Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 48

CHAPTER 9.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
9.1 INTRODUCTION

The engineering analysis and options design for project corridor is basically divided into three
major parts as:
 Conceptual Highway Design and treatment
 Pavement Evaluation and Design
 Preliminary Design of Structures

The improvement options identified for project development, selected bypass alignments and
design standards finalized for the project and output of various field surveys and investigations
formed as critical inputs for the engineering analysis and options design carried out for the
project corridor.

9.2 CONCEPTUAL HIGHWAY DESIGN AND TREATMENT

Geometric design of project corridor has been conceptualized for a design speed of 100 kmph as
specified by the ToR. Several horizontal curves along the existing alignment do not fulfill the
requirements IRC standards for a design speed of 100 kmph. There are sharp reverse curves
where it is required to improve the radius to ease out the curvature effect. It has been noticed
from the ground conditions that it is possible to improve the geometry of these sharp curves
without causing much of impact to adjoining properties and land use. Vertical geometry in
general appears to be very smooth with flat gradients and long curves all along with few
exceptions. The available sight distance in both horizontal and vertical curves appears to be
adequate and can still be increased with removal of bushes adjacent to the road. Combination of
horizontal and vertical geometry has good pleasing aesthetics and do not have any disjointed
effects along the corridor. The description of the horizontal alignment design and vertical profile
design have been elaborated in the subsequent sections of this chapter.

It is felt prudent to consider eccentric widening for the project corridor in order to utilize the full
formation width of existing crust and avoid two longitudinal joints at the time of construction. An
effort has also been made to collect information on the utility lines above/below the ground along
the corridor. Optical Fiber Cable lines are running all along the project corridor. Looking at the
existing physical condition of the project corridor, the following criteria have been used to identify
the side of widening:
 Availability of Land
 Geometric Improvements
 Location of utility lines
 Location of major settlements and ribbon developments
 Vegetation
 Environmental/ Social hot spots

1
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Few intermittent developments exist along the corridor; serious efforts have been made to
reduce the impact on adjoining properties by changing the side. Presence of high-tension lines,
religious structures, wells, big old trees have been duly considered while finalizing the widening
scheme. Above all, availability of land, geometric improvements have been given due importance
in fixing the widening options.

Based on the above criteria, widening scheme for the project corridor in terms of horizontal
alignment has been finalized on the strip plans through walkover surveys. The following table
presents the final widening scheme adopted for the project.
Table Preliminary Design-1: Proposed Widening Scheme
Proposed Chainage Length Proposed Widening
Code Remarks
From To (Km) Scheme
0.765 Bypass (RHS) BYP Jetpur Bypass (Along NH-8B)
0.000 4.700 4.700 Bypass (RHS) BYP Jetpur Bypass
4.700 5.500 0.800 Eccentric Left EL
5.500 6.300 0.800 Concentric CON Jatlasar
6.300 14.100 7.800 Eccentric Left EL
14.100 19.100 5.000 Eccentric Right ER
19.100 19.900 0.800 Concentric CON Vadol
19.900 22.050 2.150 Eccentric Left EL
22.050 23.450 1.400 Eccentric Right ER
23.450 24.750 1.300 Bypass (RHS) BYP Junagadh Bypass-1
24.750 25.925 1.175 Eccentric Right ER
25.925 26.225 0.300 Eccentric Left EL
26.225 32.500 6.275 Eccentric Right ER
32.500 40.450 7.950 Bypass (RHS) BYP Junagadh Bypass-2
40.450 43.700 3.250 Eccentric Left EL
43.700 44.350 0.650 Realignment RA Vanthali Realignment
44.350 49.400 5.050 Eccentric Right ER
49.400 50.000 0.600 Realignment RA Curve Improvement
50.000 54.800 4.800 Eccentric Right ER
54.800 55.400 0.600 Eccentric Left EL
55.400 55.900 0.500 Realignment RA
55.900 56.250 0.350 Eccentric Left EL
56.250 58.100 1.850 Eccentric Right ER
58.100 60.300 2.200 Realignment BYP Agatrai Realignment
60.300 63.600 3.300 Eccentric Left EL
63.600 75.000 11.400 Bypass (RHS) BYP Kesod Bypass
75.000 77.800 2.800 Eccentric Right ER
77.800 78.050 0.250 Realignment RA
78.050 82.650 4.600 Eccentric Left EL
82.650 86.100 3.450 Eccentric Right ER
86.100 86.500 0.400 Concentric CON
86.500 90.500 4.000 Eccentric Right ER
90.500 90.950 0.450 Concentric CON
90.950 91.100 0.150 Realignment RA
91.100 91.750 0.650 Concentric CON
91.750 96.900 5.150 Eccentric Right ER
96.900 98.600 1.700 Concentric CON

2
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed Chainage Length Proposed Widening


Code Remarks
From To (Km) Scheme
98.600 100.200 1.600 Eccentric Right ER
100.200 100.500 0.300 Realignment RA
100.500 105.700 5.200 Eccentric Right ER
105.700 106.300 0.600 Concentric CON
106.300 110.300 4.000 Eccentric Right ER
110.300 110.700 0.400 Eccentric Left EL
110.700 111.100 0.400 Realignment RA
111.100 111.500 0.400 Eccentric Right ER
111.500 112.600 1.100 Realignment RA
112.600 112.950 0.350 Eccentric Right ER
112.950 113.650 0.700 Realignment RA
113.650 115.900 2.250 Eccentric Right ER
115.900 116.300 0.400 Concentric CON
116.300 117.900 1.600 Eccentric Left EL
117.900 118.100 0.200 Realignment RA
118.100 119.500 1.400 Eccentric Left EL
119.500 120.500 1.000 Realignment RA
120.500 121.100 0.600 Concentric CON
121.100 121.800 0.700 Eccentric Left EL
121.800 122.725 0.925 Concentric CON
123.490 Total Lengt (as per design chainage)

The following table presents the summary of widening options finalized for the project corridor
Table Preliminary Design-2: Summary of widening options
S.No Widening Option Code Total Length (Km)
1 Eccentric widening on LHS while moving towards Somnath EL 27.250
2 Eccentric widening on RHS while moving towards Somnath ER 54.750
3 Concentric CON 7.325
4 Bypass and Realignments BYP/RE 34.165
Total length (as per design chainage) 123.490

9.2.1 Horizontal Alignment Design

Design of the horizontal alignment has been carried out in SOFT DESK environment as per the
widening scheme finalized. Field checks to verify the feasibility of the proposed alignment have
been carried out and suitable modifications to the alignment have been done wherever
considered essential to safeguard sensitive elements.

Base plan of the existing highway corridor showing all natural and manmade features has been
prepared using the topographical survey data. All the features within a band width of 60m have
been captured with an unique “description code” during the survey along with the details of
existing carriageway centerline, edge of pavement, edge of shoulder, toe line of the embankment
etc. This data has been downloaded into SOFT DESK environment to prepare the base plans.
The following activities elucidate the preparation of base plans in more details:
 Format survey data to suit the requirements of SOFT DESK environment

3
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

 Download the data into software


 Define main corridor features by joining the points of centerline, edge of pavement, embankment toe
line
 Join the points with same description codes for all physical features like rivers, buildings, religious
structures, shops, telephone poles, electric poles, cross roads etc within the above specified limits
 Establish break lines for features such as edge of the road, shoulder, nallahs, top and bottom of
ditches, etc;
 Insert the details of existing cross drainage structures such as bridge number, span arrangement etc.
 Insert details of underground utility services collected from secondary sources.
 Cross check the so prepared base plans by “walkover” surveys
 Update and finalise the base plans with additional survey data if necessary.

Geometric design of project corridor has been conceptualized for a design speed of 100 kmph as
specified by the ToR. As described earlier in this chapter, existing sharp curves have been
improved for a design speed of 100 kmph.

Though the start point of existing project corridor is from Vehicular underpass intersection on NH-
8B, four laning of the project corridor has been proposed from at grade channelized intersection
with NH-8B, near km 111 of NH8B by considering the proposed Jetpur bypass take off point.

Four laning of jetpur bypass continued up to existing Km 6/400 where the proposed jetpur
bypass ends and there after the alignment follows on left hand side of existing carriageway up to
km 15.60, in view of more developments on RHS at Jetalsar village (Km 7), graveyard at RHS
after Jetalsar village and presence of OFC lines on RHS and a stream very close to road on RHS
near Major bridge at km 14.0 and major temple on RHS at Km 15.5. In this process the police
training centre on LHS at choki village near km 15.0 would be affected.

Alignment is shifted at km 15.6 beyond temple to RHS to avoid Weir, Graveyard at Km 19.8 and
pocket of plantation near km 20.3. Near Vadal village the alignment is taken concentric between
km 20.9 to km 21.35 and thereafter the alignment is taken to LHS to safe guard the Mazar
developments on RHS near km 23.0. Beyond this, alignment is taken to RHS and continued till
the start of Junagrh bypass-1 at km 25.05. a four lane bypass with 6 lane RoB has been
proposed in junagarh-1 bypass between km 25.05 and km 26.3 where the bypass hits the project
corridor at junction with Dhoraji-junagrh SH. At this junction a VUP is proposed. From this
junction four laning is proposed to continue on RHS of existing bypass except near km 27.6
where it has taken to LHS for about 500m length to improve the sharp curve, up to start of
Junagarh bypass-2 at km 34.0 A bypass is proposed to avoid two existing railway crossings
along the corridor till Km 43.

Beyond the Junagrh town and existing two lane RoB (being bypassed), four laning proposed on
LHS from end point of bypass (Km 43.050) and continued up to the outskirts of Vanthali (Km
46.150) where a Realignment is proposed up to km (Km 49.150) and after this point the
alignment is taken on RHS of existing carriageway till the end of major bridge at km 51.950.

4
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

From Km 51,950 to km 52.550, realignment is proposed by taking the advantage of


reconstruction proposal of the existing one major bridge and two minor bridges in this section to
remove the reverse curve. There after the alignment is taken on RHS till start of Agatrai
realignment at km 60.650, the alignment is continued to follow RHS.

From 60.65 to Km 62.7 realignment is proposed on LHS at Agatrai settlements. Beyond this point
the alignment is proposed to take on LHS till the start of the Kesod bypass till km 65.840

Between Km 65.840 to Km 79.45, four lane by pass is proposed on RHS of Kesod town. A VUP
is proposed on kesod bypass where the proposed alignment intersects with State highway
(Kesod-Mangrol SH) and two PUP/CUPs proposed on this bypass.

Beyond Kesod bypass the alignment is initaiily taken on RHS up to Km 82.150 and there after it
is proposed on LHS up to Km 87.0 to safe guard a temple and few settlements at Koylala village
and thereafter, it is once again taken on RHS for most of the length from km 87.0 to km 114.7 to
safe guard the water pipe line on LHS. Except at four locations such as at Maliyahanthila,
Banduri, (Km 95 and 96), Gadu near Km 101.5 to 102.8) and Sipasi, where the proposed
alignment is taken to concentric to safe guard the few settlements. Poor geometry between km
104 and 105 has also been improved.

Beyond Km 114.7 the alignment is taken on LHS near start of existing veraval bypass at Km
115.950. From Km 115.950 to Km 118.3 Realignment is proposed to safe guard the
developments at start of existing veraval two lane bypass and improve the geometry by avoiding
the existing perpendicular Left turn.

A 6 lane RoB is proposed on RHS of the existing level crossing just before the Devika Bridge at
km 118.0. The RoB approach to jetpur side has been proposed on right hand side of existing
carriageway whilst the Somnath side RoB approach is taken on LHS thereby removing the
revrese curve between existing railway line and Devika Bridge. The existing Devika Bridge would
not be used and a new four lane bridge is proposed on LHS as the distance between rail line and
river bridge is not sufficient enough to have proper gradient when a ROB is proposed on rail line.

Beyond this point, the alignment is taken to RHS from km 118.300 to km 120.450 except at km
119.0 where it has been realigned to improve the curve. From km 120.5 to km 125.1 the
alignment is taken to LHS for most of the length and the existing poor geometry in this section
has been improved, in doing so part of the existing road section would not be utilized and new
four lane is proposed. A new 6 lane RoB is proposed at the existing level crossing near km 123.0.

From km 125.1 to 126.0 i.e. up to the major intersection with NH-8E, the alignment is taken
concentrically, and a trumpet is proposed at this junction. And beyond this point the alignment is
once again taken to LHS till another junction at km 126.5 and there after the alignment is taken
concentrically up to end point at exiting rotary Junction just opposite to Somnath Temple.

5
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

9.2.2 Vertical Profile Design

Vertical profile of the Project Corridor has been finalized on the basis of DTM data collected
during the topographic survey. For the purpose of creating existing ground profile, only the
survey points pertaining to natural ground and existing pavement have been used and points
pertaining to utility features have been eliminated. Fault lines are drawn along the corridor and a
Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) has been created in the SOFT DESK to create the existing
profile along the proposed centerline of the project corridor. Care has been particularly taken at
culverts and bridge locations to define the water bodies correctly with fault lines.

Profile of the existing carriageway has also been created using the TIN in the software and
imported into the drawing having the existing profile of the proposed centerline. Control points for
drawing the finished road profile have been identified and marked in the drawing at CD
structures, underpass locations and at the existing horizontal curve locations by considering the
effect of proposed super elevation along the corridor

In addition to the standards and guidelines set for the project, a number of other considerations
have been made to finalize the vertical profile, which is presented below:
 Individual profiles have been drawn for each carriageway of the four lane divided highway.
 The edge of the proposed median kerb & channel (excluding the shyness of 0.25m, which is
considered to be horizontal) formed by extending the top surface lines of both carriageways has been
considered as the control point for the finished vertical profile design.
 Minimum distance between the two PVI in the case of existing carriageway has been kept as 80m
 Minimum distance between the two PVI in the case of New carriageway has been kept as 150m
 Minimum longitudinal gradient as 0.05% for longitudinal drainage
 Minimum length of vertical curve as 60m
 Maximum gradient of 3.3% at bridge and underpass approaches only
 Minimum K value as 75 for the summit curve and 45 for valley curve
 Profile for the major river bridge with well foundations (20m apart) have been drawn individually for
each directional bridge alignment.

Considering all of the above points finished profile of the both the carriageways have been drawn
individually in the software. An endeavor has been made to keep the grade line smooth with mild
gradients consistent with character of the existing road profile and terrain. There are local
depressions of varying depth in the profile of existing pavement. These have been eliminated to
have streamline profile with vertical curves at crests and valleys. Rectification of depressions
involves the provision of profile corrective courses with various materials so as to conform to
designed profile. This correction will be necessary in addition to correction of camber to cross-
fall.

Keeping the MORT specifications in view, the profile correction for both cross and longitudinal
directions is proposed to be accomplished in the following manner:

6
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Composition of the Profile Corrective Course:

If the level difference between the underside of total overlay thickness and existing centre line
level is:
i) Up to 50mm - PCC is by DBM
ii) Up to 125 mm – PCC is by BM
iii) More than 125mm and upto 175mm-PCC is by 75mm of BUSG+ remaining with BM
iv) More than 175 mm and up to 300 mm - Dismantle the existing bituminous course and
provide 75mm BM+ rest with WMM as PCC
v) More than 300 mm and up to 500 mm- Dismantle the existing bituminous course and
Provide 75mm BM+ 250mm WMM + Remaining with GSB (min. 100mm) as PCC
vi) More than 500 mm – Reconstruction with new carriageway pavement thickness with
dismantling of existing pavement to requisite depth
vii) More than 1600mm- Reconstruction with new carriageway pavement thickness without
dismantling the existing bituminous course.

9.2.3 Proposed cross sections

Based on the proposed horizontal alignment design, and vertical profile design which already
considered all the relevant issues pertaining to geometric improvement and profile correction,
realignments, bypasses and proposed grade separated structures, underpasses and
reconstruction stretches, various cross section types have been prepared to suit specific site
conditions. The following table presents the details of proposed cross section types.
Table Preliminary Design-3: Proposed Cross Section Types
Proposed
Length Adopted Cross
S.No Chainage Description
(Km) Section Type
From To
Typical Cross Section for Unidirectional Flyover
1 0.000 0.800 0.800 Type XII-A
Approach without Slip Road
Typical Cross Section for Unidirectional Flyover
1A 0.800 1.300 0.500 Type XII
Approach with Slip Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
1B 1.300 1.415 0.115 Type III
Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
0.650 1.590 0.940 Type III
2 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for PUP Approach without RE
1.590 1.910 0.320 Type X
3 wall and without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
1.910 2.250 0.340 Type III
4 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall
2.250 3.250 1.000 Type XIV
5 BUT without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
3.250 4.760 1.510 Type III
6 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
4.760 5.000 0.240 Type IV
7 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
5.000 5.600 0.600 Type I
8 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening with both side
5.600 5.900 0.300 Type V
9 7.0m Service Road

7
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Length Adopted Cross
S.No Chainage Description
(Km) Section Type
From To
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
5.900 6.380 0.480 Type XI
10 wall and with both Side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
6.380 6.460 0.080 Type IV
11 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
6.460 10.300 3.840 Type I
12 Service Road
10.300 10.900 0.600 Toll Plaza Toll Plaza Location rigid pavement
13
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
10.900 11.240 0.340 Type I
14 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
11.240 11.480 0.240 Type IV
15 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
11.480 12.560 1.080 Type I
16 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
12.560 12.680 0.120 Type IV
17 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
12.680 13.175 0.495 Type I
18 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening with 5.5m
13.175 13.850 0.675 Type VIII
19 Service Road on LHS
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
13.850 14.250 0.400 Type IV
20 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
14.250 14.520 0.270 Type II
21 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
14.520 14.640 0.120 Type IV
22 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
14.640 16.480 1.840 Type II
23 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
16.480 16.920 0.440 Type IV
24 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
16.920 19.050 2.130 Type II
25 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
19.050 19.250 0.200 Type IV
26 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
19.250 19.500 0.250 Type IV
27 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
19.500 19.750 0.250 Type VII-A
28 both side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
19.750 20.200 0.450 Type XI-A
29 wall and with both Side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
20.200 21.800 1.600 Type I
30 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
21.800 22.250 0.450 Type IV
31 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
22.250 23.300 1.050 Type II
32 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
23.300 23.600 0.300 Type III
33 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall
23.600 24.000 0.400 Type XIV
34 BUT without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall
24.000 24.450 0.450 Type XIV
35 BUT without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
24.450 24.500 0.050 Type III
36 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
24.500 25.120 0.620 Type XI
37 wall and with both Side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
25.120 25.800 0.680 Type II
38 Service Road

8
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Length Adopted Cross
S.No Chainage Description
(Km) Section Type
From To
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
25.800 26.900 1.100 Type IV
39 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
26.900 29.160 2.260 Type II
40 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
29.160 29.300 0.140 Type IV
41 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
29.300 30.940 1.640 Type II
42 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
30.940 31.040 0.100 Type IV
43 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
31.040 32.000 0.960 Type II
44 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
32.000 32.400 0.400 Type IV
45 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
32.400 34.080 1.680 Type III
46 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for PUP Approach without RE
34.080 34.410 0.330 Type X
47 wall and without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
34.410 36.860 2.450 Type III
48 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for PUP Approach without RE
36.860 37.250 0.390 Type X
49 wall and without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
37.250 40.600 3.350 Type III
50 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
40.600 43.660 3.060 Type I
51 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
43.660 44.400 0.740 Type III
52 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
44.400 44.560 0.160 Type IV
53 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
44.560 45.140 0.580 Type II
54 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
45.140 45.260 0.120 Type IV
55 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
45.260 45.660 0.400 Type II
56 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
45.660 45.780 0.120 Type IV
57 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
45.780 45.860 0.080 Type II
58 Service Road
45.860 46.000 0.140 Type II-A wide medin gap (4.5m to 20m)
59
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
46.000 46.220 0.220 Type IV-A
60 Service Road (median 4.5m t0 20m)
46.220 46.840 0.620 Type II-A wide medin gap (4.5m to 20m)
61
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
46.840 47.840 1.000 Type II
62 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
47.840 48.000 0.160 Type II
63 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening with both side
48.000 48.600 0.600 Type VI
64 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
48.600 49.400 0.800 Type II
65 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
49.400 50.000 0.600 Type III
66 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
50.000 50.950 0.950 Type II
67 Service Road

9
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Length Adopted Cross
S.No Chainage Description
(Km) Section Type
From To
50.950 51.550 0.600 Toll Plaza Toll Plaza Location rigid pavement
68
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
51.550 51.820 0.270 Type II
69 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
51.820 52.920 1.100 Type II
70 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
52.920 53.120 0.200 Type IV
71 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
53.120 53.700 0.580 Type II
72 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
53.700 53.960 0.260 Type IV
73 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
53.960 54.240 0.280 Type II
74 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
54.240 54.440 0.200 Type IV
75 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
54.440 54.700 0.260 Type II
76 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
54.700 54.900 0.200 Type IV
77 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
54.900 55.100 0.200 Type IV
78 Service Road
55.100 55.450 0.350 Type VII-B
79
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
55.450 55.900 0.450 Type XI-A
80 wall and with both Side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
55.900 56.250 0.350 Type IV
81 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
56.250 58.100 1.850 Type II
82 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
58.100 58.700 0.600 Type III
83 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for PUP Approach without RE
58.700 58.900 0.200 Type X
84 wall and without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
58.900 60.360 1.460 Type III
85 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
60.360 60.660 0.300 Type IV
86 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
60.660 63.600 2.940 Type I
87 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
63.600 64.740 1.140 Type III
88 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for PUP Approach without RE
64.740 65.130 0.390 Type X
89 wall and without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
65.130 66.400 1.270 Type III
90 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction with 5.5m
66.400 67.200 0.800 Type IX
91 Service Road on RHS
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
67.200 68.400 1.200 Type III
92 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
68.400 69.040 0.640 Type XI
93 wall and with both Side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
69.040 70.100 1.060 Type III
94 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
70.100 71.300 1.200 Type III
95 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for PUP Approach without RE
71.300 71.700 0.400 Type X
96 wall and without Service Road

10
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Length Adopted Cross
S.No Chainage Description
(Km) Section Type
From To
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
71.700 73.000 1.300 Type III
97 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
73.000 73.250 0.250 Type VII-A
98 both side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
73.250 75.000 1.750 Type III
99 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
75.000 77.700 2.700 Type II
100 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
77.700 78.100 0.400 Type IV
101 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
78.100 78.700 0.600 Type I
102 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
78.700 78.800 0.100 Type IV
103 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
78.800 82.550 3.750 Type I
104 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
82.550 82.750 0.200 Type IV
105 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
82.750 86.100 3.350 Type II
106 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
86.100 86.500 0.400 Type IV
107 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
86.500 90.500 4.000 Type II
108 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
90.500 90.800 0.300 Type VII-B
109 both side 5.5m Service Road (1.5m median)
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
90.800 91.350 0.550 Type XI-A
110 wall and with both Side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
91.350 91.600 0.250 Type IV
111 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
91.600 92.000 0.400 Type VII-B
112 both side 5.5m Service Road (1.5m median)
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
92.000 94.300 2.300 Type II
113 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
94.300 94.360 0.060 Type IV
114 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
94.360 94.470 0.110 Type II
115 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
94.470 94.940 0.470 Type XI-A
116 wall and with both Side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
94.940 96.800 1.860 Type II
117 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
96.800 97.150 0.350 Type VII
118 both side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
97.150 97.650 0.500 Type VII
119 both side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
97.650 98.800 1.150 Type VII
120 both side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
98.800 99.700 0.900 Type II
121 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
99.700 99.900 0.200 Type IV
122 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
99.900 100.200 0.300 Type II
123 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
100.200 100.380 0.180 Type IV
124 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
100.380 100.580 0.200 Type IV
125 Service Road

11
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Length Adopted Cross
S.No Chainage Description
(Km) Section Type
From To
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
100.580 105.675 5.095 Type II
126 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
105.675 105.870 0.195 Type IV
127 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
105.870 106.320 0.450 Type XI-A
128 wall and with both Side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
106.320 106.600 0.280 Type II
129 Service Road
106.600 107.200 0.600 Toll Plaza Toll Plaza Location rigid pavement
130
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
107.200 107.780 0.580 Type II
131 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
107.780 108.110 0.330 Type IV
132 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
108.110 110.000 1.890 Type II
133 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
110.000 110.600 0.600 Type XI
134 wall and with both Side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
110.600 110.700 0.100 Type I
135 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
110.700 111.100 0.400 Type III
136 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
111.100 111.450 0.350 Type I
137 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
111.450 112.420 0.970 Type III
138 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall
112.420 112.950 0.530 Type XIII
139 and with both Side Service Road
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall
112.950 113.400 0.450 Type XIV
140 BUT without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
113.400 113.700 0.300 Type III
141 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
113.700 114.200 0.500 Type II
142 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
114.200 114.400 0.200 Type III
143 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without
114.400 115.880 1.480 Type II
144 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
115.880 116.520 0.640 Type XI
145 wall and with both Side 7.0m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
116.520 117.900 1.380 Type I
146 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
117.900 118.000 0.100 Type IV
147 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall
118.000 118.950 0.950 Type XIV
148 BUT without Service Road
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without
118.950 119.300 0.350 Type I
149 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
119.300 119.700 0.400 Type III
150 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE
119.700 120.100 0.400 Type XI-A
151 wall and with both Side 5.5m Service Road
Typical Cross Section for New Construction without
120.100 120.550 0.450 Type III
152 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
120.550 120.800 0.250 Type IV
153 Service Road
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without
120.800 121.200 0.400 Type IV
154 Service Road

12
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Length Adopted Cross
S.No Chainage Description
(Km) Section Type
From To
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening with both side
121.200 121.800 0.600 Type V-A
155 7.0m Service Road (1.5m median)
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with
121.800 122.725 0.925 Type XV
156 Service Road on both side at existing four lane section
Total Km 123.490 As per design chainage (122.725-0.650+1.415= 123.490 km)

Table Preliminary Design-4: Summary of Cross Section Schedule


Cross
Length
S.No Section Remarks
(Km)
Type
1 Type I Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening without Service Road 20.485
2 Type II Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without Service Road 44.485
Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening without Service Road (median 4.5m t0
3 Type II-A
20m) 0.760
4 Type III Typical Cross Section for New Construction without Service Road 25.775
5 Type IV Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without Service Road 9.655
Typical Cross Section for Reconstruction without Service Road (median 4.5m t0
6 Type IV-A
20m) 0.220
7 Type V Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening with both side 7.0m Service Road 0.300
Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening with both side 7.0m Service Road WITH
8 Type V-A
1.5M MEDIAN 0.600
9 Type VI Typical Cross Section for RHS Widening with both side 7.0m Service Road 0.600
10 Type VII Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with both side 7.0m Service Road 2.000
11 Type VII-A Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with both side 5.5m Service Road 0.500
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with both side 5.5m Service Road
12 Type VII-B
(1.5M MEDIAN) 1.050
13 Type VIII Typical Cross Section for LHS Widening with 5.5m Service Road on LHS 0.675
14 Type IX Typical Cross Section for New Construction with 5.5m Service Road on RHS 0.800
Typical Cross Section for PUP Approach without RE wall and without Service
15 Type X
Road 2.030
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE wall and with both Side
16 Type XI
7.0m Service Road 2.980
Typical Cross Section for VUP/PUP Approach with RE wall and with both Side
17 Type XI-A
5.5m Service Road 2.770
18 Type XII Typical Cross Section for Unidirectional Flyover Approach with Slip Road 0.500
19 Type XII-A Typical Cross Section for Unidirectional Flyover Approach without Slip Road 0.800
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall and with both Side 7.0m
20 Type XIII
Service Road 0.530
Typical Cross Section for ROB Approach with RE wall BUT without Service
21 Type XIV
Road 3.250
Typical Cross Section for Concentric Widening with Service Road on both side
22 Type XV
at existing four lane section 0.925
23 Toll Plaza Toll Plaza Location 1.800
Total Length (Total length as per design chainage) 123.490

9.3 INTERSECTIONS

At-grade intersections, unless properly designed can be accident-prone and can reduce the
overall capacity of the road. The basic requirements for the design of intersections is not only to
cater safe movements for drivers, but also to provide them full traffic information by way of signs,
pavement markings and traffic signals. Simplicity and uniformity should be the guiding principles
for intersection design. Based upon these principles the at- grade intersections have been
categorized as:
1) Minor
2) Channelised with or without acceleration and deceleration lanes

13
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

3) Staggered
4) Rotaries
5) Signalized intersections
6) Grade separated interchange

The criteria used for categorizing the intersections were:


 Traffic volume and number of lanes on the project road;
 Traffic volume and number of lanes on the cross road;
 Turning traffic volumes;
 Type and category of cross road;
 Site conditions / constraints; and
 Any local importance

9.3.1 Warrants

IRC-SP: 41 gives the warrants for the different types of at grade intersections. These warrants
are based upon the traffic volumes on each of the two intersecting roads. The type of intersection
to be provided shall be based on these IRC guidelines. Similarly warrants given in the Type
designs for Intersections on National Highways published by the MORT were taken into
consideration.

IRC: 62 recommends the provision of grade separators if the ADT (fast vehicles only) on a cross
road within the next 5 years exceed 5000 vehicles. However where this traffic figure is reached
within the next 20 years, then provisions should be made to construct grade separation at a later
date.

IRC-92-1985 recommends grade separated interchange when an at-grade intersection fails to


handle the volume of traffic resulting in serious congestion and frequent choking of the
intersection. This situation may arise when the total traffic of all arms of the intersection is in
excess of 10000 PCU per hour.

9.3.2 Sight Distance

Good sight distance enhances safety at intersections. The driver’s ability to judge the hazard of
entering intersection is very much enhanced as the visibility is increased by removal of
obstructions in the line of sight. Improvements to sight distance will form a part of the design of at
grade intersections.

9.3.3 Drainage

Drainage should facilitate the removal of storm water from the junction expeditiously. Accordingly
suitable gradients and cross-slopes shall be provided to ensure proper drainage of junction.

14
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

9.3.4 Existing Intersections

There are more than 100 cross roads with various categories of roads all along the corridor. All of
these intersections are at-grade. Apart from these intersections, there are some additional
intersections have come up the start and end of proposed bypasses at various urban
settlements. All these new intersections are considered as important ones. There is deletion of
some intersections and there is change of intersection type from T-intersection to x-intersection
due to introduction of bypasses

Accordingly, total number of intersections are divided into different categories of varying
importance and developments are proposed to each category as mentioned in the following
table:
Table Preliminary Design-5: Proposed intersection Improvements
S.NO Type Proposed Improvement
Type-I: Intersections of prime At-grade/Grade separated intersection with Acceleration
1
Importance /Deceleration lane /service road and median opening
Type-2:Intersections of secondary At- Grade channelised intersections with median opening . No
2
importance Acc/Dec lanes
Type-3: Intersections of tertiary At-grade with only central divider on the cross road. Median
3
importance opening is optional
Type-4: Minor intersections: with Only fillet
4
black top roads
Type-5: Minor intersections with Only fillet and access provision
5
earthen and access roads

Typical intersection drawings indicating the various elements of intersections have been
developed and presented in drawing volume of this report.

A) Major Intersection:

These are intersections with major category of roads like NH, SH and MDR carrying good
amount of cross road traffic. These are designated as type-I, II& III. Details of these intersections
are given below:
Table Preliminary Design-6: Details of major intersections
Proposed
Type of Type of
S.No Chainage Width Direction Improvement Remarks
Road Surface
(Km)
Left & Type I, Unidirectional Left-Rajkot and
0.000 NH-8B 14.0 BT
1 Right Flyover Right-Porbandar
Old NH- Left-Jetpur and
4.700 7.000 BT Left Type I
2 8D Right-Somnath
Railway St.
6.360 ODR 5.0 BT Right Type III
3 Jetlashar
4 10.250 SH 5.5 BT Right Type II New Sakali
5 23.400 old NH 7.00 BT left Type I Junagadh
Left & Left-Junagadh &
24.716 SH 5.5/5.5 BT Type I, VUP
6 Right Right-Dhoraji
Left & Left-Junagadh &
32.350 VR 3.75/3.75 BT Type I
7 Right Right-Dandasar
8 40.100 old NH 7.00 BT left Type I Junagadh
9 43.875 old-NH 7.0 BT Right Type I
10 44.300 old-NH 7.0 BT Right Type III

15
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Type of Type of
S.No Chainage Width Direction Improvement Remarks
Road Surface
(Km)
11 50.450 SH-96 7.0 BT Left Type I Khokharda
12 56.950 MDR 5.0 BT Left Type III Magarwara
major junctiona
58.200 old-NH 7.0 BT Right Type III
13 AGATRAI start
14 60.100 old-NH 7.0 BT Right Type III
15 63.900 old-NH 7.0 BT Left Type I
Left & Left-Kesod and
68.720 SH-97 7.0 BT Type I, VUP
16 Right Right-Porbandar
17 74.800 old-NH 7.0 BT Left Type I
18 77.850 MDR 3.5 BT Left Type III Rangpur
19 86.300 SH-100 7.0 BT Left Type I Sasan
20 97.400 SH 7.0 BT Right Type I Porbander
21 97.450 SH 7.0 BT Left Type III Sasan
22 110.227 VR/SH 5.5 BT Left Type I, VUP Sathroda & Dari
23 111.700 old-NH 7.0 BT Right Type II
Left-Sasan and
116.206 SH 7.0 BT Left Type I, VUP
24 Right-Veraval
25 121.150 NH-8E 9.0 BT Left Type I Una
26 121.850 9.0 BT Right Type II Veraval
B) Minor Intersection:

This type of improvement is proposed at junctions with cross-roads of villages and access roads
carrying moderate to low traffic. Two typical designs (Type IV and Type V) have been developed
to cater for moderate, low and very low volume of traffic on cross roads. Details of minor
intersections are presented below:
Table Preliminary Design-7: Details of Intersections of Minor Intersection
Proposed
Type of Type of
S.No Chainage Width Direction Improvement Remarks
Road Surface
(Km)
Left-Nawagadh
1 0.500 VR 5.5 BT Left & Right Type IV
and Right-Village
2 3.800 5.5 BT Left Type V
3 5.900 VR 5.0 BT Left Type IV Timery
Railway St.
4 5.910 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV
Jetlashar
Access
5 7.500 3.0 ER Left Type V
Road
6 8.880 VR 5.0 BT Right Type IV New Sakali-1
7 8.880 VR 3.0 ER Left Type V Fileds
8 9.275 VR 5.0 BT Left Type IV Pipadwa
9 9.550 VR 3.0 ER Right Type V Sakali
Access
10 10.150 3.0 CT Left Type V
Road
Access
11 11.500 3.0 CT Left Type V
Road
Agricultue Land
12 12.200 VR 3.5 BT Left Type IV
Way
13 12.200 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Sorath Chouki
14 13.175 ODR 5.0 BT Left Type IV Akala
15 13.285 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Sorath Chouki
16 13.825 VR 3.0 BT Left Type IV Kathrota
Access
17 14.375 3.0 ER Left Type V Fileds
Road
Access
18 14.700 3.0 ER Left Type V Fileds
Road

16
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Type of Type of
S.No Chainage Width Direction Improvement Remarks
Road Surface
(Km)
Access
19 14.700 3.0 ER Right Type V Fileds
Road
Access
20 15.200 3.0 ER Left Type V Fileds
Road
Access
21 18.100 3.0 ER Left Type V Fileds
Road
22 19.500 VR 3.0 BT Left Type IV Khatrota
23 19.870 VR 3.0 BT Left Type IV Bhesan
24 19.870 VR 3.0 BT Right Type IV Vadal
25 20.025 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Vadal
26 22.360 VR 3.0 BT Right Type IV Sukhpur
27 22.360 VR 3.0 ER Left Type V
Access
28 22.850 3.0 ER Left Type V Factory
Road
29 28.350 VR 5.5 BT Left Type IV Kham Dhroal
30 28.350 VR 5.0 BT Right Type IV Majewari
31 30.250 VR BT 3.000 Left Type IV Joshipura
32 30.250 VR BT 3.000 Right Type IV Khalipura
33 39.035 Left&Right Type IV
34 41.800 VR 3.8 BT Left Type IV Shapur
35 45.000 VR 3.8 BT Right Type IV
36 46.200 VR 3.0 BT Right Type IV
37 47.000 VR 3.0 ER Left Type V
38 48.075 VR 5.0 BT Left Type IV Vaspara
39 48.075 VR 3.8 BT Right Type IV
40 50.450 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Tinmas
41 51.800 VR 3.5 BT Left Type IV Khumbadi
42 51.900 VR 3.0 BT Right Type IV Gandudoi
Access
43 51.900 3.0 ER Left Type V
Road
44 53.300 VR 3.0 ER Right Type V
minor inter
45 66.400 Right Type IV
section
minor inter
46 66.985 Right Type IV
section
47 73.250 VR 3.5 BT left Type IV
48 73.250 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV
49 77.850 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Koylana
50 78.200 MDR 5.5 BT Right Type IV Dehalana
51 82.020 VR 3.5 BT Left Type IV Lathotra
52 82.050 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Panidhra
53 84.650 VR 3.8 BT Right Type IV Sunthal
54 90.830 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV
55 91.020 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV
56 91.650 VR 3.0 Earthen Left Type V Khera
Access
57 92.720 3.0 BT Right Type IV
Road
58 94.450 VR 3.0 Earthen Left Type IV Zadka
59 96.900 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Mangolre
To Agriculture
60 98.400 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV
Land
61 101.250 VR 3.0 BT Right Type IV Shantipur
62 101.275 VR 3.0 BT Left Type IV Sukhpur
Access
63 102.200 3.0 BT Left Type IV Factory
Road
64 103.800 VR 5.0 BT Left Type IV Kadirva
65 103.800 VR 5.0 BT Right Type IV Amritlayam
66 105.725 VR 3.0 BT Left Type IV Vavdi

17
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Proposed
Type of Type of
S.No Chainage Width Direction Improvement Remarks
Road Surface
(Km)
67 105.725 SH 5.5 BT Right Type IV Aadri A
68 108.075 VR 3.5 BT Left Type IV
69 108.400 VR 3.5 BT Left Type IV Chanduvav
70 108.400 VR 3.0 BT Right Type IV
71 113.300 VR 3.5 BT Left Type IV Dabor
72 113.300 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Veraval
73 114.000 VR 3.0 Left Type IV
74 114.000 VR 3.0 Left Type IV
75 117.790 VR 3.5 BT Right Type IV Bhalpora
To Agriculture
76 117.790 VR 3.0 Earthen Left Type IV
field
77 118.700 VR 3.5 Left Type IV Mitayyaput

C) Media Openings:

At other than proposed intersections type with median openings about 48 median openings have
been proposed along the project corridor in order to provide access to some of these cross roads
and to provide u-turning.

9.4 PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN

9.4.1 Introduction

Pavement design forms an integral part of detailed engineering study for a highway project.
Pavement performance under prevailing environmental conditions and projected traffic is
considered to be crucial as it has a direct bearing on the economic returns from the project
developments. Present section of the report deals with the design methodology adopted for
pavement design and also evaluates the present condition of the existing pavement crust. An
effort to rationalize the pavement design by associating the initial design of pavement crust with
subsequent maintenance required in the entire deign period has been made. This rationalization
is undertaken by life cycle cost analysis of various design alternatives using HDM-4. This effort is
also presented in this section of the report. This section also outlines the pavement option study
undertaken to identify pavement type to be followed based on the life cycle cost analysis.

9.4.2 Pavement Design Considerations

Pavement design considerations would basically involve at evolving input parameters required
for design of pavement. The following sections elaborate the design considerations made in the
pavement design.

Design Period

Pavement design life is the period for which the initial design of pavement crust layers shall be
designed. Design life should not be referred as terminal stage of crust beyond which crust
becomes unusable. A design life of 15 years for flexible pavement and 30 years for rigid
pavement has been considered for the design purposes.

18
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Vehicle Damage Factors:

VDF factors for commercial vehicles have been established from axle load surveys, which were
conducetd at two locations, one between Jetpur-Junagadh at Km 9.5 and the other between
Keshod-Somnath at Km 85. Direction wise VDF for each mode of commercial traffic has been
estimated at each location. Results of axle load surveys have been presented in Table 9-8 below.
The raw data and analysis of axle load survey data has been presented as an Appendix 6.7 of
this report. Looking at the marginal difference between estimated VDF factors at both locations, it
is felt prudent to use higher values of VDF for each mode in both directions.
Table Preliminary Design-8: Adopted Vehicle Damage Factors
Location-1 (Km 85) Location-2 (9.5)
Vehicle Jetpur- Somnath- Jetpur- Somnath-
Description Adopted Adopted
Code Somnath Jetpur Somnath Jetpur
VDF VDF
Direction Direction Direction Direction
1 LCV 0.26 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.31
2 2-Axle Truck 3.66 3.96 3.96 2.09 2.31 2.31
2B BUS 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.42
Tandem 3-Axle
3T 6.09 6.14 6.14 5.92 6.23 6.23
Truck
Tandem M-Axle
M-Axle 6.25 6.59 6.59 6.41 6.60 6.60
Truck

Design Traffic Considerations:

The base year traffic, traffic growth rates and the projected traffic for the design period for each
category of vehicles have been extracted from the Chapter 4. As already mentioned in the
previous chapters, entire length of the corridor has been divided into four homogeneous traffic
sections. Design traffic loading in million standard axles (msa) has been estimated using the
traffic data and estimated VDF. As the entire project corridor divided into four sections, so VDF
values used separately, from the obtained VDF values of two locations. From km 0+000 to km
70+000, used location -2 VDF and from km 70+000 to km 127+00, used location-1 VDF. The
design traffic loading for each of the sections has been given in the Table 9-9 below. The details
of msa calculations are presented in Appendix 6.8 of the report.
Table Preliminary Design-9: Design Traffic Loading in MSA
Chainage 15th Year (2027)
Name Length (Km)
From To Proposed C/W
Section-1 0.00 26.00 26.00 40
Section-2 26.0 63.80 40.00 50
Section-3 63.80 100.00 34.00 40
Section-4 100.00 127.00 27.00 65

Subgrade Strength

Subgrade strength of soil to be considered in the pavement design has been derived form
material investigations. The results of borrow soils identified along the corridor have been
presented in greater details in “chapter 6: Materials investigation”.

19
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Among Twenty-one collected from the borrow areas and tested for CBR, six samples show
soaked CBR less than 10% at 97% of MDD. Samples having the soaked CBR value greater than
10% are evenly distributed along the project corridor and available quantities in this sources is
also sufficient hence 10% design CBR of sub grade can be assumed for new pavement design.

9.4.3 Pavement Design and Crust Thickness

Flexible pavement design has been carried out using the IRC guidelines (IRC-37-2001) based on
the design traffic and subgrade strength for new two lane carriageway. The flexible pavement
composition section wise is given in Table below.
Table Preliminary Design-10: Layer Thickness for New Pavement
Section of Project Corridor km 0.00-km 26.8 km 26.8-km 63.8 km 63.8-km 100 km 100-km 127
Design Traffic (MSA) 40 50 40 65
Pavement Composition Thickness mm
Bituminous Concrete (BC) 40 40 40 40
Dense Bituminous Macadam 100 110 100
120
(DBM)
Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) 250 250 250 250
Granular Sub Base (GSB) 200 200 200 200
Selected Subgrade of CBR >10% 500 500 500 500

The same pavement composition proposed for paved shoulder.

9.4.4 Pavement Design for the Service Road

Flexible pavement has been designed for the service road by the IRC method for the traffic
loading of 10 MSA and for subgrade strength of 10% soaked CBR. Table Preliminary Design-11
presents the pavement composition for service roads along the project corridor.
Table Preliminary Design-11: Pavement Composition for Service Road
Layer Layer Thickness in mm
BC 40
DBM 50
WMM 250
GSB 200
Total 540

9.4.5 Pavement Design for Cross Road

Pavement thickness for the improvement of cross roads at the major intersections shall be same
as that of main carriageway thickness up to ROW limits. For all other minor intersections,
Flexible pavement was designed for a traffic level of 10 MSA considering the subgrade CBR as
10% soaked CBR. Table 9-12 presents the pavement composition at minor intersections.
Table Preliminary Design-12: Pavement Composition at minor Intersections
Layer Layer Thickness in mm
BC 40
DBM 50

20
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

WMM 250
GSB 200
Total 540

9.4.6 Strengthening of Existing Pavement

The strengthening requirements (overlay designs) of existing pavement have been estimated
from the deflection measurements taken on the project corridor using IRC: 81-1997 for the
estimated traffic loadings. Details of survey results presented in chapter 6 of this report.

It is not practical to have different overlay thickness from kilometer to kilometer. Adjacent lengths
have been combined for treatment. In order to achieve this, homogeneous sections have been
delineated in relation to the BBD deflections by applying the method of cumulative differences.
Homogeneous section wise characteristic deflections have been presented in 9-1 in the form of
bar charts.

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
26.8-

36.2-

63.8-

100-
11.4

115-
4.7-

11.4-

127
26.8

63.8
36.2

100

115

Figure Preliminary Design-1: Characteristic Detections Homogeneous Section

The demarcated sections, the characteristic deflection for each section, the projected traffic it is
expected to carry and the overlay thickness in millimeters of Bituminous Macadam (BM)
designed using IRC: 81-1997 are tabulated in Table below. This thickness is converted to BC and
DBM by taking a conversion equivalency of 1.0 BM is 0.75 AC/DBM as suggested in IRC: 37-
2001.
Table Preliminary Design-13: Overlay Thickness for Existing Carriageway
Existing Required
After Eliminating outlayers Consider Adopted
Chianage BM Equivalent
Char.
Length Design Thickness (BC/DBM)
S.No Deflections
(Km) Std. Char. MSA (mm) for thickness
From To Average for Overlay BC DBM
Deviation Deflections Design Design (mm)
MSA
1 0.000 6.400 6.4 Bypass
2 6.4 11.4 5 0.51 0.16 0.84 0.84 53 72 50.4 50
3 11.4 25.05 13.65 0.59 0.21 1.01 1.00 53 102 71.4 40 50
4 25.05 26.30 1.250 Realignment
5 26.3 34.05 7.75 0.67 0.28 1.23 1.20 64 143 100 40 60
6 34.05 43.05 9 Bypass
8 43.05 46.15 3.1 0.54 0.16 0.85 0.85 64 85 60 40 50

21
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Existing Consider Required Equivalent


After Eliminating outlayers Char. BM Adopted
Chianage Length Design (BC/DBM)
S.No Deflections MSA Thickness thickness
(Km) Std. Char.
From To Average for Overlay (mm) for (mm) BC DBM
Deviation Deflections Design Design
9 46.15 46.95 0.8 Realignment
10 46.95 60.65 13.7 0.54 0.16 0.85 0.85 64 85 60 40 50
11 60.65 62.7 2.05 Realignment
12 62.7 65.84 3.14 0.54 0.16 0.85 0.85 64 85 60 40 50
13 65.84 79.45 13.61 Bypass
14 79.45 100 20.55 0.60 0.20 1.00 1.00 46 92 65 40 50
15 100 115 15 0.60 0.20 1.01 1.01 84 128 90 40 50
16 115.95 118.30 2.350 Realignment
17 118.30 127 8.7 0.81 0.29 1.39 1.39 84 165 115 40 75

9.4.7 Periodic Maintenance Requirements

Even though overlay on the existing carriageway and the pavement for the new lanes have been
designed for a period of 15 years, it is required to examine the functional and structural
adequacies of the in-service pavements at close intervals of every year to ensure satisfactory
performance. It is suggested that pavement roughness and BBD measurements should be
undertaken periodically and whenever the roughness value exceeds an IRI of 4.0mm/km,
roughness corrective course shall be laid and whenever the BBD deflection exceed a value of
1.5mm, requisite strengthening overlay shall be laid designed for a 5 years traffic starting from
that year. It is recommended to provide a overlay of 40mm bituminous concrete at every 5 years
as per the normal practice in case the above conditions does not warrant a overlay in 5 years.
9.4.8 Rigid Pavement Design

The axle load spectrum as obtained in the axle load surveys for different directions has been
used in conjunction with the traffic data projections to arrive at the numbers and weights of axle
loads during design life. Cars and mini buses have been omitted from the analysis since the
stresses and deflections caused by the corresponding axle load groups are small enough to
withstand for unlimited applications. Thus the contribution of 2 axle rigid chassis trucks and the 3
or more axle trucks (MAVs) to the fatigue and erosion analysis only governs the design.

9.4.9 Joints and Shoulders

Contraction joints with dowel bars are provided. Analysis was carried out assuming no monolithic
shoulders.

9.4.10 Design thickness of Rigid Pavement

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) method has been adopted for design. The effective
modulus of subgrade reaction has been estimated from the subgrade CBR and the thickness of
dry lean concrete course.

The design is carried out by assuming slab thickness and checking for fatigue life and erosion
damage due to the repetitions of axle loads of different magnitude.

22
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

9.4.11 Design Life

Design thickness of rigid pavement is predominantly influenced by the magnitude and proportion
of heavy axles occurring on the highway and it is relatively economical to design for longer lives,
that is, in the range of 30 to 40 years. Since the facility once built would continue to serve beyond
the normal pavement design period of 20 years and since strengthening overlays on a rigid
pavement are difficult to execute, a 30 years design life has been selected.

9.4.12 Subgrade and Subbase Support

Dry lean concrete (DLC) subbase is suggested for use. For the expected traffic situation a 150
mm thick subbase layer is deemed appropriate. The DLC should have a characteristic 7-day
compressive strength not less than 10Mpa, which corresponds to a flexural strength of
approximately, 2Mpa. WMM layer of 150mm thick will be provided below the DLC layer to serve
as a stable working platform on which to operate the construction equipment as well as a
drainage layer.

The combined subgrade and subbase support is taken in terms of Westergaards subgrade
modulus K, the value of which is estimated from plate bearing tests. The Austroads design
procedure utilizes the corresponding CBR strength derived from the CBR of subgrade and the
thickness of the subbase to estimate the K-value. This procedure has been used to estimate
combined K-value. The IRC uses a similar procedure.

After estimating the K-value, the axle load spectrum as obtained from the Axle load survey was
taken and the percentage category of commercial vehicles in each load category has been
calculated. The projected traffic for the design period of 30years has been used to estimate
number of repetitions of individual category of load. The resulting rigid pavement composition is
given below:

Without Monolithic shoulders, with dowelled joints


 Pavement quality concrete (PQC) 340mm thick
 Dry lean concrete (DLC) 150mm thick
 WMM 150mm thick

9.5 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROLOGICAL STUDY

9.5.1 Introduction

The general terrain condition along the project corridors of NH-8D is plain and rolling. The
Project Corridor starts from Jetpur in district of Rajkot (km: 0+000) and runs through Junagadh
district through Vantjli, Keshod, Veraval before finally ending at Somnath (Km: 127+000). Three
bypasses one at the beginning of Jetpur, second at Junagadh and third at agatrai have been
proposed. Entire length of this corridor receives a good amount of rainfall and accordingly good
number of cross drainage structures presently exists to pass the water from one side to the other
side of the road. The rivers flowing in this corridor are Mahi, Sabarmati, Saraswati and a large

23
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

number of coastal streams in Kathiwar Penninsula which together amount to drainage area of
1,38,400 Sq.km.

9.5.2 Field Survey

Detailed topographical survey, which is crucial for the determination of the magnitude of flow, has
been completed before commencing the hydraulic analysis for the structures. Initially, the
hydraulic condition of each structure on the project road has been assessed by visual inspection
and extensive local inquiry. There are total no of 202 cross drainage structures, out of which 89
are Bridges (11 major and 78 minor bridges) and 113 are the balancing type culverts. Minor
bridges are located either on the branches of major rivers such as Ojat, Uben, Meghal, Sabli,
Devka (or to cater for the spill channels of these rivers) apart from local nallahs originating from
the terrain of the region after the rainfall. On the downstream of major rivers weirs, canals etc.
have been constructed to meet irrigation needs due to which pounding of the nearby areas have
been taken care of through balancing culverts and relief bridges.

Further from the local enquiry it has been observed that the stretch from 117+000 to 127+000
has been overtopped due to its being nearer to sea and almost flat road profile.

9.5.3 Hydrological Data

The hydraulic condition of each structure was assessed thoroughly by visual observations. For
the Major rivers and corresponding reservoirs, weirs on them, visits to the local offices of PWD,
R&B department and irrigation department were made to collect the available hydrological data.

For the existing major and minor bridges the Topographic maps, obtained from Survey of India
has been utilized for the Hydrological Calculations.

9.5.4 Return Period and Rainfall

As per IRC: 5 – 1998 (Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section –
1, General Features of Design) the bridge is to be designed for a period of not less than 50
years. A flood of this specified return period should pass easily through the structure, while an
extraordinary and rare flood may pass without doing excessive damage to the structure or the
road.

The 50-year, 24-hour rainfall for the corridor under consideration varies from 340 to 440mm.
(Ref: “Flood Estimation Report For Mahi and Sabarmati subzone-3(a)), published by the CWC).

Topographic maps, obtained from Survey of India, on 1:50,000 and 1:2,50,000 scale, have be
utilized for the hydrological study in the corridor.

9.5.5 Cross-Sections and Longitudinal Section at Bridges

For the calculation of discharge of the stream by the Area-Velocity method, topographical survey
including leveling surveys have been carried out across and along the water courses to

24
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

determine the cross-section and the slope. A number of cross-sections have been taken at
regular intervals on both upstream and downstream side of the structure, including one at the
proposed location of the structure in accordance with IRC specifications.

The following assumptions have been made during peak discharge calculation:
 For locations where water spreads over the banks, the cross-sections were extended up to the HFL, in
order to calculate the effective cross-section of flow.
 The longitudinal section to determine the bed slope have been taken at an approximate regular interval
of 100 m following the channel course extending on both the upstream and the downstream sides of
the structure. Caution is taken by following the curved flow line for longitudinal gradient, rather than a
straight line.

9.6 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS OF THE CROSS – DRAINAGE STRUCTURES

9.6.1 Assessment of Peak Discharge

The peak discharge and the HFL have been calculated by the following methods
 Area velocity methods
 Rational method
 SUH method

at the bridge site, the upstream and the downstream sections.

Area – Velocity Method (Manning’s Formula)


Q=AxV
= A x [(1/n) x (R)2/3 x (S)1/2]

Where, Q = the discharge in cumecs ;


A = Area of the cross section in sq. m.;
V = Velocity in m/sec;
R = Hydraulic mean depth in m. = A / P;
P = Wetted perimeter of the stream in m.;
S = Bed slope of the stream; and
n = Rugosity Co-efficient.

The Design Discharge have been taken as the maximum of peak discharges at different cross
sections.

By Rational Formula

This method is applicable for the area of catchments less than 25 sq km. As per “Bridges and
Flood Wing Report No. RBF-16” (“Flood Estimation Methods For Catchments Less Than 25 sq
km in Area”), published by Research Design and Standards Organization (RDSO), Ministry of
Railways, Government of India, in March 1990; the Rational Formula has been improved and
given as follows:

25
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

QT  0.278 C I A

Where, QT = design flood discharge for design return period, T-yrs, in cumecs,
C = runoff coefficient,
I = rainfall intensity lasting for tc hour duration in mm/hr,
tc= time of concentration,
A = area of catchment in sq km.

The runoff coefficient, C, depends on the nature of soil, soil cover and location of the catchment,
and is given in the following table:
Table Preliminary Design-14: Values of Runoff Coefficient
Description of the Catchment Runoff Coefficient
1. Sandy Soil/ Sandy Loam/ Arid Areas C = 0.249 (R x F) 0.2
2. Alluvium/ Silty Loam/ Coastal Areas C = 0.332 (R x F) 0.2
3. Red Soil/ Clayey Loam/ Grey or Brown Alluvium/ Cultivated Plains/ Tall Crops/ C = 0.415 (R x F) 0.2
Wooded Areas
4. Black Cotton/ Clayey Soil/ Lightly Covered/ lightly Wooded/ Plain and Barren/ C = 0.456 (R x F) 0.2
Submontane and Plateau
5. Hilly Soils/ Plateau and Barren C = 0.498 (R x F) 0.2

Where, R = 24-hour point rainfall for T-years, in cm,


T = Design return period of rainfall in years,
F = Areal reduction factor depending upon catchments area and duration of rainfall as
given in the following table:
Table Preliminary Design-15: Values of Areal Reduction Factor
Catchments Area Duration of Rainfall
(sq km) < 30 min 30 to 60 min 60 to 100 min
< 2.5 sq km 0.72 0.81 0.88
>=2.5, <= 5.0 sq km 0.71 0.80 0.87
>5.0, <= 13.0 sq km 0.70 0.79 0.86
>13.0, <25.0 sq km 0.68 0.78 0.84

The time of concentration, tc (in hours), is calculated by using Brasnsby Williams’’ formula, as in
most of the places the catchments area is elongated, which is given by:

 L 
tc  0.9  0.1 
0.2 
M S 

Where,
L = Length of longest stream in miles,
M = Catchment area in sq miles
S = Average grade from source to site in percent

The following steps obtain rainfall intensity (I) of return period T-years, lasting for tc-hours:

Get the T-year, 24-hour rainfall (R T(24)) from the report “Flood Estimation Report For Mahi and
Sabarmati Basin, (Sub zone – 3 (a ) ” for return period, T;

26
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Get the1-hr and tc-hr ratio from Fig. 4 of “Bridges and Flood Wing Report No. RBF-16”;
Calculate K = (tc-hr ratio) / (1-hr ratio);
Calculate T-year, 1-hr rainfall, i.e. RT(1) = RT(24) x (1-hr ratio);
Calculate T-year, tc-hr rainfall, i.e. RT(tc) = K x RT(1)
Calculate rainfall intensity of T-year return period, lasting for tc-hours, i.e. I=R T(tc) / tc

The catchment area “A” for the major and minor bridge structures have been determined from
the topographic sheets of 1:50,000 or 1:2,50, 000.

By Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method

This method is based on unit hydrograph principle, used when catchment area is greater than 25
sq km. CWC has published Flood Estimation Report for different zone for India. The project
alignment from Jetpur to somnath falls in the Zone–3 (a). A detailed approach and equations of
unit hydrograph has been given in the report “Flood Estimation Report For Mahi and Sabarmati
(Sub Zone –3 (a )”, published in January 1987. In this method the design flood discharge will be
calculated as per guidelines given in the report.

9.6.2 Hydraulic Analysis for Design HFL

In hydraulic analysis, the Design HFL have been calculated corresponding to the Design
Discharge by Manning’s Equation at the bridge site, as described above.

9.6.3 Afflux Calculation

When the waterway area of the opening of a bridge is less than the unobstructed natural
waterway area of the stream, i.e. when bridge contracts the stream, afflux occurs. The afflux will
be calculated using Molesworth’s formula as given below: -
 V2 
h  0.01524  ( A / a )2  1
 17.88 
Where, h = Afflux in meters;
V = Average velocity of water in the river prior to construction in m/sec;
A = Unobstructed sectional area of the river at proposed site in sq m; and
a = Constricted area of the river at the bridge in sq m.

9.6.4 Scour Depth Calculation

To provide an adequate margin of safety for design of foundation, a further increase by 30% have
been made over the design discharge as per IRC: 78-2000, thus obtaining the final design
discharge for the design of foundation.

By IRC: 5-1998 / IRC: 78-2000

As per IRC: 5-1998 or IRC: 78-2000, the mean depth of scour below the highest flood level,
Dsm, will be given by the following equation:

27
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Dsm = 1.34 x (Db2 / Ksf ) 1/3

Where, Db = the discharge in cumecs per meter width and Ksf = Silt Factor.

The value of ‘Db’ shall be the total design discharge divided by the effective linear waterway
between abutments.

For most of the bridges, the silt factor, K sf, has been calculated as per guidelines given in IRC-78:
2000 (Clause 703.2) otherwise it has been assumed as 1.5 due to absence of soil distribution
curve.

9.6.5 Maximum Depth of Scour for Design of Foundation

The maximum depth of scour below the Highest Flood Level (HFL) for the design of piers (dsmp)
and abutments (dsma), having individual foundations without any floor protection are as follows:

In the vicinity of pier: dsmp = 2 x Dsm


In the vicinity of abutment: dsma = 1.27 x Dsm

For the design of floor protection works for rafts or open foundations, the following values of
maximum scour depth may be adopted:

In a straight reach: 1.27 x Dsm


In a bend: 1.50 x Dsm

For the RCC Box type structures proper scour protection is given in the form of floor apron and
flexible apron both on the up-stream and downstream sides. No scour will be allowed to occur in
the RCC Box type structures.

9.6.6 Recommendations

The detailed hydrological & hydraulic calculations of 11 major and 77 minor bridges have been
presented in Appendix A1 to A77 and Appendix B1 to B11 respectively of Volume IIA. The
summary of these calculations has been presented in Table 9-16.

28
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No:
NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Table Preliminary Design-16: Summary of Hydrological and Hydraulic Study

Minor Bridges
Design Avg. Vertical Existing Vertical
Sr. Proposed Discharge Velocity LBL
Bridge no Name HFL depth Existing Proposed clearance Soffit clearance Hydraulic
No. chainage (cumecs) (m/s) (m)
(m) (m) span Span (m) required (m) Level (m) avilable (m) Adequacy Recommendations Appendices no.
1 Jet Pur Bypass Local Nallah 0+989.542 8.73 94.31 1.38 0.62 93.24 - 10.00 0.60 - - Adequate A-1
2 Jet Pur Bypass Local Nallah 1+358.411 10.71 94.58 1.80 0.57 93.01 - 12.00 0.60 - - Adequate A-2
3 Jet Pur Bypass Local Nallah 2+125.148 5.99 97.20 1.76 0.53 96.43 - 8.00 0.60 - - Adequate A-3
4 7/1 Local Nallah 4+866.094 19.51 95.95 2.30 1.93 93.93 13.2 13.20 0.60 96.550 0.60 Adequate A-4
5 10/1 - 7+478.496 13.651 90.67 1.57 0.81 89.82 9.6 9.60 0.60 91.27 0.60 Adequate A-5
Raise the Soffit level
6 10/2 - 8+177.775 14.701 85.57 0.97 1.04 83.81 6.3 6.30 0.60 86.03 0.46 Inadequate by 0.15mt A-6
7 11/1 Local Nallah 8+460 84.07 82.07 2.23 1.53 80.48 21.30 21.30 0.90 85.34 3.27 Adequate A-7
8 11/2 Local Nallah 8+667.929 19.977 83.25 2.63 0.78 81.87 9.60 9.60 0.60 84.88 1.63 Adequate A-8
9 15/2 Local Nallah 12+827.807 12.94 70.48 0.93 1.28 68.77 12.80 12.80 0.60 73.18 2.70 Adequate A-9
10 15/3 Local Nallah 13+134.468 25.30 68.2 3.8 0.376 67.67 17.20 17.20 0.60 72.79 4.51 Adequate A-10
11 16/1 Local Nallah 13+679.937 780.25 71.72 3.79 4.081 67.35 43.00 43.00 1.20 73.36 1.64 Adequate A-11
12 17/1 Local Nallah 14+587.057 5.135 71.47 2.06 0.75 70.71 6.20 6.20 0.60 72.07 0.60 Adequate A-12
13 18/1 Local Nallah 16+102.071 19.87 69.64 2.05 0.85 68.50 10.50 10.50 0.60 71.28 1.64 Adequate A-13
Raise the Soffit level
14 19/1 Local Nallah 16+717.058 486.78 73.82 4.153 6.062 67.06 33.00 33.45 1.20 73.974 0.155 Inadequate by 1.015mt A-14
15 19/2 Local Nallah 17+219.335 292.36 68.10 4.756 1.701 65.05 21.00 21.00 0.90 72.06 3.957 Adequate A-15
16 32/1 Local Nallah 30+143.684 8.55 64.05 1.89 1.04 62.86 6.60 6.60 0.60 66.70 2.65 Adequate A-16
Raise the Soffit level
17 34/1 Local Nallah 32+178.370 15.869 60.90 2.16 0.43 60.22 14.05 14.05 0.60 60.75 -0.15 Inadequate by 0.75mt A-17
A-18
18 35/1 Local Nallah 32+506.103 65.21 57.098 4.382 1.16 55.28 27.00 27.00 0.90 59.49 2.392 Adequate
19 46/1 Local Nallah 43+436.402 29.861 30.661 1.00 2.83 27.752 23.2 23.2 0.6 31.457 0.8 Adequate A-19
20
47/1 On vanthali 43+930 561.39 33.35 3.422 4.53 25.85 21.00 24.2 1.20 - - Adequate A-20
Raise the Soffit level
21 48/1 Local Nallah 44+483.351 193.508 30.08 3.375 2.79 26.56 49.00 49.00 0.90 30.58 0.50 Inadequate by 0.4mt A-21
Raise the Soffit level
22 48/2 - 44+789.476 195.548 29.74 2.54 2.10 26.10 42.00 42.00 0.90 30.45 0.71 Inadequate by 0.20mt A-22
Raise the Soffit level
23 48/3 - 45+129.897 35.140 30.31 1.207 3.245 26.49 18.00 18.00 0.90 30.28 1.14 Inadequate by 0.90mt A-23
Raise the Soffit level
24 49/1 - 45+639.469 48.512 30.04 2.35 2.42 26.64 11.00 11.00 0.90 30.04 0.00 Inadequate by 0.9mt A-24
25 50/1 - 46+923.450 74.805 27.088 1.507 2.50 23.32 20.4 20.40 0.30 29.36 2.276 Adequate A-25
Raise the Soffit level
26 51/1 Local Nallah 47+440.578 97.352 29.02 1.41 1.90 23.46 16.8 16.80 0.90 29.02 0.00 Inadequate by 0.9mt A-26
Raise the Soffit level
27 51/2 Local Nallah 47+608.618 115.010 28.76 1.97 3.14 25.36 43.2 43.20 0.90 28.84 0.08 Inadequate by 0.9mt A-27
28 51/3 Local Nallah 47+688.043 10.702 27.1 2.01 1.79 26.23 16.80 16.80 0.60 29.15 2.02 Adequate A-28
29 52/1 Local Nallah 48+669.616 4.13 25.44 2.23 0.27 24.92 6.70 6.70 0.60 28.18 2.73 Adequate A-29
30 52/2 - 48+777.279 103.44 29.12 1.13 4.08 22.18 28.00 28.00 0.90 28.27 -0.85 Inadequate Raise the Soffit level A-30

29
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No:
NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT
Design Avg. Vertical Existing Vertical
Sr. Proposed Discharge Velocity LBL
Bridge no Name HFL depth Existing Proposed clearance Soffit clearance Hydraulic
No. chainage (cumecs) (m/s) (m)
(m) (m) span Span (m) required (m) Level (m) avilable (m) Adequacy Recommendations Appendices no.
by 1.75mt
Madhumati
31 53/1 nadi 49+636.788 601.46 25.90 3.37 2.92 21.36 37.50 37.50 1.20 27.16 1.26 Adequate A-31
Minor
32 Realignment - 49+755.781 20.15 24.52 2.27 0.50 23.37 18.60 18.60 0.60 - - Adequate A-32
Minor
33 Realignment Local Nallah 49+830.450 20.58 26.50 2.41 1.60 24.60 7.05 20.72 0.60 27.16 0.65 Adequate A-33
34 55/1 - 51+828.409 59.20 26.36 2.13 1.32 24.72 14.30 24.00 0.90 28.03 1.67 Adequate A-34
35 55/2 - 52+274.706 5.73 28.35 1.02 1.49 26.86 7.05 7.05 0.60 29.03 0.68 Adequate A-35
36 56/1 Local Nallah 52+989.145 8.58 29.55 2.19 0.43 28.60 7.05 7.05 0.60 30.63 1.08 Adequate A-36
37 57/1 Local Nallah 54+323.219 6.18 28.01 1.90 0.76 27.02 6.85 6.85 0.60 29.29 1.28 Adequate A-37
38 58/1 Local Nallah 54+750 7.93 27.33 2.19 0.79 26.48 6.70 6.70 0.60 27.93 0.60 Adequate A-38
Raise the Soffit level
39 58/2 Local Nallah 55+086.666 4.17 28.34 1.58 1.44 26.89 7.00 7.00 0.6 28.34 0 Inadequate by 0.6mt A-39
Raise the Soffit level
40 59/2 Local Nallah 56+255.157 11.39 26.31 1.88 0.96 25.25 12.00 12.00 0.6 26.31 0 Inadequate by 0.6mt A-40
41 60/1 Local Nallah 56+635.168 12.64 25.65 1.15 2.93 22.72 11.70 11.70 0.6 27.02 1.37 Adequate A-41
42 60/3 Local Nallah 56+907.220 20.10 24.06 2.87 0.58 23.23 11.70 11.70 0.60 26.76 2.70 Adequate A-42
43 60/4 Local Nallah 57+083.437 7.26 23.30 1.67 0.66 22.59 9.20 9.20 0.60 26.62 3.32 Adequate A-43
44 60/5 Local Nallah 57+175.407 4.62 23.85 1.94 0.45 23.32 6.58 6.58 0.60 26.50 2.65 Adequate A-44
45 60/6 - 57+340.112 140.37 25.85 2.13 1.99 23.63 53.5 53.5 0.90 26.80 0.95 Adequate A-45
46 Agatri Bypass - 58+464.009 106.90 25.256 3.406 1.71 22.81 12 22.00 0.90 - - Adequate A-46
47 Agatri Bypass Local Nallah 58+659.550 20.02 24.75 1.87 0.81 23.43 12.00 12.00 0.60 - 0.6 Adequate A-47
48 Agatri Bypass - 59+562.345 601.67 26.45 2.80 3.50 22.00 40.00 40.00 1.20 - - Adequate A-48
49 Agatri Bypass - 59+645.331 111.60 26.17 2.23 1.38 23.54 12 30.00 0.90 - - Adequate A-49
50 Agatri Bypass - 59+806.326 24.866 25.45 1.63 1.87 23.58 12 12.00 0.60 - - Adequate A-50
51 64/1 Local Nallah 61+440.181 4.47 29.70 1.40 2.78 29.29 6.75 6.75 0.60 31.20 1.50 Adequate A-51
52 66/2 - 63+220.958 24.90 31.44 2.37 2.37 29.07 14.60 14.60 0.60 33.93 2.50 Adequate A-52
53 66/3 Local Nallah 63+345 16.74 31.02 2.66 1.85 29.16 9.3 9.0 0.60 33.61 2.59 Adequate A-53
54 Keshod Bypass Local Nallah 64+456.796 26.30 30.57 2.10 1.21 28.82 22.00 22.00 0.60 - - Adequate A-54
55 Keshod Bypass Local Nallah 65+550.199 281.90 30.82 3.625 2.801 27.06 25.00 27.00 0.90 - - Adequate A-55
56 Keshod Bypass Local Nallah 72+250.885 13.55 43.80 1.77 1.50 42.30 14.50 18.36 0.60 - - Adequate A-56
57 Keshod Bypass Local Nallah 72+535.049 12.94 43.40 1.88 0.55 42.00 14.50 18.36 0.60 - - Adequate A-57
58 Keshod Bypass Local Nallah 72+919.715 9.36 43.50 1.55 0.76 42.21 12.00 16.50 0.60 - - Adequate A-58
59 Keshod Bypass Local Nallah 73+229.273 171.37 43.63 1.99 1.37 41.58 40.00 45.60 0.90 - - Adequate A-59
60 82/4 - 78+301.375 76.23 47.00 1.17 1.36 45.11 22.95 23.00 0.90 49.25 2.25 Adequate A-60
61 84/2 Local Nallah 80+395.482 4.17 53.03 2.78 0.35 52.47 6.90 6.90 0.60 54.13 1.10 Adequate A-61
62 85/1 - 81+789.051 5.86 55.13 1.30 1.80 53.34 7.05 7.05 0.60 55.73 0.60 Adequate A-62
63 86/1 - 82+199.794 7.35 58.58 1.30 2.26 56.32 8.30 8.30 0.60 59.26 0.68 Adequate A-63
A-64
64 92/2 Local Nallah 87+821.067 10.36 45.74 1.29 2.30 43.45 7.20 7.20 0.60 46.34 0.60 Adequate
Raise the soffit level
65 92/3 Local Nallah 88+128.131 30.488 44.97 3.407 1.110 43.828 7.05 10 0.90 45.240 0.266 Inadequate by 0.63m A-65
93/1
66 Local Nallah 88+782.295 4.00 42.96 0.79 1.00 41.68 7.30 7.30 0.60 43.58 0.62 Adequate A-66
67 93/2 - 89+993.251 12.91 43.06 2.30 1.03 41.67 13.60 13.60 0.60 43.99 0.94 Adequate A-67

30
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No:
NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT
Design Avg. Vertical Existing Vertical
Sr. Proposed Discharge Velocity LBL
Bridge no Name HFL depth Existing Proposed clearance Soffit clearance Hydraulic
No. chainage (cumecs) (m/s) (m)
(m) (m) span Span (m) required (m) Level (m) avilable (m) Adequacy Recommendations Appendices no.
68 99/1 Local Nallah 95+034.880 30.91 22.62 2.84 1.18 21.43 9.00 9.00 0.90 24.70 2.15 Adequate A-68
Raise the Soffit level
69 105/1 Local Nallah 100+466.374 6.64 8.86 0.94 1.85 7.01 8.10 8.10 0.60 8.810 -0.05 Inadequate by 0.7mt A-69
70 106/2 Local Nallah 102+056.608 13.45 8.99 3.259 0.90 8.04 8.40 8.40 0.60 10.38 1.392 Adequate A-70
71 108/1 Local Nallah 103+759.045 14.67 11.93 3.02 1.57 10.33 8.25 8.25 0.60 12.53 0.60 Adequate A-71
72 110/1 Local Nallah 105+764.739 5.01 11.54 1.13 0.48 10.17 10.00 10.00 0.60 12.14 0.60 Adequate A-72
Raise the Soffit level
73 111/1 - 107+447.584 6.994 13.468 1.394 0.89 12.33 7.50 7.50 0.60 13.78 0.112 Inadequate by 0.5mt A-73
74

112/1 Local Nallah 107+949.021 15.45 13.22 2.43 2.25 10.82 14.40 14.40 0.60 13.83 0.60 Adequate A-74
75
112/2 Local Nallah 108+012.505 5.28 13.46 1.84 0.70 12.72 10.05 10.05 0.60 14.24 0.78 Adequate A-75
Raise the Soffit level by
A-76
76 112/3 Local Nallah 108+075.105 3.06 13.31 1.79 0.47 12.81 7.50 7.50 0.60 13.85 0.54 Inadequate 0.1mt
77 124/2 - 119+655.966 45.95 4.02 1.84 3.61 0.29 7.00 7.00 0.90 4.92 0.90 Adequate A-77

Major Bridges

Design Avg. Vertical Existing Vertical


Sr.N Proposed Discharge Velocity LBL Existing Proposed
Bridge no Name HFL depth clearance Soffit clearance Hydraulic
o. chainage (cumecs) (m/s) (m) span Span (m)
(m) (m) required (m) Level (m) avilable (m) Adequacy Recommendations
1 15/1 Uben River 12+461.891 1199.10 71.657 3.545 3.775 66.61 166.80 166.80 1.20 76.21 4.553 Adequate B-1
2 30/1 Lol Nadi 26+552.776 232.34 53.581 3.57 2.083 51.44 64.00 64.00 0.90 59.63 6.049 Adequate B-2
3 31/1 Sonark nadi 29+367.349 170.59 62.76 2.25 2.54 59.87 60.00 60.00 0.90 67.88 5.12 Adequate B-3
4 49/2 Ojat River 46+375 4329.90 30.15 2.71 6.00 199.80 199.80 1.50 34.12 3.97 Adequate B-4
5 52/3 Madwati nadi 49+269.823 347.922 26.96 1.18 2.10 24.75 196.00 196.00 1.20 28.20 1.24 Adequate B-5
Manekwada
6 bridge Sabli Nadi 55+951.621 987.15 27.558 3.375 4.942 20.79 64.00 64.00 1.20 - N.A Adequate B-6
7
60/2 - 56+780.240 181.09 25.98 1.82 2.60 23.20 85.60 85.60 0.90 26.97 0.99 Adequate B-7
Tributary of
8 Keshod Bypass sabli nadi 73+491.521 175.91 45.21 2.38 2.48 41.73 60.00 60.00 0.90 - N.A. Adequate B-8
9 103/1 - 99+135.179 725.26 12.05 2.25 4.78 7.14 73.20 73.20 1.20 13.45 1.40 Adequate B-9
10 104/1 Megal River 99+492.883 3986.11 11.432 4.547 4.310 4.68 183.00 183.00 1.50 14.04 2.608 Adequate B-10
Raise the Soffit level
11 117/1 Devka Bridge 113+155.915 206.11 7.84 2.06 4.01 3.79 60.00 60.00 0..90 7.92 0.08 Inadequate by .9mt B-11

31
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

All the major bridges at various stretches are found hydraulically adequate.

The minor bridges at 8+177.775 (10/2), 16+717.058 (19/1), 32+178.370(34/1), 44+483.351


(48/1), 44+789.476(48/2), 45+639.469 (49/1), 47+440.578 (51/1), 47+610 (51/2), 48+777.279
(52/2), 55+086.666 (58/2), 56+255.157 (59/2), 88+121.138 (92/3) ,100+466.374 (105/1),
107+447.584 (111/1), 108+075.105 (112/3) & 113+155.915 (117/1) are found to be hydraulically
inadequate theoretically. Hence we recommend that 0.15 m,1.015m, 0.75 m, 0.4m, 0.2m , 0.9m ,
0.9m, 0.9m,1.75m , 0.6m, 0.6m,0.63m, 0.7m, 0.5m, 0.1m and 0.9m in respect of bridges at
8+177.775 (10/2), 16+717.058 (19/1), 32+178.370(34/1), 44+483.351 (48/1), 44+789.476(48/2),
45+639.469 (49/1), 47+440.578 (51/1), 47+610 (51/2), 48+777.279 (52/2), 55+086.666 (58/2),
56+255.157 (59/2), 88+121.138 (92/3),100+466.374 (105/1), 107+447.584 (111/1), 108+075.105
(112/3) & 113+155.915 (117/1) to be raised respectively.

However, site conditions on either side of nos. of bridges revealed that, there is substantial
siltation and closing of openings due to developments along the road. Further, from the local
enquiry it is ascertained that in the past, this structures have not got submerged. Since they have
never over-flooded in the past, it is felt that dredging may be done at floor level to increase the
vent size to avoid raising or reconstruction.

In nos. of cases there are control structures for regulating flow for ground water recharge or
irrigation at the later stage. These phenomena create local poundage during the monsoon
months. Hence road side protection works as per site condition are recommended.

9.7 OVERTOPPING STRETCH

Since some of the portion of stretch from 122+000 to 127+000 has been overtopped due to
almost flat road profile and near to sea, therefore as per IRC: SP: 42, the road profile should be
raised such that the difference between formation level (top of sub-grade) and highest water
table / high flood level is not less than 0.6-1.0m and between formation level & ground level not
less that 1.0m to avoid overtopping.

9.8 DRAINAGE

Presence of a good drainage system is essential. It is therefore necessary to perform a detailed


survey of the existing drainage system, the adjoining terrain and its slope, and recommendations
for new drainage system or modification to existing drainage system. A detailed field survey for
the existing drainage system has therefore been carried out.

Some basic principles have been adopted in order to meet IRC standards.
 The surface water from the carriageway, the paved shoulders, the embankment slopes and the adjoining land
must be effectively drained off without allowing it to percolate into the sub-grade.
 The drains must have sufficient capacity and adequate longitudinal slope to drain away the entire collected
surface water to the nearest natural surface stream, river or nallah.
 No longitudinal side drains are proposed where the road runs over the canal bank. The rainwater will directly go to
the canal.

32
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

 No roadside drains are proposed where the longitudinal water bodies are present parallel to the road.In the project
alignment, the following types of drains have been proposed:
i) Road-side Drain in Rural Areas
ii) Chute Drains at High Embankments

The hydraulic adequacy of the drains shall be checked as per IRC SP-42 “Guidelines on Road
Drainage”. The design return period for the drains shall be taken as 25 years for median drains,
chute drains, urban drains and other important drainage systems while the 2 years shall be taken
as rural drainage system.

9.8.1 Road-side Drain


In rural areas, open unlined trapezoidal drains with 0.6 m widths and 1V: 2H side slope have
been proposed near ROW on both sides of the road as per guidelines given IRC SP-42

9.8.2 Chute Drains


When the height of the embankment is more than 3.0m, the possibility of erosion of embankment
slopes and shoulders increases. In such cases longitudinal kerbed drains at edge of roadway are
provided to channelise the flow and are led down by lined chute drains. And these chute drains
are ultimately discharged into roadside drains.

9.8.3 Additional Culvert for Field Channel


On demand by the local people, additional culvert of 1.0m dia HP (NP-4) for field channel shall
be provided at bypasses to allow the water to pass from one side to other side if the lands on
both side of the road belong to the same owner.

9.8.4 Additional Culvert at Cross Road

Additional culvert of 1.0m dia HP is to be provided at the cross road joining Main Carriage Way
(i.e. at intersections etc.) wherever drains is passing. This size shall be increased to fulfill the
road drainage requirement. If there is existing culvert at the crossroad, the size of the culvert
shall be the maximum of the existing size of the culvert and 1.2m dia HP.

9.8.5 Additional Balancing Culvert on Main Carriage Way

Additional balancing culvert on Main Carriage Way has been provided if it is required for planning
of adequate drainage system.

9.9 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

9.9.1 Introduction

On the basis of finalized span arrangement for the bridges, the design standards as given in this
Chapter and the topographical and geotechnical information, the design for various components
has been carried out.

33
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

9.9.2 Description of the Structures

Different type of Structures proposed in the portion of the corridor is given below:
b) Cast in situ PSC Post Tensioned Box Girder with RCC Deck Slab
d) RCC Sloid Slab
e) RCC Single Cell Box
f) RCC Wall type Pier with Cantilever Pier Cap
g) RCC Open Foundation
h) RCC Pile Foundation

9.9.3 Geometry
a) Carriageway Width 9.75m
b) Overall width 10.75m (without foot path)
12m (with foot path in ROB only)
c) Width of Crash Barrier 0.50m
d) Width of Kerb 0.50m
e) Cross slope 2.5 % (Unidirectional)
f) Thickness of wearing course 65mm.

9.9.4 Design Standards

Codes & Standards

The design of various components of the bridge in general will be based on provisions of IRC/IS
Codes. Wherever IRC code is silent, reference will be made to other Indian/International codes
and standards. The list of IRC Codes (latest revisions) given below will serve as a guide for the
design of structures.
IRC: 5-1998 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section I
– General Features of Design.
IRC: 6-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-II
– Loads and Stresses.
IRC: 18-2000 Design Criteria for Prestressed Concrete Road Bridges, Post Tensioned
Concrete.
IRC: SP: 71-2006 Guidelines for Design and Construction of Precast Pre-Tensioned Girders
for Bridges.
IRC: SP: 65-2005 Guidelines for Design and Construction of Continuous Span Bridges.
IRC: 21-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-III
– Cement Concrete ( Plain and reinforced ).
IRC: 78-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-
VII – Foundation and Substructure.

34
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

IRC: 83 -1987 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-IX
– Part III Elastomeric Bearing.

9.9.5 Loading

Dead Load (DL)

Dead Loads calculations made by adopting unit weights as per IRC:6.

Super Imposed Dead Load (SIDL)

Unit weight for superimposed dead load is in conformity with IRC :6. For calculating the dead
weight due to wearing coat, thickness of 65mm will be assumed.

Carriageway Live Load (LL)

1 lane and 2 lanes of Class A or 1 Lane of Class 70R or Combination of 1 lane Class A and 1
Lane of 70R conforming to IRC 6-1966 whichever produces severe effect is considered in the
analysis. Class 70R Track, 40 Ton Bogie load of “l”, “m”, “n” type and two axle of 11.4 Ton load of
Class A type will be considered in the analysis. Dispersion of live load to be calculated as per
IRC: 21-2000. Pedestrian live load of 500 Kg/m2 shall be considered for Footpath.

Temperature Load

Temperature gradient load as per IRC :6 will be considered in design of superstructure.

Temp Rise Case Temp Fall Case


17.8oC 10.6oC
150 250
4oC 0.7oC
250 200

200
150 0.8oC 250

6.6oC
o
2.1 C

Coefficient of thermal expansion is considered as 11.7x10-6/C as per IRC: 6-1966.

Poisson’s Ratio = 0.2 and Modulus of Elasticity is taken as per Table 9 of IRC: 21-2000.

Differential Shrinkage and Creep

For differential shrinkage and creep stress calculations for PSC Superstructures, the following
parameters will be considered ( As per explanatory hand book BS 5400 by L.A. Clark )

35
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Differential shrinkage strain = 2.00E-04

Creep factor = 0.43

Earth Pressure Load

For RCC Box Structure

Earth pressure at rest will be considered to be acting on the vertical walls of the RCC Box. The
Co-efficient of such Earth pressure will be taken as 0.6. Minimum fluid pressure of 4.8 kN / cum
would be considered as per IRC : 6.

For Abutment and Other Earth Retaining Structures

Active earth pressure of coefficient 0.279 will be considered in the design.

Live Load Surcharge

The RCC Box structures will be analysed considering a Live Load surcharge equivalent to 1.20
meters. height of earth-fill as per IRC : 78.

Seismic Loads

The structures in this stretch falls in Zone III as per IRC:6 and seismic loads will be considered
accordingly. Basic horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.12 will be considered in the design of all
substructures and foundations. Importance factor will be considered as 1.5.

Water Current Force

Water current force will be considered as per IRC : 6 – 2000 for design of substructure and
foundation.

9.9.6 PRESTRESSING DETAILS

For Post Tensioned Superstructure


Type of Cable 12K15 – Uncoated stress relieved low relaxation class II strands
of nominal dia. 15.2 mm conforming to IS 14268
Sheathing Type Bright Metal Sheathing of internal diameter 90mm will be used
Breaking Load 3120 KN
Jacking Force 0.75 Breaking Load = 2340 KN
Friction Coefficient 0.25 / radians
Wobble Coefficient 0.0046 / meter
Slip Assumed 6mm at anchorage point.
Relaxation 2.5% at 0.7 UTS and 0% at 0.5 UTS

36
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

9.9.7 DURABILITY COSIDERATIONS

Material and Cover

Grade of Concrete
 Prestressed Concrete : M45
 RCC deck slab over Precast I-girder : M45
 RCC Box type structure : M30
 Pier and pier cap : M35
 Bearing Pedestal : M40
 RCC abutment, abutment cap, retaining : M35
wall, return wall, dirt wall, etc.
 Open foundation, pile & pile cap : M35
 Crash Barrier : M40
 Approach slab : M30

Reinforcement steel

HYSD bars (Grade Fe 500) conforming to IS :1786 shall be provided.

Cover

The minimum cover to reinforcement shall be determined from the recommendations of IRC: 21-
2000 taking into account the local environmental conditions. The increase in detailed cover
compared with the nominal cover as specified in the above code allows for assessed variation in
construction tolerance. Following clear cover shall be adopted for various components:
Element Clear Cover to reinforcement
Superstructure (cast in situ) 40mm
Superstructure (precast) 35mm
Crash Barrier 40mm
Substructure 50mm
Foundation 75mm

Soil Properties

For the soil used for the back filling the density will be taken as 1.8 t/cum for dry condition and
2.2 t/cum for saturated condition, as per IRC: 6 – 2000. Corresponding shear parameters to be
taken are C = 0 &  = 30o.

The allowable SBC for the Box Culvert will be taken as 15 t / m2.

37
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Expansion Joints

Strip Seal type of expansion joint will be proposed for PSC Box, PSC T-Girder type
superstructure. Mastic Asphalt Type expansion joint will be proposed for Solid Slab type
superstructure.

Bearings

Elastomeric bearings will be used for all girder bridges except for PSC box girder bridge, where
POT bearing will be used.

Drainage Provisions

Drainage spouts will be placed not greater than 6m centre to centre. Down take pipes will be
provided to dispose the water below soffit of the superstructure.

Protection Works

For box structure, 300mm. thick Flexible Apron will be provided for length of 6m & 3m on the
downstream & upstream side respectively beyond curtain wall and 300mm. thick Rigid Apron will
be provided up to the curtain wall throughout the bed. PCC Curtain wall will have height of 2.5m
& 2.0m at the downstream & upstream side respectively as per MORT&H standard drawing.

9.10 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

PSC BOX GIRDER

The analysis of the box girder will be carried out under the following heads.

Longitudinal analysis of Box Girder

Transverse analysis of Box Girder

9.10.1 Method of Longitudinal Analysis

The analysis of PSC Box for longitudinal flexure will be carried out using Beam model on STAAD
Pro. For longitudinal flexure analysis, superstructure will be idealised as a beam supported over
rigid diaphragm at pier/abutment locations. Each span will be divided in members with node
points at supports, effective depth away from support, Span/8 locations. Section properties of full
cross section would be considered in longitudinal members according to the location of member.
Supports will be idealised as pin supports at bearing point for longitudinal analysis. Model to be
considered in STAAD Pro is shown below.

 Dead load will be placed in the model as UDL using “self weight” command. Weight of cross girder,
deviator block, blister block will be placed as concentrated load on the relevant member.

38
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

 Load due to crash barrier, railing and wearing coat will be placed on member as UDL and resultant
transverse moment due to all the loads will be treated as tortional moment to the members.
 One lane of Class A and Class 70R Wheeled live load will be run over longitudinal members in STAAD
Pro with an increment of 0.5m along longitudinal direction.
 Tabulation of moments and shear at different section will be done in excel sheet for DL, SIDL and Live
load. Live load will be multiplied by impact factor, lane reduction factor and a distribution factor of 1.2 to
cater the effect of warping and distorsion. Service stage and Ultimate stage value of moments and
shear will be calculated from individual loads.
 Temperature stress, short term losses, long term losses, stress check at service condition will be done
by in house excel sheet as per IRC : 21 - 2000.
 Ultimate resistance of Box girder in flexure shall be checked against yielding of steel and against
crushing of concrete as per cl –12 of IRC : 18
 For calculation of maximum shear stress as Cl 14.15 of IRC-18, depth db will be taken as 0.8d or deff
which ever is greater.
 Section cracked or uncracked in flexure will be decided on the basis of whether the maximum ultimate
capacity in shear is governed by the cracked or uncracked capacity. Where uncracked capacity
governs the relief due to prestressed force shall be added to the shear capacity of the section obtained
based on CL 14.15 of IRC : 18.
 The stress shall be checked for 20% higher time dependent losses like creep, shrinkage, relaxation
etc. as per CL 7.2.4 of IRC : 18.

9.10.2 Method of Transverse Analysis

Model

In the transverse direction, the box girder will be analyzed as RCC section. Box will be analyzed
for transverse bending using plane frame analysis of the box frame by considering unit width of
the box in Staad software. Nodes will be provided at support locations, two cantilever edges of
deck slab, points at junctions of web and soffit / deck slab, at the end haunch portion etc. In
addition nodes will be considered at suitable locations to get the BM and SF results easily.
Member property will be assigned as beam of 1m width and thickness of deck slab / web / soffit
slab as depth. Supports will be provided at each bearing location. Typical model shown below will
be considered in the analysis.

Hinge Support Roller Support

39
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

Analysis of Deck Slab for DL and SIDL

Dead load will be derived using “selfweight” command in STAAD. SIDL will be placed as UDL
and Concentrated load on member. While wearing coat load and footpath load will be placed as
UDL on members over which it is acting, weight of railing and crash barrier will be placed as
concentrated load on members where it comes.

Analysis of Deck Slab for LL

Analysis of moving load for the design of deck slab will be done according to the guidelines of
IRC : 6 – 2000. In case of a continuous beam, influence line diagrams cannot be readily made
use of in the design. The reason for this, is that the effective width of concentrated axle loads of
IRC loading change according to the positions of the latter along the span and as such bending
moment per meter width, relevant for the design of the slab also undergoes changes.

The four types of IRC loading viz. 70R Wheel (m & l type), 70R Track and Class A. The original
loading (each wheel or track) will be divided into discrete equivalent concentrated loads in the
transverse direction maintaining the total load and width same as per code. It gives more
accurate analysis to find out the bending moment in the deck slab per meter width. The
equivalent load systems for the different load classes are shown below: -

Class 70R Bogie (m)

a. Class 70R Bogie (l)

b Class 70R Track

40
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

c Class A

The most critical value of live load bending moment at mid span and shear force at support (both
loading class wise and position wise) would be considered as design value.

The footpath live load will also been calculated according to guidelines of IRC: 6 –2000.

Effective Width

The width of slab that may be effective in resisting BM due to concentrated load will be
considered in accordance with clause 305.16.2 of IRC: 21 – 2000.

For slab in between main girders:


bef = Effective width of slab on which the load act =  x a (1 – a/l0) + b1
Where
α = 2.6 ( As per Table given in IRC : 21, ratio b / lo, Where b is the width of slab )
l0 = 3.15m
a = The distance of concentrated load from the nearest support
b1 = Width of contact area at right angle to the span + 2 x wearing coat thickness (0.065m)

For Cantilever

bef = 1.2 x a + b1

Live load will be moved from one side of carriageway to other side with an increment of position
of ~0.3m. For each position on live load effective width will be calculated and tabulated in excel
sheet. These live loads will be divided with the corresponding effective width to get the effective

41
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

live load per unit width of deck slab. The same will be put on STAAD model to get the moment
and shear force on deck slab due to live load. The slab designed on above basis will not be
checked for shear.

Temperature Load

Temperature gradient Rise and Fall cases will be calculated in accordance with clause 218.3 of
IRC: 6 – 2000 and applied as temperature load on the STAAD model.

Load tabulation and Design

Moments and shear force results obtained from output of STAAD analysis will be tabulated in
Excel sheet. Design of deck slab will be carried out in accordance with IRC : 21 – 2000, using
spread sheet prepared in house.

9.11 PSC POST GIRDER

9.11.1 Method of Analysis for Longitudinal Girders

The analysis of the I – Girder for longitudinal flexure shall be carried out using grillage model on
STAAD Pro/STAAD III on the following basis:
 Full superstructure will be modelled as grillage beam with longitudinal and transverse members.
 Members along the longitudinal Direction shall be along the longitudinal beam and at the ends of deck
slab. End longitudinal members will act as dummy member.
 Transverse members of the grillage other than the cross – diaphragm shall be modelled as slab
elements. Cross girders will be modelled as T / L Beam.
 Section property of longitudinal girders with effective flange width as mentioned in IRC 21 will be
considered for analysis. Dummy longitudinal members will be given negligible property. Property of
slab element will be given to transverse members except cross girders, where property of T / L Section
will be given. Negligible property be assigned against the member so that they does not carry any
torsional moment.
 Dead load on grillage will be put through “selfweight” command in STAAD on longitudinal members.
No dead load will be put on transverse member. SIDL will be placed on long grillage member as UDL.
If Crash barrier, Railing, Footpath load does not come directly under any long member, total load will
be divided to equivalent load to the nearest two members or will be transferred to nearest long girder
with equivalent load and moment.
 Different live load case will be created according to the number of lanes and possible combination of
loads and will run the load through the span of the bridge to get BM and SF diagram for outer and
inner girder separately.
 Tabulation of moments and shear at different section will be done in excel sheet for DL, SIDL and Live
load. Live load will be multiplied by impact factor & lane reduction factor. Service stage and Ultimate
stage value of moments and shear will be calculated from individual loads.
 Temperature stress, short term losses, long term losses, stress check at service condition will be done
by in house excel sheet as per IRC : 21 - 2000.
 Ultimate resistance of Girder in flexure shall be checked against yielding of steel and against crushing
of concrete as per cl –12 of IRC : 18

42
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

 For calculation of maximum shear stress as Cl 14.15 of IRC-18, depth db will be taken as 0.8d or d eff
which ever is greater.
 Section cracked or uncracked in flexure will be decided on the basis of whether the maximum ultimate
capacity in shear is governed by the cracked or uncracked capacity. Where uncracked capacity
governs the relief due to prestressed force shall be added to the shear capacity of the section obtained
based on CL 14.15 of IRC : 18.
 The stress shall be checked for 20% higher time dependent losses like creep, shrinkage, relaxation
etc. as per CL 7.2.4 of IRC : 18.

9.11.2 Method of Analysis for Cross Diaphragm

The analysis of the Cross Diaphragm shall be carried out using same grillage model on STAAD
Pro/STAAD III on the following basis:
 The intermediate cross diaphragm shall be designed as continuous beam supported on the
longitudinal girders.
 The end cross diaphragm shall be designed for the jack up position.

9.11.3 Analysis of deck slab

Model

It is assumed that deck slab will be rested on main longitudinal girders and cross girders. Since
the spacing of cross girders is more than double of spacing between main girders, deck slab will
be designed as one way continuous beam along transverse direction supported on longitudinal
girders. Single line STAAD model will be generated to represent the deck slab. Nodes will be
provided at support locations, two cantilever edges and point at the end of top flange of
longitudinal girder. In addition nodes will be considered at suitable location to get the BM and SF
result easily. Member property will be assigned as beam with 1m width and depth as thickness of
deck slab. Members adjacent to support will be given combined thickness of deck slab and top
flange thickness of girder. Pinned type supports will be provided at each girder location. Typical
model shown below will be considered in the analysis.

Analysis of deck slab for Dead Load and SIDL

Dead load will be derived using “selfweight” command in STAAD. SIDL will be placed as UDL
and Concentrated load on member. While wearing coat load and footpath load will be placed as
UDL on members over which it is acting, weight of railing and crash barrier will be placed as
concentrated load on members where it comes.

Analysis of deck slab for Carriageway Live Load

Analysis of moving load for the design of deck slab will be done according to the guidelines of
IRC : 6 – 2000. In case of a continuous beam, influence line diagrams cannot be readily made

43
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

use of in the design. The reason for this is that the effective width of concentrated axle loads of
IRC loading change according to the positions of the latter along the span and as such bending
moment per meter width, relevant for the design of the slab also undergoes changes.

The four types of IRC loading viz. 70R Wheel (m & l type), 70R Track and Class A. The original
loading (each wheel or track) will be divided into discrete equivalent concentrated loads in the
transverse direction maintaining the total load and width same as per code. It gives more
accurate analysis to find out the bending moment in the deck slab per meter width. The
equivalent load systems for the different load classes are shown below: -

a. Class 70R Bogie (m)

b. Class 70R Bogie (l)

c. Class 70R Track

44
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

d. Class A

The most critical value of live load bending moment at mid span and shear force at support (both
loading class wise and position wise) would be considered as design value.

The footpath live load will also been calculated according to guidelines of IRC: 6 –2000.

Effective Width

Effective width calculation will be carried on the same principle as in case of Box Girder.

Temperature Load

Load due to temperature gradient will be considered in accordance with clause 218.3 of IRC: 6 –
2000. Distribution of stresses due to continuity effect will be considered and stress check will be
made.

Load tabulation and Design

Moments and shear force results obtained from output of STAAD analysis will be tabulated in
Excel sheet. Design of deck slab will be carried out in accordance with IRC : 21 – 2000, using
spread sheet prepared in house.

9.12 RCC SOLID SLAB


 The analysis of RCC Solid Slab Super structure for longitudinal flexure will be carried out using
Grillage model on STAAD Pro. Longitudinal members will be considered at support location and at the
edges of Slab. Transverse members will be considered at each L/4 location and at a dist Deff from
support. Property of members will be given as prismatic section as per the depth of width of slab at the
respective location.
 Dead load on grillage will be put through “selfweight” command in STAAD on longitudinal members.
No dead load will be put on transverse member. SIDL will be placed on long grillage member as UDL.
If Crash barrier, Railing, Footpath load does not come directly under any long member, total load will
be divided to equivalent load to the nearest two members or will be transferred to nearest long girder
with equivalent load and moment.
 Different live load case will be created according to the number of lanes and possible combination of
loads and will run the load through the span of the bridge to get BM and SF diagram for longitudinal
members separately.
 Tabulation of moments and shear at different section will be done in excel sheet for DL, SIDL and Live
load. Live load will be multiplied by impact factor & lane reduction factor.

45
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

 Slab will designed as per IRC : 21 – 2000 and reinforcement will be provided accordingly. Slab will also
be checked for jack up condition for bearing replacement and required reinforcement at top at support
location will be provided.

9.13 RCC BOX CELL STRUCTURE

The RCC Box structure is modelled as a plane frame and the corresponding analysis is done
considering 1.0 mts width of the structure. The bottom slab is considered to be cast horizontally
whereas the top slab is to cast parallel to the road surface.

9.13.1 STAAD Model

The analysis of the RCC Box bridges will be modelled as a plane frame structure of 1.0 m width
in STAAD PRO. Members of the model passes through the cg of box. Top slab of box will be
divided in 8 members, vertical wall in 6 members and bottom slab will be divided in 12members
as shown in figure. The box is fully resting on the soil. Discrete spring supports are provided at
the base slab of the box to simulate the support system. Soil springs stiffness will be calculated
based on a sub grade modulus of the soil as safe bearing capacity / allowable deflection ( say 20
mm ) i.e. 15 /0.020 = 750 t / m2. Max opening height has been considered in design.

STAAD MODEL WITH NODES

9.13.2 Loading
 Dead load will be placed in model with self-weight command in STAAD.
 Wearing coat, earth cushion and pavement weight will be considered for the SIDL. Parapet load has
not been considered since parapet itself will act as beam and live load will not act in that location. Load
will be placed on top members as uniform distributed load.
 Earth pressure will be calculated considering culombs theory as per codal provision and placed on
vertical members as trapezoidal load. Earth pressure at dry and saturated backfill condition (i.e. no
water inside box but backfill soil is fully saturated) will be considered in analysis.
 The Live load dispersion will be calculated according to Clause 305.16.2 of IRC: 21-2000 ie effective
width methods. All live loads will be placed at centre of box to get worst effect. Effective width of
dispersion in transverse direction for different load as mentioned earlier will be calculated in separate
excel sheet. Axle load will be divided by the effective with of dispersion and placed on STAAD model.
Similarly dispersion of load along longitudinal direction will be calculated and placed on top members
as where it comes for different type of load.

46
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

9.14 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Moment and shear forces for top slab, vertical wall and bottom slab are tabulated in separate
sheet for different load combination and design value was obtained. Design are done as RCC
member as per IRC: 21 – 2000 and Reinforcements are provided accordingly.

9.15 RCC SUBSTRUCTURE

RCC substructure will be considered as cantilever wall type member in vertical direction
supported on fixed support over open or pile foundation. Load and moments will be calculated at
base of substructure considering all the loads and load combinations as specified in IRC : 6
using in house software in Excel sheet. Substructures will be checked for axial and biaxial
moments at the base and other section also if curtailment is provided in vertical reinforcement.
Pier / Abutment Cap will be considered as cantilever beam of varying depth along transverse
direction and supported on face of equivalent pier section. Load from superstructure will be
placed on bearing location. Live load will be placed on superstructure in such a way so that it
gives maximum reaction on outer bearing to create maximum moment and shear on pier /
abutment cap. In case the distance of bearing from face of pier / abutment is less than the depth
of cap, then cap should also be as bracket.

9.16 RCC FOUNDATION

Safe bearing capacity of soil will be calculated considering soil strata at individual structure
location. Foundation type of structure will be decided depending on load on foundation, scour
depth and safe bearing capacity. For all flyover and ROB location pile foundation will be
proposed. For major bridges and minor bridges having span 10-12m, open foundation would be
proposed. Open foundations will be designed as beam of variable depth in both the direction.
Uplift will not be considered in any foundation. In longitudinal direction, the pile cap will be
designed as cantilever slab, supported from face of pier wall with vertical reactions from piles as
loads. In transverse direction the pile cap will be designed as cantilever slab supported from face
of the equivalent pier. Torsion due to difference in pile reaction will be considered in design.

9.16.1 Methodology for estimation of load carrying capacity of Pile

Pile foundation is recommended only at Grade Separators and ROB. The total vertical load
carrying capacity of pile foundation is a combination of skin friction along the surface and end
bearing at pile tip. The Design of Vertical load carrying capacity will be carried out following IRC
78 and IS 2911(Part 1) Guidelines. The Uplift capacity of pile will be calculated based on IRC 78
and IS 2911(Part 1) Guidelines. The lateral Capacity would be calculated based on IS
2911(Part1/sec2) and IRC Guidelines. The Piles would generally be rested on Very Dense Sandy
Stratum having SPT Value more than 50.

Where the pile tips will be socketed inside the moderately to partly weathered hard rock, the
total vertical load carrying capacity of pile foundation is a combination of skin friction along the

47
Final Feasibility-cum-Preliminary Design Report VOLUME I:
Preparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-
Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02 MAIN REPORT

surface and end bearing at pile tip. However, as per IS: 14593 & IRC: 78 specifications, load
carrying capacity of pile foundation on rock is estimated from the side friction along the pile shaft
only in rock socket portion and the end bearing of rock at pile tip. As per the above-mentioned
guidelines, the side friction along the pile shaft in the overburden soil portion has not been
considered. Since the pile is socketed in the rock comes out to be short pile, hence the method
given in the IS: 2911 (Part 1) for the estimation of lateral load carrying capacity may not used.
Therefore, the lateral load carrying capacity of the pile is estimated as per the “Brom’s Method”,
which covers all the different lengths (short, intermediate & long) of pile in any strata. The depth
of foundation will be decided so that it is safe against scour. The minimum embedment / socket
depth in rock would be provided as per the guidelines given in IS: 14593 - 1998 & IRC: 78 –
2000. The water table was considered at ground level for analysis purpose.

9.16.2 Design Methodology for foundation

Pile Cap

Pile Cap will be assumed as a rigid slab type structure resting on pile and load coming from pier.
Reaction on pile would be calculated considering rivet theory and design of pile cap by
considering beam analogy method. Pile cap will be checked for moment at pier face locations in
both direction and for normal shear deff away from pier face location in both directions. Pile cap
will also be checked for punching shear at pile and pier locations.

Pile

For design of pile a 3 Dimensional Space Frame model representing pile cap with piles will be
considered. In pile nodes would be considered at each 1m interval to provide spring support in
both horizontal directions. Spring constants will be provided as per sub-grade moduli of soil at
different depth. Rigid connection would be considered at tip of pile in vertical direction. Horizontal
load will be applied on pile cap to get moment on pile for different load combination. Pile will be
designed as column with biaxial bending and axial force.

9.17 PROJECT FACILITES

All the project facilities proposed have been already covered in chapter-7 of this report.

48