International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

Feasibility Study and Analysis of Pedestrian Subway at junction, ,

Jerin Jose#1, Kiran S Chirayath#2, M.A Muhammed Riswan#3, Megha Shankar#4, Rose Mariya George#5 #1Department of Civil Engineering, Viswajyothi College of Engineering and Technology, Kochi, Kerala Abstract— The word “Pedestrian” refers to the nonmotorized movement mainly to person traveling on foot. This includes movement by physically challenged, visually impaired, old and very young for different purposes such as work related, recreational, social interaction and shopping activity. Walking is a basic human activity and this group of people called the pedestrians, form the second largest road users after motorised vehicles. Increased pace of vehicular movement in all parts of the city have led to increased accidents and reduced safety to the pedestrians. Hence the safety of pedestrians is of great concern in a busy city such as Vyttila intersection at Kochi. The pedestrian safety is analysed conducting an opinion survey. The problems faced by the pedestrians in this area is also analysed in the study. This study is confined to check the feasibility of pedestrian subway at the Vyttila junction and to analyse it using STAAD.Pro.

Keywords— Pedestrian safety, Pedestrian subway, Feasibility, Opinion survey, STAAD analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Pedestrians are a part of every roadway environment. A large segment of road users consisting of persons walking on road, operating hand carts, carrying load on head or shoulder, pushing cycle etc. are all termed as pedestrians. They consist of persons of different age groups, educational level and socio-economic background. In spite of the benefits and importance of walking, road facilities in urban areas are still a significant source of harm to pedestrians. Pedestrian safety is a major issue in many urbanized areas throughout the world. Every country have their own specifications for design and design standards for pedestrian facilities. The very first document dealt with pedestrian’s safety was published by Indian Road Congress (IRC) in 1988. Vyttila is the busiest traffic junction in Kerala, in terms of traffic volume and also on the basis of spatial parameters. This node intersects the main North-South artery of the state, namely NH-544 (old number NH-47). Vyttila hosts the Kochi Mobility Hub, which converges different ways of surface transport to the city onto a single node. Being one of the biggest junctions in the state, it is the least pedestrian friendly. The junction records a sizeable share of pedestrian accidents every year. Most of the victims are pedestrians crossing the road. The only solace for pedestrians is the policeman who takes the extra effort to help them cross the road. Because of heavy traffic flow, pedestrian flow is very difficult at the junction.

Fig.1 News about the accidents at Vyttila Junction

Figure 1 shows a brief idea about the condition of Vyttila junction. Though the District Administration had mooted a skywalk linking the 4 sides of the junction with mobility hub, this proposal might pose problems when two flyovers and Metro rail pass through the junction. Hence, proper implementation of any plan in a busy city like Vyttila is a great concern. The road side shops present in the sidewalks reduce the space on these walkways. It makes a lot of inconvenience in the pedestrian flow due to which they choose roads to walk which may cause accidents. Foot paths also have become narrow due to widening of roads to accommodate vehicles.

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 301 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

The main objective of this project is to analyse a pedestrian subway using STAAD.PRO by checking the necessity of a pedestrian crossing facility through an opinion survey at Vyttila Junction, Kochi, Kerala.

II. ROAD INVENTORY DATA Table I shows the road inventory data which is collected from National Highway Authority of (NHAI).

TABLE I ROAD INVENTORY DATA

1 Name of NH-544 NH - 544 S-A ROAD VYTTILA - the road () PETTA ROAD

Type of 2 PWD PWD PWD PWD the road Width of 3 8.5 m 8.5m 7m 7m the road 4 Median 1.2m 1.2m 1m 1m 5 Footpath 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 6 Shoulder 1m 1m 1m 1m Bus stops 7 Left 0 1 1 1 Right 1 0 1 0

III. OPINION SURVEY An opinion survey was conducted at Vyttila junction in which 258 people participated. The parameters which were considered in the questionnaire were waiting time in seconds, type of vehicles causing havoc, type of crossing preferred, peak traffic volume hours. Figure 2 to Figure 8 shows the results obtained from the opinion survey.

Fig.2 Result of pedestrian survey

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 302 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

Fig.3 Result of pedestrian survey

Fig.4 Result of pedestrian survey

Peak traffic volume hours 100 89.5

80 64 60 44.2 40 28.3

20 14.3

Pedestrian Response % 0 6.00 - 9.00 AM 9.00 - 12 PM 12.00 - 3.00PM 3.00 - 6.00PM 6.00 - 9.00PM

Time

Fig.5 Result of pedestrian survey

If you have to cross the road, what do you prefer? 100 85.3 80 67.1 56.6 60 39.1 40

20 3.5

Pedestrian Response % 0 Zebra Underpass Raised Special lights Foot over crossing walkways bridge Type of facilities

Fig.6 Result of pedestrian survey

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 303 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

Waiting time in seconds

2.7 2.3 <3 3 to 13 19.8 21.3 13 to 38 38 to 64 53.9 64 to 90 >90

Fig.7 Result of pedestrian survey

Will you use an underpass if it is constructed?

37.2 Yes

58.9 No Maybe

3.9

Fig.8 Result of pedestrian survey

IV. ANALYSIS OF OPINION SURVEY From the above survey it is identified that the busiest road is NH 544. The peak traffic volume is during 6pm to 9pm followed by 9am to 12pm. The minimum waiting time for the majority people is 38-64 seconds. Buses, motorbikes and trucks cause the most havoc to the pedestrians. From the table II below, it is inferred that the LOS of this area is LOS D as per IRC 103:2012. 85.3% prefer underpass and 58.9% said that they will definitely use the underpass if constructed.

TABLE II PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE AT ROAD CROSSING (IRC 103-2012)

Level of service Waiting time in seconds

A <=3

B >3 and 13<= C >13 and 38<= D >38 and 64<= E >64 and 90<=

F >=90

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 304 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

V. DESIGN PARAMETERS A. Box Culvert Section – Size : 5 x 3 m Unit weight of soil =17.27 kN/m3 Unit weight of wearing coat is assumed to be 22 kN/m3 Unit weight of base and sub base is assumed to be 16.8 kN/m3 Angle of repose of soil,α is 30° M20 concrete and Fe415 steel is used for construction. Road width is found to be 8.5m. Live load is considered as per IRC: 6-2000 Thickness of surface coarse = 0.15 m Total depth of base and sub base = 0.4 m For design purpose 5m length and 3m width of box culvert is considered. Assume a slab thickness of 300 mm. A wearing coat of thickness 0.08m is provided above the culvert. Therefore, effective span of box culvert = 5.3x3.3 m. Dead load Calculation Self-weight of wearing coat = 22 x 0.08 = 1.76 kN/m2 Self-weight of soil = 17.27 x 0.15 = 2.59 kN/m2 Self-weight of sub base and base = 16.8 x 0.4 = 6.72 kN/m2 Total load = 11.07 kN/m2 Super imposed dead load = 11.07 kN/m2 Thickness of top slab, L/15= 0.3 m Centre line dimension of top slab= 5.3 m Thickness of side walls, D/10= 0.3 m Centerline dimension of side wall= 3.3 m Live load Calculation (As per IRC : 6-2016) Maximum live load occurs in the case of Class AA-Wheeled Vehicle than Class AA-Tracked Vehicle and Class A loading Vehicle. B. Live Load using Class AA – Wheeled Vehicle Dispersion dimension parallel to span = 0.15 + [2 (0.3 +0.08)] = 0.91 m Total dispersion length = (0.31/2) + (0.31/2/2) + 1.2 = 2.11m Dispersion dimension perpendicular to span, beff = aα[1-(a/l0)]+ b1 a = 5.3/2-1.2/2 = 2.11m l0 = 5.3m b1 = 0.3 + (2 x 0.08) = 0.46 m b = 1+8.5+1+1.2/2 = 11.1 m b/l0 = 11.1/5.3 = 2.09 α = 2.6 For one wheel, beff= 2.05 x 2.6 x [1-(2.05/5.3)] +0.46 = 3.73 m Total dispersion length = 1.5 + 0.3 + 0.3 +0.3 + 0.7 + 0.3 + 0.3 + (0.3/2) + (3.73/2) = 5.71 m Intensity of load per m2 = 400/(5.71 x 2.11) = 33.18 kN/m2

RA =(33.18x2.11)/2=35.00 kN RB =(33.18x2.11)/2=35.00 kN Maximum BM at mid span due to LL = (35.00 x 5.3) – (33.18 x 2.112 / 8) = 74.29 kNm Impact factor = 25 % = 0.25 Impact load BM= 0.25 x 74.29 = 18.57 kNm Total LL BM = 74.29 + 18.57 = 92.86 kNm

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 305 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

Maximum Live load LL = 33.18 kN/m (class AA wheeled) C. Load Combinations The design loads and load combinations are taken as per IRC 6 – 2016. The load combinations used in analysis and design are listed below: (1.5 x DL) + (1.5 x LL) (1.2 x DL) + (1.2 x LL) (1.5 x DL) (0.9 x DL) The maximum value of shear forces, bending moments and deflections are obtained in the load combination (1.5 x DL) + (1.5 x LL) D. Design Load on Top Slab D.L = 0.3x25 = 7.50 kN/m2 Factored D.L = 1.5x7.5 = 11.25 kN/m2 L.L = 33.18 kN/m2 Factored L.L = 1.5x 33.18 = 49.77 kN/m2 SIDL = 11.07 kN/m2 Factored SIDL = 1.5x11.07 = 16.61 kN/m2 Total load on culvert = 44.97+16.61= 66.38 kN/m2 Total design load on top slab = 66.38+11.25 = 77.63 kN/m2 E. Design Load on Side Wall D.L = 3.3x0.3x25 = 24.75 kN/m Factored D.L = 1.5x24.75 = 37.13kN/m F. Pressure on bottom slab Load from top slab =72.83 = 77.63 kN/m2 Weight of 2 side walls = 2x37.13 = 74.25 kN/m Total pressure on bottom slab = (72.83x5.3+74.25)/5.3 = 91.64 kN/m2 G. Lateral pressure through earthfill Active earth pressure coefficient, Ka= (1-sin α)/(1+sin α)= 0.33 Lateral pressure due to LL and SIDL = Ka x (LL+SIDL) =0.33x (49.77+16.67) =22.13 kN/m2 Lateral pressure due to earth fill = Ka x γ x h =19.00 kN/m2 Factored lateral pressure due to earth fill= 1.5x19 = 28.50 kN/m2 H. Lateral pressure due to water inside the culvert Water table at the proposed site is at 0.2m from the ground level. Assume the considered depth is completely under water table. Height from the bottom slab to the water table= 3.30m Water pressure at bottom= γw x h= 9.81x3.3= 32.37 kN/m2 Factored water pressure=1.5x32.37=48.56 kN/m2

VI. STAAD ANALYSIS A. Case 1: Dead load + Live load and no water inside

Fig.9 Forces on box culvert (case 1)

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 306 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

TABLE III FINAL END MOMENTS USING MANUAL ANALYSIS (CASE 1) JOINT D A MEMBER DC DA AD AB FINAL END 158.02 -158.02 128.45 -128.45 MOMENTS

Fig.12 BMD of case 1

Fig.13 SFD of case 1

B. Case 2 : Dead load and live loads acting from outside while water pressure acting from inside. Culvert full condition - (DL+SIDL + LL + EP + water pressure)

Fig.14 Forces on box culvert (case 2)

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 307 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

TABLE IV FINAL END MOMENTS USING MANUAL ANALYSIS (CASE 2)

JOINT D A MEMBER DC DA AD AB FINAL END 148.81 -148.81 120.76 -120.76 MOMENTS

Fig.14 BMD of case 2

Fig.15 SFD of case 2

C. Case 3: dead load and live loads acting on top of slab. Water pressure acting from inside and no lateral pressure due to live load. (DL+SIDL + LL + EP + water pressure)

Fig.16 Forces on box culvert (case 3)

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 308 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

TABLE V FINAL END MOMENTS USING MANUAL ANALYSIS (CASE 3)

JOINT D A

MEMBER DC DA AD AB

FINAL END 134.33 -134.33 107.48 -107.48 MOMENTS

Fig.17 BMD of case 3

Fig.18 SFD of case 3

VII. CONCLUSION From the opinion survey, it was identified that the NH 544 is the most unsafe among the roads meeting the intersection. Therefore, it can be confirmed that there is a necessity of a pedestrian crossing facility at Vyttila junction. Due to the Flyover under construction and the proposed , a foot over bridge cannot be provided. It was also understood from the opinion survey that the pedestrians as well as the locals preferred a subway as the most favourable type of pedestrian crossing facility. So the most feasible solution for the problem identified will be the implementation of subway at the proposed site. The structural analysis has been done using STAAD.Pro V8i.

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 309 International Journal of Scientific Research and Review ISSN NO: 2279-543X

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The analysis work was completed by the support of Civil Engineering Department of the Viswajyothi College of Engineering and Technology, Kochi, Kerala.

REFERENCES [1] Codes by Indian Road Congress and IS code for design : IRC SP- 41, IRC 6-2016, IRC 103-2012, IRC 103-1988, SP – 16 and IS 456:2000. [2] Dr. S.K.Hirde, S.B. Kambale(2018): Effect of Water Pressure on Design Parameters of RCC Box Culvert, International Journal of Computer & Mathematical Sciences, vol. 7, Issue 3, March 2018 [3] Serin Sara Roy, Greeshma K.R, Rahsina M.A, Reshma Raveendran, Sajeev Philip (2017): Safety Analysis and Performance Evaluation of Pedestrians At Vytilla Junction, Kochi, Kerala, International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering, Vol. 3, Issue 9, March 2017 [4] Aishwarya Fadnavis (2015): Success and failures of crossing facilities for pedestrians International Journal Of Research In Engineering And Technology, Vol. 04, No 9, September 2015, pp.321-327. [5] Y.Vinod Kumar and Dr. Chava Srinivas (2015) : Analysis and design of box culvert by using computational methods, International Journal Of Engineering & Science Research, Vol. 5,No 7, July 2015, pp. 850-861. [6] Dipika Gupta and V.R. Patel (2014): Pedestrian simulation in congested urban area, International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, Vol. 2, No 3, March 2014, pp.111-115 [7] Sujata Shreedhar and R.Shreedhar (2013): Design coefficients for single and two cell box culvert, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering ,Vol. 3, No 3, 2013, pp 475-494. [8] K. Swetha, K.L.A.V.Harnadh, and DR. T.Chandra Sekhar Rao (2012): Analysis of accident survey on pedestrians on national highway -16 using statistical methods, Elk Asia Pacific Journals [9] Eric Dumbaugh and Wenhao Li (2011): Designing for the Safety of Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Motorists in Urban Environments, Journal of the American Planning Association,Vol.77, No. 1, 2011. [10] K Singh (2011): Methods of assessing pedestrian Level of Service, Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. 2, No 1, January-March 2011. [11] A Chakrabarti, B.C. Roy, S.S. Mondal (1999), Design And Detailing For Durability: Concrete Subways And Underpasses, Concrete model code for Asia, pp.101, 8092. [12] D.J.M Van Der Voordt and H.B.R Van Wegen (1987): Underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists: user requirements and implication for design, Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 8, 1983, pp.1-4 . [13] Yordphol Tanaboriboon, Sim Siang Hwa, and Chin Hoong Chor (1986): Pedestrian characteristic study in Singapore, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 112, No.3, May 1986. ©ASCE.

Volume 8, Issue 6, 2019 Page No: 310