LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Prepared for:

Local Roads & Drainage Programme

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 1 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................7
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................8
1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 Reference Document ......................................................................................................................... 8
2 Standard Drawings .......................................................................................................................10
3 Traffic and Transportation ...........................................................................................................11
3.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Transportation Assessment and Deliverables .................................................................................. 11
4 Local Streets Design Practices ...................................................................................................12
4.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 12
5 Geometry .......................................................................................................................................13
5.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Not Used .......................................................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Sight Distance .................................................................................................................................. 13
5.3.1 Visibility Requirements ......................................................................................................... 13
5.3.2 Sight Distance at Residential Property Access ..................................................................... 13
5.4 Vertical Alignment ............................................................................................................................ 14
5.4.1 Minimum Grades .................................................................................................................. 14
5.4.2 Vertical Grades on Local Roads ........................................................................................... 14
5.4.3 Maximum K values on Sag Vertical Curves .......................................................................... 14
5.5 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................................................................................ 15
5.6 Merge Taper Lengths ....................................................................................................................... 15
5.7 Turn Radii at Junctions..................................................................................................................... 15
5.8 Design Vehicles ............................................................................................................................... 15
5.9 Shy Distance .................................................................................................................................... 15
5.10 provision for Breakdown / Emergency Vehicle Access..................................................................... 15
5.11 Roadside Safety ............................................................................................................................... 16
5.12 Traffic Calming ................................................................................................................................. 16
5.12.1 Not Used .............................................................................................................................. 16
5.12.2 Vertical Deflections ............................................................................................................... 16
5.12.3 Horizontal Deflections ........................................................................................................... 16
6 Junctions .......................................................................................................................................17
6.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 17
7 Barrier Specifications and Guidance ..........................................................................................18
7.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 18
7.2 Road Safety Barrier Systems ........................................................................................................... 18
8 Signage and Road Marking .........................................................................................................19
8.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 19

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 2 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................20

9.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 20
9.2 Pedestrians ...................................................................................................................................... 20
9.3 persons with a disability ................................................................................................................... 20
9.4 Bicycles ............................................................................................................................................ 20
9.5 Cycleways and Footways Pavements .............................................................................................. 20
10 Parking ...........................................................................................................................................21
10.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 21
10.1.1 Implementation: .................................................................................................................... 21
10.2 On-Street Parking Provision ............................................................................................................. 22
10.3 Parking at Junctions ......................................................................................................................... 23
10.3.1 Required Parking Setbacks at Junctions: ............................................................................. 23
10.3.2 Parking Provision Within a T-Junction .................................................................................. 23
10.4 Parking Provisions Near Driveways ................................................................................................. 25
10.5 Parking stall size .............................................................................................................................. 27
10.5.1 Angle Parking Provision ....................................................................................................... 27
11 Public Transportation...................................................................................................................28
11.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 28
11.2 Railway Projects ............................................................................................................................... 28
11.3 Bus Service ...................................................................................................................................... 28
12 Public Facilities .............................................................................................................................29
12.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 29
12.2 Mosque zones .................................................................................................................................. 29
12.3 Shopping Areas ................................................................................................................................ 30
12.4 Sport Stadiums ................................................................................................................................. 30
13 Pavements .....................................................................................................................................31
13.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 31
13.2 Pavement design report ................................................................................................................... 31
13.3 Traffic assessment ........................................................................................................................... 31
13.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 31
13.3.2 Case I: Existing Roads ......................................................................................................... 31
13.3.3 Case II: Non-Existing Roads or Roads in Partially Developed Areas ................................... 36
13.4 Not used ........................................................................................................................................... 37
13.5 Not Used .......................................................................................................................................... 37
13.6 Geotechnical considerations ............................................................................................................ 37
13.6.1 Geotechnical Investigation ................................................................................................... 38
13.6.2 Subgrade Design CBR and Resilient Modulus ..................................................................... 39
13.6.3 Ground Water Elevation ....................................................................................................... 40
13.7 Recommendations for Pavement Design PArameters ..................................................................... 40
13.7.1 Design Period ....................................................................................................................... 40
13.7.2 Layer Coefficient................................................................................................................... 41
13.7.3 Drainage Coefficients (mi) .................................................................................................... 41
13.7.4 Reliability .............................................................................................................................. 42
13.7.5 Structural Number ................................................................................................................ 42
13.7.6 Minimum Pavement Thicknesses: ........................................................................................ 43

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 3 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

13.7.7 Ramps and Shoulders .......................................................................................................... 43

13.7.8 Parking Areas and Busbays ................................................................................................. 43
13.7.9 Use of Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) ............................................................................. 44
14 Geotechnical .................................................................................................................................45
14.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 45
14.2 Slopes 45
14.3 Foundations ..................................................................................................................................... 46
14.3.1 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................................ 46
14.3.2 Deep Foundations (Pile Foundations for Bridges) ................................................................ 46
14.4 Minor Structures ............................................................................................................................... 47
14.4.1 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................................ 47
14.4.2 Deep Foundations ................................................................................................................ 47
14.5 Excavations and Temporary Retaining Walls ................................................................................... 48
15 Structures ......................................................................................................................................49
16 Sewerage and Drainage ...............................................................................................................50
16.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 50
16.2 Ground Water Control ...................................................................................................................... 50
16.3 Non-positive Surface Water Systems ............................................................................................... 50
16.4 Projected Population for design of Foul Sewers ............................................................................... 50
16.5 Modelling Protocols .......................................................................................................................... 50
16.6 Surge Analysis Reports .................................................................................................................... 51
16.7 Package Treatment Plants ............................................................................................................... 51
16.8 Pipe Size and Materials.................................................................................................................... 51
16.9 Drainage Design Drawings ............................................................................................................... 52
16.9.1 Scale .................................................................................................................................... 52
16.9.2 Sheets .................................................................................................................................. 52
16.9.3 Profile Sheets ....................................................................................................................... 54
16.9.4 Standard Layers, Line types and Symbols ........................................................................... 55
16.10 Pumping Station Design ................................................................................................................... 55
17 Roadway Lighting .........................................................................................................................56
17.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 56
18 Traffic Signals ...............................................................................................................................57
18.1 Signal Design ................................................................................................................................... 57
18.2 Concept Design ................................................................................................................................ 57
18.3 Detailed Design ................................................................................................................................ 58
18.3.1 Signal Equipment Position .................................................................................................... 59
18.3.2 Use of Gantries..................................................................................................................... 60
18.3.3 Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................. 60
18.3.4 Traffic Loop........................................................................................................................... 60
18.3.5 ITS ........................................................................................................................................ 61
19 Intelligent Transportation Systems ............................................................................................62
19.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 62
19.2 Standards ......................................................................................................................................... 62
19.3 ITS Operational Needs ..................................................................................................................... 62
19.4 ITS planning and Deployment .......................................................................................................... 63
THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 4 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

19.5 ITS Design ....................................................................................................................................... 63

19.5.1 ITS Ducts .............................................................................................................................. 63
19.5.2 ITS Chambers ...................................................................................................................... 64
19.5.3 Foundations .......................................................................................................................... 64
19.5.4 Power Requirements ............................................................................................................ 64
19.5.5 Special Items ........................................................................................................................ 64
20 Landscaping ..................................................................................................................................65
20.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 65
20.2 Landscape Design............................................................................................................................ 65
21 Utilities ...........................................................................................................................................67
21.1 References ....................................................................................................................................... 67
21.2 Service corridors .............................................................................................................................. 67
21.3 Utility Work ....................................................................................................................................... 67
21.3.1 Concept Level Utility Information .......................................................................................... 68
21.3.2 Preliminary Design Utility Information ................................................................................... 69
21.3.3 Detailed Design Information ................................................................................................. 69
21.3.4 Tender Documents Information ............................................................................................ 69

List of Tables
Table 5 - 1 Stopping Sight Distance for Local Roads ..........................................................................13
Table 5 - 2 Maximum Relative Gradient ..............................................................................................15
Table 13 - 1 Subgrade Modulus Correlations.........................................................................................39
Table 13 - 2 Drainage coefficients for pavement layers in state of Qatar ..............................................41
Table 13 - 3 AASHTO (1993) inputs for serviceability and reliability for the State of Qatar ..................42
Table 16 - 1 Pipe Size and Material .......................................................................................................51
Table 16 - 2 Drawing Scales ..................................................................................................................52
Table 19 - 1 LR&DP ITS Duct Allocation ...............................................................................................63

List of Figures
Figure 10 - 1 Typical Parking Setbacks for Local Roads ........................................................................24
Figure 10 - 2 On-Street Parking trough T-junctions ................................................................................25
Figure 10 - 3 Parking Provision at Driveways .........................................................................................26
Figure 13 - 1 Example linear growth model (dotted line) for traffic predictions of QSTM ......................34
Figure 18 - 1 Typical Concept Design Traffic Drawing ...........................................................................58

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 5 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendices
Appendix A Not Used ............................................................................................................................70
Appendix B Not Used ............................................................................................................................71
Appendix C Not Used ............................................................................................................................72
Appendix D Cycleway and Footways Pavement Design Guide ............................................................73
Appendix E MOTC Planning Standards for Provision of Bus Services – Bus Stops and Related
Infrastructure Design Guidelines .......................................................................................74
Appendix F Not Used ............................................................................................................................75
Appendix G Not Used ............................................................................................................................76
Appendix H Design Criteria for Highway Structures .............................................................................77
Appendix I Amendments to Qatar Sewerage and Drainage Design Manual – Vols. 1 to 4 ................78
Appendix J Methodology for Estimating the Flow in Foul Sewers from Design Populations ...............79
Appendix K Protocols for the Delivery of Hydraulic Models at Gateway 3 ...........................................80
Appendix L Not Used ............................................................................................................................81
Appendix M Not used ............................................................................................................................82
Appendix N Drainage Plan Preparation ................................................................................................83
Appendix O QHDM Volume 3 Part 18 Street Lighting (2018) ...............................................................84
Appendix P Guidance for the Preparation of Surge Analysis Reports..................................................85
Appendix Q Traffic Signal Policy statement ...........................................................................................86
Appendix R Pumping Station Design Guidelines ..................................................................................87

Review and Approval

Name Position Functional Area Signed Date

Nick Gill Deputy Design Director Design 15.03.2018

Design & Construction

Ahmad Jaber Design 15.03.2018
Director

Revision History

Version Changes Compiled by Date

0 Initial external issue Multiple Authors 06.12.2012

1 Issued with PWA and internal PMC comments incorporated Multiple Authors 23.03.2013

2 Issued for GEC use Multiple Authors 28.04.2013

3 Quarterly update Multiple Authors 15.09.2013

4 Semi-Annual update Multiple Authors 29.05.2014

Changes applied to align with the implementation of QHDM and QTCM
5 Multiple Authors 15.03.2018
2015 in accordance with the instruction of PWA memo 2017/0020997/9

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 6 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Ministry of Municipality and Urban
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic MMUP
Planning (now part of MME)
ADT Average Daily Traffic MfS Manual for Streets
American Association of State Highway
AASHTO MOE Ministry of Environment
and Transportation Officials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act MOI Ministry of Interior
Ministry of Transportation &
BOQ Bill of Quantities MoTC
Communication
CCTV Closed Circuit Television MOU Memorandum of Understanding
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
CDMS Common Database Management System MUTCD
Devices
CV Commercial Vehicle NFPA National Fire Protection Association
National Transportation Communications
DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges NTCIP
for ITS Protocol
DMM Design Management Manual PMB Polymer Modified Bitumen
DMS Dynamic Message Signs PMC Programme Management Consultant
Programme Management Information
ESA Equivalent Standard Axles PMIS
System
FHWA Federal Highway Administration PWA Public Works Authority
FP Feeder Pillar QCS Qatar Construction Specifications 2010
Qatar Sewerage and Drainage Design
FS Foul Sewer QSDDM
Manual
Global Sustainability Assessment
GSAS QSTM Qatar Strategic Traffic Model
System
GEC General Engineering Consultant QHDM Qatar Highway Design Manual
MMUP Guidelines and Procedures for
GPTS QTCM Qatar Traffic Control Manual
Transport Studies
Guidelines for Residential Road Layouts
GRRL RWIS Roadway Weather Information Systems
State of Qatar
Speed Hump Recommendation
HCM Highway Capacity Manual SHRCR
Committee Report
HSM Highway Safety Manual SSD Stopping Sight Distance
IAN Interim Advice Note SW Surface Water
ICD Inscribed Circle Diameter TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
IES Illuminating Engineering Society TMPQ Transportation Master Plan for Qatar
ITS Intelligent Transportation System TSE Treated Sewage Effluent
LED Light Emitting Diode TSLP Traffic Signal Layout Plan
LR&DP Local Roads and Drainage Programme UTC Urban Traffic Control
MME Ministry of Municipality and Environment

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 7 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE

This manual defines the design standards for the Local Roads and Drainage Programme
(LR&DP) Projects.

The manual is prepared in response to Clause 7.12.1 of the Project Brief, which states:
“The PMC will develop a set of Design Standards and Standard Specifications
that will provide clear and consistent guidelines on all design aspects of the
Programme. The Design Standards and Standard Specifications will reference
all applicable international codes of practice and design standards that are to
be adopted, together with any particular references and local departures from
those standards due to local environmental and cultural requirements.”

Qatar standards, design manuals and specifications provide the basic requirements for Project
design. This document will be read in conjunction with and supplement these standards to
provide direction where specific elements are not covered (in sufficient detail) and to address
issues specific to the LR&DP Projects.

1.2 SCOPE

The design standards identified in this document will apply to all Projects included in the
LR&DP in accordance with instructions provided to the General Engineering Consultant (GEC)
at the time of its release, except:

 As identified in Basis of Design document prepared for each assigned Project by the
GEC as part of the Gate 1 Project Initiation approval.
 As amended by design departures identified and approved as part of the design
process.

1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENT

All engineering design activities for the LR&DP will be performed in accordance with the
Programme Management Consultant (PMC) Professional Services Agreement and the GEC
Professional Services Agreement, as applicable.

The Transportation Master Plan for Qatar (TMPQ) provides a comprehensive vision for new
infrastructure design. Strategies to provide guidance to the GEC for implementing this vision
on LR&DP Projects are developed in the various sections of the TMPQ and in the Design
Management Manual (DMM). The DMM was developed by the PMC collaboratively with the
PWA and GECs in order to evaluate and recommend design solutions based upon the TMPQ
vision, best practices, local constraints, and compliance with design standards.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 8 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

As per the Professional Services Agreements, the latest version of the following Qatar design
standards and specifications form the basis for all LR&DP engineering and design criteria:

 Qatar Construction Specifications (QCS )

 Qatar Highway Design Manual (QHDM)
 Qatar Sewerage and Drainage Design Manual (QSDDM)
 Transportation Master Plan for Qatar (TMQP)
 Qatar Traffic Control Manual (QTCM)
 Qatar Survey Manual

These reference standards are supplemented by the latest versions other Qatar standards,
guidance manuals and documents, including:
 Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Manual
 Intelligent Transportation System Specifications\Civil and Structural Standards for ITS
 Road Safety Audit Guide
 Work Zone Traffic Management Guide
 Interim Advice Notes (IAN) approved by the Public Works Authority (PWA) Design
Department for use on the LR&DP or Expressway Programme.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 9 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

2 STANDARD DRAWINGS
Copies of the PWA Standard Detail Drawings are made available to Reviewers, Designers and
Contractors via the PWA portal and the Programme Management Delivery System (PMDS).
When necessary, GECs are to prepare project-specific Standard Drawings that are not
covered in the PWA Standard Drawings. These drawings are to be given the GEC project
specific drawing numbers.

For Design Review submissions to the PMC, the PWA Standard Detail Drawings are to be
identified in the project drawing list but do not need to be included in the submission.

For the Tender submission, GECs are to utilize the PWA Standard Drawings.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 10 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

3 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

3.1 REFERENCES

Except as amended in the following sections, the requirements of the following documents
apply:
 Qatar Highway Design Manual (QHDM) 2015
 Transportation Master Plan for Qatar (TMPQ)
 MMUP Guidelines and Procedures for Transport Studies (GPTS)

Road classification (functional hierarchy) should follow Section 5 “Functional Classification as

a Primary Design Control” of the QHDM 2015 Volume 1 Part 2 “Planning”.

3.2 TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT AND DELIVERABLES

The transportation assessment for each Project and surrounding area is undertaken by the
Designer to evaluate its traffic generation and provides proposals to ensure efficient and safe
circulation of the generated trips. These proposals will enable the preparation of the proposed
Road Network Plan and the Road Corridor Plan that are major elements of the proposed
Concept Design.

The transportation assessment, carried out to inform a robust Road Design, consists of three
main submittals; Transportation Scoping Note, Transportation Modelling Note (where
applicable) and Transport Assessment Report.

The Scope, Review and Approval of the transport assessment is described in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MOTC LTPD (formerly MMUP-TIPD) and
Public Works Authority of December 2012.

The submittal and approval of the Transportation Scoping Note freezes the land use and
network assumptions for the Transportation Assessment Report, notwithstanding unforeseen
and major changes in the planning of the transportation system and land use changes in Qatar.

The designer should adhere to the details of the Transportation Assessment process set in the
MOU and clarified in subsequent PMC communications.

A bound report of the study detailing the Work undertaken, the assumptions made, and the
results of all investigations and consequential detailed scheme recommendations for review
and consideration will be prepared and will be presented as part of the Gateway 2 Concept
Design submission.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 11 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

4 LOCAL STREETS DESIGN PRACTICES

4.1 REFERENCES

In general the Designer is referred to the following; QHDM 2015 Volume 1, Part 5 – Qatar
Roadway Design Criteria, QHDM 2015 Volume 3, Part 19 – Pedestrian, Bike and Public
Transportation and QHDM 2015 Volume 3, Part 20 – Context Sensitive Design and Solutions
for guidance relating to design practices applicable to the development of Local Streets.

The Designer is also referred to the broad guidance given within ‘The New Qatari Street –
National Public Realm Guidelines (Ashghal 2014 or latest version) and the Manual for Streets
2 (Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, Sept. 2010), as further clarified.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 12 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

5 GEOMETRY
5.1 REFERENCES

In general, the Designer shall refer to the applicable sections of QHDM 2015, Volume 1, Parts
3 and 5 for guidance on roadway geometry and as further clarified below.

5.2 NOT USED

5.3 SIGHT DISTANCE

5.3.1 Visibility Requirements

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 1, Part 3, Section 2

However, for Local Access roads and residential streets where visibility at bends and junctions
may not meet the requirement of the QHDM, an appropriate design guidance is the MfS. For
visibility at bends, the MfS requires a minimum forward visibility to be equal to the minimum
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD), measured between points on a curve along the centre of the
inner lane. For visibility at junctions, the MfS require an ‘x’ value of 2.4m and ‘y’ value based
on the appropriate SSD. The MfS provides revised stopping sight distances suitable for speeds
of 60 kph or less. See section 7.5 of the MfS for justification of the revised SSD. The revised
SSDs are provided in Table 5.1.
Table 5 - 1 Stopping Sight Distance for Local Roads

Design Speed (kph) 30 40 50 60

SSD (metres) 23 33 45 59

Source: Manual for Streets, Table 7.1 Derived SSD for Streets

The Designer should note that the above is only guidance and where it is deemed appropriate
to be applied, a Departure from Standards (DfS) should be submitted for approval to the PWA.
As there may be a number of similar locations the Designer can apply for a single DfS per
project identifying the relevant locations
When 90-degree bends, common in residential developments throughout Qatar, are designed
using the designated stopping sight distance listed in Table 5-1, they act as “speed control
bends” which shall be considered as part of the traffic calming strategy, see section 5.12.3.

5.3.2 Sight Distance at Residential Property Access

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 1, Part 5, Clause 1.4.10 and Part 6, Clause 6.1.2

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 13 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

5.4 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

5.4.1 Minimum Grades

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 1, Part 3, Clauses 4.2.1 & 4.2.2 & Part 5

5.4.2 Vertical Grades on Local Roads

Mathematically derived vertical curves, as used for open highways, are not always practical on
areas of local roads such as junctions and cul-de-sacs. In these locations, profile curves can
be developed readily with a spline or irregular curve templates.
When grading in these areas, the principal criterion is to develop smooth profiles that do not
appear distorted to the driver (i.e. preventing “kinks” in pavement or kerb alignments). A
detailed assessment, including preparing a contour plan of the surface levels, is necessary to
identify drainage patterns, sumps, and irregular slope conditions.

5.4.3 Maximum K values on Sag Vertical Curves

It is to be emphasized that QHDM 2015 vertical sag curve lengths are minimum values based
on design speed. While longer curves are desired wherever practical, special attention should
be exercised where values of K in excess of 51m per percent change in grade are used, as
drainage affects design of vertical curves with opposing grades where kerbed sections are
used.
An approximate criterion for sag vertical curves is the same as that expressed for the crest
conditions; a minimum grade of 0.30 percent should be provided within 15 m of the level point.
This criterion corresponds to K of 51m per percent change in grade as the drainage maximum.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 14 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

5.5 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

Refer to QHDM 2015, Volume 1, Part 3. However, Table 3.3 Maximum Relative Gradient
(Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 1, Part 3, Section 6) is incorrect and hereby replaced by table
5-2 below.
Table 5 - 2 Maximum Relative Gradient

Maximum Relative Gradient for Super Elevation Transition

Design Speed Maximum Relative Equivalent Maximum
(km/h) Gradient%* Relative Slope
50 0.65 1:154 154%
60 0.60 1:167 167%
70 0.55 1:182 182%
80 0.50 1:200 200%
90 0.47 1:213 213%
100 0.44 1:227 227%
110 0.41 1:244 244%
120 0.38 1:263 263%
*Maximum relative gradient for profile between edge of traveled way and axis of rotation
Notwithstanding the above it should be noted that in residential areas where speeds in local
and access roads are 50kph or less super elevations are not required on bends and other
special dynamic related considerations

5.6 MERGE TAPER LENGTHS

Refer to QHDM 2015, Volume 1, Part 6, Clause 5

5.7 TURN RADII AT JUNCTIONS

Refer to QHDM 2015, Volume 1, Part 6 Section 5.

5.8 DESIGN VEHICLES

Refer to QHDM Volume 1, Parts 2 and 6, which provides details on design vehicles and swept
path analysis.

5.9 SHY DISTANCE

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 1, Part 3, Clause 6.2.23 ‘Typical Cross Sections’ and Volume 1,
Part 5, Clauses 1.2.6 & 1.3.4 ‘Median Width’ for Details on Shy Distances.

5.10 PROVISION FOR BREAKDOWN / EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS

At the preliminary design stage, the Designer must consider how emergency vehicles will reach
an incident at any part of the roadway or adjoining properties. This is particularly important
THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 15 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

where single lane (or one lane divided) carriageways are included, and/or where the
carriageway is blocked by parked or stopped vehicles. Provision of additional carriageway
width or median crossovers may be required.

5.11 ROADSIDE SAFETY

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 3, Part 23 Section 5 for further information.

5.12 TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming describes a combination of mostly physical features that are intended to
improve traffic use on local city streets, alter driver behaviour and improve safety conditions
for all who uses the street, including pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic calming measures involve
physically altering the street layout or appearance usually by means of horizontal deflection,
vertical deflection, or other methods.

Development of safe local streets involves a holistic approach. The intention is to combine
various road corridor components into a design, which serves a function specific to the locality.

 Integration with bus routes and mass transit facilities;

 Operation of emergency response and public service vehicles;
 Effect of land use such as residential, commercial, hospitals, schools etc.;
 Landscaping;
 Carriageway and junctions;
 Pedestrian and cyclist routes, footway and cycle facilities,

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 3, Part 23, Section 4 for further information.

5.12.1 Not Used

5.12.2 Vertical Deflections

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 3, Part 23, Section 4 for further information.

5.12.3 Horizontal Deflections

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 3, Part 23, Section 4.8 for further information.

A common feature of the road layouts for local access streets in residential districts of Qatar is
the provision of 90-degree bends. These types of bends are designed with traffic calming in
mind and are sometimes referred to as “speed control” bends. Where design cannot comply
with Table 5-1, designer should consider to design bends as a T-junction with one leg left
unbuilt.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 16 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

6 JUNCTIONS
6.1 REFERENCES

In general, the designer is to refer to the QHDM 2015 Vol1 Parts 4, 6, 7, 8 & 9 when selecting
the appropriate form of junction and the design of junctions.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 17 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

7 BARRIER SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE

7.1 REFERENCES

In general, the Designer shall refer to QHDM 2015, Volume 3, Part 23, Chapter 6 for design of
Vehicle Restraint Systems.

7.2 ROAD SAFETY BARRIER SYSTEMS

Guidance for the use and design of longitudinal safety barriers can be found in the document
titled “Road Safety Barrier Systems, accepted for use on roads managed by the Ashghal Public
Works Authority (PWA)”. This document is published by PWA Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) and has been uploaded onto the Ashghal website. It is expected that this document
will be updated on a regular basis so the Designer is instructed to check the Ashghal website
for the latest available version.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 18 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

8 SIGNAGE AND ROAD MARKING

8.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer will develop signage and road markings in accordance with the
requirements of the Qatar Traffic Control Manual (QTCM) 2015 or latest version.

The signs and markings, during construction, required in the development of the Maintenance
of Traffic, the Designer should refer to the Work Zone Traffic Management Manual. In addition,
excavation signboards should be provided for all open excavations along the important streets
and local roads on all construction sites.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 19 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

9 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

9.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to the QHDM 2015 Volume 3 Part 19 and the latest version
of the PWA RDD Traffic Signal Policy Statement, for the development of the relevant elements
of design for pedestrians and cyclists.

All LR&DP Projects must include provisions for pedestrians, persons with a disability and cycle
access. The TMPQ also provides guidance on the issues to be addressed. These are further
discussed below.

9.2 PEDESTRIANS

The TMPQ Part 1.18 Pedestrian Design Guideline provides a guide to design safe and efficient
pedestrian facilities in Qatar.

9.3 PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY

The Designer will incorporate features into the design to ensure accessibility for persons with
disabilities. These may include, but are not limited to:

 Maintaining appropriate widths and grades on footways, and providing ramps in place
of to ease access for persons with mobility impairment.
 Providing tactile paving and tactile/aural traffic signal infrastructure for persons with
visual impairments.

9.4 BICYCLES

The TMPQ Part 1.20 Bicycle Network Review includes details of the Qatari national bicycle
network. Notwithstanding the requirement for bicycles identified in the Scope of Works for each
Project, refer to this document to determine the extent and location (on or off road) of bicycle
facilities to be provided on LR&DP Projects.

9.5 CYCLEWAYS AND FOOTWAYS PAVEMENTS

Design guidelines for cycleway and footways pavements for LR&DP Projects are detailed in
Appendix D.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 20 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

10 PARKING
10.1 REFERENCES

The Transportation Master Plan – Qatar (TMPQ) Part 1.16 Parking Design Guidelines,
referenced in the QHDM 2015 Volume 1 Part 2 Section 13 provides general guidance
regarding the provision of on-street parking within urban neighbourhoods of Qatar for the
following design elements:
 Design vehicle characteristics and dimensions
 On-street parking
 Off-street parking
 Design of parking modules, circulation roadways and ramps and access facilities to off-
street parking areas
 Design requirements for car parking structures
 Bus and truck parking requirements, including truck service areas and maneuvering
clearances, access driveways and circulation roadways for commercial vehicles
 Facilities for pedestrians in parking areas
 Signage, marking and lighting
 Designing for safety
 Parking facilities for public transportation interchanges (park & ride).

The QHDM 2015 also provide limited design guidance and standards for on-street parking
provisions. There are inconsistencies and conflicts between these documents; in addition, the
documents do not reflect current Qatar practice or international standards for the provision of
on-street parking along low speed, local access urban roads.

For this reason, the following sections provide guidance and outline the standards to be applied
for determining acceptable locations for on-street parking across the local roadway network
that comprises the LR&DP.

10.1.1 Implementation:

Appropriate implementation of this guidance for on-street parking provisions relies on the
Designer understanding of the local neighbourhood environment as the basis to identify
existing and future traffic generators (both vehicular and pedestrian) that will contribute to
locations of high parking demand. This analysis is to be performed as part of a coordinated
transportation impact assessment for the project area and shall form part of the Traffic
Assessment Report.

 Angle parking and off-street parking provisions shall be considered in locations of

identified high parking demand and as part of a coordinated strategy for delivery of
enhanced public realm designs.
 Parking provisions shall be evaluated on the basis of local context, tailored to provide
opportunities for enhanced public realm in all road corridor widths, and not arbitrarily
imposed based on a template approach.
THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51
Page 21 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

 MME approval of customized road Cross Sections may be necessary to incorporate

angle parking and other strategies for implementation on specific projects.
 The arrangement and configuration of on-street parking provisions shall be considered
in conjunction with other streetscape design elements

10.2 ON-STREET PARKING PROVISION

On-street parking shall not be provided on urban roads with posted speed of 80 kph or greater,
i.e. Expressway, Arterial, or Collector-Distributor classifications, unless explicitly approved by
PWA. If parking is required within these types of road corridors, the on-street parking provision
should be along lower speed service roads.

On-street parking should not generally be provided on rural roads. MMUP Typical Cross
Sections for rural roads do not have any on-street parking provision; however, there may be
special circumstances at a particular community, recreation or other facility where on-street
provision along a local, low speed access road in a rural area with a posted speed of less than
80 kph where parking consideration may be warranted.

The PWA and MME have identified the need for adequate on-street parking provision for all
LR&DP Projects. As part of the necessary parking needs assessment for every project, the
Designer is required to estimate a maximum parking demand based on land use quantum for
the various plots within their project area utilizing the Dubai Trip Generation and Parking
Manual (the MME’s approved relevant reference).

In addition, the number of parking spaces shall be re-estimated using a PWA figure of four (4)
cars per house of 500m2 plot size. For plots greater than 1000 square metre in size, the
Designer should assume each plot to contain two (2) houses in order to consider the
subdivision of plots that commonly occurs throughout residential neighbourhoods of Doha.

The calculated requirements, based on the MME and PWA criteria shall be compared to the
sum of the Designer’s proposed parking provision for on-street parallel parking and the parking
provision inside of the plots (initially estimated at one car per house, and adjusted, based on
GEC evaluation of observed existing parking demand and land use).

Should this comparison indicate a shortfall in provision compared to calculated needs based
on both the MME and PWA methodology, the Designer will identify how the shortfall is
addressed through additional on-street parking, including possible provision of angle parking
stalls where corridor widths and adjacent buffer areas allow. Should on-street parking fail to
meet the requirements, the Designer should consider solutions through off-street parking and
identify suitable plots for this purpose to PWA.

For streets contained in heavily developed areas with apparent high parking demands, the
Designer shall individually assess parking provision on one-way streets, streets within narrow
or non-standard existing corridors, and potential conversion of two-way to one-way streets to
identify opportunities for increasing parking.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 22 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

10.3 PARKING AT JUNCTIONS

The following guidance is provided to maximize parking availability and establish consistency
throughout the LR&DP projects. This approach reflects current practices in Qatar on collector
and local roads with posted speed of less than 80 kph. However, the Designer should note that
where it is deemed appropriate in agreement with PWA to be applied, a Departure from
Standards (DfS) should be submitted for approval to the PWA. As there may be a number of
similar locations the Designer can apply for a single DfS per project identifying the relevant
locations.

Where maximisation of on-street parking is required, some encroachment of parking into the
visibility splay will be acceptable (consistent with Manual for Streets 2, Section 10.7) and the
following minimum criteria shall be utilized to identify acceptable parking locations.

10.3.1 Required Parking Setbacks at Junctions:

Consistent with AASHTO Section 4.20 – On-Street Parking and the TMPQ guidelines, on local
roads, on-street parking should not be provided within a nominal 6 m of the tangent point of
any junction. See Figure 10-1 for setback locations of parking bays, based on the 6m nominal
dimension.

10.3.2 Parking Provision Within a T-Junction

On-street parking may be provided opposite the minor leg of a T-junction in accordance with
the following conditions (refer to Figure 10-1):

 The junction is not signalized.

 Posted speed limits on both streets are less than 80 kph.
 Combined traffic volume is low, i.e. less than 5,000 ADT.
 Kerb build-out(s) is provided to physically define/delineate pedestrian and bicycle
crossings and parking should not be provided within 6m of the crossing.
 The junction is not located on a curve in which provision of the parking through the
junction would adversely impact sight distance along the curve.

Provision of on-street parking through T-junctions is common and acceptable practice on local
streets of Qatar. Figure 10-2 illustrates parking through a T-junction in a high-density
commercial neighbourhood of West Bay.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 23 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Figure 10 - 1 Typical Parking Setbacks for Local Roads

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 24 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Figure 10 - 2 On-Street Parking trough T-junctions

Note: On-street parking through T-junctions is normal practice on the local streets throughout Qatar. Also
evident is the nominal 6m setback from the tangent point to the start of parking on the right side of the street.

10.4 PARKING PROVISIONS NEAR DRIVEWAYS

On-street parking may be provided adjacent to driveways in accordance with the following
conditions and as shown on Figure 10-3:
 Visibility criteria for junctions shall be applied at major high-volume driveways only, and
not be applicable to accesses to private residences along local roadways.
 Major driveways are defined as private site accesses that functions as a junction
providing for two-way traffic into and out of a site containing a multi-family compound,
commercial, industrial, recreational or institutional facilities.
 The layout of on-street parking stalls will be based on restricting parking within 2m
either side of the driveway in order to provide safe access in and out from the lot. (See
Figure 10-3).
 The provision of private accesses directly onto collector or arterial roads shall be
subject to the review and approval of PWA and MME on the basis of site-specific
conditions; however, if permitted, any driveway entering a roadway with a posted speed
of 80 kph or greater shall be treated the same as a junction.
 The use of kerbed build-outs at residential and other low volume driveway locations
should be on an exception basis only, and may be justified at locations where there is
a large difference in elevations between the existing gate level and the edge of
carriageway. The build-out provides additional space for transitioning the grade
differences and providing for a traversable footpath across the driveway. The use of
kerbed build-outs may be recommended at major driveways servicing higher traffic
volumes in order to provide for improved visibility and safety, and to create opportunities
for local streetscape (landscape) improvements along the local street corridors.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 25 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Figure 10 - 3 Parking Provision at Driveways

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 26 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

10.5 PARKING STALL SIZE

Refer to QHDM 2015, Volume 1 Part 3 Section 6

10.5.1 Angle Parking Provision

Refer to QHDM 2015, Volume 1 Part 3 Section 6

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 27 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

11 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
11.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to the QHDM 2015 Volume 3 Part 26, for the development
of the relevant elements of Public Transport infrastructure. However, the following provides
further guidance on the two Public Transport elements namely; Rail and Bus Service.

11.2 RAILWAY PROJECTS

The Designer is to consult with Qatar Rail Company (QRC) and any other relevant planning or
design organisations to ensure adequate consideration and management of interface between
the LR&DP Projects and QRC infrastructure (lines, stations, etc.). Where integration or
provision is expected, the Designer is to prepare briefing documentation for client consideration
in accordance with the Project Brief requirements.

All communications, design inputs, assumptions, and agreements are to be included in

sufficient detail within the Designer’s submission documentation to enable review and
consideration by the PMC and PWA prior to official inclusion into the scheme.

11.3 BUS SERVICE

The Technical Affairs Department of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications

(MoTC) oversees the planning of bus service in Qatar. The Designer is to consult with MoTC
Technical Affairs to determine the requirements of public transportation within each LR&DP
Project. Provision for existing and future bus routes (including formal bus stops, amenities
shelters, etc.) is required to be incorporated into each Project to the satisfaction of MoTC.

All communications, design inputs, assumptions, and agreements are to be included in

sufficient detail within the Designer’s submission documentation to enable review and
consideration by the PMC and PWA prior to official inclusion into the scheme. To this end, the
designer is required to consider the MoTC Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines, included as
Appendix E to this manual.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 28 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

12 PUBLIC FACILITIES
12.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to the QHDM 2015 Volume 3 Part 20, for the development
of streets and public spaces in the vicinity of public facilities. However, the following provides
further guidance on infrastructure serving public facilities.

The TMPQ Part 1.16 Parking Design Guidelines provides a comprehensive coverage of
parking design requirements in general situations, but does not cover school zones and other
public facilities. For LR&DP projects, the Designer is to give special consideration during the
design development to reduce congestion, and improve safety.

For other passenger drop off and pick up provisions the Designer will be guided by the below
principles during the design development process.
 The New Qatari Street – National Public Realm Guidelines
 Careful context sensitive design is required to control (reduce) the speed environment.
 Design that reduces the requirement for passengers to cross the road carriageway
 Provision for formal crossing points (ensure fencing provided to increase conformance
to crossing use)

All design inputs, assumptions, and agreements are to be included in sufficient detail within
the Designer’s submission documentation to enable review and consideration by the PMC and
PWA prior to official inclusion into the scheme.

Designer to consider level access to and along the road. Avoid steps (barriers) and provide
level access with suitable gradients to flush kerbs tactile paving (max desirable grade cross
fall from footway to road 1:20). Recommend utilising two droppers for gradient drops
associated with pedestrian ramps.

Consideration to be given to provide shade in areas where the public is expected or

encouraged to congregate such as bus stops, by crossings etc. Refuge and splitter islands to
have a minimum clear width of 2m clear for pedestrians.

12.2 MOSQUE ZONES

The TMPQ Part 1.16 Parking Design Guidelines provides a comprehensive coverage of
parking design requirements in general situations. For areas in and around mosques, further
guidance is provided below.

Areas around Mosque’s experience high traffic volumes and subsequently delays generally
due to insufficient carriageway width and limited parking provisions. Further parking regulations
are generally ignored and vehicles are often parked on the footpath during peak periods.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 29 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

The Designer, as part of the Traffic Survey/Traffic Impacts Analysis for each Project will ensure
adequate provisions are included into the design to reduce congestion and improve safety.
The Designer will demonstrate what the potential traffic impact will be on the road network and
make recommendations for potential improvements for expected traffic.

All design inputs, assumptions, and agreements are to be included in sufficient detail within
the Designer’s submission documentation to enable review and consideration by the PMC and
PWA prior to official inclusion into the scheme.

12.3 SHOPPING AREAS

Popular “destination” retail areas may not be able to meet parking demands on site at peak
times. The Designer is therefore to consider and provide suitable walking routes from offsite
parking places.

12.4 SPORT STADIUMS

Many sporting facilities generate high levels of pedestrian traffic with a gradual build up and
sudden exodus. The Designer is to consider how pedestrians are to access public transport,
waiting areas, road crossings, offsite parking and the interaction between people and moving
vehicles.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 30 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

13 PAVEMENTS
13.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to QHDM, Volume 2, Part 12 for the design of pavements
on the LR&DP together with the following references:

 Qatar Construction Specification (QCS) 2014

 Ashghal Interim Advice Note No. 16, Pavement Design Guidelines, Rev. No. 3 (Doc.
No. EXW-GENL-0000-PE-KBR-IP-00016.

Except as amended by the following:

13.2 PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

Details of the information to be included in the pavement design report for each Project, along
with some of the technical considerations, are included in Template for Preliminary Design
Report Content (Appendix M, DMM Volume 1).

13.3 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT

13.3.1 General

Traffic is one of the key inputs required for pavement design. It controls the pavement layer
thickness and material type used in pavement construction. Overestimation of traffic in
pavement design may lead to a thicker pavement structure than necessary with higher
associated costs, while underestimation of traffic may lead to pavement structures that are
thinner than needed and are susceptible to premature pavement failure, resulting in increased
maintenance costs and a negative impact on the driving public.

The traffic analysis could be undertaken with the general guidelines described in the following
two cases:

 Case I: Existing Roads

 Case II: Non-Existing Roads or Roads in Partially Developed Areas

13.3.2 Case I: Existing Roads

This case is followed when;

 The project is an upgrade of an existing road

 The traffic expected on a new road can be accurately estimated (without the need for
traffic modelling) from existing traffic or other existing roads that will be connected to
the new road.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 31 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Estimation of Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Classified traffic counts shall be performed and included in the pavement design report for
existing roads even if significant changes in traffic levels are anticipated after the construction.
When significant developments are expected, the additional traffic can be included as
generated and diverted traffic. The classified traffic count shall be used in the estimation of the
current (normal) traffic level as well as the percentage of heavy goods vehicles (HGV%) and
vehicle class distribution at the proposed project location.
The classified traffic counts shall be performed in both directions for a minimum of 5
consecutive days, excluding Fridays and Saturdays as well as times of abnormal traffic activity
such as public and school holidays. During this period, at least two traffic counts should be
performed for a full 24 hours. The count totals for the other days should be factored up to obtain
the 24-hour totals.

The average daily traffic (ADT) can be calculated for all vehicles or for each individual vehicle
class by summing the traffic counts for all five days in both directions and dividing the total by
five. The ADT should be converted to an annual average daily traffic (AADT) based on the
appropriate factor and the number of count days and other applicable variables such as
seasonal correction factors. In the absence of any relevant information, a factor of 1.0 can be
used for the conversion.

In pavement design, only buses and trucks are considered in the analysis due to their
disproportionate effect on the resulting pavement structure and future pavement performance.
Motorcycles, passenger cars, and light pickup trucks are excluded from the analysis due to
their relatively lightweight and low impact on pavement performance. Therefore, the analysis
of the traffic data shall focus on moderately heavy and heavy vehicles (i.e., light goods vehicles,
medium buses, big buses, rigid trucks, articulated trucks, multi trailer trucks, and rigid trucks
with trailers).

For major roadway projects, the five-day counts shall be repeated several times throughout
the year to ensure the accuracy of the ADT value.

Adequate justification shall be provided if the ADT values used in the pavement design are
different from those obtained from the classified traffic counts.

Potential construction and diverted traffic shall be included in estimation of the initial year
average daily traffic (ADTi) using the following equation:

ADTi = ADTclassified count + ADTdiverted + ADTconstruction [13.1]

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 32 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Where
 ADTi = Average Daily Traffic for the initial year
 ADTclassified count = Average Daily Traffic measured during the design stage
 ADTdiverted = Average Daily Traffic expected due to diverted traffic when the
new pavement is open to traffic
 ADTconstruction = Average Daily Traffic expected due to construction activities
that affect the road to be designed.

The pavement design report shall include a detailed explanation of how the anticipated
construction traffic as well as the diverted traffic are estimated. Pavement design report shall
also include consideration of changes in traffic patterns during the weekdays and/or weekends.
These include (but not limited to) the road links serving retail land use (e.g., malls) that are
likely to be busier during the weekends.

Traffic Growth

The following sources of data may be used to estimate the traffic growth:
 QSTM intermediate-year predictions
 Population growth data using the “Planning Data Interface” spreadsheet
 Change in catchment area land use and/or density such as number of dwelling units
 Change in the number of employees in a commercial area
 Change in road type and function
Regardless of the growth data source utilized, the design report shall include a discussion of
the future development plans and land use of the area surrounding the proposed project
location to justify the selection of the growth rate value(s) obtained.

When the traffic growth trend is estimated from the base QSTM runs of 2011, 2016, 2021,
2026, and 2031, the estimated one-way ADTs for these years shall be plotted against time
(i.e., years) and the traffic growth rate shall be estimated through a linear model (See Figure
13 - 1Error! Reference source not found.). The following linear model shall be used to
describe traffic growth for pavement design purposes:

ADTf = ADTi (1 + R (f – i)) [13.2]

Where
 ADTf = Average Daily Traffic for the future year
 ADTi = Average Daily Traffic for the initial year
 i = Initial year for ADT
 f = Future year for ADT
 R = Growth rate factor

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 33 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

In cases where an accurate linear fitting is not observed to the entire dataset, the designer may
subdivide the ADTs into time intervals and estimate the growth rate (R) for each interval.

Regardless of the source of data for estimating traffic growth, the data should be provided for
at least three years within the design period (e.g., beginning, in the middle and at the end of
the design period). Then, the discrete linear formulation given in Equation 13.2 shall be used
to estimate the growth rates for each interval. Details of the calculation of the growth rate shall
be included and explained in the pavement design report.

Cumulative Design Standard Axles

Once the traffic level (ADTf) is calculated for each individual year, cumulative traffic shall be
calculated using the following formula:

20
ADTtotal   ADT f [13.3]
f 1

Where:
 ADTf = Average Daily Traffic for each individual year
 ADTtotal = Cumulative Average Daily Traffic for the entire 20-year analysis
period

25000
Estimated Average Daily Traffic

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031

Figure 13 - 1 Example linear growth model (dotted line) for traffic predictions of QSTM

The following equation shall be used to calculate the cumulative number of standard axles over
the pavement design life for each truck class:

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 34 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

ESALTC  ADTtotal (TC %)(TF)(D%)(LN %)(365days/ yr) [13.4]

Where
 ESALTC = Cumulative number of equivalent single axle loads for a particular truck
 class
 ADTtotal = Two-way cumulative Average Daily Traffic for the entire 20 years analysis
period
 TC % = The percentage of truck traffic for a particular truck class
 D% = The directional distribution factor
 LN% = Lane factor
 TF = Truck load factor

The equation 13.4 shall be used for each truck class, and the values obtained for all truck
classes shall be summed in order to obtain the total number of ESALs for pavement design.
NTC
ESAL   ESALTC [13.5]
TC 1

Directional Distribution and Lane Factors

The average daily traffic (ADT) accounts for traffic in all lanes and both directions of travel. In
order to estimate the required pavement design thickness, the ADT needs to be adjusted to
represent loading in the design lane. This can be achieved by multiplying the ADT by the
directional distribution factor (D%), which defines the percentage of trucks in the design
direction, and the lane factor (LN%), which defines the percentage of trucks in the design lane.

For existing roads where it is possible to obtain classified traffic counts in both directions, the
directional distribution factor shall be estimated by dividing the number of trucks in each
direction by the total number of trucks in both directions, and taking the higher of the two values.
If the directional distribution factor is greater than 55%, the design report shall include a
discussion to support the use of the higher directional distribution value. The design report
shall also include a discussion of any potential changes in the directional distribution of truck
traffic upon the completion of the proposed project.

The lane factor shall be selected based on the number of lanes that are open to truck traffic. A
lane factor of 100% shall be used for roadways with one lane per direction that is open to truck
traffic; a lane factor of 90% shall be used for roadways with two lanes per direction that are
open to truck traffic; in case of three or more lanes per direction that are open to truck traffic a
lane factor of 80% shall be used for expressway roadways while a lane factor between 60% to
80% shall be used for local road networks. The design report shall include a statement of the
total number of lanes in each direction and the number of lanes that are open to truck traffic,
along with the selected lane factor.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 35 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Truck Load Factors

The 90th Percentile Gross Weight ESAL Factors are more consistent with what is used across
most states in the United States and is supported by the Federal Highway recommendations
for typical ESALs per vehicle. In order to minimize the prevalent over designs on most LRDP
projects a uniform Truck Factor has been adopted for the whole of Qatar as practiced in most
states in the US. The following Truck Factors are recommended for LRDP projects:

 Local Arterials Roads 1.10

 Local Collector Roads 1.05
 Local Access and Residential Roads 0.90

In special circumstances where heavy truck activity is expected, the designer may submit a
Truck Load Factors (TF) calculations from the 90th percentile of the Gross Vehicle Weight
(GVW) obtained from a nearby Weigh In Motion (WIM) data to submit to the Engineer for
approval.

13.3.3 Case II: Non-Existing Roads or Roads in Partially Developed Areas

This case is used when;

 The design is for a road in an area that is not developed, or
 The traffic expected on the road cannot be estimated from near-by existing roads
that will be connected to the road. In such case, pavement design report shall
include a clear and detailed analysis of the level of development of the project
area and/or the applicability/non-applicability of traffic counts. The analysis shall
include one (or more) of the following;
o Expected changes in traffic patterns, road class and functions due to
developments within and/or around the catchment area
o Recent valid satellite images and/or ground observations
o Data from a valid Traffic model for the catchment area

Estimation of Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

For non-existing roads, the QSTM model can be used to estimate the initial year Average Daily
Traffic (ADT). The initial ADT shall be back-calculated using a valid variant of the QSTM refined
model at 2031 year and expected traffic growth. A Peak Hour (PH) model can be used with
appropriate and adequately justifiable Peak Hour Factor (e.g. using data from Traffic Counts)
when the Full-Day mode is unavailable. Due to the strategic nature of the QSTM, the flows
predicted by the model shall be revised to obtain accurate link flows specific of the project area.
Details of the revised link flows shall be included in the pavement design report.

The steps of obtaining future year ADTs and the cumulative traffic is the same as Case I.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 36 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

The percentage of heavy goods vehicles (HGV%), including school and company buses,
restricted and permitted heavy vehicles, and light goods vehicles, shall be estimated as a
percentage of the total vehicles using the output from the valid variant refined model run of the
QSTM, representative of the expected Road Network and Planning Data.

It should be noted that the QSTM has not been calibrated using detailed truck traffic
information. Therefore, care must be taken when using QSTM predictions of HGV% for
pavement design. Designers are required to provide information from new or historical records
for near-by roads of classified counts to justify the selection of the HGV% for the design.

It should be noted that the HGV% provided in the MMUP Guidelines (Figure 7-1 in the
Guidelines and Procedures for Transport Studies - May 2011) are not meant for traffic loading
estimation for pavement design, and thus are not allowed for pavement design purposes.

Traffic Growth

Same procedure described for Case I shall be used.

Cumulative Design Standard Axles

Same procedure described for Case I shall be used.

Directional Distribution and Lane Factors

The directional distribution factor can be estimated from directional traffic predictions obtained
using the QSTM. If the directional distribution factor is greater than 55%, the design report shall
include a discussion to support the use of the higher directional distribution value.

Truck Load Factors

Same procedure described for Case I shall be used.

13.4 NOT USED

13.5 NOT USED

13.6 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Pavement design procedure must include a consideration of the underlying subgrade soil
conditions. The physical and chemical characteristics as well as mechanical properties of the
subgrade soil will determine the thickness of pavement structure that can allow the transit of
the design traffic volume and loading during the design life providing good service condition.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 37 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

13.6.1 Geotechnical Investigation

The main objective of the Geotechnical Investigation is to provide sufficient information on the
existing soil and ground water condition in order to derive recommendations on the suitability
of the existing soil foundation.

A geotechnical investigation should be performed at the site of all new roadway construction,
widenings, extensions, trails and rehabilitation pavement locations as approved by PMC
geotechnical engineer and project scope. The Geotechnical Investigation must be carried out
in accordance with Section 3.3.3 of the QCS 2014. As a minimum, the investigation should
provide sufficient data for the geotechnical engineer to recommend the most efficient design
parameters. The extent of the exploration will vary considerably with the nature of the project.
However, for roadway projects, the following general standards are recommended:

 A sufficient number of samples, suitable for the types of testing intended, should be
obtained within each layer of material and should be representative of the project area.
 Soil survey explorations are made along the proposed roadway alignment for the
purpose of defining subsurface materials.
 Soil survey explorations should be made along the proposed roadway alignment for
the purpose of defining subsurface materials for new construction or within the
footprint of a proposed widening.
 Minimum criteria for soil surveys vary substantially, depending on the location of the
proposed roadway, the anticipated subsurface materials, and the type of roadway.
 For roadway widenings that provide an additional lane, at least one boring shall be
placed within the additional lane
 Where there is a suspected, undesirable material, additional borings shall be located
as necessary to define the limits of the undesirable materials or to better define soil
stratification.
 A detailed description for each material stratum encountered should be included on
the log.
 Water table observation within each boring or test pit should be recorded when first
encountered, at the end of each day and after sufficient time has elapsed for the water
table to stabilize.
 The AASHTO Classification of the soil materials encountered in the boring or test pit
shall be used provided in the geotechnical investigation report to facilitate the
pavement design recommendations.
 A map showing spatial distribution of all CBR values should be provided together with
a statistical analysis of all relevant geotechnical parameters required for the pavement
design.
 If the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the three investigation depths is greater than
10%, the minimum value for all parameters should be selected for the trial pit. While,
if CV is lower than 10%, the designer should select the average value.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 38 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

 In the Pavement Design Report, at least at the detailed design stage, the designer shall
include a section comprehensively reporting the data and results of the Geotechnical
Investigation Report and must define the design MR value based on the analysis of
data shown in the report.

13.6.2 Subgrade Design CBR and Resilient Modulus

AASHTO procedure requires subgrade resilient modulus (MR) as one of the major inputs. The
resilient modulus is a measure of the elastic property of the soil recognizing certain nonlinear
characteristics. The resilient modulus can be used directly for the design of flexible pavements
but must be converted to a modulus of subgrade reaction (k- value) for the design of rigid or
composite pavements.

Because not all road agencies have the equipment to perform resilient modulus testing, there
are several empirical correlations that have been developed to estimate MR from other
empirical parameters.

If running resilient modulus test is not possible, designer may use CBR test and compute the
MR empirically using Equation 1 in Table 13 -1 below. Designer may also choose to use the
other equations listed in the table with appropriate justification.
Table 13 - 1 Subgrade Modulus Correlations

Equation Reference Limitations

A fair conversion over a wide
(1) MR (psi) = 2555 · CBR0.64 AASHTO 2002 Design Guide
range of values.
Only for fine-grained non-
(2) MR (psi) = 1500 · CBR Heukelom & Klomp (1962) expansive soils with a soaked CBR
of 10 or less.
For non-fine-grained soils with a
(3) MR (psi) = 3000 · CBR0.65 AASHTO 1993 Design Guide
soaked CBR greater than 10.

Once Resilient Modulus (MR) values are obtained, the designer shall perform a statistical
analysis in order to evaluate the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the available dataset. The
considered dataset shall be appropriate for the extension of the project area in terms of
geographical distribution and size of data population. However, no less than five values shall
be considered in the analysis. Then:

 If the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the dataset is lower than 10%, the average value
of MR shall be selected as design value. In this case, the design will be carried out
using a unique MR value that will correspond to the average value of the dataset.
 On the other side, in case the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the dataset is higher than
10%, as first option the designer shall consider of segmenting the road project area into
distinct homogeneous sections (where the coefficient of variation of the distribution of
MR values is lower than 10%), and shall design those sections based on the average
MR of each section.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 39 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

 If no homogeneous sections clearly exist, designer shall use the 10th percentile of the
MR to obtain the design MR. In this case the design will be carried out using a unique
MR value that will correspond to the 10th Percentile of the dataset based on the
assumption that 90% of the anticipated CBR's exceeding the design CBR

While calculating the 10th percentile, normal distribution shall not be assumed. Instead, the
cumulative distribution function shall be plotted against the CBR values and the 10th percentile
shall be obtained from the CDF versus CBR graph. This can be accomplished using the
“PERCENTILE.EXC” function of MS Excel.

13.6.3 Ground Water Elevation

Granular material base clearance above high ground water elevation is critical for good
pavement performance and to achieve the required compaction and stability during
construction operations. As such subgrade drainage provisions and details may be required
for localized conditions where a constant 1.2 m buffer zone between the ground water surface
and the bottom of the sub-base layer may not be achievable, or to provide adequate sub-base
drainage protection from other drainage sources. These provisions might include edge drains,
filter drains, drainage blanket or interceptor drains and/or membranes as well as any other
drainage solutions that are based on sound value engineering considerations.

A reduction in the resilient modulus of the subgrade is also considered a viable design solution
when the required buffer zone is not achievable and when AASHTO empirical or mechanistic-
empirical methods are used for the design.

When the buffer zone is less than 1.2 m and the above mitigations methods are not achievable,
the pavement designer shall reduce the Design Resilient modulus as follows:
 For 600 mm buffer zone, a 25% resilient modulus reduction
 For 300 mm buffer zone, a 50% resilient modulus reduction

13.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS

The QHDM 2015 and AASHTO (1993) general guidelines shall be followed to determine the
thickness of each pavement layer. The following sections provide brief guidelines on input
parameters to be used in pavement design for the LRDP projects

13.7.1 Design Period

The design periods that will be used for flexible pavement design vary from 8 years to 20 years
based on the type of construction proposed. The Pavement Design Engineer can adjust the
design period within guidelines based on project specific conditions and constraints. For New
Construction or Reconstruction a minimum design period of 20 years shall be used.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 40 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Shorter design periods may be used if there are constraints such as curb and gutter or
scheduled future capacity projects that justify limiting design thickness. These reasons should
be well documented in the pavement design report.

13.7.2 Layer Coefficient

Considering the size of Qatar it is conceivable that the temperature variations across the region
should be fairly similar to warrant a uniform layer coefficient to be adopted for the whole of
Qatar for empirical design purposes. As such, based on international standards and
comparable climatic regions in the United States, the following layer coefficients are
considered appropriate for Qatar.

Wearing Course 0.42

Intermediate Course 0.44
Asphalt Base Course 0.34
Granular Base Course (CBR>80%) 0.13
Granular Subbase Course (CBR>60%) 0.11
Recycled Concrete Aggregate 0.18

Where Superpave is used, it may be appropriate to maintain a layer coefficient of 0.44 for both
the wearing course and intermediate course as the temperature range for PG76-10 already
takes into consideration the high temperatures in Qatar.

13.7.3 Drainage Coefficients (mi)

Drainage coefficients are selected based on the quality of drainage on the pavement system.
These coefficients are used for modifying the layer coefficients for both granular base and
Subbase. It reflects the drainage quality and the percentage of time during the year the
pavement structure would normally be exposed to moisture levels approaching saturation. The
following table can be used in conjunction with the recommendations in the AASHTO 1993 and
QHDM 2015.

Table 13 - 2 Drainage coefficients for pavement layers in state of Qatar

Drainage Time of
Layer Drainage Quality
Coefficient (mi ) exposure %

Granular Base Layer Fair 1.05 1-5

Granular Subbase Layer Fair 1.05 1-5

Improved Subgrade/capping layer-

Fair 1.01 <1
replaces the subbase

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 41 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

For conditions where the percentage of time during the year the pavement structure is exposed
to moisture levels approaching saturation is well known or measured, the drainage coefficients
shall be determined from Table 2.4 in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures.

13.7.4 Reliability

A safety factor is applied using a Reliability (%R) value from the following recommended values
range from 75% to 99%. A Standard Deviation (So) of 0.45 is used in the calculation. The
Standard Normal Deviate (ZR) is dependent on the Reliability (%R). Using these values, the
Pavement Design Engineer will calculate the Structural Number Required (SNR). The following
reliability values are recommended for the LRDP projects.

Table 13 - 3 AASHTO (1993) inputs for serviceability and reliability for the State of Qatar
Initial Terminal Standard Standard Standard
Serviceability, Serviceability, normal deviate, normal deviate, Deviation, S0
Road Class P0 Pt ZR ZR (all roads)
(Reliability, R) (Reliability, R)
(Rural) (Urban)
Primary
Routes
4.2 3.0 -1.881 (97%) -1.881 (97%) 0.45
(Freeways &
Expressways)
Secondary
Routes 4.2 2.5 -1.645 (95%) -1.037 (85%) 0.45
(Arterials)
Tertiary
Routes 4.2 2.0 -1.282 (90%) -0.841 (80%) 0.45
(Collectors)
Local Routes
4.2 1.5 -0.841 (80%) -0.674 (75%) 0.45
(Local)

13.7.5 Structural Number

The purpose of the AASHTO model in the pavement thickness design process is to calculate
the Required Structural Number (SNR). This is the strength of the pavement that must be
constructed to carry the mixed vehicle loads over the roadbed soil, while providing satisfactory
serviceability during the design period. Essentially, it is a weighted thickness calculated from
the projected design ESAL, roadbed soil stiffness or resilient modulus, representing the
required strength of the pavement structure. By knowing the SNR the pavement layer thickness
or overlay thickness can be calculated. Where the QDHM 2015 or AASHTO method is used,
the SNR will be estimated using the AASHTO Equation or Nomograph and shall be compared
with the Structural Number Provided (SNP ) by the proposed pavement structure based on
the layer and drainage coefficients of each individual pavement layer. The pavement design
will be considered adequate when SNP ≥ SNR.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 42 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

13.7.6 Minimum Pavement Thicknesses:

In order to avoid the possibility of proposing impractical designs, the minimum thicknesses
recommended in the AASHTO 1993 Table 11.21 and QCS 2014 Section 6 and Subsection
5.3.2 shall be adhered to for all new Construction for LRDP projects.

It is assumed that a minimum CBR of 15% is achievable for the existing compacted subgrade
or embankment. Where the existing subgrade CBR is greater than 25%, the thickness of the
Subbase shall be reduced accordingly.

Where the CBR of the existing subgrade exceeds 60%, the possibility of eliminating
Subbase shall be discussed under a value engineering consideration.

13.7.7 Ramps and Shoulders

For Ramp and Shoulder designs in cases where traffic estimation is impractical or uncertain,
the following criteria shall be adopted:
Ramps Design
On new ramps construction where future traffic is very uncertain, it can be conservatively
assumed that 50% of the mainline design ESAL will use the ramp in urban areas and 25% of
the mainline design ESAL for ramps in rural areas.
Shoulders
Shoulder thickness design should be performed using 3% of the design ESAL to calculate the
required structural number (SN). This represents a conservative estimate of the number of
trucks that will be riding or parking on the shoulder during the life of the pavement. Under
severe conditions where the shoulders are expected to carry substantial amounts of traffic as
a part of a Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) scheme or as part of evacuation route, then full depth
shoulders matching the thickness of the travel lane pavement may be warranted.

13.7.8 Parking Areas and Busbays

For the LR&DP projects, it is recommended that the following minimum pavement structures,
adopted from IAN021 and any subsequent approved amendments by PWA, be recommended:

For traffic <0.5m ESAL

80mm Precast Interlock Block
30mm Sand bedding
150mm Granular base material, CBR>=80%
150mm Granular subbase material, CBR>=70% *
+300mm Subgrade of CBR>15%

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 43 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Note:
 *Where the existing CBR is greater than 25% the subbase layer should be reduced to
100mm
 *Where the existing CBR is greater than 50% the considerations should be given to
eliminating the subbase layer altogether.
For traffic 0.5m -1.0m ESAL
80mm Precast Interlock Block
30mm Sand bedding
150mm Granular base material, CBR>=80%
200mm Granular subbase material, CBR>=70%*
+300mm Subgrade of CBR>15%

Note:
 *Where the existing CBR is greater than 25% the subbase layer should be reduced to
150mm
 *Where the existing CBR is greater than 50% the subbase layer should be reduced to
100mm

13.7.9 Use of Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB)

The Resilient Modulus of asphalt concrete is less under a slow moving load than under a more
dynamic, high-speed load, especially in hot weather. As a result of this effect, slow moving or
stopped trucks have a greater potential to cause rutting. For situations with slow moving or
standing truck traffic and particularly those sections with a history of rutting (toll booths,
intersections with slow truck traffic, weigh stations with standing traffic), a Polymer Modified
Binder (PMB) should be considered.

For the Local Roads and Drainage Program (LRDP) projects, the preferred application of PMB
will be based on function/load basis, such as high volume roundabouts and intersections,
industrial areas and other routes that may have high temporary construction traffic volumes.

In cases where PMB is to be considered for main roads, with proper justification, it shall be
used in only the wearing course for design ESALs between 10 million and 30 million, or where
necessary in both the intermediate course and wearing course for design ESALs greater than
30 million.

The decision to use PMB shall be on a project-by-project basis and according to the design
need within the project scope, and its use shall be justified within pavement design report. The
normal PMB grade required shall be as designated in the QCS 2014.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 44 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

14 GEOTECHNICAL
14.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to QHDM Volume 2, Part 14 for the design of Earthworks
and QHDM Volume 2 Part 16 for Geotechnical Risk Management. However, QHDM Volume 2
Part 15 (Ground Investigation and Aspects of Geotechnical Design Guide) and the
Geotechnical Practitioner requirements as set out in Sections 1 and 2 of QHDM Volume 2, Part
16 shall not be adopted on the LR&DP for the time being and until further notice; and instead
shall be undertaken in accordance with the following:
 Qatar Construction Specification (QCS)
 UK Highways Agency DMRB Volume 4 Geotechnics and Drainage, Section 1
Earthworks (2008), Part 2, HD 22/02 Managing Geotechnical Risk
 BS EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design. General rules
 AASHTO, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2012
 Application of Geophysical methods to highway related problems, FHWA
 Standard Guide for selecting surface Geophysical Methods, ASTM D6429-99

Further advice can be found within the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration. If criteria from this document are proposed, this should be specifically
highlighted in the GEC’s Design Report.

14.2 SLOPES

The settlement and stability of any embankments shall be checked in accordance with
AASHTO LRFD.

Slopes are checked using appropriate software, which performs slope stability analysis for un-
reinforced slopes. The slopes shall be evaluated for stability safety factors in accordance with
AASHTO LRFD.

Each slope shall be evaluated for the following load cases:

 Load Case 1: Normal Ground Water + Surcharges.
 Load Case 2: Elevated Water Elevation (assumed at 1/3 of the Slope Height) +
Surcharges.
 Load Case 3: Normal Ground Water + Surcharges + Earthquake Load.

The minimum design requirements for the three load cases are as follows:
 Load Case 1: the minimum required Factor of Safety = 1.4.
 Load Case 2: the minimum required Factor of Safety = 1.2.
 Load Case 3: the minimum required Factor of Safety = 1.1.

Where reinforced slopes are required, the design should be in accordance with AASHTO
LRFD.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 45 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

14.3 FOUNDATIONS

The type of foundation selected to be appropriate is dictated by the subsoil conditions, structure
loads, limiting settlement, liquefaction, site constrains and construction sequence. Shallow
and deep foundations have been evaluated and the recommendations are represented in the
following sections.

14.3.1 Shallow Foundations

The bearing capacity is evaluated based on the following criteria:

 Shear Failure – Service Limit State (SLS) and Ultimate Strength Limit State (ULS)
 Settlement - Service Limit State (SLS)

Generally the shear failure controls the bearing capacity for small footing width only. The
bearing capacity is computed in accordance with AASHTO-LRFD Section10.6.3.

The method adopted for predicting settlement on sand is to use a minimum of two of the
available calculations methods (Hough, Schmertmann, Burland & Burbidge and Theory of
Elasticity). Designer then will make engineering judgement to select one of the results or the
average results based on the appropriate approach (Recommended approach by AASHTO-
LRFD Section 10.6.2.4 & FHWA). The settlement analysis, which controls the bearing capacity
in most cases, is performed to determine the maximum vertical foundation pressure that will
keep settlement within the predetermined value for a given structure.

14.3.2 Deep Foundations (Pile Foundations for Bridges)

The use of piles socketed into rock is considered appropriate for supporting heavy structures in cases
where shallow foundation is insufficient to support the load. The vertical pile load is carried
solely by the pile side resistance developed from rock ignoring the resistance of the soil above
the rock layer. The end bearing resistance is ignored in the design due to the large movement
that is required to mobilize the end bearing resistance.

The settlement and deflection are evaluated at the Service Limit State (SLS). The pile capacity
is evaluated at all provided load combinations. The Federal Highway Administration Manual
(FHWA) by O'Neill and Reese (1999) states that a safety factor of 2.5 can be used if "GOOD"
data is available. Also, FHWA provide a conversion from Global factor of safety to resistance
factors depending on load factors, this leads to the two resistance factors to be applied to the
design as described below. The designed rock socket length satisfies the followings:

 The piles at the SLS are designed for the tolerable vertical/ settlement and
horizontal/lateral deflection movement.
 The piles at the ULS are designed for a Global Factor of Safety 2.5, which, corresponds
to resistance factor of 0.54.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 46 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

 The rock socket length is determined based on the above two factors of safety. Then
the designed length is evaluated for uplift resistance, which is estimated as 70% of the
compression resistance.
 To account for the rock head variation along the site, the rock socket length has to be
increased based on statistical variation of rock heads within the vicinity of interchange.
 Lateral pile analysis (using Repute Software-Nonlinear Soil Analysis or equivalent)
shall be performed and assuming a 1m free at the top from the cut-off level to account
for unforeseen construction activities.
 A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 (which corresponds to resistance factor of 0.68) can
be used if sufficient numbers of pile load test are available.

14.4 MINOR STRUCTURES

Minor structures such as high masts and signs (cantilever & gantry), since these structures are
both relatively tall and light weight, the controlling load for design of their foundations is nearly
always overturning due to the wind loading or cantilever arms. As a result, the moments applied
at the foundation connection tend to be large as compared to the axial load due to the dead
load of the structure.

Minor structures can be founded on shallow or deep foundations depending on the soil
conditions.

14.4.1 Shallow Foundations

Spread footings must resist these moments by transferring the moment to an effective bearing
area that is small due to the large eccentricity; therefore, spread footings tend to be very large
for support of signs.

14.4.2 Deep Foundations

The shaft is designed using Brom's Method in cohesion less and cohesive soils assuming the
followings:

 Free pile head.

 Short pile.

The active and the passive resistance of the soil on the shaft under a lateral load is the basis
of Brom's theory. These forces are calculated based on Rankine's theory. Where the shaft is
subjected to torsion moment, the designed shaft length based on the lateral load is to be
evaluated for the torsion capacity. The final shaft length should satisfy both lateral and torque
loadings.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 47 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

14.5 EXCAVATIONS AND TEMPORARY RETAINING WALLS

Where excavation is required for temporary works, design consideration should be given to the
temporary stability of the sides of the excavations. A temporary works design will need to be
undertaken in the event that deep excavations will be required, or if excavations are to remain
open for appreciable time. Generally, excavations for foundations are considered temporary
works, and as such, extreme events such as additional loading due to seismic events would
not normally be considered within the stability assessment.

Reinforced concrete retaining wails shall also be designed in accordance with AASHTO LRFO
specifications. Global stability analysis shall be conducted by checking the sliding, overturning,
bearing failure, eccentricity requirements and slope stability (if necessary).

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 48 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

15 STRUCTURES
Primary structural design and the provision of associated details is the responsibility of the
GEC and shall not be delegated to the Contractor without the specific approval of the
PMC/PWA.

Highway structures shall be designed in accordance with the requirements for the Expressway
Programme consistent with the Design Criteria for Highway Structures (DCHS), which is
included as Appendix H of this document, and approved Interim Advice Notes (IAN).

Drainage structures whether located within highway corridors, or in areas not designated as
‘highway’, shall generally be designed in accordance with the DCHS and approved IAN’s, but
modified as appropriate to suit the specific requirements of;

 Qatar Construction Specification (QCS 2014), Section 8 Drainage Works.

 Qatar Drainage Design Manual.
 British Standard BS 8007:1987 Code of Practice for design of concrete structures for
retaining aqueous liquids; and associated standards.
 BS EN 1992-3:2006 Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. Liquid retaining and
containing structures; and associated standards.

Building structures associated with the LR&DP shall be designed in accordance with;

 QCS 2014.
 British Standards, Eurocodes or AASHTO standards consistent with the design
materials in question, with appropriate basic parameters as defined in the DCHS.

An Approval in Principle document is required to be submitted in advance of design to set out

and agree the basic design criteria and methods for non-standard structures of significance
such as highway bridges, tunnels, pedestrian footbridges etc. The document should be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of QHDM 2015, Volume 2, Part 13.

The design of significant structures that are deemed to require the provision of an Approval in
Principle shall be subject to a ‘Category 3 Check’ as defined in QHDM 2015, Volume 2, Part
13 which entails a full structural design of the structure by an approved design consultant who
is independent of the responsible GEC.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 49 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

16 SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE

16.1 REFERENCES

Sewerage and Drainage Works, including treated sewerage effluent infrastructure will be
designed in accordance with the QSDDM (1st Edition, June 2005). A number of amendments
to the QSDDM document are required for this Project. These amendments are included in
Appendix I and should be read in conjunction with this manual.

The Designer shall note that Volume 2, Part 10 (Road Drainage) of QHDM 2015 shall not be
adopted on the LR&DP until further notice.

16.2 GROUND WATER CONTROL

Ground water conditions will be taken into account in the design of all LR&DP Projects. All
Projects will include ground water control pipe work unless there are site-specific reasons to
exclude it. The ground water control pipe work shall provide a level of service of 4.0m below
ground levels unless there are site-specific reasons that prevent this. The findings of the
ongoing ground water-monitoring programme by Schlumberger on behalf of the PWA will be
used as part of the evaluation process to be performed by the Designer on every Project.

16.3 NON-POSITIVE SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS

The provision of negative soak-away systems for disposal of ground water will be considered
as an alternative to the provision of a positive drainage system. The provision of negative
systems requires a detailed analysis of the geology of the area to determine the permeability
of the ground and its suitability for the installation of infiltration systems.

16.4 PROJECTED POPULATION FOR DESIGN OF FOUL SEWERS

The Designer shall prepare a report on the projected population figures for each Project. The
report should provide consistency with the figures used by the PWA, particularly in the design
of sewage treatment works and pumping stations. Guidance on the assessment of populations
is provided in Interim Advice Note 014 ‘Methodology for estimating the flow in foul sewers for
Design Populations’4’ (reference PMC-IAN-DES-014) included in Appendix J.

The Designer will submit the population report to the PWA for approval in advance of submitting
the Project Drainage Design reports.

16.5 MODELLING PROTOCOLS

At each design stage, the final design for foul sewers, storm water sewers and treated
sewerage effluent (TSE) is to be provided. In addition to the design, an InfoWorks model is to
be provided as part of the Detailed Design submission in Gateway 3. The Designer will comply
with the requirements of Protocols for the Delivery of Hydraulic Models at Gateway 3 included
in Appendix K.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 50 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

16.6 SURGE ANALYSIS REPORTS

Surge Analysis is required as part of both pump station and rising main design. This analysis
is to be completed by the Detailed Design Stage, Section 09, part 06 of the QCS provides
criteria and surge mitigation options. In order to provide consistency of submittals among all
the Designer, Guidance for the Preparation of Surge Analysis Reports is included in Appendix
P.

16.7 PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Although the design of Package Treatment Plants (PTPs) is not within the GEC’s Scope of
Work, successful project delivery by the GEC is dependent on appropriate planning, analysis,
permitting and other preparatory steps related to PTP. Designers are to carry out the following
activities associated with these PTPs:
 Securing the land from MME
 Obtaining the property document for the proposed PTP land
 PTP design basis documentation i.e. the consultant should specify the requirements
for design of PTP
 EIA scoping study shall be completed and an approval shall be obtained from the MOE
within the overall project scope.

16.8 PIPE SIZE AND MATERIALS

A Summary of Properties of Pipe Materials to be used on the LR&DP Projects are provided in
Table 4.3.1 of Volume 1 of the Qatar Sewerage and Drainage Design Manual (QSDDM).
Additional pipe size and material information is provided in Table 16-1 and is to be read in
conjunction with Section 4.3.1 - Material Selection, and Table 4.3.1 of Vol 1, of the QSDDM.
Table 16 - 1 Pipe Size and Material

Pipe Material
Service
HDPE GRP Ductile Iron Concrete/RC VC
Not preferred. > 600mm dia.
Foul Sewer Can be used as a Can be used as a liner ≤ 600mm
Not preferred Not preferred
(FS) liner for concrete for concrete jacking dia.
jacking pipes pipes
Not preferred
Surface Water May be considered for ≤ 1000mm
Not preferred Not preferred > 1000mm dia.
(SW) dia. > 600mm, subject dia.
to PWA approval
> 1000mm dia.
All pipelines with
≤ 355mm dia. OD >290mm dia normal operating Not
TSE De-rated for 35 ≤ 1000mm dia pressure of above 8bar Not preferred
preferred
deg C Stiffness SN10,000 and all strategic
pipelines as advised by
PWA
Rising Mains - SW and FW pressure
pipelines SW and FW pressure Not
Foul Sewer and Not preferred
pipelines
Not preferred
preferred
Surface Water Ductile Iron preferred

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 51 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Notes: uPVC is not acceptable on Drainage Affairs Projects; listed diameters are ID unless otherwise noted

16.9 DRAINAGE DESIGN DRAWINGS

Drawings associated with Sewerage and Drainage works are to be developed in accordance
with Volume 6 of the QSDDM and the latest PWA CAD & GIS Database Standards Manual.

To provide consistency among GECs designers and a uniform format for network drawing
across Qatar, the following guidance and recommendations were developed for the Sewerage
and Drainage Design drawings, which include Foul Sewer (FS), Surface Water (SW) and
Treated Sewage Effluent (TSE) disciplines. Indicative sewer plan (scale 1:1000) and profiles
(scale 1:1000H, 1:100V) are included in Appendix N. Guidance drawings can be altered if
other items require emphasis on specific projects.

16.9.1 Scale

Drawing scales associated with Drainage Design Drawings per the LR&DP requirements are
listed in Table 16-2.

Table 16 - 2 Drawing Scales

Scale
Plan Type
Preliminary Design Detailed Design
Storm Water Drainage Layout 1:1000 H, 1:100 V 1:1000 H, 1:100 V
Storm Water Drainage Profile 1:1000 H 1:1000 H
Foul Sewer Layout 1:1000 H 1:500 H
Foul Sewer Profile 1:1000 H, 1:100 V 1:500 H, 1:50 V
TSE Distribution Network Layout 1:500 H 1:500 H
TSE Distribution Network Profile 1:500 H, 1:50 V 1:500 H, 1:50 V

Although these scales are per LR&DP requirements, alternative scales may be proposed by
the Designer, depending on the complexity and area of design, subject to PWA approval. The
Designer should consider using the same scales for Preliminary Design as required in Detailed
Design to minimize rework for the different submissions.

16.9.2 Sheets

A LR&DP CAD drawing border is provided as part of the CAD Manual. The border is to contain
the following:

 Key Plan
 Notes
 Legend
 Plan View

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 52 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Key Plan

Key Plans will be shown in black/white and colour as applicable to maintain clarity. No
photogrammetry / Aerial photos to be shown in the Key Plan.

Notes

Notes shall be written below the Key Plan and above the Legend. If additional notes or general
notes are required, the GEC is to provide these on a separate General Notes Sheet.

Legend

Below the Notes is a space provided on the border for a Legend. This space will only allow for
‘key’ legend items to be shown. GEC should provide separate legend / abbreviation sheet that
provide for all symbols used. If additional ‘key’ items are required on the legend, utilize
symbols provided in the PWA CAD Manual. A standard legend stack of symbols is provided
as a block. GECs to show those symbols required on the sheet and shift up the remaining
symbols after all unnecessary symbols are removed. The purpose is to have the legend
consistent between GECs on all projects and to maintain readability.

Plan View

Plan views for drainage drawings shall include the following information:
 Manholes (FS & SW) – manhole annotation
o manhole number or name
o cover level
o invert level

(Manhole name and elevations are to be displayed as an attributed block. Block will be
part of next CAD Manual issue)

 Chambers (TSE) – chamber annotation

o chamber number
o chamber type
 Gully and Gully connection (SW)
 Bends / Fittings (TSE) – Pipe fitting callout
 Sewer Pipes - pipe annotation
o Pipe diameter (For TSE specify I.D. or O.D. due to potential confusion with
larger HDPE pipes.)
o Direction of flow
o Segment name to correspond with related Profile
 Stationing (TSE) at 100 meter interval callouts and tick marks at 25 meter
 Existing Sewers and Manholes
 Existing Chambers
 Existing Gully

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 53 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

 Proposed manhole backdrops with invert level of top pipe (FS)

 Proposed House / Property Connection per type, legend to correspond with Standard
Drawing SD 8-4-210 – (FS)
 Plots or Properties to show
o boundary lines
o buildings
o existing septic tank and last chambers – (FS)
o existing invert levels
o House Connection Number (if applicable)
 Other Items to include
o Street names
o North arrow
o Project boundary
o Existing road layout, if applicable
o Microtunnelling (annotate on plan – adjacent to diameter callout)
o Specify combined drain/conveyance or soakaway/conveyance systems with
special line type, list both pipe diameters with top pipe listed first, and also
indicate perforated pipe.

Plotting

Plotting per PWA CAD Manual with the following exceptions for existing items:
 All existing items to be plotted at color 8, except for those existing items listed on legend
(such as existing sewer, existing rising mains, existing manholes, and other items) that
require easy identification on the plans. These items to be plotted per the PWA CAD
Manual requirements.

Schedules

Additional Manhole and Chamber information, such as size and coordinates, etc. should be
provided within a Manhole or Chamber Schedule. A sample schedule is provided in the
QSDDM, Volume 1, Appendix A. House Connection information to be provided in separate
House Connection Schedule.

16.9.3 Profile Sheets

The Sample Profile Drawing provided in Appendix N depict conventional and micro tunnel
installations for FS, SW and TSE. The LR&DP border is to be utilized with Notes and Legend
along right edge of border.

Manhole or chamber numbers limits and name of roads, and surface type to be provided at the
top of the profile or longitudinal section.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 54 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

The following data is provided on the bottom section (Data Band) of the profile:
 Pipe size and type
 Bedding materials
 Gradient (indicate positive or negative gradients on TSE profiles)
 Cover Level (correspond to Proposed Ground Level)
 Existing Ground Level
 Proposed Ground Level (when appropriate)
 Invert Level
 Chainage

Segment name or title to be located below the profile and provide the corresponding layout
plan drawing number.

Micro tunnelling is to be depicted in both the pipe materials (Jacking Pipe is used as pipe type)
and ‘Micro tunnelling’ specified in the Bedding Material limits.

Other items to show on FS include drop connections (both backdrops and ramps), branch
connections and stubs. Information to include originating manhole number, connection type,
and level.

Other items to depict on TSE profiles include valves, bend and other fitting locations, and
anchor blocks.

Additional callouts associated with pipeline features should be on the bottom half of the profile
and callouts for crossings should be placed on the top half.

Match lines on profiles to be located at manholes, chambers or other significant features.

When a combination system (examples foul trunk sewer below rider sewer or surface water
carrier pipe below a land drain) is showed on the same profile, provide two separate Data
Bands for each of the pipe segments.

16.9.4 Standard Layers, Line types and Symbols

Standard layering names, line-types and symbols are provided in the PWA CAD Manual.
Additional items are currently under development for consideration by PWA. Designers should
check for any updates to the PWA CAD Manual concerning these items.

16.10 PUMPING STATION DESIGN

The design of foul sewage pumping stations is to be in accordance with Volume 2 of the
QSDDM. Further guidance is provided in the ‘Pumping Station Design Guidelines’ (QA000-
P00-PBI-PMG-REF-01077) included in Appendix R.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 55 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

17 ROADWAY LIGHTING
17.1 REFERENCES

The street lighting shall be designed in accordance with the Qatar Highways Design Manual
Volume 3 Part 18 Street Lighting (2018) within Appendix O.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 56 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

18 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
The design of traffic signal junctions will be based on a Traffic Analysis Report (TAR) that
includes a comprehensive study and analysis of vehicular and pedestrian movements at the
junction for the design year.

The Analysis and Design should be guided by:

o Up to date QTCM Vol1 Part 5

o Up to date PWA RDD Traffic Signal Policy Statement

18.1 SIGNAL DESIGN

The signal phasing sequence will be optimised for the busiest peak period and the optimised
phase sequence used in the other time periods.

For traffic signals, the location and layout of road markings and traffic signs will be considered
as an integral element of the junction design and will be fully detailed on a separate plan with
reference to traffic sign and road marking diagram numbers from the current approved version
of the QTCM and other accepted standards.

The geometric layout shall be based on the approved concept design.

18.2 CONCEPT DESIGN

Traffic Signal Concept Design drawing (See Figure 18-1) should be provided with sufficient
information for the evaluation of proposed junction improvement scheme. The following
information should be clearly provided:

 Schematic traffic signal layout;

 Phase diagram;
 Cycle time; and
 Green Split.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 57 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Figure 18 - 1 Typical Concept Design Traffic Drawing

18.3 DETAILED DESIGN

Detailed Design shall be based on the Concept Design. If the traffic signals have been
materially altered during the design process, a revised signal analysis and drawings using the
same format indicated in Figure 18.1 shall be submitted for approval.

They shall be on five A3 pages (A1 on 1:250 scale) and should contain all the required
information for the signalised intersection including street names. The following information
shall be clearly provided:

 Drawing 1 - Site layout plan

o Junction layout with
 all road markings;
 street names;
 dropped kerbs;
 ducts & chambers;
 signal controller;
 power feeder pillar;
 type of signal heads;

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 58 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

 pedestrian/cyclist signal heads and push button locations;

 pole and Gantry locations and numbers; and
 detector loop locations and numbers;

o Signal Pole and Gantry numbers;

 Drawing 2 – Signal Operation Details

o Phasing Diagram;
o Phase timings for all three time periods;
o Cycle time for all three time periods; and
o Permitted Movement Diagram.

 Drawing 3 – Duct Details

o Ducting Details;

 Drawing 4 – Cable Details

o Cabling Details;

 Drawing 5 – Other Details

o Pole coordinates;
o Gantry coordinates;
o Mast arm details;
o Gantry and pole foundation details;

The Phase Diagram shall start with the main direction traffic movement on the major road axis.

Traffic signal movement numbers shall be labelled counter-clockwise from the controller,
normally a left turn will be Phase 1. All mast arms and poles shall be clearly labelled, the
numbers should start adjacent to the controller and increment clockwise.

18.3.1 Signal Equipment Position

Guidelines for Signal Positioning are:

 Nearside (primary) and far-side (secondary) signals are required at signalised

Junctions;
 Primary signals in the median and on the kerbside should be on the same alignment
parallel to the stop line;
 Provide minimum 600 mm clearance from face of kerb to traffic signal equipment placed
in medians;
 For single lane approaches, only pole mounted secondary signal heads will be allowed;
 At multi lane approaches cantilever gantries are recommended;
 Primary signals shall not be mounted on the back of cantilever gantries.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 59 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

18.3.2 Use of Gantries

At multi-lane approaches, it is recommended that cantilever gantries be used to ensure that

each traffic lanes have sight of a traffic signal. Normally only secondary traffic signals shall be
mounted on the outreach arm. It is recommended that each traffic lane have a secondary
signal on the outreach arm.

Wind deflection should be considered when determining the length of the gantry arm. Where
more than 4 traffic signals are identified, other gantry type solutions should be considered

Far-side traffic signal gantries shall be used in the following circumstances:

 On exit arms where there are three or more exit lanes.

Far-side traffic signal gantries may be used in the following circumstances:

 On two lane exit arms that are opposite entry arms that have three or more entry lanes.
 On two-lane exit arms that are opposite two-lane entry arms where at the same junction
there are far-side gantries for three lane exit or entry arms.

Junctions with all 2-lane approaches will be dealt with case by case basis, but generally pole
mounted signals are preferred.

On single lane approaches only pole mounted far-side secondary signal heads are required
(i.e. no cantilever gantry).

If there is insufficient space to install cantilever gantries, including their foundations, signalised
intersections should be provided with pole mounted primary and secondary signal heads.

Street names and directional signs to be provided on cantilever gantries should be physically
bolted onto the gantry arm. Use of loose chain type hanging name is not permitted.

18.3.3 Pedestrian Facilities

Providing pedestrian crossings at traffic signals should be carefully considered with regards to
the pedestrian flows. The signal design and phasing shall not permit conflicts between vehicle
and pedestrian movements. Permissive vehicle movements that conflict with pedestrian
crossing movements shall not be allowed.

18.3.4 Traffic Loop

Vehicle detection loop should be configured to adapt SCAT system. The standard size of the
loop should be as follows:
 2m x 4m - for detection loop (Straight ahead, left turn or right turn).
 2m x 2.5m - for slow traffic movements (U-turn or U-turn with left turn)
 Advanced loop dimension should be 2m x 2.5m

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 60 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

The primary loops should be provided at 3m and advanced loop should be provided at 30m
from the stop line.

The loop wires shall not be located above the Kahramaa cables or street lighting cables to
avoid interference, which may affect the operation of the traffic signals. The TSLP shall show
the routes of power supply cables from the service cabinet up to the Kahramaa jointing points.

The standard size of traffic signal cable shall be 4C, 8C, 12C, 16C and 19C.

18.3.5 ITS

MOI shall be consulted to determine requirements for red light cameras at signalized junctions.

All traffic signals are to be linked to the National ITS communication network in order to allow
for integrated signalization management from the Traffic Management Centre. Refer to
Section 19.2.6 for duct-way requirements.

ITS duct network shall be included in the design and be submitted to the PWA for approval as
part of the design submission.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 61 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

19 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

19.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to the QHDM 2015 Volume 3 Part 17, for the development
of the relevant elements of Intelligent Transportation Systems.

The objectives of the LR&DP ITS Strategy is to outline the philosophy, approach and provide
recommendations for the development and deployment of ITS based technologies that is in
accordance with the requirements of the QHDM. The QHDM provides standards and guidance
to develop an ITS strategy on LR&DP Projects for the deployment of appropriate ITS
equipment and systems. The essential infrastructure required to be included during the
construction stage of each Project shall be based on user needs within the Project’s area
boundary and the immediate road network.

19.2 STANDARDS

All ITS related Works shall conform to the guidance and requirements stipulated in the following
documents, which can be, found by copy and paste the link:

http://www.ashghal.gov.qa/services/customerzone/en/Pages/ServiceDetailsPage.aspx?serviceID=22&
userCat=3&scatid=1

 Qatar Highway Design Manual;

 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Deployment Guidelines;
 Civil and Structural Standards for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS);
 ITS – Telecommunications Strategy;
 ITS Specifications;
 Typical Road Cross Sections and Utility Corridors;
 Kahramaa power requirements;
 Other applicable requirements for a specific project area.

Guidance regarding location, infrastructure and implementation of the required ITS roadside
devices, within the LR&DP project areas, can be found in the above documents

19.3 ITS OPERATIONAL NEEDS

The user needs provide an expression of the high-level operational requirements that need to
be met by the ITS strategies to be delivered

The ITS Standards is based on the following categories:

1. Traffic Management
2. Maintenance and Construction
3. Emergency Management
4. Traveler Information

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 62 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

19.4 ITS PLANNING AND DEPLOYMENT

The deployment manual, specifications, and civil and structural standard details are posted on
the Ashghal website as detailed above.

The Designer shall use the criteria provided in the ITS Deployment Manual as the basis for
development of the ITS Concept Design for the Project area.

 The ITS ducted system shall include future provision to connect the local drainage
SCADA system to the longitudinal ITS duct network and shall allow for through
connection to form an integral part of a national SCADA network.

19.5 ITS DESIGN

19.5.1 ITS Ducts

For LR&DP Projects, the infrastructure network required to support the future ITS system shall
be included in the GEC designs. The duct allocation requirements are based on corridor width,
land use and other items and are provided in the following Table 19-1.

Table 19 - 1 LR&DP ITS Duct Allocation

Application Number of ducts

ITS Duct – Local Access & Collectors
8 x 100mm
(corridors width 32m or greater)
two 6 x 100mm or
ITS Duct - Expressway & Arterials *
one 8 x 100mm & one 2 x 100mm
4 x 100 or
ITS Duct - Cross Carriageway
6 x 100 w/ SCADA
MOI-SSD (per MMUP cross sections) 2 x 150mm

SCADA (per PWA Drainage Design) 2 x 100mm

Signalized Junctions** 1 x 100mm

Notes: * See Ashghal ITS specifications and Standard Drawings

** Extend ITS duct to junctions location and connect traffic controller to associated ITS duct chamber with
listed duct

The routing and reach of the ITS duct network shall be approved by PWA at the Concept
Design phase. Ducts shall extend to the Limits of Work for future connection to the National
network ITS system.

Where street lighting is to be provided on one side of the carriageway, consideration shall be
given to installing the ITS duct bank on the opposite side of the carriageway.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 63 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Ducts shall be designed to be parallel and perpendicular with the main carriageway and ducts
at junctions and signalised interchanges shall be formed in a square around the junction.
Concrete surround shall be provided at all cross carriageway ducting and other road crossings.

19.5.2 ITS Chambers

ITS chambers are to be installed at the following locations:

 at signalized junctions
 proposed locations of ITS elements
 at all necessary power and communications locations in support of the ITS design
 at termination of duct bank / future connection to the national longitudinal duct network.

19.5.3 Foundations

Designer shall provide indicative foundation designs for the installation of ITS CCTV cameras
by specialty ITS contractor. These foundations shall be in accordance with the ITS Civil and
Structural requirements. Designer shall also make provisions for the foundations of other
future ITS items. A clash analysis shall be undertaken to ensure that the CCTV and other
foundations’ size and depth, all ducting, and all chambers do not clash with other utilities, and
provide for the appropriate utility diversion as part of the LR&DP to avoid future rework by the
specialty ITS contractor. The criteria used to conduct the clash analysis shall be identified.

19.5.4 Power Requirements

The power requirements for the installed ITS system equipment shall be considered in the
design. Allowance for the requirements shall be identified and provided in ITS feeder pillars
located adjacent to other power sources such as street lighting and traffic control cabinets.

19.5.5 Special Items

Parking management and route guidance shall be considered in those areas where event
management, shopping malls or other high trip generators are existing or proposed within or
adjacent to a project area. Strategic message signs formed by small DMS shall be considered
to convey journey time, congestion monitoring and other elements considered suitable for
inclusion within the LR&DP project area.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 64 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

20 LANDSCAPING
20.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to QHDM 2015 Volume 3 Part 22, for the development of
the relevant elements of Landscape and Planting Designs. However, the following provides
further guidance.

20.2 LANDSCAPE DESIGN

On the LR&DP Ashghal’s ‘The New Qatari Street – National Public Realm Guidelines’ provides
the Designer with additional guidance for the development of landscape designs within the
Public Realm.

The Designer will complete the design and documentation relating to hard and soft
landscaping, and main irrigation works for each Project. Designers will provide for landscaping
to the extent practical for all corridor widths where TSE networks are available (normally in
24m ROW. In addition to improved aesthetics and environment, incorporation of landscaping,
particularly tree planting, has the added benefit of visually narrowing the road and cause drivers
to be aware that they are driving on a low speed road.

The Designer will coordinate each project softscape design fully with the MME Public Parks
Department (PPD) and will present the proposed design at the early stages for review,
comment, and approval. Types of vegetation and landscaping will not impede the safety criteria
of the design and will be to the approval of the MME-PPD. To the maximum extent possible,
the planting palette proposed for each project will make use of species that are perennials,
appropriate to the region, drought tolerant and lower in water demand.

Landscape design will be integrated into the street design process and should not be left as
an add-on luxury item. Decisions about the use, extend, type and placement of landscape
should be based upon the realization of a number of wider benefits relating to issues such as
microclimate, human health, place making, traffic calming, public spaces, sustainable urban
drainage and, of course, the availability of water.

The Designer should ensure that planting trees avoid clashes with utilities and for any
encroachments the designer should get the approval of the pertinent service providers.

The Designer will coordinate with the relevant authority/municipality to ascertain that supply of
the irrigation water (TSE) will be available. If an existing TSE supply is insufficient or not

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 65 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

available, the Designer will, in consultation with the authority/municipality, determine the need
for holding tanks and design such tanks and pumping facilities, as well as other necessary
systems, to supply the irrigation water required to support the landscape design. Furthermore,
the Designer will agree the land required with the MME.

The Designer will also provide for the mitigation of negative effects of irrigation water on
adjacent structures, roads and other pavement, as well as sub-strata and ground water.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 66 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

21 UTILITIES
21.1 REFERENCES

Generally, the Designer is referred to the QHDM Volume 2 Part 11, for the development of
utility designs. However, the following provides further guidance.

Utilities and services will mean any street furniture, street lighting, traffic-control systems and
devices, surface water drainage including pumping stations, foul sewerage, TSE, water,
electricity, Qatar Petroleum lines, telephone and communications network, landscaping and
irrigation, gas, electric, fibre optics, cables, ITS infrastructure, landscaping or any other utility
impacting on the Projects.

21.2 SERVICE CORRIDORS

The MMUP Typical Road Cross-Sections and Utility Corridors Drawings dated January 2012
and 2014 are intended for application to new roads and new subdivisions that do not have
existing utility infrastructure.

The MMUP 2014 Cross Section should be applied in the undeveloped areas where there are
minimum 5 meter buffers on each side of Right of Way (RoW) and also for RoW’s that are 20m
and above, for all the other scenarios the MMUP 2012 cross sections should be used as a
guide.

Generally, for all projects, the designers shall develop appropriate service corridor allocations
based upon field survey/site investigations of the location of existing facilities to minimise
necessary relocations, consideration of the full build-out (master plan) requirements of each
service provider, and accommodations necessary to allow for landscaping and an improved
public realm.

21.3 UTILITY WORK

The designers will liaise with the service and municipal authorities to ensure the use of the
appropriate allocations for any new Works.

The process for utility service corridor approvals is controlled as part of the Road Opening (RO)
Permit process that is administered through the QDRS and QPRO systems. For more
information, refer to DMM Volume 1, Section 6 – Associated Permits for Road Opening Permits
and Building Permits.

It is the responsibility of the Designer to verify the line and level of existing services as part of
the design and survey process The Designer will liaise with all service and municipal authorities
to locate and identify existing and planned services in the Project area. The Designer will obtain
the consumption and provision allowances determined by the utility companies and will ensure
that the produced design fully meets with these requirements. The Designer or the GEC will

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 67 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

also liaise with any public or private body or individual that may be affected by any proposals
resulting from this brief.

The utility coordination for the LR&DP focuses on these fundamental infrastructure needs:

 DIVERSIONS - Adjustments, realignment, and relocations necessary to install

proposed project improvements within the right of way.
 SERVICES - Changes to existing and new connections necessary to supply private
utility services to infrastructure. These include pump stations, lighting, controllers, bus
stops, etc.
 FUTURE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE - This includes the provisions for project area
development for power, potable water, and communications.

The utility development for a project within the programme is progressive initialized by an initial
contact, development of needs, identification of impacts, coordination with the associated
agencies, development of commitments and agreements, and coordination during
construction. To assist in this process it is recommended that a utility plan, work program, or
scope be developed to determine and track the progress in addressing the appropriate needs.
These work plan objectives are achieved through a combination of assessment, design,
coordination and commitments through the stages of project development.

21.3.1 Concept Level Utility Information

Utility design and considerations as part of the Concept Design shall consider the following:

 Initial coordination with the agencies to:

o introduce the project requirements;
o request existing utility infrastructure mapping with details;
o request proposed plans or schemes;
o request current criteria for the agencies facilities; and
o advise agencies of the need to complete relevant utility improvements within the
project implementation schedule.

 Estimate the number of vacant building plots without services, assess future utility
demand and determine whether improvements or additional utilities need to be
provided. Advise the agencies of the requirements and that they need to complete
installation within the project implementation schedule.
 Develop Work Plan for utility coordination including:
o assessment of existing and proposed conditions,
o an understanding of the utilities ability to support the project,
o fundamental schedule of utility activities, development of the framework for the
utility budget, and
o an assessment of risks and potential impacts on the project.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 68 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

 Complete the concept design utility assessment, which should include descriptions of
the work and the necessary coordination required to complete the project. It should
specifically include any item that is material or seasonally dependent.
 Additional information refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 2, Part 11 Utilities.
 For Telecommunication Design Standards and Material Specification, latest edition of
documents under PWA/CRA MoU is to be used.

21.3.2 Preliminary Design Utility Information

Utility design and considerations as part of the Preliminary Design shall consider the following:

 Formalize the project commitments and responsibilities between the utility and
ASHGHAL, which may require ASHGHAL authorization.
 Review and update risk register.
 The project utility corridor mapping for plan presentation and for GIS mapping of the
corridors.
 Additional information refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 2, Part 11 Utilities

21.3.3 Detailed Design Information

Refer to QHDM 2015 Volume 2, Part 11 Utilities

21.3.4 Tender Documents Information

Utility design and considerations as part of the Tender documents consider the following:

 Tender document shall conform with agreements between Ashghal and the Agencies.
The tender documents shall include plans and specifications, BOQ, utility budget, utility
agreements, and testing and acceptance criteria.
 If the utility construction precedes the project construction, the plans of the utilities
should reflect the locations of the utilities after diversion and the documents should be
oriented such the project contractor shall protect the utilities in place.
 If the utility diversion or construction is concurrent with project construction but by
others, the tender documents should be oriented such that the project construction is
primary and must coordinate activities with the utility contractor.
 If the utility diversion or construction is included in the project construction, elements
that are reimbursed by others shall be segregated from items that to be paid by
ASHGHAL.

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 69 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix A Not Used

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 70 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix B Not Used

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 71 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix C Not Used

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 72 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix D Cycleway and Footways Pavement Design Guide

Link:
Cycleway and Footways Pavement Design Guide

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 73 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix E MOTC Planning Standards for Provision of Bus

Services – Bus Stops and Related Infrastructure
Design Guidelines

Link:

MOTC Planning Standards for Provision of Bus Services – Bus Stops and Related
Infrastructure Design Guidelines

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 74 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix F Not Used

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 75 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix G Not Used

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 76 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix H Design Criteria for Highway Structures

Link:
Design Criteria for Highway Structures

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 77 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix I Amendments to Qatar Sewerage and Drainage

Design Manual – Vols. 1 to 4

Link:
Amendments to Qatar Sewerage and Drainage Design Manual - Volumes 1 to 4

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 78 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix J Methodology for Estimating the Flow in Foul Sewers

from Design Populations

Link:
Methodology for Estimating the Flow in Foul Sewers from Design Populations

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 79 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix K Protocols for the Delivery of Hydraulic Models at

Gateway 3

Link:
Protocols for the Delivery of Hydraulic Models at Gateway 3

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 80 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix L Not Used

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 81 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix M Not used

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 82 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix N Drainage Plan Preparation

Link:
Drainage Plan Preparation

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 83 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix O QHDM Volume 3 Part 18 Street Lighting (2018)

Link:

QHDM Volume 3 Part 18 Street Lighting (2018)

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 84 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix P Guidance for the Preparation of Surge Analysis

Reports

Link:
Guidance for the Preparation of Surge Analysis Reports

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 85 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix Q Traffic Signal Policy statement

Link:
Traffic Signal Policy statement

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 86 of 87
LR&DP DMM – Volume 2: Design Standards

PMC-MN-DES-002 Local Roads & Drainage Programme Revision: 5

Document Owner: Nick Gill Authorised by: Ahmad Jaber Date: Mar. 2018

Appendix R Pumping Station Design Guidelines

Link:

Pumping Station Design Guidelines

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCONTROLLED ONCE PRINTED - Last printed 25/04/2018 16:51

Page 87 of 87