One difficulty can be providing
a roundabout design that provides adequate geometry for traffic joining and leaving the roundabout at adjacent
ramp and cross route entry and exits. In general, the roundabout and cross route are at existing grade while the
mainline is either elevated or depressed. The design approach to be followed for the roundabout is covered in
Figure 9.3.1.1 Diamond Junction
Sections 5 and 7 of these standards.
9.3.2 Half Cloverleaf Junctions

9.3.2.1 A variation of the diamond layout for use where land is not available in all four quadrants is known as the
“Half Cloverleaf Junction”. Here the ramps are located in two quadrants only and again a single bridge structure
is required. Note that in the example
(Figure 9.3.2.1) ramps are shown in
quadrants 2 and 4. The junction would
work equally well if they were in
quadrants 2 and 3, 1 and 3, or 1 and 4. An
advantage of this layout is that mainline
turning traffic leaves before joining
traffic enters the through route so that
there is no mainline weaving required.
This layout requires land at a further
distance from the mainline centerline
and the ramp loops, particularly those
with the smaller radii, may have inferior
capacity and safety than those for a Figure 9.3.2.1 Half Cloverleaf Junction Figure 9.3.4.1 Grade Separated Roundabout
diamond layout.
9-2
 Sultanate of Oman. Highway Design Standards 2010

Grade Separated Junctions

9
9.3.5 Trumpet Junction n Divergence from the mainline flow
n Merging with mainline flow
9.3.5.1 A common junction pattern
n Ramp transit
for free flow connection to one side
n Joining local road traffic at an at-grade junction element.
only of the mainline is the “Trumpet
Junction”. This three legged junction 9.4.1.2 A series of junctions along a route should be considered as a complete interchange system rather than
may access either side of the mainline as a series of unconnected separate entities. This is particularly important in urban situations, where junctions
and is convenient for joining to the local are normally required at closer spacing than in rural areas. This design approach highlights the question of lane
road system via a link to and from the balancing at junctions.
junction. Full connectivity is provided
using only a single bridge structure. A 9.4.1.3 Where the volume of diverging traffic at a junction is high, there may be justification for reducing the
disadvantage of this junction type is number of lanes after the ramp exit. Similarly, where the volume of traffic joining the mainline is high in relation
that it is difficult to convert to a 4 leg to the through flow, the addition of an additional lane may be considered. The question of increasing or reducing
pattern junction if it were to become the mainline capacity between junctions should be considered also in the light of the requirement to provide the
necessary. Figure 9.3.5.1 Trumpet Junction through driver with a consistent driver experience as he passes along the route, and the balancing of these two
pressures calling for the use of engineering judgement on the part of the designer.
9.3.6 Single Point Junction
9.4.1.4 As a general rule, the number of lanes downstream of an exit should equal the number of upstream
9.3.6.1 A relatively new concept for interchange design is the single point junction illustrated in Figure 9.3.6.1. This lanes plus the number of lanes on the exit ramp minus one. If the number of through lanes is to be reduced as
type of grade separation can be used a result of the turning traffic volume, the number should not be reduced by more than one. The number of lanes
for two level or three level interchanges. downstream of a ramp entry should not be less than sum of all the merging lanes minus one.
It allows control of traffic conflicts with
9.4.1.5 At gore areas, it is important that drivers can easily understand the diverge/merge layouts for decision
traffic signals at a single point instead
making. It is also important that where a series of interchanges occur along a highway, that the geometry of the
of using two physically separate
gore areas is consistent with the mainline design speed and that gore area treatments and layouts should be
junctions (Diamond configuration)
uniform and present a consistent appearance to drivers.
or a single large roundabout (Two
Bridge Roundabout configuration). 9.4.1.6 Also as a general rule, the principle of merge and diverge with/from the mainline traffic should be done
Its main advantage is that it is more with the use of parallel lanes and short tapers rather than application of single long tapers. This complies with
efficient than other alternatives having current safety policies in Oman and reflects the driver expectation in the Sultanate.
higher traffic capacity and less delay
9.4.1.7 In addition to the ruling design guidelines provided in this Section 9 of the Standards, designers should
in comparison to conventionally
incorporate as necessary any further applicable detailed design recommendations contained in Chapter 10 “General
designed signal controlled diamond
Ramp Design Considerations” of AASHTO “A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” 2004.
interchanges. Care must be exercised
to reduce the size of the junction as it
can result in quite large open areas if
9.4.2 Divergence from Mainline Flow – Exit Conditions
poorly designed. Figure 9.3.6.1 Single Point Junction (2-Level) 9.4.2.1 All divergence is to be from the right hand side of the carriageway. The purposes of the exit arrangements
are to:
9.3.7 Other Grade Separated Junction Configurations
Position diverging traffic prior to its exit from the through route and before the final “decision point”
n

9.3.7.1 A range of further typical possible junction layouts are set out in the AASHTO Policy Manual on the for the manoeuvre.
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 and similar publications. Adjust the speed of the diverging traffic to a level consistent with the design speed of the exit ramp
n

without affecting mainline traffic.

9.4 DESIGN CONTROLS The task of positioning traffic in the right hand lane of the through route as it approaches the diverging taper is
accomplished by directional signing. Further signing at the start of the taper directs traffic into the deceleration
9.4.1 Junction Elements taper and ramp.

9.4.1.1 The operation of a grade separated junction depends upon the performance of a number of separate
elements and the way in which these elements work together as a whole. The separate elements are:

9-3
 Ministry of Transport & Communications . DGRLT

Grade Separated Junctions

9.4.2.2 The turning traffic flow controls whether a single lane deceleration lane and ramp is sufficient or whether 9.4.2.5 A two lane exit is shown in Figure 9.4.2.2. Note that for this configuration, the deceleration length
two (or possibly and very occasionally more) lanes are required. Deceleration taper and lane details for a single required from Table 9.4.2.1 should be provided between the end of the second taper and the ramp control point.
lane ramp exit are set out in Figure 9.4.2.1 where ramp nose definitions are shown.
a) ‘Physical Nose’ relates to a physical separation dimension before the intercept point of ramp and
mainline shoulder edges, whilst the ‘Gore Nose’ relates to the point where the unsurfaced open
ground area between mainline and ramp begins.
b) Recommended Gore Nose width ranges are given between carriageway edges and include shoulders
since shoulder widths can vary depending on road classification and ramp provision, whilst Physical
Nose widths are measured between shoulder edges as shown.

Figure 9.4.2.2 Two Lane Ramp Parallel Exit

9.4.3 Merging With Mainline Flow – Entry Conditions

9.4.3.1 All merging is from the right hand side of the carriageway. The purposes of the merging arrangements
are to:

n Allow merging traffic to match the speed of mainline traffic. This involves acceleration from the
ramp design speed to that of the mainline.
n Enable merging traffic to join the mainline without affecting traffic passing through on the mainline. This
Figure 9.4.2.1 Single Lane Ramp - Parallel Exit
involves the provision of a merging or gap acceptance area alongside the through lanes of the mainline.
9.4.2.3 Note that the length annotated as “L” is the length over which vehicle speed must be reduced from the
Acceleration length and merge area details are shown in Figures 9.4.3.1 for single lane parallel entry conditions.
design speed of the through route to that of the exit ramp. The necessary deceleration lengths for a range of
through lane and ramp design speeds are shown in Table 9.4.2.1. Adjustments to these lengths to allow for both
up and down grades on the through route are set out in Table 9.4.2.2

Mainline design Design Speed for Exit Curve (Ramp Controlling Speed)
speed km/h. Stopped 20 km/h 30 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h
50 75 70 60 45 - - - -
60 95 90 80 65 55 - - -
70 110 105 95 85 70 55 - -
80 130 125 115 100 90 80 55 -
90 145 140 135 120 110 100 75 60
100 170 165 155 145 135 120 100 85
110 180 180 170 160 150 140 120 105
120 200 195 185 175 170 155 140 120
130 220 210 205 195 185 170 155 135 Figure 9.4.3.1 Single Lane Ramp Parallel Entry
Table 9.4.2.1 S
 ingle Deceleration Lane Length (m) for Mainline Design Speeds on Level to 2% Mainline Grade
9.4.3.2 Point A in Figure 9.4.3.1 is the start of the acceleration length. Point A should coincide with the nose of the
Upgrades Downgrades
Grade taper for a ramp horizontal radius of less than 300 m. For a ramp radius of 300 m or more, point A may be taken
Apply adjustment to length from Table 9.4.2.1 as the point on the ramp where a driver begins to accelerate. This will generally be when his sight line is such that
3% - 4.5% 90% 120% he can see the acceleration lane ahead and the traffic conditions in the right hand lane of the mainline.
4.5% - 6% 80% 135%
9.4.3.3 Distance La in Figure 9.4.3.1 is the acceleration length necessary for a vehicle starting at the ramp
Table 9.4.2.2 Deceleration Length Adjustment to Allow for Mainline Grade
design speed to accelerate up to the design speed of the through route. The necessary acceleration lengths for a
9.4.2.4 Beyond the point where deceleration to the ramp design speed is achieved, the ramp geometric design range of ramp and mainline design speeds are shown in Table 9.4.3.1. Adjustments to these acceleration lengths
should be based upon at least the ramp design speed. to take account of the effect of mainline grades are shown in Table 9.4.3.2.

9-4
 Sultanate of Oman. Highway Design Standards 2010

9.4.3.6
Grade Separated Junctions

When a two lane entry ramp is required, the merging conditions become more complex. The reason for
9
Entry Ramp Design Speed
Mainline Design Stop the provision of two lanes can be to allow overtaking of slow moving vehicles on long ramps, or can be directly
20 km/h 30 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h
Speed km/h Condition related to the volume of traffic it has to carry. This traffic then has to merge with the mainline flow. In some cases,
50 60 50 30 - - - - - this volume of traffic joining at one point will necessitate the addition of an additional mainline lane downstream
60 95 80 65 45 - - - - of the junction.
70 150 130 110 90 65 - - -
9.4.3.7 In the case where an additional lane is not provided (see Figure 9.4.3.2), when the ramp lanes are
80 200 180 165 145 115 65 - -
running full, merging has to take place in two stages, with first the left hand ramp lane merging and then the
90 260 245 225 205 175 125 35 -
right. This situation should be avoided wherever possible. It will require site specific traffic analysis to determine
100 345 325 305 285 255 205 110 40
appropriate values of Lg and whether it is necessary to introduce staggering of ramp lane tapers. Substantial
110 430 410 390 370 340 290 200 125
acceleration and merging lengths would be necessary to avoid the situation where the traffic behaviour at the
120 545 530 515 490 460 410 325 245
end of the merge lane is turbulent and confused.
130 680 665 650 625 595 545 460 380
Table 9.4.3.1 A
 cceleration Length (m) for Entry Ramp and Mainline Design 9.4.3.8 The explanation of the symbols which appear in Figure 9.4.3.2 are as set out in paragraphs 9.4.3.2
Speeds on Level to 2% Mainline Grade
through to paragraph 9.4.3.5.
Entry Ramp Design Speeds (km/h)
40 50 60 70 80 All Speeds
Mainline Design
Speed (km/h) Upgrade Downgrade
3% - 4.5% 3% - 4.5%
Apply adjustment to values from Table 9.4.3.1
60 130% 140% 140% - - 70%
70 130% 140% 140% 150% - 65%
80 140% 150% 150% 150% 160% 65%
90 140% 150% 150% 150% 160% 60%
100 150% 160% 170% 170% 180% 60%
110 150% 160% 170% 170% 180% 60%
120 150% 160% 170% 170% 180% 60% Figure 9.4.3.2 Two Lane Ramp Parallel Entry without Additional Mainline Downstream Lane.
130 155% 165% 175% 175% 185% 60%
9.4.3.9 Acceleration lane lengths for a range of ramp and mainline design speeds are shown in Table 9.4.3.1
Upgrade Downgrade
Mainline Design 4.5% - 6% 4.5% - 6%
9.4.3.10 In the case where an additional mainline downstream lane is necessary (see Figure 9.4.3.3), the traffic
Speed (km/h) in the left hand ramp lane runs into an exclusive additional mainline lane while the right hand ramp lane merges
Apply adjustment to values from Table 9.4.3.1
60 150% 150% - - - 60%
with the traffic on the additional lane over the length of parallel lane. Traffic from this additional lane is then free
to weave and merge with other lanes as the flow turbulence downstream of the junction subsides. The junction
70 150% 160% 170% - - 60%
merging conditions for this case are similar to those for a single lane ramp entry.
80 150% 170% 190% 180% - 55%
90 160% 180% 200% 210% 220% 55%
100 170% 190% 220% 240% 250% 50%
110 200% 220% 260% 280% 300% 50%
120 230% 250% 300% 320% 350% 50%
130 260% 280% 330% 360% 400% 50%
Table 9.4.3.2 Acceleration Lane Length Adjustment for Grade

9.4.3.4 Distance Lg, in Figure 9.4.3.1, is the gap acceptance length. This is the distance that a driver will travel at
the speed of the mainline traffic in order to find an acceptable gap in that traffic and to enter it in order to merge
with the mainline flow. Minimum Lg is dependent upon the Physical Nose width, varying from 90m for a width
of 0.6m to 150m for a width of 3.0m.

9.4.3.5 The value of La or Lg, which produces the greater distance downstream of a Physical Nose of width
0.6 m should be used for parallel ramp entry design.
Figure 9.4.3.3 Two Lane Ramp Entry with Provision of an Additional Downstream Mainline Lane
9-5
 Ministry of Transport & Communications . DGRLT

Grade Separated Junctions

9.4.4 Ramp Geometry Traffic Condition C: Sufficient buses and heavy commercial vehicles to govern the design. (ie. more than 10%
trucks and larger vehicles.)
9.4.4.1 Ramp design speed is related to the low volume running speed on the intersecting routes. This design
speed relates to the sharpest or controlling ramp curve which is usually on the ramp proper. These ramp design 9.4.4.6 Table 9.4.4.3 shows the required roadway widths (edge to edge of paved surface), for these three
speeds do not apply to the beginning and end of each ramp which should be provided with adequate speed traffic conditions for a range of inner edge curve radii. Also shown, are adjustments to these widths for various
change facilities as appropriate. When two highways connected by a junction have different design speeds, the carriageway edge treatments.
higher speed should be used
Radius Design Traffic Conditions Design Traffic Conditions Design Traffic Conditions
Highway (Mainline) Design Speed km/h on inner (Case 1: one-way single lane (Case 2: one-way single lane (Case 3: two lanes
Ranges edge of which does not allow for passing which allows for passing a operation,
80 90 100 110 120 130 pavement (m) a stationary vehicle) stationary vehicle) one-way or two-way)
Upper Range (85%) 70 80 90 100 110 120 A B C A B C A B C
Middle Range (70%) 60 60 70 80 90 100 15 5.4 5.5 7.0 6.0 7.8 9.2 9.4 11.0 13.6
Lower Range (50%) 40 50 50 60 70 80 25 4.8 5.0 5.8 5.6 6.9 7.9 8.6 9.7 11.1
Table 9.4.4.1 Guide Values for Ramp Design Speed (km/h) for Varying Mainline Speeds 30 4.5 4.9 5.5 5.5 6.7 7.6 8.4 9.4 10.6
9.4.4.2 Desirably, the ramp speed should approximate to the mainline running speed. Where this is not 50 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.3 6.3 7.0 7.9 8.8 9.5
practicable, a lower design speed may be selected, which should not be below the lower speed range figure in 75 3.9 4.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 7.7 8.5 8.9
Table 9.4.4.1 above. Upper range speeds are not generally achievable on loops such as those used on half and full 100 3.9 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.9 6.5 7.6 8.3 8.7
cloverleaf junctions. Design speeds of above 50 km/h involve large areas to accommodate the necessary curve 125 3.9 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.9 6.4 7.6 8.2 8.5
radii. Such areas are not necessarily available and long loops can involve additional costs for both construction 150 3.6 4.5 4.5 5.1 5.8 6.4 7.5 8.2 8.4
and for user operation. Minimum values are therefore generally necessary for such ramps and appropriate Tangent 3.6 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.5 6.1 7.3 7.9 7.9
signing should be provided. Width Adjustment for Edge Treatment (no adjustment necessary for other edge treatments)
Non-
9.4.4.3 The curve radii which can be achieved for varying design speeds and super-elevation rates are shown in Mountable
add 0.3m none add 0.3m
Table 9.4.4.2 below. Note that super-elevation should normally be limited to no more than 8%. Values in excess of this curb - one
side
may be used only in exceptional circumstances and with specific approval under the design variation procedure.
Non-
Ramp Speed Super-elevation Mountable
add 0.6m add 0.3m add 0.6m
km/h curb - both
4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
sides
40 47 43 41 38 36
Stabilised Lane width for conditions B and Deduct shoulder width.
50 86 79 73 68 64 shoulder C on tangent may be reduced to Lane width for conditions B and C Deduct 0.6m where shoulder
60 135 123 113 105 98 on one 3.6m where shoulder is 1.2m or may be reduced to 3.65 m. where width is 1.2m or wider.
or both sides wider. shoulder is 1.2 m. or wider.
70 203 184 168 154 143
Table 9.4.4.3 S
 ingle and Two Lane Ramp Width (m) forTraffic Condition Types and Curve Radii (width includes allowance
80 280 252 229 210 194
for passing a broken down vehicle) - from AASHTO A Policy on GDHS 2004
90 375 336 304 277 255
100 492 437 394 358 328 9.4.4.7 Typical ramp sections on tangent alignment are shown in Figure 9.4.4.1. Lane widths shown (3.7 m and
110 - 560 501 454 414 7.3 m) are minimum values to be adopted. These minimum values should be increased in the following cases:
Table 9.4.4.2 M
 inimum Ramp Curve Radii (m) for Varying Design a) For Case 2, after deducting the sum of the shoulder widths from the tabulated Roadway Width, if that dimension
Speed and Super-elevation is less than 3.7m, then the equivalent Roadway Width from Case 1 values should be used as the lane width,
9.4.4.4 Ramp widths may be single lane or wider. Single lane ramps and shoulders must be sufficiently wide to but with a minimum dimension of 3.7m.
allow traffic to pass a broken down vehicle. In addition shoulders for all ramp widths must provide the necessary b) For Case 3, after deducting the sum of the shoulder widths from the tabulated Roadway Width, if that width is
lateral clearance and allow the horizontal stopping sight distance for the ramp design speed chosen. Shoulders less than 7.3m. then a dimension of 7.3m should be adopted as the lane width. If the width after deduction is
should be of uniform widths for the complete length of a ramp. Single lane shoulder widths should be 1.0 m on greater than 7.3m, then that wider dimension should be adopted as the lane width.
the left and 2.5 m on the right of the traffic stream. Two lane ramps should have shoulder widths of 0.6 m on the
left and 2.5 m on the right of the traffic stream. 9.4.4.8 Ramps generally involve a change in roadway level. The vertical alignment used to achieve this must be
consistent with the design speed chosen. A common ramp profile for a conventional interchange is an “S” curve.
9.4.4.5 Ramp widths are dependent upon traffic flow conditions. Generally flows in excess of 1500 vehicles per Care must be taken when the mainline is below the cross route that the exit ramp profile allows generous sight
hour justify a second lane. Three conditions are allowed for as follows: distance over the crest of the ramp to the ground level junction. For a simple junction, stopping sight distance
Traffic Condition A: P
 redominantly passenger cars. (ie. only a small volume of trucks or an occasional large truck) may be sufficient but for a more complex case which might involve a choice of lanes for different destinations,
decision sight distance to the signing may be necessary.
Traffic Condition B: P
 redominantly passenger cars and medium sized commercial vehicles and with some semi-
trailer vehicles. (ie. moderate volume of trucks – 5% to 10% of total traffic.)
9-6
 Sultanate of Oman. Highway Design Standards 2010

Grade Separated Junctions

9
9.5 TRAFFIC WEAVING

9.5.1 General

9.5.1.1 Where traffic entering and leaving the mainline results in vehicle paths crossing each other, weaving is
taking place. Where this weaving takes place over a relatively short distance and the volume of weaving traffic is
large then the flow turbulence created can have a significant effect on the level of service experienced by users and
ultimately on the capacity of the segment affected. When traffic weaving cannot be avoided, then the design objective
must be to maintain the level of service of the adjacent segments of the mainline over weaving segment.

9.5.1.2 Preference should be given to the selection of a junction type which “designs out” or minimises the
need for traffic weaving. Junctions in which entering traffic joins the mainline upstream of the leaving traffic
should therefore be avoided where possible.

9.5.1.3 When weaving has to occur, it can generally be accommodated at a given level of service by the proper
design of the weaving segment. The controlling factors for design are:

n The volume of non weaving traffic passing through the segment.

n The volume of weaving (ie. lane changing) traffic passing through the segment.
n The complexity of the lane changing manoeuvres required.
n The range of running speeds of traffic using the segment.

The proportion of the total flow through the segment that is weaving is termed the “Volume Ratio”.

9.5.1.4 The capacity of a weaving segment is any combination of flows that causes the density to reach the LoS
E/F boundary condition. This is 27.0 pc/km/lane for free flow dual carriageways, or 25.0 pc/km/lane for multi lane
single carriageways. Thus the geometric parameters which affect the capacity are:

n The configuration of the weaving segment

n The number of lanes.
n The free flow speed of the road.
n The length of the segment
n The width of the segment.
n The volume ratio

9.5.2 Further Design Information

9.5.1.5 Chapter 13 of the TRB Highway Capacity Manual 2000 gives further information on the categorisation
of weaving configurations and some of the limitations on weaving width and length. Chapter 24 of the same
document sets out methodologies for the analysis of operations in weaving segments. Study of these two sources
is specifically recommended before starting the design of weaving segments for high speed dual carriageways.

9.5.1.6 The methodology set out in Chapter 24 of the TRB Highway Capacity Manual is aimed at determining
the Level of Service which occurs for a defined set of geometric and operating weaving conditions, rather than
directly fixing one or more of the design parameters to achieve a given LoS under given operating conditions.
The method may, however, be used for design purposes by employing it in an iterative manner until an acceptable
combination of geometric features and LoS is found. This is generally best achieved by using a spread sheet to
evaluate multiple combinations of parameters and then selecting the combination which provides the desired
Figure 9.4.4.1 Ramp Cross Sections LoS within the various design constraints which affect a particular site.

9-7
 Ministry of Transport & Communications . DGRLT

Grade Separated Junctions

9.6 REFERENCES
The previous sub-sections have covered basic grade separated interchange design requirements. Further
information on these aspects and other aspects of grade separations can be found in the references provided.
1. AASHTO A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004.
2. TRB Highway Capacity Manual 2000
3. UK DMRB Vol 6 Part 4 TD 39/94 The Design of Major Interchanges.
4. UK DMRB Vol 6 Part 4 TD 22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions.

9-8