Scribd
Upload
22 views

Road Profile: Civil Engineeirng Methods (CE2211)

Route 2 is the most feasible route option for connecting points A4 to B4 based on an evaluation of 4 alternatives. Route 2 is the shortest at 1280m and has most slopes under the required 6% grade. It will require minimal cuts and fills, balancing cut and fill amounts with no excess. Route 2 also minimally impacts the environment and has no need for bridges or special structures. It does not involve any potentially high cost items like other options with excessive cuts and fills. Route 2 is therefore concluded to be the best and most feasible proposed design.

Uploaded by

en21447648 Perera W.P.D.U
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

Road Profile: Civil Engineeirng Methods (CE2211)

Route 2 is the most feasible route option for connecting points A4 to B4 based on an evaluation of 4 alternatives. Route 2 is the shortest at 1280m and has most slopes under the required 6% grade. It will require minimal cuts and fills, balancing cut and fill amounts with no excess. Route 2 also minimally impacts the environment and has no need for bridges or special structures. It does not involve any potentially high cost items like other options with excessive cuts and fills. Route 2 is therefore concluded to be the best and most feasible proposed design.

Uploaded by

en21447648 Perera W.P.D.U
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

SRI LANKA INSTUTUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ROAD PROFILE
REPORT

CIVIL ENGINEEIRNG METHODS


(CE2211)

Dissanayake D.M.T.B - EN21448010


Kuruppuarachi L.K.A.C.I - EN21448256
Kodippili H.G.D.R - EN21445422
Perea W.P.D.U - EN21447648
Arachchi W.A.T.T.W - EN21448324

1|Page
Screening Evaluation of Alternatives for routes from point A4 to B4

SCREENING EVALUATION
CRITERIA
ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 ROUTE 4

Length of route 885m 1280m 1305m 1205m


Not possible with specified Possible with the specified It is also possible Possible with the specified
grade control since most of grade control since most of considering the specified grade control because when
Conformance with design
the slopes are higher than 6% the slopes are less than 6% grade control. But have to measuring most of the slopes
control
take huge measures to make are less than 6%
the design feasible.
Higher amount of cuts and The cut and fill amounts are Higher amounts of cuts and Some amount of cuts and
fills have to be executed in balanced and doesn’t have fills have to be excuted but fills have to be executed but
Cut and Fill Balance order to comply with the excess cuts and fills in the not more than the route 1 less than the route 1and 3
propsed design propsed design proposed design. proposed design.

Need for bridges or other


None None None None
special structures
Since excessive cuts and fills Since there are minimal cuts Since excessive cuts and Since excessive cuts and fills
there can be potential threats and fills in the proposed fills there can be potential there can be potential threats
to the enviroment such as design the enviromental threats to the enviroment to the enviroment such as
causing landlides and impact is so minimal. Also, such as causing landlides causing landlides and
rockslides causing higher the precautions needed to be and rockslides causing rockslides causing higher
Environmental Impacts damage to civillians as well as taken before designing the higher damage to civillians damage to civillians as well
the road and the ecosystem. road is minimal. as well as the road and the as the road and the
ecosystem. ecosystem.

Excessive cuts and fills None Excessive cuts and fills Excessive cuts and fills
Potential high cost items

2|Page
Route 1 – Dissanayake D.M.T.B (EN21448010)

Route 2 – Kuruppuarachi L.K.A.C.I (EN21448256)

Route 3 – Kodippili H.G.D.R (EN21445422)

Route 4 – Perera W.P.D.U (EN21447648)

Conclusion:-

With the conclusion, it could be decided that the best and the most feasible proposed design is route 2. The reason for that
decision is that most number of slopes are under the required percentage which was 6% and that route is affecting the
environmental design minimally considering all other route designs. Also, that route 2 doesn’t have any extra cost adding items
included. With the capacity of making the route with minimum cuts and fills that makes the project feasible and easy in
constructing.

3|Page

You might also like