Detailed Project Report

National Highways Authority of India
(Ministry of Road Transport & Highways)

Government of India
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT

DETAILED
VOLUME-II: DESIGN REPORT
Consultancy Services for Preparation of Detailed

Project Report for Rehabilitation and Upgrading
to 2 lane with Paved Shoulders Configuration of
Obaidullaganj - Betul on NH-69 in the State of
Madhya Pradesh
S irw a ra
S u lta n p u r
m la h a
Ic h h a w a r B a ri
O B A ID U L L A G A N J U
S eh ore G o h a rg a n j
O b a id u lla g a n j B a re li
D istr ict B ar kh e ra
S a in
L a rk u i
S hahganj
B udhni
P i p a ria
R e h ti
N a s ru lla h g a n j HOSHANGABAD
Bam bai
S ohagpur
K h a te g a o n Ita rsi S e m ri
H osh a n ga b a d M a tk u li
D istr ict P a g a ra
a K e s la
P a c h m a rh i
S e o n i M a lw a
T im u rn i M u a fi C h a u k ip u ra
B o rd h a
S o d a lp u r R am pur
AR D A T
R a h a tg a o n D h o d ra m o u P u n ji
K h i rkia n
S hahpur
M a g a rd h a N im ia J u n n a rd e o
H arda B o ri C h ira p a tla

S a l a iy a
D is tr ict C h ic h o li
N im p a n i
B o rd e h i
R a n ip u r
V ik ra m p u r B etu l
A v a liy a D istr ict B etul Bazar
A m la
D unaw a
K h e ri
r BE TUL
C h ik h li
G o ra kh a r M u lta i
J h a lla r
B h a in s d e h i
T igaon
P tt
NOVEMBER 2012
LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd.

New Delhi
CONTENTS
1. HIGHWAY DESIGN ...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS ..............................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.1. Project Corridor ...........................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.2. Rural Areas ..................................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.3. Urban Areas/ Settlement Stretches .............................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.4. Development of Typical Cross Sections ......................................................................................................................1-2
1.2.5. Improvement Option –Widening Scheme ....................................................................................................................1-3
1.3. HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN............................................................................................................................................1-9
1.3.1. Base Plan Preparation .................................................................................................................................................1-9
1.3.2. Horizontal Alignment ...................................................................................................................................................1-9
1.3.3. Vertical Profile ...........................................................................................................................................................1-11
1.3.4. Sampled cross sections .............................................................................................................................................1-11
1.4. DESIGN OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS .................................................................................................................................1-11
1.4.1. Roadside Drainage ....................................................................................................................................................1-11
1.4.2. Intersections ..............................................................................................................................................................1-12
1.4.3. Urban Service Roads ................................................................................................................................................1-14
1.4.4. Bus-Stops ..................................................................................................................................................................1-15
1.4.5. Truck Laybys .............................................................................................................................................................1-15
1.4.6. Toll Plazas .................................................................................................................................................................1-15
1.4.7. Pedestrian Crossings ................................................................................................................................................1-15
1.4.8. Utility Relocation ........................................................................................................................................................1-15
2. PAVEMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................................................2-1

2.1. PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN ...............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2. PAVEMENT INVESTIGATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1. Pavement Condition Survey ........................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2.2. Pavement Deflection Survey (BBD) ............................................................................................................................2-1
2.3. PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................................................................2-2
2.4. DESIGN PERIOD ......................................................................................................................................................................2-2
2.4.1. Vehicle Damage Factors .............................................................................................................................................2-2
2.4.2. Design Traffic Considerations .....................................................................................................................................2-3
2.5. PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CRUST THICKNESS ....................................................................................................................2-3
2.6. PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR THE SERVICE ROAD ...................................................................................................................2-4
2.7. PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR CROSS ROAD ..............................................................................................................................2-4
2.8. STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT.......................................................................................................................2-4
2.9. RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION FOR THE EXISTING PAVEMENT ...............................................................................2-8
2.10. PERIODIC MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................................2-9
2.11. RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN .....................................................................................................................................................2-9
2.11.1. Joints and Shoulders ...................................................................................................................................................2-9
2.11.2. Design thickness of Rigid Pavement ...........................................................................................................................2-9
2.11.3. Design Life ...................................................................................................................................................................2-9
2.11.4. Subgrade and Subbase Support .................................................................................................................................2-9
3. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES..............................................................................................................3-1

3.1. CD STRUCTURES....................................................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1. Design Standardization ...............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2. Durability & Maintenance Considerations for New Structures .....................................................................................3-2
3.1.3. Safety Measures ..........................................................................................................................................................3-2
3.1.4. Material Properties ......................................................................................................................................................3-3
3.1.5. Loads and Load Combinations ....................................................................................................................................3-4
3.1.6. Exposure Condition .....................................................................................................................................................3-5
3.1.7. Cover to Reinforcement ...............................................................................................................................................3-5
3.1.8. Durability Considerations in Design .............................................................................................................................3-5
3.1.9. Design of Culverts .......................................................................................................................................................3-5
3.2. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES .....................................................................................................................................................3-6
3.2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................3-6
3.2.2. Design Philosophy – RCC T-Girder .............................................................................................................................3-6
i
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Consultancy Services for Preparation of Detailed Project Report for Rehabilitation and Obedullaganj –Hoshangabad-Itarsi- Betul
Upgrading to 2 lane with Paved Shoulders (Volume II: Design Report)
4. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES..............................................................................................................4-1

4.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1. Methodology of Investigation .......................................................................................................................................4-6
4.3. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF AREA .............................................................................................................................................4-7
4.3.1. General Geology of Madhyapradesh State .................................................................................................................4-7
4.4. GROUND WATER TABLE ......................................................................................................................................................4-12
4.5. SEISMICITY OF AREA ...........................................................................................................................................................4-12
4.6. SITE-SPECIFIC SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................4-13
4.7. ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOIL & ROCK .................................................................................4-19
4.8. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................4-46
4.8.1. Design of Embankments ...........................................................................................................................................4-46
4.9. FOUNDATION DESIGN ..........................................................................................................................................................4-48
4.9.1. Shallow (i.e. Open) Foundations ...............................................................................................................................4-48
4.9.2. Well Foundations .......................................................................................................................................................4-49
4.10. DESIGN OF HILL CUT SECTION...........................................................................................................................................4-56
4.10.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................4-56
4.10.2. Slope Stability Analysis .............................................................................................................................................4-56
4.10.3. Land Slide ..................................................................................................................................................................4-57
4.10.4. Surface Erosion .........................................................................................................................................................4-57
4.10.5. Slope Treatment by Jute Geotextile (JGT) Netting ....................................................................................................4-57
4.10.6. Benching of Slopes ....................................................................................................................................................4-58
4.10.7. Catch Drain ................................................................................................................................................................4-58
4.10.8. Breast wall .................................................................................................................................................................4-58
4.11. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................................4-58
4.12. OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS .....................................................................................4-59
4.12.1. Clearing the Proposed Site ........................................................................................................................................4-59
4.12.2. Excavation .................................................................................................................................................................4-59
4.12.3. Dewatering.................................................................................................................................................................4-59
4.12.4. Erosion Control ..........................................................................................................................................................4-59
5. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................5-1

5.1. INTRODUCTION-THE CORRIDOR ..........................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2. SCOPE OF WORK....................................................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.1. Field Reconnaissance .................................................................................................................................................5-3
5.2.2. Data collection and Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................................5-3
5.3. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS OF THE CROSS – DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ..............................................................5-4
5.3.1. Assessment of Peak Discharge ...................................................................................................................................5-4
5.3.2. Area – Velocity Method (Manning’s Formula) .............................................................................................................5-4
5.3.3. Rational Formula .........................................................................................................................................................5-4
5.3.4. Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method ..............................................................................................................................5-6
5.3.5. Dickens’ Formula .........................................................................................................................................................5-6
5.4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN HFL ............................................................................................................................5-6
5.4.1. Afflux Calculation .........................................................................................................................................................5-6
5.4.2. Scour Depth Calculation ..............................................................................................................................................5-7
5.4.3. Maximum Depth of Scour for Design of Foundation ....................................................................................................5-7
5.4.4. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................5-7
5.5. OVERTOPPING STRETCH ....................................................................................................................................................5-15
5.6. EMBANKMENT .......................................................................................................................................................................5-15
5.7. DRAINAGE ..............................................................................................................................................................................5-15
5.7.1. Median Cuts / Drains in Super Elevated Sections .....................................................................................................5-16
5.7.2. Down take Drainage Pipes at RE wall/Fly over Locations.........................................................................................5-16
5.7.3. Chute Drains ..............................................................................................................................................................5-16
5.7.4. Additional Culvert for Field Channel ..........................................................................................................................5-16
5.7.5. Additional Culvert at Cross Road ..............................................................................................................................5-16
5.7.6. Additional Balancing Culvert on Main Carriage Way .................................................................................................5-16
5.8. LONGITUDINAL DRAINS .......................................................................................................................................................5-16
5.8.1. Road Side Drains Design ..........................................................................................................................................5-16
5.8.2. General ......................................................................................................................................................................5-16
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ III
ii
Upgrading to 2 lane with Paved Shoulders (Volume II: Design Report)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Proposed RoW .....................................................................................................................................................................1-2

Table 1-2: Designed Improvement Options ...........................................................................................................................................1-3
Table 1-3: Length of Project Corridor by Improvement Type .................................................................................................................1-9
Table 1-4: Details of deficient curves along NH-69..............................................................................................................................1-10
Table 1-5: Details of Major Intersections along NH-69 ........................................................................................................................1-12
Table 1-6: Details of Minor Intersections along NH-69 ........................................................................................................................1-12
Table 1-7: Details of Service/Slip Roads Along Project Corridor .........................................................................................................1-14
Table 2-1: Adopted Vehicle Damage Factors (Location-1) at km 14+800 .............................................................................................2-3
Table 2-2: Adopted Vehicle Damage Factors (Location-2) at km 137+000 ...........................................................................................2-3
Table 2-3: Design Traffic Loading in MSA .............................................................................................................................................2-3
Table 2-4: Layer Thickness for New Pavement .....................................................................................................................................2-4
Table 2-5: Pavement Composition for Service Road .............................................................................................................................2-4
Table 2-6: Pavement Composition at minor Intersections .....................................................................................................................2-4
Table 2-7: Overlay Thickness for Existing Carriageway ........................................................................................................................2-5
Table 2-8: Granular Layer thickness New/Existing Pavement ...............................................................................................................2-6
Table 2-9: Recommended Rehabilitation...............................................................................................................................................2-8
Table 4-1: Minimum Scope of ToR regarding “Location of Boreholes” ..................................................................................................4-1
Table 4-2: Sub-Soil Investigation Plan ...................................................................................................................................................4-2
Table 4-3: Boring Termination Criteria ...................................................................................................................................................4-6
Table 4-4: BIS Codes Used in Field Exploration Works ........................................................................................................................4-6
Table 4-5: BIS Codes Followed in Laboratory Tests .............................................................................................................................4-7
Table 4-6: Summary of Anticipated Sub-soil Conditions for Major & Minor Bridges / ROB / Flyovers / Vehicular Underpasses /
Pedestrian Underpasses ...............................................................................................................................................4-13
Table 4-7: Typical Rock Mass Rating (RMR) For Rock .......................................................................................................................4-19
Table 4-8: Range of Engineering Properties of Sub-soil/ Rock ...........................................................................................................4-19
Table 4-9: Summary of Slope Stability and Settlement Analysis .........................................................................................................4-47
Table 4-10: Summary of Shallow (i.e. Open) Foundations, Well Foundations ....................................................................................4-50
Table 4-11: Summary of Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of Pile Foundation .................................................................................4-56
Table 4-12: Properties of Soil Samples (UDS) collected from some of selected locations of Hill Cut Areas ......................................4-56
Table 5-1: Value of “n” as per soil criterion ............................................................................................................................................5-4
Table 5-2: Values of Runoff Coefficient ©..............................................................................................................................................5-5
Table 5-3: Values of Areal Reduction Factor (F) ...................................................................................................................................5-5
Table 5-4-: Summary of Hydrological and Hydraulic Study Minor Bridges ............................................................................................5-8
Table 5-5-: Summary of Scour Level for Minor Bridges .......................................................................................................................5-11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Characteristic Deflections (Homogeneous Section) ............................................................................................................2-2

Figure 5-1: Project Corridor ...................................................................................................................................................................5-1
iii
1. HIGHWAY DESIGN
1. HIGHWAY DESIGN
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The basic aim of designing is to identify technically sound, environment-friendly and economically feasible highway
improvement options for widening and strengthening of the project corridors. This chapter has been structured in a way that
it deals with the aspects of highway improvement proposals, highway geometric design and design of miscellaneous items.
Design of road sections has been done according to the design standards set for the project and improvements identified at
the feasibility stage of the project. Few adjustments have been made to the earlier suggested broad widening scheme to suit
the site-specific requirements of engineering at certain locations, environmental and social aspects based on the
topographical survey data collected.
To develop appropriate improvement proposals, detailed site inspection and surveys have been done to understand the
site-specific problems and concerns of importance along the project corridor. First hand information on land use, traffic
characteristics, soil characteristics, pavement as well as structural conditions, important intersections and status of RoW
availability along the project corridor has been collected. Apart from conducting primary surveys, secondary information
regarding traffic, locations of existing services and CD works, improvements to the project corridor carried out in recent past
and planned for near future, exact availability of land with government etc has been gathered from various agencies. The
information so gathered has been utilized to workout the improvement options for the project corridor in different situations.
Based on the finalized improvement options designs for the entire corridor, intersections and highway appurtenances have
been carried out.
1.2. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS
1.2.1. Project Corridor
The project road, section of NH-69, starts from a junction with NH-12 (Km 281 of NH-12) at Obedullagunj (0+000) and ends
at Betul (143+000). The road passes through Betul and Shahpur tehsil of Betul District, Hosangabad and Itarsi tehsil of
Hosangabad District, Goharganj tehsil of Raisen District and Budni tehsil of Sehore District. The road passes through plain
terrain in most of the stretch; however there is a ghat section of 2.8 Km from chainage 113.4 Km to 116.2 Km where the
terrain is hilly. Forest areas have plain to rolling terrain.
Rural areas by and large do not offer any problem for widening the existing highway to four lanes with paved shoulder
configuration. However, in some urban and semi urban areas efforts have been made to improve the road geometry by
providing small realignments. At the existing Ghat section realignment has been designed to improve the existing sub
standard horizontal curves.
1.2.2. Rural Areas
The Project Corridor has RoW ranging from 24m to 30m along the rural areas. The ToR states that the proposed widening
ought to be carried out within the existing RoW, as far as possible. .
In most of the cases widening options are finalised in such a way that least amount of acquisition is required. Wherever
adequate RoW is not available, land acquisition has been made in such a way so that the proposed RoW is restricted to
45m. However, in all the realignments in rural areas, except the Ghat section, a minimum of 60m RoW has been proposed.
1.2.3. Urban Areas/ Settlement Stretches
The alignment has been designed as such in settlement stretches in order to avoid large scale structure acquisition. In such
stretches RoW has been kept minimum and are as per the requirement of respective cross sections.
1-1
Upgrading to 2 lane with Paved Shoulders (Volume-II: Design Report)
Traffic studies reveal the presence of substantial amount of local traffic as well as slow moving non-motorised vehicular
traffic in urban settlements like Hoshangebad and Budhni along the corridor. In order to segregate the through traffic from
the local traffic, and also to provide safe passage to the slow moving non-motorised vehicle and facilitate unobstructed
movement of motorized traffic, service roads of 7m width in the urban areas stated above have been designed.
Semi urban areas like bhawra where existing road geometry is poor, realignments have been introduced to ensure safety.
1.2.4. Development of Typical Cross Sections
The development of typical cross sections is a function of the following three factors:
1) Design standards and specifications related to cross sectional elements itself

2) Conditions of land availability
3) Kilometer-wise improvement option widening scheme
Factors 2 and 3 above are again very much inter related.
Cross-Sectional Elements
Cross sectional elements are based on the design standards and specifications set forth in the earlier chapters. The single
lane width shall be 3.5m, paved shoulder of 1.5m, earthen shoulder of 1m and an urban service road of 7m shall be
provided.
Conditions of Land Availability
As land acquisition is a constraint along the project corridor, existing conditions of land availability play a key role in deciding
the cross-sections and the sides of widening of the existing corridor. As per the information given by PWD officials it is found
that the available Right-Of-Way varies from as low as 24m to maximum of 30m at certain places.
Since RoW is contingent on the design carriageway configuration, the following summarised RoW requirements that the
design calls for:
 AT GHAT SECTION: A RoW of 45.0m

 AT MAJOR REALIGNMENTS IN RURAL STRETCHES: A Row of 60.0m
 AT MINOR REALIGNMENTS IN RURAL /URBAN STRETCHES: 45
 AT STRETCHES WITH ADEQUATE EXISTING ROW: NA
The following Table 1-1 gives the chainagewise RoW details for the Project Corridor.
Table 1-1: Proposed RoW
Sl. Design Chainage (in km) Sl. Design Chainage (in km)
Total ROW (in m.) Total ROW (in m.)
No. From To No. From To
1 2800 8000 60 9 78500 80750 60
2 20700 27200 45 10 80750 88850 45
3 27200 28000 60 11 88850 91100 60
4 61000 67450 45 12 91100 95000 45
5 67450 68500 60 13 95382 109032 60
6 68500 72000 45 14 109032 115282 45
7 72000 74500 60 15 115282 135500 60
8 74500 78500 45
Typical Cross Sections
The basis for working out the improvement scheme has already been elaborated in section 1.2.4 above. Accordingly, fifteen
typical cross sections have been developed for the project road. The details of the typical cross sections and the
corresponding improvement codes are given in Table 1-3.
1-2
The aforesaid typical cross sections have been presented in Volume IX: “Drawings”. The alignment plan drawings given in
Plan & Profile drawings in Volume IX also depict the limits of the existing and required RoW for the project. The details of
the existing RoW used in this report have been obtained from the office of the Executive Engineer (PWD, NH Division),
1.2.5. Improvement Option –Widening Scheme
The tentative widening scheme for proposed horizontal alignment for widening of the corridor had been established on
alignment plans prepared through walkover surveys along the corridor. Field checks were also made to verify the feasibility
of the proposed alignment and thereafter modify the section wherever considered essential to safeguard sensitive elements.
This was further crystallized based on criteria specified in 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 above
Table 1-2 & Table 1-3 below present the designed improvement for the project road including length corresponding to each
improvement type. The designed centerline showing the widening scheme along with the base plan of the corridor has been
presented in Volume-IX: Drawings.
Table 1-2: Designed Improvement Options
Left Right
From To Length Type From To Length Type
2020 4183 2163 TYPE 1 2020 4183 2163 TYPE 1
4183 4196 13 MNBR 4183 4196 13 MNBR
4196 4691 495 TYPE 1 4196 4691 495 TYPE 1
4691 4712 21 MNBR 4691 4712 21 MNBR
4712 14276 9564 TYPE 1 4712 14276 9564 TYPE 1
14276 14292 16 MNBR 14276 14292 16 MNBR
14292 14700 408 TYPE 1 14292 14700 408 TYPE 1
14700 15800 1100 TYPE 3 14700 15800 1100 TYPE 3
15800 15840 40 TYPE 1 15800 15840 40 TYPE 1
15840 15863 23 MNBR 15840 15863 23 MNBR
15863 16608 745 TYPE 1 15863 16608 745 TYPE 1
16608 16620 12 MNBR 16608 16620 12 MNBR
16620 20400 3780 TYPE 1 16620 20400 3780 TYPE 1
20400 21700 1300 TYPE 2 20400 21700 1300 TYPE 2
21700 22200 500 TYPE 3 21700 22200 500 TYPE 3
22200 22273 73 TYPE 2 22200 22273 73 TYPE 2
22273 22291 18 MNBR 22273 22291 18 MNBR
22291 22600 309 TYPE 2 22291 22600 309 TYPE 2
22600 23100 500 TYPE 1 22600 23100 500 TYPE 1
23100 24900 1800 TYPE 3 23100 24900 1800 TYPE 3
24900 27000 2100 TYPE 1 24900 27000 2100 TYPE 1
27000 27535 535 TYPE 6 27000 27535 535 TYPE 6
27535 27625 90 Flyover 27535 27625 90 Flyover
27625 28000 375 TYPE 6A 27625 28000 375 TYPE 6A
28000 28797 797 TYPE 12 28000 28797 797 TYPE 12
28797 28803 6 MNBR 28797 28803 6 MNBR
28803 31010 2207 TYPE 12 28803 31010 2207 TYPE 12
31010 31090 80 MJBR 31010 31090 80 MJBR
31090 32002 912 TYPE 12 31090 32002 912 TYPE 12
32002 32006 4 CUP 32002 32006 4 CUP
32006 32570 564 TYPE 12 32006 32570 564 TYPE 12
32570 32868 298 TYPE 7A 32570 32868 298 TYPE 7A
32868 32873 5 PUP 32868 32873 5 PUP
32873 32920 47 TYPE 7A 32873 32920 47 TYPE 7A
32920 32930 10 VUP 32920 32930 10 VUP
32930 33073 143 TYPE 7A 32930 33073 143 TYPE 7A
1-3
Left Right
33073 33078 5 PUP 33073 33078 5 PUP
33078 33327 249 TYPE 7A 33078 33327 249 TYPE 7A
33327 33333 6 MNBR 33327 33333 6 MNBR
33333 33407 74 TYPE 7A 33333 33407 74 TYPE 7A
33407 33413 6 MNBR 33407 33413 6 MNBR
33413 33497 84 TYPE 7A 33413 33497 84 TYPE 7A
33497 33503 6 MNBR 33497 33503 6 MNBR
33503 33548 45 TYPE 7A 33503 33548 45 TYPE 7A
33548 33553 5 PUP 33548 33553 5 PUP
33553 33580 27 TYPE 7A 33553 33580 27 TYPE 7A
33580 33777 197 TYPE 12 33580 33777 197 TYPE 12
33777 33783 6 MNBR 33777 33783 6 MNBR
33783 33857 74 TYPE 12 33783 33857 74 TYPE 12
33857 33863 6 MNBR 33857 33863 6 MNBR
33863 33950 87 TYPE 12 33863 33950 87 TYPE 12
33950 34850 900 MJBR 33950 34850 900 MJBR
34850 34972 122 TYPE 12 34850 34972 122 TYPE 12
34972 34988 16 MNBR 34972 34988 16 MNBR
34988 35220 232 TYPE 12 34988 35220 232 TYPE 12
35220 35604 384 TYPE 7A 35220 35604 384 TYPE 7A
35604 35615 11 VUP 35604 35615 11 VUP
35615 35920 305 TYPE 7A 35615 35920 305 TYPE 7A
35920 36525 605 TYPE 12 35920 36525 605 TYPE 12
36525 36555 30 MNBR 36525 36555 30 MNBR
36555 37040 485 Toll Plaza 36555 37040 485 Toll Plaza
37040 37295 255 TYPE 7A 37040 37295 255 TYPE 7A
37295 37305 10 VUP 37295 37305 10 VUP
37305 37700 395 TYPE 7A 37305 37700 395 TYPE 7A
37700 38698 998 TYPE 12 37700 38698 998 TYPE 12
38698 38703 5 PUP 38698 38703 5 PUP
38703 39470 767 TYPE 7A 38703 39470 767 TYPE 7A
39470 39480 10 MNBR 39470 39480 10 MNBR
39480 39545 65 TYPE 7A 39480 39545 65 TYPE 7A
39545 39635 90 Flyover 39545 39635 90 Flyover
39635 39898 263 TYPE 7A 39635 39898 263 TYPE 7A
39898 39902 4 CUP 39898 39902 4 CUP
39902 39987 85 TYPE 7A 39902 39987 85 TYPE 7A
39987 39993 6 MNBR 39987 39993 6 MNBR
39993 40200 207 TYPE 7A 39993 40200 207 TYPE 7A
40200 40462 262 TYPE 12 40200 40462 262 TYPE 12
40462 40468 6 MNBR 40462 40468 6 MNBR
40468 42158 1690 TYPE 12 40468 42158 1690 TYPE 12
42158 42183 25 MNBR 42158 42183 25 MNBR
42183 43449 1266 TYPE 12 42183 43449 1266 TYPE 12
43449 43472 23 MNBR 43449 43472 23 MNBR
43472 43500 28 TYPE 12 43472 43500 28 TYPE 12
43500 43795 295 TYPE 7A 43500 43795 295 TYPE 7A
43795 43805 10 VUP 43795 43805 10 VUP
43805 44200 395 TYPE 7A 43805 44200 395 TYPE 7A
44200 44658 458 TYPE 12 44200 44658 458 TYPE 12
44658 44662 4 CUP 44658 44662 4 CUP
44662 44900 238 TYPE 12 44662 44900 238 TYPE 12
1-4
Left Right
44900 45240 340 TYPE 7A 44900 45240 340 TYPE 7A
45240 45250 10 VUP 45240 45250 10 VUP
45250 45560 310 TYPE 7A 45250 45560 310 TYPE 7A
45560 45598 38 TYPE 12 45560 45598 38 TYPE 12
45598 45602 4 CUP 45598 45602 4 CUP
45602 45923 321 TYPE 12 45602 45923 321 TYPE 12
45923 45927 4 CUP 45923 45927 4 CUP
45927 46318 391 TYPE 12 45927 46318 391 TYPE 12
46318 46322 4 CUP 46318 46322 4 CUP
46322 46930 608 TYPE 12 46322 46930 608 TYPE 12
46930 46986 56 TYPE 7A 46930 46986 56 TYPE 7A
46986 46995 9 MNBR 46986 46995 9 MNBR
46995 47235 240 TYPE 7A 46995 47235 240 TYPE 7A
47235 47245 10 VUP 47235 47245 10 VUP
47245 47530 285 TYPE 7A 47245 47530 285 TYPE 7A
47530 48330 800 TYPE 12 47530 48330 800 TYPE 12
48330 48698 368 TYPE 7A 48330 48698 368 TYPE 7A
48698 48702 4 CUP 48698 48702 4 CUP
48702 48775 73 TYPE 7A 48702 48775 73 TYPE 7A
48775 48785 10 VUP 48775 48785 10 VUP
48785 49220 435 TYPE 7A 48785 49220 435 TYPE 7A
49220 50355 1135 TYPE 12 49220 50355 1135 TYPE 12
50355 50365 10 MNBR 50355 50365 10 MNBR
50365 51080 715 TYPE 12 50365 51080 715 TYPE 12
51080 51222 142 TYPE 7A 51080 51222 142 TYPE 7A
51222 51228 6 MNBR 51222 51228 6 MNBR
51228 51375 147 TYPE 7A 51228 51375 147 TYPE 7A
51375 51385 10 VUP 51375 51385 10 VUP
51385 51680 295 TYPE 7A 51385 51680 295 TYPE 7A
51680 53011 1331 TYPE 12 51680 53011 1331 TYPE 12
53011 53277 266 TYPE 7A 53011 53277 266 TYPE 7A
53277 53283 6 MNBR 53277 53283 6 MNBR
53283 53411 128 TYPE 7A 53283 53411 128 TYPE 7A
53411 53490 79 ROB 53411 53490 79 ROB
53490 53890 400 TYPE 7A 53490 53890 400 TYPE 7A
53890 55130 1240 TYPE 12 53890 55130 1240 TYPE 12
55130 55190 60 MJBR 55130 55190 60 MJBR
55190 55818 628 TYPE 12 55190 55818 628 TYPE 12
55818 55823 5 PUP 55818 55823 5 PUP
55823 56077 254 TYPE 12 55823 56077 254 TYPE 12
56077 56083 6 MNBR 56077 56083 6 MNBR
56083 57645 1562 TYPE 12 56083 57645 1562 TYPE 12
57645 57655 10 MNBR 57645 57655 10 MNBR
57655 57687 32 TYPE 12 57655 57687 32 TYPE 12
57687 57693 6 MNBR 57687 57693 6 MNBR
57693 58330 637 TYPE 12 57693 58330 637 TYPE 12
58330 58917 587 TYPE 7A 58330 58917 587 TYPE 7A
58917 58932 15 Flyover 58917 58932 15 Flyover
58932 59300 368 TYPE 7A 58932 59300 368 TYPE 7A
59300 60133 833 TYPE 12 59300 60133 833 TYPE 12
60133 60137 4 CUP 60133 60137 4 CUP
60137 60908 771 TYPE 12 60137 60908 771 TYPE 12
1-5
Left Right
60908 60912 4 CUP 60908 60912 4 CUP
60912 61500 588 TYPE 12 60912 61500 588 TYPE 12
61500 62000 500 TYPE 3 61500 62000 500 TYPE 3
62000 62525 525 TYPE 8A 62000 62525 525 TYPE 8A
62525 62650 125 TYPE 8 62525 62650 125 TYPE 8
62650 62700 50 TYPE 8A 62650 62700 50 TYPE 8A
62700 62800 100 TYPE 8B 62700 62800 100 TYPE 8B
62800 64722 1922 TYPE 3 62800 64722 1922 TYPE 3
64722 64758 36 ROB 64722 64758 36 ROB
64758 65200 442 TYPE 3 64758 65200 442 TYPE 3
65200 65960 760 TYPE 2 65200 65960 760 TYPE 2
65960 66074 114 TYPE 3 65960 66074 114 TYPE 3
66074 66099 25 MNBR 66074 66099 25 MNBR
66099 66280 181 TYPE 3 66099 66280 181 TYPE 3
66280 67280 1000 TYPE 2 66280 67280 1000 TYPE 2
67280 67342 62 TYPE 3 67280 67342 62 TYPE 3
67342 67357 15 MNBR 67342 67357 15 MNBR
67357 67480 123 TYPE 3 67357 67480 123 TYPE 3
67480 68000 520 TYPE 2 67480 68000 520 TYPE 2
68000 68400 400 TYPE 3 68000 68400 400 TYPE 3
68400 68600 200 TYPE 2 68400 68600 200 TYPE 2
68600 68843 243 TYPE 3 68600 68843 243 TYPE 3
68843 68883 40 MNBR 68843 68883 40 MNBR
68883 70033 1150 TYPE 3 68883 70033 1150 TYPE 3
70033 70044 11 MNBR 70033 70044 11 MNBR
70044 71189 1145 TYPE 3 70044 71189 1145 TYPE 3
71189 71229 40 MNBR 71189 71229 40 MNBR
71229 72000 771 TYPE 3 71229 72000 771 TYPE 3
72000 72600 600 TYPE 2 72000 72600 600 TYPE 2
72600 72800 200 TYPE 3 72600 72800 200 TYPE 3
72800 73580 780 TYPE 1 72800 73580 780 TYPE 1
73580 74700 1120 TYPE 3 73580 74700 1120 TYPE 3
74700 75700 1000 TYPE 1 74700 75700 1000 TYPE 1
75700 76380 680 TYPE 3 75700 76380 680 TYPE 3
76380 77400 1020 TYPE 1 76380 77400 1020 TYPE 1
77400 77875 475 TYPE 3 77400 77875 475 TYPE 3
77875 77926 51 MNBR 77875 77926 51 MNBR
77926 78440 514 TYPE 3 77926 78440 514 TYPE 3
78440 78600 160 TYPE 2 78440 78600 160 TYPE 2
78600 78800 200 TYPE 3 78600 78800 200 TYPE 3
78800 79600 800 TYPE 1 78800 79600 800 TYPE 1
79600 79800 200 TYPE 3 79600 79800 200 TYPE 3
79800 81625 1825 TYPE 1 79800 81625 1825 TYPE 1
81625 81645 20 MNBR 81625 81645 20 MNBR
81645 83820 2175 TYPE 1 81645 83820 2175 TYPE 1
83820 84349 529 TYPE 3 83820 84349 529 TYPE 3
84349 84379 30 MNBR 84349 84379 30 MNBR
84379 85600 1221 TYPE 3 84379 85600 1221 TYPE 3
85600 86544 944 TYPE 3 85600 86544 944 TYPE 3
86544 86574 30 ROB 86544 86574 30 ROB
86574 90160 3586 TYPE 3 86574 90160 3586 TYPE 3
90160 90190 30 MNBR 90160 90190 30 MNBR
1-6
Left Right
90190 90760 570 TYPE 3 90190 90760 570 TYPE 3
90760 91120 360 TYPE 1 90760 91120 360 TYPE 1
91120 92825 1705 TYPE 3 91120 92825 1705 TYPE 3
92825 92905 80 MJBR 92825 92905 80 MJBR
92905 96547 3642 TYPE 3 92905 96547 3642 TYPE 3
96547 96607 60 MJBR 96547 96607 60 MJBR
96607 97903 1296 TYPE 3 96607 97903 1296 TYPE 3
97903 97923 20 MNBR 97903 97923 20 MNBR
97923 100050 2127 TYPE 3 97923 100050 2127 TYPE 3
100050 100500 450 Toll Plaza 100050 100500 450 Toll Plaza
100500 101222 722 TYPE 3 100500 101222 722 TYPE 3
101222 101622 400 TYPE 1 101222 101622 400 TYPE 1
101622 102630 1008 TYPE 4 101622 102630 1008 TYPE 4
102630 102655 25 MNBR 102630 102655 25 MNBR
102655 103049 394 TYPE 4 102655 103049 394 TYPE 4
103049 103056 7 MNBR 103049 103056 7 MNBR
103056 103573 517 TYPE 4 103056 103573 517 TYPE 4
103573 103579 6 MNBR 103573 103579 6 MNBR
103579 103674 95 TYPE 4 103579 103674 95 TYPE 4
103674 103679 5 PUP 103674 103679 5 PUP
103679 104135 456 TYPE 4 103679 104135 456 TYPE 4
104135 104140 5 PUP 104135 104140 5 PUP
104140 104167 27 TYPE 4 104140 104167 27 TYPE 4
104167 104317 150 MJBR 104167 104317 150 MJBR
104317 104840 523 TYPE 4 104317 104840 523 TYPE 4
104840 105205 365 TYPE 7 104840 105205 365 TYPE 7
105205 105210 5 PUP 105205 105210 5 PUP
105210 105235 25 TYPE 7 105210 105235 25 TYPE 7
105235 105245 10 VUP 105235 105245 10 VUP
105245 105345 100 TYPE 7 105245 105345 100 TYPE 7
105345 105350 5 PUP 105345 105350 5 PUP
105350 105640 290 TYPE 7 105350 105640 290 TYPE 7
105640 106004 364 TYPE 4 105640 106004 364 TYPE 4
106004 106010 6 MNBR 106004 106010 6 MNBR
106010 106285 275 TYPE 4 106010 106285 275 TYPE 4
106285 106290 5 PUP 106285 106290 5 PUP
106290 106382 92 TYPE 4 106290 106382 92 TYPE 4
106382 106622 240 TYPE 3 106382 106622 240 TYPE 3
106622 107082 460 TYPE 1 106622 107082 460 TYPE 1
107082 109382 2300 TYPE 3 107082 109382 2300 TYPE 3
109382 109582 200 TYPE 1 109382 109582 200 TYPE 1
109582 109742 160 TYPE 3 109582 109742 160 TYPE 3
109742 109882 140 TYPE 1 109742 109882 140 TYPE 1
109882 111122 1240 TYPE 3 109882 111122 1240 TYPE 3
111122 111222 100 TYPE 2 111122 111222 100 TYPE 2
111222 111432 210 TYPE 3 111222 111432 210 TYPE 3
111432 111922 490 TYPE 11A
111922 111930 8 MNBR
111432 112500 1068 Type 9
111930 112305 375 TYPE 11A
112305 112311 6 MNBR
112311 112314 3 TYPE 11A
112500 113600 1100 Type 10
112314 112320 6 MNBR
1-7
Left Right
112320 112470 150 TYPE 11A
112470 112482 12 VUP
112482 113305 823 TYPE 11A
113305 113311 6 MNBR
113311 114482 1171 TYPE 11A
114482 114494 12 VUP
113600 115002 1402 TYPE 2
114494 114882 388 TYPE 11A
114882 115002 120 TYPE 2
115002 115008 6 MNBR 115002 115008 6 MNBR
115008 115832 824 TYPE 2 115008 115832 824 TYPE 2
115832 116332 500 TYPE 3 115832 116332 500 TYPE 3
116332 116971 639 TYPE 1 116332 116971 639 TYPE 1
116971 116979 8 MNBR 116971 116979 8 MNBR
116979 117959 980 TYPE 1 116979 117959 980 TYPE 1
117959 117965 6 MNBR 117959 117965 6 MNBR
117965 118182 217 TYPE 1 117965 118182 217 TYPE 1
118182 118955 773 TYPE 3 118182 118955 773 TYPE 3
118955 118967 12 MNBR 118955 118967 12 MNBR
118967 119207 240 TYPE 3 118967 119207 240 TYPE 3
119207 119350 143 TYPE 1 119207 119350 143 TYPE 1
119350 119357 7 MNBR 119350 119357 7 MNBR
119357 119632 275 TYPE 1 119357 119632 275 TYPE 1
119632 119796 164 TYPE 3 119632 119796 164 TYPE 3
119796 119804 8 MNBR 119796 119804 8 MNBR
119804 120082 278 TYPE 3 119804 120082 278 TYPE 3
120082 120896 814 TYPE 4 120082 120896 814 TYPE 4
120896 120902 6 MNBR 120896 120902 6 MNBR
120902 121359 457 TYPE 4 120902 121359 457 TYPE 4
121359 121364 5 PUP 121359 121364 5 PUP
121364 121604 240 TYPE 4 121364 121604 240 TYPE 4
121604 121610 6 MNBR 121604 121610 6 MNBR
121610 121747 137 TYPE 4 121610 121747 137 TYPE 4
121747 122142 395 TYPE 7 121747 122142 395 TYPE 7
122142 122152 10 VUP 122142 122152 10 VUP
122152 122547 395 TYPE 7 122152 122547 395 TYPE 7
122547 122780 233 TYPE 4 122547 122780 233 TYPE 4
122780 122785 5 PUP 122780 122785 5 PUP
122785 123080 295 TYPE 4 122785 123080 295 TYPE 4
123080 123085 5 PUP 123080 123085 5 PUP
123085 123495 410 TYPE 4 123085 123495 410 TYPE 4
123495 123501 6 MNBR 123495 123501 6 MNBR
123501 123829 328 TYPE 4 123501 123829 328 TYPE 4
123829 123835 6 MNBR 123829 123835 6 MNBR
123835 124082 247 TYPE 4 123835 124082 247 TYPE 4
124082 124382 300 TYPE 1 124082 124382 300 TYPE 1
124382 125482 1100 TYPE 3 124382 125482 1100 TYPE 3
125482 126482 1000 TYPE 1 125482 126482 1000 TYPE 1
126482 127024 542 TYPE 3 126482 127024 542 TYPE 3
127024 127030 6 MNBR 127024 127030 6 MNBR
127030 127782 752 TYPE 3 127030 127782 752 TYPE 3
127782 129414 1632 TYPE 1 127782 129414 1632 TYPE 1
129414 129420 6 MNBR 129414 129420 6 MNBR
1-8
Left Right
129420 134402 4982 TYPE 1 129420 134402 4982 TYPE 1
134402 134412 10 MNBR 134402 134412 10 MNBR
134412 134782 370 TYPE 1 134412 134782 370 TYPE 1
134782 135781 999 TYPE 3 134782 135781 999 TYPE 3
All calculations shown above are based on proposed chainages. Cross section types are detailed in Table 1-3 below:
Table 1-3: Length of Project Corridor by Improvement Type
Sl. No. Name Description
1 Type 1 Typical cross section for 4 lane carriageway with paved shoulder in rural sections (LHS Widening)
2 Type 2 Typical cross section for 4 lane carriageway with paved shoulder in rural Sections (RHS Widening)
3 Type 3 Typical cross section for 4 lane carriageway with paved shoulder in rural Sections (Reconstruction / Realignments)
4 Type 4 Typical cross section for 4 lane carriageway with paved shoulder for Bypasses
Typical cross section for widening/ reconstructions/ realignments 4 lanediivded carriageway with drain under footpath
5 Type 5
aand without service road in built up areas
6 Type 6 Typical cross section for uni directional flyover approach
7 Type 6A Typical cross section for uni directional flyover approach
8 Type 7 4 lane divided carriageway with service road on both sides in approaches of vehicular underpass/ flyover
9 Type 7A 2 lane divided carriageway with service road on both sides in approaches of vehicular underpass/ flyover
10 Type 8 4 lane split carriageway
11 Type 8A 4 lane split carriageway
12 Type 8B 4 lane split carriageway
13 Type 9 New 2 lane
14 Type 10 New 2 lane
15 Type 11 Reconstruction/ widening 2 lane
16 Type 11A Reconstruction/ widening 2 lane
17 Type 12 2 Lane Carriageway for Bypass
1.3. HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN
1.3.1. Base Plan Preparation
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 for NH 69 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 CIVIL3D 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 CIVIL3D environment

 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.
1.3.2. Horizontal Alignment
The main criterion that has been followed in finalizing the alignment includes:
1-9
 Location of Utility lines

 Geometric improvement
 Available ROW from the existing Center line
 Water logged Areas
 Transmission line towers
 Cultural Properties
 Location of other sensitive structures
 Minimizing structure acquisition etc.
The horizontal alignment design for 4 laning and 2 lane with paved shoulder has been initially done using “CIVIL3D” as per
the widening scheme suggested at the preliminary stage on base map. Principally the design standards corresponding to
100 kmph have been adopted. Extensive 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. It can be observed from the base plan that the existing alignment of NH 69 and the existing curves are not
adequate to confirm to NH standards.
The entire corridor has been designed for 4 lane with paved shoulder configuration, except for the Budhni- Hoshangabad-
Itarsi combined bypass which is proposed to be 2 lane with paved shoulder configuration. An at-grade intersection has been
designed at the start of the project corridor integrating the consideration of the Consultants for the previous package. The
Project corridor consists of several bridges and culverts having cross sections conforming respective road configurations.
Measures have been taken during finalization of the alignment so that all these structures can be retained with minor
repairs.
However twenty one realignments have been designed mostly due to modify the existing horizontal geometry. The existing
alignment in these stretches includes curves having radius less than design standard conforming to design speed of 100
kmph and also having insufficient site distances with very poor vertical profile. As the improvement of the existing alignment
in these areas calls for property acquisition, it is decided to design small realignments at these stretches. At entry and exit
points of all these intersections minor junctions are proposed so that local traffic can easily access the villages.
The other major realignment is proposed at existing Ghat Section between Km. 111.43 to Km. 114.98. and at bhawra. The
existing alignment at this section is curvy with number of reverse curves of radius as low as 20m. These not only reduces
the speed of the vehicles but also make the heavy vehicles mostly trucks very difficult to travel. In an attempt to solve these
problems and to improve the existing road geometry, realignment has been designed in this section. Although the proposed
alignment is less curvy and reducing the distance some of the deficient curves could not be avoided and are enlisted below.
Table 1-4: Details of deficient curves along NH-69
From
Spiral Radius Spiral To Design Ch Remarks
Design Ch
12147.22 12237.22 90 240 90 12266.03 12356.03
13474.32 13534.32 60 200 60 13534.54 13594.54
13834.16 13924.16 90 240 90 13964.11 14054.11
15065.61 15125.61 60 200 60 15216.83 15276.83
15607.7 15627.7 20 200 20 15810.16 15830.16
16126.89 16216.89 90 240 90 16468.62 16558.62
17509.16 17599.16 90 240 90 17665.16 17755.16
62019.3 62064.3 45 150 45 62087.2 62132.2
Existing RUB
62211 62256 45 150 45 62365.8 62410.8

62470.1 62520.1 50 90 50 62583.6 62633.6
62671.6 62696.6 25 90 25 62737.4 62762.4
85362 85422 60 200 60 85454.5 85514.5
87265.8 87325.8 60 200 60 87440.3 87500.3
87884 87924 40 170 40 88098.8 88138.8
90209.9 90279.9 70 100 70 90305.9 90375.9
1-10
From
Spiral Radius Spiral To Design Ch Remarks
Design Ch
91123.8 91213.8 90 240 90 91392.8 91482.8
97421.5 97511.5 90 240 90 97534.8 97624.8
110809 110899 90 240 90 110953 111043
111758 114388 Baretha Ghat
Efforts have been made to integrate transitions for change over of side at curve locations to the extent possible. In case of
tangent sections, transition or changeover has been suggested with very flat curves of at least 2000 m radii.
1.3.3. Vertical Profile
The profile of the Project Corridor has been designed preliminary on the basis of DTM data collected during the topographic
survey. In addition to the standards and guidelines set in Chapter 5 of Volume I, a number of other considerations have
been made to design the vertical profile, which is presented below;
 Minimum distance between the two PVI as 150m for new construction
 Minimum distance between the two PVI as 80m for overlay sections
 Minimum longitudinal gradient as 0.05% for longitudinal drainage
 Minimum length of vertical curve as 60m
The corridor is not on high embankment except near the major and minor bridge approaches. In some places the profile of
existing road is almost at the same level to the adjacent ground level.
An Endeavour has been made to keep the grade line smooth, which matches with the character of flat adjacent terrain.
Apart from approaches to the structures the number of vertical curve is less in this corridor. Rectification of existing kinks
involves the provision of profile corrective course.
In fixing the profile of existing road, the top levels of the minor bridges and slab culverts have been considered as obligatory
points to avoid any overlay over them for safety considerations. This necessitates the dismantling of the existing pavement
to the extent required for accommodating overlay. At few locations existing undulations on pavement surface and
introduction of the designed super elevation calls for high PCC thickness.
The finished level of new carriageway with respect to the ground level has been fixed in a manner to accommodate the
designed pavement layer thickness including the sub-grade.
For the stretches for pavement reconstruction refer chapter 3 of same volume
1.3.4. Sampled cross sections
Based on the Typical Cross Sections developed for various types of improvement proposals, different types of templates
have been drawn /designed in the software in order to generate the sampled cross sections at specified intervals and to
estimate the roadwork quantities accurately. These templates are customized to suit the varying embankment heights and
varying design side slopes. A unique nomenclature is assigned to each of the templates and cross-referenced to
appropriate sections of the roadway. The plan and profile drawings presented in Volume IX: Drawings for each km length of
project corridor clearly indicate the type of cross section assigned for a particular length of corridor.
1.4. DESIGN OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1.4.1. Roadside Drainage
Roadside drainage will be afforded by cross-slopes/ camber on carriageway and shoulders (2.5% on carriageway and
paved shoulders and 3.5% on earthen shoulder). For maintaining the structural soundness and functional efficiency of the
road, adequate roadside water drainage facilities are proposed to be provided at different locations as under:
1-11
 Open side- drains (kuchha) near the right of way boundary in the rural areas;
 Covered pucca drains in urban and semi urban areas;
 Catch water drains in Ghat section; and
 Chute drains with bell mouth and energy dissipater arrangement at a spacing of @ 10.00 m c/c along the high embankments
of more than 3 m height.
The typical drawings related to roadside drainage have been presented in Volume IX: Drawings
1.4.2. Intersections
Design of intersections have been done based on type of intersection, intersection being classified as major or minor
depending upon the nature of cross road viz., NH, SH, MDR, ODR, VR etc.
Major intersections
A separate design has been prepared for each major intersection and these have been presented in Volume IX: Drawings.
The list of major intersections along with proposed intersection type has been given in the following Table 1-5.
Table 1-5: Details of Major Intersections along NH-69
S. No Design Chainage (Km) Type of Junction Remarks
1 27580 3 arm, Unidirectional Flyover SH
2 32925 VUP
3 35992 VUP
4 37682 VUP
5 39972 FLYOVER
6 44182 VUP
7 45627 VUP
8 47622 VUP
9 49162 VUP
10 51762 VUP
11 59307 FLYOVER
12 61582 At Grade
13 102482 At Grade Sahapura bypass start
14 105240 VUP
15 106482 At Grade Sahapura bypass end
16 120082 At Grade Padar bypass start
17 122147 VUP
18 124482 At Grade Padar bypass end
19 135782 At Grade Junction with adjacent package
Minor Intersections
Improvements have also been proposed at junctions with crossroads carrying moderate to low traffic. Typical designs have
been developed to cater for different categories of cross roads, depending on the total traffic movement and category
(ODR/VR/Katchha etc) of cross road.
The typical designs have been presented in Volume IX: Drawings. Detailed inventories of all the crossroads intersecting the
project corridor have been carried out. Details such as chainage, cross road type, side of intersection have been presented
in the following Table 1-6.
Table 1-6: Details of Minor Intersections along NH-69
S No. Proposed Chainage Type Side S No. Proposed Chainage Type Side
1 3960 T Right 4 28600 Y RHS
2 4000 T Left 5 29520 T LHS
3 6500 T Left 6 29890 T LHS
1-12
7 30325 Y LHS 57 61065 Y LHS
8 30325 Y RHS 58 61065 Y RHS
9 32000 Y LHS 59 64015 LHS
10 32000 Y RHS 60 68423 T RHS
11 32875 Y LHS 61 68933 T LHS
12 32920 X BOTH 62 70518 T LHS
13 33075 Y LHS 63 70818 T RHS
14 33075 Y RHS 64 71321 LHS
15 33550 T LHS 65 71621 T RHS
16 33550 T RHS 66 71621 RHS
17 34015 Y LHS 67 73352 T RHS
18 35580 Y RHS 68 73822 T LHS
19 35600 T LHS 69 73822 T RHS
20 35600 T RHS 70 75777 T LHS
21 37300 Y LHS 71 76077 T LHS
22 37300 Y RHS 72 77287 T RHS
23 38550 T LHS 73 77757 T LHS
24 38550 T RHS 74 78087 T RHS
25 38830 Y LHS 75 79056 T LHS
26 39590 T LHS 76 83256 T RHS
27 39590 T RHS 77 83436 T LHS
28 39900 X BOTH 78 83786 T RHS
29 43799 T LHS 79 84516 T RHS
30 43800 T RHS 80 89330 T LHS
31 44250 Y LHS 81 90000 T RHS
32 44250 Y RHS 82 90050 T RHS
33 47000 X BOTH 83 90346 T RHS
34 48700 X BOTH 84 90516 T RHS
35 48780 T LHS 85 92200 T RHS
36 48780 T RHS 86 93206 T LHS
37 48825 Y LHS 87 93596 T RHS
38 48825 Y RHS 88 93596 T LHS
39 51380 Y LHS 89 95260 T LHS
40 51380 Y RHS 90 98603 Y LHS
41 53450 T LHS 91 98633 Y RHS
42 53450 T RHS 92 100987 T LHS
43 55130 T LHS 93 102688 Y RHS
44 55130 T RHS 94 104182 X BOTH
45 55200 T LHS 95 104388 Y LHS
46 55200 T RHS 96 104488 T LHS
47 56085 Y LHS 97 104488 T LHS
48 56085 Y RHS 98 104788 Y RHS
49 57600 Y LHS 99 104888 T LHS
50 57600 Y RHS 100 105088 T RHS
51 58910 T LHS 101 105262 Y LHS
52 58910 T RHS 102 105262 Y RHS
53 60140 T LHS 103 105638 T LHS
54 60140 T RHS 104 105807 X BOTH
55 60900 Y LHS 105 105888 T RHS
56 60900 Y RHS 106 106357 T BOTH
1-13
107 106357 T BOTH 139 122453 Y RHS
108 107617 Y RHS 140 122603 T RHS
109 110474 Y LHS 141 122822 X BOTH
110 110674 T LHS 142 122862 X BOTH
111 114962 Y LHS 143 122903 T LHS
112 115262 Y LHS 144 123182 X BOTH
113 115657 Y RHS 145 123937 T LHS
114 116457 Y LHS 146 124337 T LHS
115 116680 Y RHS 147 124637 T RHS
116 116782 T RHS 148 125065 Y LHS
117 117037 Y LHS 149 125465 Y LHS
118 117062 Y RHS 150 126058 Y LHS
119 117532 T RHS 151 126078 T RHS
120 118085 T LHS 152 126758 Y RHS
121 118085 Y RHS 153 128258 Y LHS
122 118132 Y RHS 154 128263 Y RHS
123 118132 T LHS 155 129158 T LHS
124 118362 T RHS 156 129158 T RHS
125 119392 T RHS 157 131158 Y LHS
126 119480 T LHS 158 131168 Y RHS
127 119507 T RHS 159 132258 T LHS
128 119630 T LHS 160 132378 Y RHS
129 119630 T RHS 161 134058 Y LHS
130 119632 T LHS 162 134058 Y RHS
131 120257 T LHS 163 134568 Y LHS
132 120257 T RHS 164 134618 Y RHS
133 121582 X BOTH 165 135138 Y LHS
134 121603 T RHS 166 135158 T RHS
135 121703 Y RHS 167 135358 T LHS
136 121703 Y LHS
137 122203 T LHS
138 122208 T RHS
1.4.3. Urban Service Roads
Service roads of widths 7 m are designed in urban areas to segregate local traffic from through traffic. The typical cross-
sections showing the service road have been presented in Volume IX: “DRAWINGS”. Table 1-7 gives the proposed
locations of service/slip roads along project.
Table 1-7: Details of Service/Slip Roads Along Project Corridor
Chainage, Km
S. No. Min Width (M) Side
From To Length, m
1 27.000 28.000 1000 7 RHS
2 32570 33580 1010 5.5 Both
3 35220 35920 700 5.5 Both
4 37040 37700 660 5.5 Both
5 38700 40200 1500 5.5 Both
6 43500 44200 700 5.5 Both
7 44900 45560 660 5.5 Both
8 46930 47530 600 5.5 Both
9 48330 49220 890 5.5 Both
10 51080 51680 600 5.5 Both
1-14
Chainage, Km
S. No. Min Width (M) Side
From To Length, m
11 58330 59300 970 5.5 Both
12 104840 105540 800 7 Both
13 121747 122547 800 7 Both
Total Length 10890
1.4.4. Bus-Stops
Total 68 Bus bays cum Bus shelter are to be provided and the locations will be finalised in consultation with IC.
Sr. No. Design Chainage Location Side Sr. No. Design Chainage Location Side
1 3+950 Umaria Both 18 68+300 Dhansai Both
2 8+000 Tagpura Both 19 69+600 Keshla Both
3 28+300 Bhasapur Both 20 73+800 Kesla Both
4 32+50 Bhagwara Both 21 80+000 Chowkipura Both
5 37+300 Raipur to hoshangabad Both 22 92+100 Bhaura Both
6 39+600 SH22 Junction Both 23 95+700 Bhaura Both
7 40+700 jasalpur Both 24 97+800 Kundhi Both
8 43+800 Chandarpur Both 25 99+800 Magadoh Both
9 45+200 Nitaya Both 26 102+000 Shahpur Both
10 47+000 Raisalpur Both 27 106+000 Motidana Both
11 51+200 Dhokheda Both 28 110+600 Pathkheda Both
12 53+80 Itarsi Both 29 120+600 Padder Both
13 54+600 Somalwada Both 30 124+500 Kuppa Both
14 55+800 Somalwada Both 31 127+000 Bajarwada Both
15 58+900 Pandukheri Both 32 131+000 Urdan Both
16 61+500 Kiratpur Both 33 134+000 Jamthi Both
17 65+000 Kaveli Both 34 135+300 Sonaghat Both
1.4.5. Truck Laybys
The locations of the truck Laybys have been decided during the site visit and are enlisted below. Typical design of truck
laybye has been given in Volume IX: Drawings.
S.No Chainage Length, m Remarks

1 27+310 150 RHS near Sahaganj Junction
2 72+500 150 Both side
3 106+380 150 LHS
4 115+582 150 RHS
1.4.6. Toll Plazas
The design includes Two (2) Toll Plazas along the project corridor at Km. 36+800 and at Km100+280.
1.4.7. Pedestrian Crossings
Sidewalks/ footpaths of adequate width have been designed at all urban areas to cater to the need of the pedestrians.
1.4.8. Utility Relocation
A number of utilities run parallel to the alignment within the road corridor and criss-cross the alignment in few locations. The
utilities affected, within the proposed Rows, by the development have been identified, by overlaying the toe lines of the
proposed road section. An organized numbering system has been developed to identify them for further referencing.
Kilometer wise drawings have been prepared and submitted to the respective departments for the estimate of relocation.
1-15
2. PAVEMENT DESIGN
2. PAVEMENT DESIGN
2.1. PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN
2.1.1. 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 designs 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.
2.2. PAVEMENT INVESTIGATIONS

The pavement investigations carried out on the project corridor along with preliminary findings are discussed in the following
sections.
2.2.1. Pavement Condition Survey
Pavement condition survey has been carried out on the project corridor by visual observation of basic pavement distresses
indicators. Predominant distresses like cracking, raveling, and extent of patching have been noted as percentage area for
every 200m length of road. Number of potholes for each 200m length has also been noted. Apart from these distresses,
Edge breaking as percentage length affected has also been noted for every 200m along the road. Condition of the unpaved
shoulders was also assessed in terms of shoulder drop-off and depressions on shoulder. Sections with excessive bitumen
flow, bleeding and up-heaving were also noted during the surveys. Structural condition of the existing pavement was
separately assessed by Benkelman Beam deflection measurements as well as wheel path rutting. Data collected during the
surveys is presented in Chapter 3 Volume-I of this report.
2.2.2. Pavement Deflection Survey (BBD)
Pavement deflection survey has been carried out in the month of March 2010 on project corridor using Benkelman Beam in
accordance with IRC: 81-1997 procedures. Even though it is mentioned to take deflection reading at an offset distance of
0.9m from the edge of pavement in IRC: 81, the location of wheel path (offset distances from pavement edge) has been
ascertained from the axle load distribution surveys conducted on the corridor to verify the actual lateral placement of axles.
It has been observed that this offset is 0.9m inside the edge of the road for two-lane pavement without paved shoulder and
2m inside the paved shoulder outer edge. The deflection measurements have been made at 50m intervals in a staggered
manner on the adjacent lanes of project road giving a total of 20 points in a kilometer length. At each point, 4 sets of
measurements have been taken, namely D-200, D0, D2700, D9000 at regular interval along outer wheel path. It is seen that rigid
pavement exist at some places along the corridor. The BBD data collected in the field has been presented in Appendix 2.1
of this report.
Temperature Correction
Pavement temperatures at the time of BBD measurements were varying between 36 and 600C. Since the bituminous
wearing course of the pavement of project corridor is in a satisfactory condition and the thickness is more than 75mm on the
average, appropriate temperature corrections have been made based on the recommendations of IRC: 81-1997.
2-1
Correction for Seasonal Variation
Characteristics of existing sub grade have been collected from test pit surveys and material investigations. Rain fall
characteristics of the project area have also been collected from local meteorological department. The correction for the
seasonal variation has been done in accordance with provisions of IRC: 81-1997 by using respective charts for rainfall and
soil type.
Characteristic Deflection
For the set of deflection readings on a km length the average and standard deviation have been calculated and the
characteristic deflection for that km length has been taken as the mean plus 2 standard deviations. This data is presented in
Appendix 2.1 of this report. Adjacent sections of BBD have been combined to form homogeneous sections using
cumulative differences approach. A total of 7 homogeneous sections have been identified excluding bypasses.
Characteristic deflection for each homogeneous section is calculated as mean plus 2 standard deviations for that section.
Homogeneous section wise characteristic deflections have been presented in the form of bar charts below.
Characteristic deflection (Homogenous section)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
CD(mm)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0-27 Proposed 62-71.1 71.1-83.1 83.1-96 96-104 Proposed 108.2-122 Proposed 124.5-137
Bypass Bypass Bypass
(27-62) (104-108.2) (122-124.5)
Chainage (km)
Figure 2-1: Characteristic Deflections (Homogeneous Section)
2.3. 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.
2.4. 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.
2.4.1. Vehicle Damage Factors
VDF for commercial vehicles have been established from axle load surveys, which were conducted at two location at Km
14+800 (Obediulaganj-Itrasi) and at km 137+000 (Itrasi-Betul). 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 2-1 and Table 2-2 below. The
location-1 is from km 0+000 to km 62+000 and the location-2 is from km 62+000 to km 137+000.The raw data and analysis
of axle load survey data has been presented as an Appendix 2.2 of this report. Looking at the marginal difference between
2-2
estimated VDF factors at both directions, the weighted average value of both directions taken as final VDF value for design
purpose.
Table 2-1: Adopted Vehicle Damage Factors (Location-1) at km 14+800
Obdeiaulaganj-Itrasi-Betul (UP) Betul-Itrasi-Obdeiaulaganj (DN) Weighted Average Adopted
Description
Km 14+800 Km 14+800 VDF
LCV 0.24 0.27 0.26
BUS 0.72 0.83 0.78
2-AXLE TRUCK 1.71 4.22 3.02
3-AXLE TRUCK 3.45 5.54 4.68
M-AXLE TRUCK 4.49 5.94 5.22
Table 2-2: Adopted Vehicle Damage Factors (Location-2) at km 137+000

Obdeiaulaganj-Itrasi-Betul (UP) Betul-Itrasi-Obdeiaulaganj (DN) Weighted Average Adopted
Description
Km 137+000 Km 137+000 VDF
LCV 0.28 0.39 0.34
BUS 0.81 0.77 0.79
2-AXLE TRUCK 3.92 2.23 3.28
3-AXLE TRUCK 3.76 5.29 4.50
M-AXLE TRUCK 4.35 6.61 5.13
2.4.2. 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 traffic chapter of the report. Design traffic loading in million standard axles (msa) has been
estimated using the traffic data and estimated VDF. The entire project corridor divided into four sections. The design traffic
loading for each of the sections has been given in the Table 2-3 below. The details of msa calculations are presented in
Appendix 2.3 of the report.
Table 2-3: Design Traffic Loading in MSA
Chainage Length 10th year (2022) 15th year (2027) 20th year (2032)
Name
From To (Km) MSA Value MSA Value MSA Value
Section-1 0.00 32.40 32.40 42 81 140
Section-2 32.40 38.50 6.10 38 71 117
Section-3 38.50 54.80 16.30 26 47 77
Section-4 54.80 137.00 82.20 18 32 50
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 “Materials Investigation Chapter
of the Report” in volume-III.
All borrow samples except one sample having MDD greater than 1.75gm/cc were tested for soaked CBR at 97% of MDD.
Among Twenty-five tested samples only two samples show soaked CBR less than 10% at 97% of MDD. Samples having
the soaked CBR value greater than 10% and 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.
2.5. 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 carriageway. As per IRC: 37-2001, clause 3.3.3.2 “the pavement for National Highways and
State Highways should be designed for a life of 15 years. Expressways and urban roads may be designed for a longer life of
20 years”.
The project under consideration is a National Highway; hence it is designed for 15 years. The flexible pavement composition
section wise is given in Table 2-4 below. .
2-3
Table 2-4: Layer Thickness for New Pavement

Section of Project Corridor km 0.00-km 32.4 km 32.4-km 38.5 km 38.5-km 54.8 Km 54.8-km 137.00
Design Traffic (MSA) 80 70 50 35
Pavement Composition Thickness (mm)
Bituminous Concrete (BC) 40 40 40 40
Dense Bituminous Macadam
125 120 110 95
(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.
2.6. PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR THE SERVICE ROAD

Flexible pavement has been designed for the service road by the IRC method for the traffic loading of 5 MSA as per clause
5.5.5 of “Manual of specification for four laning” and for subgrade strength of 10% soaked CBR. Table 2-5 presents the
pavement composition for service roads along the project corridor.
Table 2-5: Pavement Composition for Service Road
Layer Layer Thickness in mm
SDBC 25
DBM 50
WMM 250
GSB 150
Total 475
2.7. PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR CROSS ROAD

Pavement thickness for the improvement of cross roads at 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 5 MSA
considering the subgrade CBR as 10% soaked CBR. Table 2-6 presents the pavement composition at minor intersections.
Table 2-6: Pavement Composition at minor Intersections
Layer Layer Thickness in mm
SDBC 25
DBM 50
WMM 250
GSB 150
Total 475
2.8. STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT

The purpose of strengthening is to improve the structural capacity of the existing road. The strengthening is achieved
normally by applying a bituminous overlay of suitable thickness. But if the pavement is in a poor structural condition it may
be necessary to reconstruct it partially or fully.
After reviewing/analyzing the data, if strengthening is required, the first step in pavement strengthening process is therefore,
evaluation of the structural condition of the existing road. The pavement surface condition should also be examined for its
worthiness to receive an overlay. Pavement condition indicates any pre-overlay repairs that would be needed before laying
an overlay.
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. Pavement deflections
have been measured with the Benkelman Beam Deflection (BBD) measuring equipment. .
2-4
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.
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 2-7
below. This thickness is converted to BC and DBM by taking a conversion equivalency of 1.0 BM is 0.7 AC/DBM as
suggested in IRC: 37-2001.
Table 2-7: Overlay Thickness for Existing Carriageway
Consider
Existing Chianage After Eliminating out layers Required BM Equivalent Adopted
Char.
Length Design Thickness (BC/DBM)
S.No Deflections for
(Km) Std. Char. MSA (mm) for thickness
From To Average Overlay BC DBM
Deviation Deflections Design MSA (mm)
Design
1 0.00 27.00 27 0.89 0.28 1.5 1.5 80 183 128 40 90
2. 27.00 62.00 Budni /Itrasi Bypass
3. 62.00 71.10 9.1 1.22 0.32 1.9 1.9 35 188 132 40 95
4. 71.10 83.10 12 1.05 0.29 1.6 1.6 35 163 114 40 75
5. 83.10 96.00 12.9 0.81 0.26 1.3 1.3 35 129 90 40 50
6. 96.00 104.00 8 1.08 0.36 1.8 1.8 35 181 127 40 90
7. 104.00 108.2 Shapur Bypass
8. 108.2 122.00 13.8 1.22 0.30 1.8 1.8 35 181 127 40 90
9. 122.00 124.5 Padar Bypass
10. 124.5 137 12.5 1.22 0.32 1.9 1.9 35 188 132 40 95
From the above table, it is noted that the overlay bituminous thickness is coming almost equal to new pavement bituminous
thickness, except some stretches.
It is observed from the test pit survey that the granular layer thickness in existing pavement is insufficient. The adequate
thickness of granular layers has the significant influence on the performance of flexible pavement and so, the poor condition
of project road is attributed due to the inadequate granular layer thickness. The granular layer thickness required for new
pavement (WMM & GSB) is 450 mm for subgrade having 10% CBR. The difference for granular layer for new pavement and
the existing pavement varies from -200mm to 390mm. So, it is suggested that on the existing pavement where overlay is
coming, BT layer shall be scarified, and overlaid with 100mm of GSB, 250mm of WMM and the same composition of DBM
and BC as that of the new pavement. Also where the thickness of existing granular layer is less than 300mm, at these
stretches provide the GSB layer to 200mm. This rehabilitation strategy is more techno-economical as it will eliminate the
profile correction course with bituminous layer, which will be around 100-125 mm thick and also the existing deficient
granular thickness will be compensated.
2-5
Upgrading to 2 lane with Paved Shoulders (Volume-I: Main Report)
Table 2-8: Granular Layer thickness New/Existing Pavement

Site Identification Thickness (mm) of Pavement Layers and Material Type Difference
Lab Sample No
BT Granular
Total TOTAL in Granular
required Thickness
BOLDER
Location
STONE
NH No. THICKNESS Thickness
W.M.M
Granular
UP/DN
W.B.M
SAND
DUST
G.S.B
G.S.B
SOIL
(KM)
for New for New
B.T
B.T
Thickness (mm) (New Pave -
Pavement Pavement
(mm) Existing)
MP/OB-TP-1 NH-69 1+000 DN 120 120 200 200 200 600 840 165 450 -150
MP/OB-TP-5 NH-69 2+900 UP 120 150 330 330 600 165 450 120
MP/OB-TP-9 NH-69 5+000 DN 60 230 150 380 440 165 450 70
MP/OB-TP-13 NH-69 6+900 UP 120 300 80 380 500 165 450 70
MP/OB-TP-17 NH-69 9+000 DN 60 140 240 380 440 165 450 70
MP/OB-TP-21 NH-69 11+000 UP 120 300 180 480 600 165 450 -30
MP/OB-TP-25 NH-69 13+000 DN 100 300 240 540 640 165 450 -90
MP/OB-TP-29 NH-69 14+900 UP 100 260 260 360 165 450 190
MP/OB-TP-33 NH-69 17+000 DN 80 50 190 190 320 165 450 260
MP/OB-TP-37 NH-69 19+000 DN 30 40 60 190 250 320 165 450 200
MP/OB-TP-41 NH-69 21+000 UP 30 80 200 200 310 165 450 250
MP/OB-TP-45 NH-69 23+000 UP 30 40 60 60 130 165 450 390
MP/OB-TP-49 NH-69 25+000 DN 60 40 120 250 370 470 165 450 80
MP/OB-TP-53 NH-69 27+000 UP 70 90 130 130 290 165 450 320
MP/OB-TP-57 NH-69 29+000 DN 120 200 210 410 530 165 450 40
MP/OB-TP-61 NH-69 30+950 UP 90 90 140 210 350 530 165 450 100
MP/OB-TP-65 NH-69 33+000 DN 150 210 210 360 165 450 240
MP/OB-TP-73 NH-69 37+000 DN 110 200 200 310 160 450 250
MP/OB-TP-77 NH-69 39+000 UP 60 80 170 170 310 160 450 280
MP/OB-TP-81 NH-69 41+000 DN 160 210 210 370 150 450 240
MP/OB-TP-85 NH-69 43+000 UP 90 140 150 220 370 600 150 450 80
MP/OB-TP-89 NH-69 45+000 DN 160 100 160 260 420 150 450 190
MP/OB-TP-93 NH-69 47+000 UP 80 100 180 130 310 490 150 450 140
MP/OB-TP-97 NH-69 49+000 DN 60 80 200 200 340 150 450 250
MP/OB-TP-101 NH-69 50+950 DN 120 100 150 250 370 150 450 200
MP/OB-TP-105 NH-69 53+000 UP 90 160 60 200 260 510 150 450 190
MP/OB-TP-113 NH-69 57+000 DN 300 200 120 120 620 135 450 330
MP/OB-TP-117 NH-69 59+000 UP 90 150 180 90 420 510 135 450 30
MP/OB-TP-121 NH-69 61+000 DN 90 150 330 480 570 135 450 -30
MP/OB-TP-125 NH-69 62+950 DN 90 220 220 310 135 450 230
MP/OB-TP-129 NH-69 65+000 UP 130 140 200 200 540 670 135 450 -90
MP/OB-TP-133 NH-69 67+000 DN 90 150 150 120 420 510 135 450 30
MP/OB-TP-137 NH-69 69+100 UP 110 100 200 300 410 135 450 150
2-6
Site Identification Thickness (mm) of Pavement Layers and Material Type Difference
Lab Sample No
BT Granular
Total TOTAL in Granular
required Thickness
BOLDER
Location
STONE
NH No.
THICKNESS Thickness
W.M.M
UP/DN
Granular
W.B.M
SAND
DUST
G.S.B
G.S.B
SOIL
(KM)
for New for New
B.T
B.T
Thickness (mm) (New Pave -
Pavement Pavement
(mm) Existing)
MP/OB-TP-141 NH-69 71+000 DN 150 160 200 200 560 710 135 450 -110
MP/OB-TP-145 NH-69 73+000 UP 90 100 250 130 480 570 135 450 -30
MP/OB-TP-149 NH-69 75+000 DN 180 400 180 580 760 135 450 -130
MP/OB-TP-153 NH-69 77+000 UP 100 100 100 200 135 450 350
MP/OB-TP-157 NH-69 79+000 DN 100 200 100 300 400 135 450 150
MP/OB-TP-161 NH-69 81+000 UP 140 100 100 100 340 135 450 350
MP/OB-TP-165 NH-69 83+000 DN 150 250 150 400 550 135 450 50
MP/OB-TP-169 NH-69 85+000 DN 130 100 200 300 430 135 450 150
MP/OB-TP-174 NH-69 87+000 UP 100 200 200 300 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-177 NH-69 89+000 UP 80 100 250 350 430 135 450 100
MP/OB-TP-181 NH-69 91+000 DN 120 100 200 300 420 135 450 150
MP/OB-TP-185 NH-69 93+000 DN 100 100 200 300 400 135 450 150
MP/OB-TP-189 NH-69 95+000 DN 120 150 100 200 450 570 135 450 0
MP/OB-TP-193 NH-69 97+000 UP 170 100 200 300 470 135 450 150
MP/OB-TP-197 NH-69 99+000 DN 170 200 200 370 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-201 NH-69 101+000 UP 150 200 100 300 450 135 450 150
MP/OB-TP-205 NH-69 103+000 DN 130 150 160 310 440 135 450 140
MP/OB-TP-209 NH-69 105+000 UP 150 100 150 250 400 135 450 200
MP/OB-TP-213 NH-69 107+000 UP 80 200 170 250 620 700 135 450 -170
MP/OB-TP-217 NH-69 109+000 DN 120 100 150 250 370 135 450 200
MP/OB-TP-221 NH-69 111+000 UP 110 200 200 310 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-225 NH-69 113+000 UP 150 150 200 350 500 135 450 100
MP/OB-TP-229 NH-69 115+000 DN 140 200 200 340 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-233 NH-69 117+000 UP 80 150 200 150 500 580 135 450 -50
MP/OB-TP-237 NH-69 119+000 UP 80 70 200 200 350 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-241 NH-69 121+000 UP 150 200 200 350 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-245 NH-69 123+000 DN 80 180 180 260 135 450 270
MP/OB-TP-249 NH-69 125+000 UP 120 200 200 320 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-253 NH-69 127+000 DN 70 200 200 270 135 450 250
MP/OB-TP-257 NH-69 129+000 UP 50 70 200 150 350 470 135 450 100
MP/OB-TP-261 NH-69 131+000 UP 70 90 100 200 300 460 135 450 150
MP/OB-TP-265 NH-69 133+000 DN 70 80 150 150 100 400 550 135 450 50
MP/OB-TP-269 NH-69 135+000 UP 60 110 250 200 450 620 135 450 0
MP/OB-TP-273 NH-69 137+000 UP 75 60 300 300 435 135 450 150
2-7
2.9. RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION FOR THE EXISTING PAVEMENT

The final thickness to be recommended above the existing granular layer for the overlay thickness by scarification of BT
layers is given below:
Table 2-9: Recommended Rehabilitation
Recommended BT layer for Existing Recommended Granular layer thickness
Chainage
Pavement (mm) for existing pavement (mm)
From To BC DBM WMM GSB
0.000 1.000 40 125 250 100
1.000 3.000 40 125 250 100
3.000 5.000 40 125 250 100
5.000 7.000 40 125 250 100
7.000 10.000 40 125 250 100
10.000 12.000 40 125 250 100
12.000 13.000 40 125 250 100
13.000 15.000 40 125 250 200
15.000 18.000 40 125 250 200
18.000 20.000 40 125 250 200
20.000 22.000 40 125 250 200
22.000 24.000 40 125 250 200
24.000 26.000 40 125 250 100
26.000 27.000 40 125 250 200
27.000 62.000 Proposed Budni/Itrasi Bypass (New Pavement)
62.000 66.000 40 95 250 100
66.000 68.000 40 95 250 100
68.000 70.000 40 95 250 100
70.000 72.000 40 95 250 100
72.000 74.000 40 95 250 100
74.000 76.000 40 95 250 100
76.000 78.000 40 95 250 200
78.000 80.000 40 95 250 100
80.000 82.000 40 95 250 200
82.000 84.000 40 95 250 100
84.000 86.000 40 95 250 100
86.000 88.000 40 95 250 200
88.000 90.000 40 95 250 100
90.000 92.000 40 95 250 100
92.000 94.000 40 95 250 100
94.000 96.000 40 95 250 100
96.000 98.000 40 95 250 100
98.000 100.000 40 95 250 200
100.000 102.000 40 95 250 100
102.000 104.000 40 95 250 100
104.000 108.200 Proposed Shahpur Bypass (New Pavement)
108.200 110.000 40 95 250 200
110.000 112.000 40 95 250 200
112.000 114.000 40 95 250 100
114.000 116.000 40 95 250 200
116.000 118.000 40 95 250 100
118.000 120.000 40 95 250 200
120.000 122.000 40 95 250 200
122.000 124.500 Proposed Padar Bypass (New Pavement)
124.500 126.000 40 95 250 200
126.000 128.000 40 95 250 200
128.000 130.000 40 95 250 100
130.000 132.000 40 95 250 100
132.000 134.000 40 95 250 100
134.000 137.000 40 95 250 100
2-8
2.10. 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 4.0m/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 an overlay of 40mm bituminous concrete at every 5
years as per the normal practice in case the above condition does not warrant an overlay in 5 years.
2.11. 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.
2.11.1. Joints and Shoulders

Contraction joints with dowel bars are provided. Analysis was carried out assuming no monolithic shoulders.
2.11.2. 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.
2.11.3. 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.
2.11.4. 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. GSB 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:
 Pavement quality concrete (PQC) 340mm thick
 Dry lean concrete (DLC) 150mm thick
 Granular Sub base (GSB) 150mm thick
 Selected Subgrade of CBR >10% 500mm thick
2-9
3. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
3.1. CD STRUCTURES
The Design Standards and loading that shall be considered are generally based on the requirements laid down in the latest
editions of IRC/ IS codes of practices & standard specifications, and guidelines of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
Following IRC/IS codes were used in the design:
 IRC: 5-1998: Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section I - General Features of Design (Seventh
Revision)
 IRC: 6-2000: Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II - Loads and Stresses (Third Revision)
 IRC: 21-2000: Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section III - Cement Concrete (Plain and
Reinforced (Second Revision)
 IRC: 78-2000: Standard Specifications and code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section VII-Foundations & Substructure (First
Revision)
 IRC: 40-2002: Standard Specifications and code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section IV- (brick stone and cement concrete
block masonry)
 IRC: 83 (Part II)-1987: Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section IX - Bearings, Part II:
Elastomeric Bearings.
 IRC: 89-1997 Guidelines for Design & Construction of River training and Control works for Road Bridges. (First Revision)
 IRC: SP 13- 1973 Guidelines for design of small bridges & culverts.
 IRC: SP 40-1993 Guidelines on Techniques for strengthening and rehabilitations of bridges.
3.1.1. Design Standardization
The evolution of an engineering solution, responsive to the functional and economic design criteria and in keeping with the
basic functional, economic and environmental requirements in mind will have to satisfy the following basic considerations:
 Standardization
There has to be a similarity in the detailing of all elements and components of the structures along the project corridor,
including appurtenances, standards for signs, lighting, railing and retaining walls. This is considered essential from
consideration of quality & speed of construction.
 Environmental Sensitivity
The evolution of the structural and aesthetic statement should be compatible with the existing environmental characteristics,
nature of the terrain, including morphological and geo-technical characteristics. The basic architectural design should afford
neat, clean and consistent proportions and ensure compatibility of the structures with the surrounding landscape. The
structure shall also be designed from durability and maintenance considerations.
 Clarity of Expression
The structure should read as a forceful and singular structural design statement. The appreciation of the structural concept
should be apparent when viewing the structure from the road top as well as from a far.
 Value Engineering
The structure should be so conceptualized and designed that the inherent philosophy of value analysis i.e. full retention of
usefulness and esteem features of the project is fulfilled. Identification and removal of unnecessary cost, and thus improving
value, must be done without reducing in the slightest degree quality, safety, durability, reliability, dependability and the
features and attractiveness that the users want.
3-1
3.1.2. Durability & Maintenance Considerations for New Structures
In order to keep maintenance to a minimum during the operation and in order to facilitate operations, the following is
recommended:
 Utilize materials, which are resistant to aggressive conditions.

 Facilitate access to the various critical points of the structure (connecting zones, inside of the box girders, water drainage
devices, bearings etc.).
 Utilize waterproofing devise at the expansion joints.
 Keep provision for replacement of bearings, expansion joint and parts having reduced design life.
 Keep adequate camber in the deck and ensure quick collection and disposal of rainwater from above the deck.
3.1.3. Safety Measures
Suitably designed crash barriers will be provided to hold the out-of-control vehicles on the carriageway from falling off.
Approaches to major bridges would be protected for a distance not less than 30m by suitable safety fences. All
carriageways and footpath surfaces will have anti-skid characteristics to prevent skidding of vehicles.
The carriageways will be provided with suitable cross camber along with suitably designed cross drainage arrangement for
collection and disposal of rainwater to prevent any accumulation of water on the bridge during rains.
The Design Standards in this regard is given below:
S. No. Item Standards

Highway alignment & cross-section will be followed. Crash Barrier shall be kept out side the
1 Geometry of structures
roadway width.
Widening of Structures
Widening will be decided by CL of proposed road, cross-section of road & width of existing
2 a. Width of widening.
structure.
b. Material for widened portion. In case of widening structure, RCC substructure & superstructure will be used.
Connection between existing & In case of widening, the substructure and foundation will be extended monolithically on either side
3
widened portion of structure of existing structure.
a. Reconstruction will be as per the findings and recommendations of the Condition Survey
report. Based on detailed hydrological study the recommendations for hydrologically
inadequate structure will be reviewed.
b. Bridges up to 11m span will be of RCC box type.
c. Bridges above 11m and up to 25m span will be of RCC T-girder and RCC deck slab on RCC
Reconstruction: Minor Bridge &
4 pier/ abutments.
Culverts
e. Bridges above 25m and up to 30m span will be of PSC T-girder and RCC deck slab on RCC
pier/ abutments.
f. All new culverts will be of either RCC box or Pipe type
h. (a) All existing culverts in good condition will be widened with same type.
(b) All existing pipe culverts less than 0.9m dia. will be replaced with 1.2m dia pipe.
a. Foundation- Open foundation of concrete grade M-35 will be considered.
b. Pier – RCC circular column type with RCC pier cap
Abutments – RCC circular column type
5 Flyover structures
c. PSC T Girder grade M45 with M40 grade cast-in-situ deck will be considered for
Superstructure.
d. Approach portion-Embankment with RE wall.
a. RCC box structure.
6 Underpass
b. Wing wall or Return wall- RCC.
7 Additional Culvert RCC box type as per hydrological requirements.
Vertical Clearance at Flyovers/Grade Minimum head room of 5.5m from the highest point of formation level of underlying cross road to
8
Separators sofit of deck slab.
a. For all the structures location, same cross slope as that of the road will be followed.
9 Cross slope b. Fill over culvert will be as per pavement Design.
c. Profile corrective course will be as per pavement composition.
3-2
S. No. Item Standards

10 Wearing Course Wearing course will be 65 mm thick as per MORTH.
a. Provided in Flyovers, Major Bridges, Minor bridges and Underpasses. For Minor Bridges
12 Approach Slab approach slab will be avoided where earth cushion is more than 1500mm.
b. Approach slab for all Culvert has been taken.
13 Bed protection All Minor Bridges & culverts will have proper bed protection as per IRC 89.
a. Embankment toe wall will be Stone masonry or PCC M15.
14 Retaining Walls
b. Other cases- RCC retaining wall.
15 Ventilation Vent For new Underpass structures suitable ventilation vent will be provided
16 Crash Barrier Grade RCC M40 and around 0.9 m ht for all structural location.
3.1.4. Material Properties
Concrete
Following material properties are proposed to be used for various RCC components of bridge structures:
Coefficient of Thermal expansion: 11.7 x 10-6/oC as per IRC: 6 - 2000
Poisson’s Ratio: 0.2
Modulus of Elasticity: As per Table 9 of IRC: 21 - 2000 for RCC members and as per Clause 10.2
of IRC: 18 – 2000 for PSC members.
Creep & Shrinkage: As per relevant IRC codes for

(Coefficient & time effects)
Concrete Grade: Refer: Durability Consideration in Design
Reinforcement
The reinforcement will conform to the following specifications:
 Mild Steel and Medium steel bars conforming to IS: 432 (Part1) - 1966 (Grade Designation S 240); or
 Cold-twisted bars conforming to IS: 1786 – 1979 (Grade Designation S 500); and
The characteristic strength and elastic modulus of steel will be taken from Table 2 of IRC: 21 -2000
A) Pre-Stressing Steel System
All ducts and anchorages will be suitable for 19T13 stress relieved low relaxation strands conforming to IS: 14268 – 95. The
properties of the strands will be as follows:
 Nominal Diameter : 12.7mm

 Nominal Steel area : 98.7mm2 per strand
 Ultimate Load : 183.71 KN per strands
 Modulus of Elasticity : 1.95 x 105 Mpa
 Friction Coefficient : 0.25/radian
 Wobble Coefficient : 0.0046/m
 Anchorage Slip : 6mm average
 Loss of force due to relaxation : 2.5% at 0.7 UTS after 1000 hrs.
B) Structural Steel
Structural steel will conform to IS: 226 with yield stress of 23.6 Kg/cm2.
3-3
Bearings
Depending upon the type of structure, span length of each superstructure, skew angle either Pot fixed/ Pot-cum-PTFE
sliding bearings or elastomeric bearing will be suggested.
Expansion Joints
Two type of expansion joints are suggested for bridge structures, as follows:
 Strip Seal type of expansion joint (40mm) is proposed for RCC T Girder and PSC T-girder type superstructures;
 Compressible Fiber Board type of expansion joint (20mm) is proposed for RCC Box type structure.
3.1.5. Loads and Load Combinations
Dead Loads
Following unit weights will be considered for dead load computations in the design:
 Reinforced Concrete: 2.4 t/m3

 Pre-stressed Concrete: 2.5 t/m3
 Plain Concrete: 2.2 t/m3
 Structural Steel: 7.85 t/m3
 Wearing Coat: 2.2 t/m3
Superimposed Dead Loads
A) Wearing Coat
25mm thick mastic asphalt over 40mm thick asphaltic concrete layers has been considered for the wearing coat. Loading
will be considered accordingly.
B) Crash Barrier
Concrete crash barriers will be 500 mm wide and will be provided adjacent to the carriageway on either side. Loading will be
considered accordingly.
Carriageway Live Loads
Bridges will be designed for the worst effect of the following carriageway live loads:
 One/ Two/ Three lanes of IRC Class A loading; and

 One lane of IRC Class 70R loading (Wheeled/ Tracked).
 One lane of 70R loading with one lane of Class A loading
Pedestrian Live Loads
The pedestrian live load will be taken as per Clause 209 of IRC: 6 – 2000 where required. The basic intensity of live load will
be considered as 500 Kg/m2. However for design of bridges, the vehicular live load will be considered on footpath to get the
worst effect on structure.
Longitudinal forces due to Bearing Friction
Longitudinal force due to bearing friction will be considered as per Clause 214 of IRC: 6 – 2000.
Horizontal Forces due to Water Currents
The water current forces will be taken as per Clause 213 of IRC: 6 – 2000.
3-4
Seismic Loading
The bridges are located in Seismic Zone - III as per the relevant IRC code. As per the code, seismic force needs to be
considered only for those bridges having span greater than 15m or overall length of the bridge is more than 60m. However,
for design of structures seismic forces will be considered for all the bridges.
Wind Loading
Wind loading will be considered as per Clause 212 of IRC: 6 – 2000.
Temperature Loading
 The superstructure will be designed for effect of distribution of temperature across the depth of superstructure as given in
Clause 218 of IRC: 6 – 2000.
Load Combination
All members will be designed to sustain safely the most critical combination of various loads and forces that can co-exist.
Various load combinations as relevant with increase in permissible stresses considered in the design will be as per Clause
202 of IRC: 6 – 2000 and Clause 706 of IRC: 78 – 2000.
3.1.6. Exposure Condition
The project corridor is located in the state of Madhya Pradesh, the condition of exposure is considered as “Normal” for the
purpose of structural design.
3.1.7. Cover to Reinforcement
Following concrete covers are proposed to be used for various structural components:
 Foundation : 75mm
 Sub-structure : 50mm
 Superstructure : 40 mm
3.1.8. Durability Considerations in Design
In view of the severity of the environment, which subjects the bridge to additional loads, considerations will be given for
reducing the need for general and long term maintenance and to achieve a durable structure.
The following items will be identified as requiring special attention in this regard:
 Concrete Grade to be used are as follows :

 Major/Minor Bridges Culverts
 PSC Structure M45
 RCC Structure M40/M35/M30 M25
 PCC Structure M20/M15 M20/M15
3.1.9. Design of Culverts
Following are the major design standards/ strategies for new construction of culverts:
 IRC: SP: 13 – 1973 will be followed for new construction of pipe culvert.
3-5
3.2. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
3.2.1. 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.
The various types of structures adopted in this project are as follows
 Super-structure:
 Design of PSC T-Girder Super-structure;
 Design of RCC T-Girder Super-structure; and
 Sub-structure and Foundation:
 Design of Pier and Pier Cap;
 Design of Wall-type Pier;
 Design of RCC Open Foundation;
 Design of RCC Pile Foundation;
 Design of RCC Box Type Minor Bridge:
 Design of Elastomeric Bearing
Out of this different component of structures, the design methodology, philosophy of an RCC T-Girder with RCC deck of
span 20.0m exp c/c is presented herewith.
3.2.2. Design Philosophy – RCC T-Girder
The RCC T-Girder superstructure type major Bridge at chainage 96+577 is simply supported with elastomer bearings on
each ends resting over RCC abutment and pier. The structure consists of four numbers of longitudinal girders and three
numbers of cross girders.
Description of the Structure
Geometry
1) Span (c/c exp.) : 20 mts.

2) Span (c/c bearing) : 19.3 mts
3) Carriageway Width : 9.0 mts.
4) Overall Width : 12.00 mts
5) Width of Footpath : 1.5 mts.
6) Width of RCC Railing : 0.25 mts
7) Cross Slope : 2.5 % (Unidirectional)
8) Thickness of w/c : 56 mm (100 mm assumed in design considering - future overlay)
9) C/C of Girder : 3.0 mts.
10) Cantilever Overhang : 1.5 mts.
11) Skew angle : 0 degree
Design Standards
Codes & Standards - The design of various components of the bridge, in general are based on provisions of IRC / IS
codes. Wherever IRC code is silent, reference is made to other Indian/International codes and standards. The list of IRC / IS
codes (latest revisions) given below will serve as a guide for the design of structures.
IRC: 5-2000 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.
3-6
IRC: 21-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-III – Cement Concrete.
IS: 456-2000 Indian Standard - Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, Fourth Revision.
Loading
Dead Load (DL)
Unit weight for Dead Loads calculation has been considered by adopting unit weights as per IRC: 6 – 2000 (Standard
Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-II – Loads and Stresses).
Super Imposed Dead Load (SIDL)
Unit weights as per IRC: 6 2000 shall be followed for Superimposed Dead Load calculations. For calculating the extra load
due to w/c a thickness of 100 mm shall be considered for future overlay.
Carriageway Live Load (LL)
Live Loads conforming to IRC 6 – 2000 have been considered in the analysis of the structure and the Class of loading
whichever produces the severe effect has been considered in the design.
The following Live Loads are considered for the analysis.
Class 70R IRC Loading
3 lane of Class A IRC Loading
1 lane of Class A + Class 70R Wheel loading.

Method of Analysis
General Introduction
The RCC T – Girder superstructure is analyzed in three segments namely Deck slab, Longitudinal Girder and Cross Girder.
The overall width of the superstructure is 12.00 mts. The deck slab is supported on 4 nos. longitudinal T beams spaced at
3.0 m c/c with 1.5m overhang on either side. 3 nos. of cross girders has been provided. Two are near ends at the bearing
locations and one is placed in between.
The method of analysis of each component is described below.
Deck Slab:
The Deck Slab is designed as a one way panel slab spanning between the longitudinal girders and the cross girder. The
effect of the Live Load is taken based on the effective width method as per IRC: 21-2000.
Longitudinal Girder:
The analysis of the longitudinal girder shall be carried out using Grillage model through STAAD III.
The stresses and the moments are determined at an interval of every L/8 (where L = Length of the Superstructure c/c)
Members along the longitudinal direction shall be along the longitudinal girders and at the ends.
DEAD LOAD is calculated using the SELFWEIGHT command.
SIDL are given on long member as loads.
Live load has been generated along span at 0.5 m interval .Loads has been placed at minimum clearance from crash
barrier/footpath at centre at carriage etc which produced most critical forces on girder
3-7
Stresses are checked at specific points using an in house excel sheet.
Cross Girder:
The analysis of the cross girder has been carried out using Grillage model through STAAD III.
The intermediate cross girder is designed as a continuous beam supported on the longitudinal girders.
The end cross girders are designed as continuous deep beam spanning between the longitudinal girders. For bearing
replacement (jack up) condition has been considered. For the analysis purpose, support points are taken at the jack
location of the end cross girders. No Live load is assumed over deck in jack-up condition. The cross girders are designed as
beam.
DURABILITY & MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Material properties
Concrete Grade:
Deck Slab M - 40
Longitudinal Girder M - 40
Cross Girder M – 40
Crash Barrier & Safety Kerb M – 40
Reinforcement:
HYSD bars (Grade Fe 500) conforming to IS: 1786 shall be provided.
Cover:
The minimum cover to reinforcement is 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:
Component Clear Cover to Reinforcement
RCC Superstructure 50mm
Crash Barrier 50mm
Provision for Bearing Replacement (in Future):
The end cross girder are designed for the jack up position to keep future provision for bearing replacement.
Drainage:
The superstructure is provided with slope of 2.5%. Drainage spouts are placed at not more than 5.0 mts c/c. the down take
pipes is provided to carry the drainage water below the girder/slab soffit.
Expansion Joints:
Asphaltic plug type expansion joints are proposed for the RCC T-girder type superstructure.
3-8
4. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
4.1. INTRODUCTION
A Geotechnical exploration program has been carried out at the project site to characterize and assess the subsurface
conditions at the locations of various proposed Flyovers, ROBs, Major and Minor bridges and also, at specified locations of
Vehicular Under Pass (VUP), Pedestrian Under Pass (PUP) etc. The overall objectives of the exploration were to study and
evaluate the stratigraphy of the said project corridor and to obtain Geotechnical/ Geological parameters of the subsurface
formations for design and construction of various foundations, embankments, mechanically stabilized earth walls etc. The
scope was extended to include studies regarding specific features pertaining to scour, liquefaction and determination of the
state of compaction characteristics of engineered-fill and pavement. A chemical testing program is also included to assess
the corrosion potential of subsurface soils and groundwater from foundation durability aspect.
The sub-soil exploration and testing have been carried out under the supervision of LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd.
(LASA) through M/s Arki Techno Consultants, Bhubaneswar & M/s KBM Engineering Research laboratory, Ahmedabad who
had previous experiences of executing projects of similar magnitude and nature. Both the firms had got approved from NHAI
before start of such works.
The field investigation programme was started in the month of August 2010.
4.2. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

The Geotechnical exploration consisted of field and laboratory-testing programs. The field-testing program consisted of soil
borings / rock drillings, performing in-situ tests, obtaining soil, rock and water samples and field observations of the
subsurface conditions and ground water table. The laboratory-testing program comprised of testing the samples (soil, rock &
water) as collected from site to characterize the Geotechnical / Geological properties. Around 130 boreholes were drilled at
about 68 important sites of Flyovers, Minor and Major Bridges, ROBs, Pedestrian & Vehicular Underpasses etc. along the
project corridor. The soil investigation works have been undertaken at pier and abutment locations for almost all proposed
new Flyovers, ROBs, and Major Bridges. Borings were also undertaken at minor bridges and culverts where reconstruction/
widening is proposed. However, at few locations along the wild life corridor, the Geotechnical investigation work has not
been done since the permission from forest department has not been granted.
The location of boreholes for bridge and structure were generally based on the minimum scope criterion of ToR which is
tabulated below in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Minimum Scope of ToR regarding “Location of Boreholes”
S. No. Description Location of Boring
1 Over all length = 6 – 30m One abutment location
2 Over all length = 30 - 60m One abutment location and at least one intermediate location between abutments for
structures having more than one span
3 Over all length > 60m Each abutment and each pier locations
Based on the above guidelines, the Geotechnical investigation program was developed at each structure location in such a
way depending on span length, anticipated structural load, sensitivity of the structure, geological formation etc. that the sub-
surface profile and properties can clearly be ascertained and established. For all proposed new structures, where possible,
boreholes have been earmarked along the centreline of the new structures; barring places where space constraint or heavy
traffic flow or obstructions did not allow this exercise to be taken up. Table 4-2 summarizes the numbers and locations of the
boreholes drilled for all the specific structures along the project corridor, which has been approved by NHAI.
4-1
Table 4-2: Sub-Soil Investigation Plan

No. of Boreholes
Existing Span
Existing Proposed Structural High Range of Borehole
Sl. Name of Arrangement for
Chainage Chainage Improvement Abut- Pier/ Approach Termination Depth
No Structure Structure
(km) (km) Options ment Foundation Embank- (m)
(m)
ment
A) MAJOR BRIDGES
Along
proposed
Budhni- Major Bridge
1 Hoshangabad- 31+050 over Gunjari - New 2 Lane 2 3 - 14.00 – 24.00
Itarsi Nallah
Combined
Bypass
Along
proposed
2 Hoshangabad- 34+400 over River 2x12.75+ 30x25 New 2 Lane 2 29 - 6.00 – 26.00
Itarsi NARMADA
Combined
Bypass
Along
proposed
3 Hoshangabad- 55+160 over Tawa - New 2 Lane 2 1 - 25.00
Itarsi Canal
Combined
Bypass
Major Bridge
4 94+600 92+870 over River - New 4Lane 2 3 - 4.50 – 16.50
Bhounra
Major Bridge
5 97+950 96+577 over River 9x1.8 New 4 Lane 2 2 - 1.00 – 3.50
Sukhi
Major Bridge 12-cell arch + 3-
6 - 104+241 over River span slab New 4Lane 2 4 - 6.50 – 15.00
MACHNA (15 x 8.5 x3.3)
B) FLY OVER
Starting of
Budhni-
Hoshangabad-
1 - 27+580 - New 2 Lane 2 2 - 1.50 – 5.00
Itarsi
Combined
Bypass
Fly Over at the
2 - 39+972 intersection - New 2 Lane 2 2 - 16.50 – 30.00
with SH 22
Fly Over near
3 - 58+925 Ordinance - New 2 Lane 1 - - 15.00
Factory
C) ROB
Along
proposed
Budhni- ROB (Railway
1 Hoshangabad- 53+450 crossing Itarsi - New 2 Lane 2 2 - 30.00
Itarsi to Jabalpur)
Combined
Bypass
ROB (Railway Existing to be
2 66+400 64+740 crossing Itarsi 1x23 retained + New 2 2 - - 7.50 – 20.00
to Nagpur) Lane
4-2
No. of Boreholes
Existing Span
(m)
ment
ROB (Railway
Existing to be
crossing
3 88+100 86+559 1x17 retained + New 2 2 - - 4.00 – 8.00
Itarshi to
Lane
Nagpur)
D) MINOR BRIDGE
Minor Bridge Widening by
1 4+200 4+190 2x6.6 1 - - 13.50
over Nallah New 4 Lane
2 4+700 4+701 4x5.4 1 - - 14.50
Minor Bridge Widening by 4
3 14+350 14+350 3x5.2 1 - - -
over Nallah New Lane
4 16+000 16+000 4x5.6 1 - - -
5 16+750 16+750 2x5.8 1 - - -
6 22+300 22+300 3x6.1 1 -- -- 3.20
Minor
7 -- 34+980 Bridge over -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
Nallah
Minor Bridge
8 -- 36+540 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 25.00
over Nallah
Minor Bridge
9 -- 39+475 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
over Nallah
Minor Bridge
10 -- 40+465 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 10.00
over Nallah
Minor Bridge
11 -- 42+170 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 25.00
over Canal
Minor Bridge
12 -- 43+460 over Nallah / -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 25.00
Canal
Minor Bridge
13 -- 50+360 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
over Nallah
Minor Bridge
14 -- 56+080 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 10.00
over Canal
Minor Bridge
15 -- 57+650 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
over Canal
Minor Bridge
16 -- 57+690 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 10.00
over Canal
17 67+850 66+086 1x0.5 1 -- -- 10.50
18 69+050 67+349 6x0.9 1 -- -- 20.00
Minor Bridge
Widening by
19 70+500 68+863 over Sukhi 6x3.0 1 1 -- 20.00
New 4 Lane
River (Kesla)
20 71+700 70+038 3x3.6 1 -- -- 15.00
21 72+900 71+209 4x8.3 1 1 -- 20.00
Minor Bridge
1x12+1x27+1x Widening by
22 79+600 77+900 over Tawa 1 1 -- 4.00 – 5.00
12 New 4 Lane
River
23 83+300 81+635 3x0.75 1 -- -- 5.50
Minor Bridge
Widening by
24 86+050 84+364 over Sukhi 3x0.75 1 -- -- 3.00
New 4 Lane
River (Dhar)
4-3
No. of Boreholes
Existing Span
(m)
ment
Minor Bridge
over Widening by
25 91+800 90+175 7x2.0 1 -- -- 7.00
Polapattar New 4 Lane
River
Minor Bridge
over Widening by
26 99+400 97+912 4x4.5 1 -- -- 3.30
Magardoh New 4 Lane
River
Along
proposed Minor Bridge
27 103+576 - New 4 Lane 1 - - 8.00
Shapur over Nallah
Bypass
Along
proposed Minor Bridge
28 105+625 - New 4 Lane 1 - - 7.50
Shapur over Nallah
Bypass
New 4 Lane +
Minor Bridge Reconstruction(2
29 113+975 112+307 1x4.6 1 -- -- 7.50
over Nallah Lane Left
alignment)
New 4 Lane +
Minor Bridge Reconstruction(2
30 114+380 112+698 1x6.0 1 -- -- 9.00
over Nallah Lane Left
alignment)
Existing to be
Minor Bridge
31 116+800 115+005 1x6.0 retained + New 4 1 -- -- 9.00
over Nallah
Lane
Existing to be
Minor Bridge
32 118+610 116+975 1x2.8 retained + New 4 1 -- -- 7.50
over Nallah
Lane
Existing to be
Minor Bridge
33 119+620 117+961 1x2.1 retained + New 4 1 -- -- 7.00
over Nallah
Lane
Existing to be
Minor Bridge
34 120+610 118+961 2x6.0 retained + New 4 1 -- -- 10.00
over Nallah
Lane
Existing to be
Minor Bridge
35 121+050 119+352 1x3.0 retained + New 4 1 -- -- 10.00
over Nallah
Lane
36 121+450 119+800 1x8.0 1 -- -- 8.40
Along Minor Bridge
37 proposed 123+116 over Panghat - New 4 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
Padar Bypass Nallah
Existing to be
Minor Bridge
38 129+500 127+026 1x3.0 retained + New 4 1 -- -- 4.50
over Nallah
Lane
Existing to be
Minor bridge
39 131+400 129+416 1x3.0 retained + New 4 1 - -- 3.50
over Nallah
Lane
Existing to be
Minor Bridge
40 135+950 134+406 2x4.0 retained + New 4 1 -- -- 10.50
over Nallah
Lane
E) VUP
Along
proposed
1 32+925 VUP - New 2 Lane 1 - - 15.00
BUDNI
Bypass
4-4
No. of Boreholes
Existing Span
(m)
ment
Along
VUP
proposed
2 35+610 (Bandraba - - New 2 Lane 1 - - 15.00
BUDNI
Bandh Road)
Bypass
Along
proposed VUP (Raipur
3 37+300 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
BUDNI Road)
Bypass
Along VUP
proposed (Chandrap-ura
4 43+800 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
BUDNI to Limsadia
Bypass Road)
Along
VUP (Nittya to
proposed
5 45+245 Byavara -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
BUDNI
Road)
Bypass
Along VUP
proposed (Resalpur to
6 47+240 -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
BUDNI Nimsida
Bypass Road)
Along
VUP
proposed
7 48+780 (Dhokhera -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
BUDNI
Village)
Bypass
Along
VUP
proposed
8 51+380 (Tararoda -- New 2 Lane 1 -- -- 15.00
BUDNI
Road)
Bypass
Along
proposed
9 104+858 VUP - New 4 Lane 1 - - 8.00
Shapur
Bypass
Along
VUP (Padar
10 proposed 121+765 -- New 4 Lane 1 -- -- 6.00
By Pass)
Padar Bypass
F) PUP
Along the
proposed
1 102+350 PUP -- New 4 Lane 1 -- -- 6.00
Shapur
Bypass
Along the
proposed
2 103+294 PUP -- New 4 Lane 1 -- -- 6.00
Shapur
Bypass
Along the
proposed
3 104+350 PUP -- New 4 Lane 1 -- -- 10.00
Shapur
Bypass
Along the
4 proposed 120+200 PUP -- New 4 Lane 1 -- -- 10.00
Padar Bypass
Along the
5 proposed 121+000 PUP -- New 4 Lane 1 -- -- 9.00
Padar Bypass
Note: 1) Chainages for Structure along Bypass has been finalised based on Topographic Survey details.
2) Number & Location of Boreholes may vary slightly as per Subsoil and Site conditions
3) Boreholes are conducted at Approved Widening Side along the Proposed Designed Alignment of Road.
4-5
The boring termination criteria for various structures are summarized below in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Boring Termination Criteria
Structure Type Boring Termination Criteria
35.0 – 40.0 m or 6.0 m into continuous weathered rock or 3.0 m into continuous
Major Bridges (Length >60m), Flyovers, ROB hard rock (C.R. > 0%), whichever is earlier; Few borings may be taken into fair to
excellent quality rock (C.R.> 50%, RQD> 50%)
Minor Bridges (Length >30m and <=60m)
20.0 - 25.0 m or 6.0 m into continuous weathered or 3.0 m into continuous hard
Minor Bridges (Length <30 m) but any of the span length
rock (C.R. > 0%), whichever is earlier.
> 10.0 m
Minor Bridges (Length >=6m and < 30.0m),
15.0 – 20.0 m or 6.0 m into continuous weathered rock or 3.0 m into continuous
Underpasses, RUBs, Hill Cut Sections & Culverts (at
hard rock (C.R. > 0%), whichever is earlier.
bypasses)
Approach Embankments of Major Bridges, Flyovers &
25.0 m or 6.0 m into continuous weathered, whichever is earlier.
ROB
4.2.1. Methodology of Investigation
(A) Field Investigation
The boreholes were progressed using a mechanized shell and auger for overburden soil. Where caving of the borehole
occurred, 150 mm diameter casing was used to keep the borehole stable. Where hard strata / very severely weathered rock
strata was encountered, borehole was advanced by chiselling. The chisel was attached to heavy sinker bars to progress the
borehole. Percussion drilling or T.C. bit or diamond rotary drilling shall be adopted for soft and hard rock, using NX size
double tube core barrel. The work shall be in general accordance with IS: 1892-1979. The soil samples, in general, shall be
obtained at every 1.5m or suitable intervals, or at significant change of strata. The soil samples consisted of Split-Spoons
(disturbed) and Shelby tubes (undisturbed).
The in-situ tests in the soil borings consisted of the standard penetration tests (SPTs). The undisturbed Shelby tube
samples were taken alternately with the split-spoons or in the cohesive or partly cohesive soils only. All recovered rock core
pieces obtained from drilling were stored in standard core boxes and preserved for future references. For each run, core
recovery and rock quality designation were noted and each core were numbered from top downward with good quality
enamel paint. In addition to the soil samples, groundwater samples were also obtained from various borings.
The field observations included visual classification of soil types, measurement of groundwater table. All field investigation
works were performed in accordance with the following current applicable IS codes as given in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: BIS Codes Used in Field Exploration Works
Field Investigation IS Code Referred
Soil Classification IS: 1498 - 1970
Soil Boring IS: 1892 - 1979
Rock Drilling IS: 4464 – 1967, IS: 5313 – 1980, IS: 4078
Sampling IS: 2132 – 1986, IS: 8763 – 1978, IS: 9640 - 1980
In-situ testing IS: 2131 - 1981
Ground water table measurement in borehole IS: 6935 - 1973
(B) Laboratory Testing
The laboratory-testing program consisted of testing the soil index and strength properties, as well as the consolidation
characteristics. In addition, chemical tests were performed on soil and groundwater samples.
The index tests were performed to determine the soil moisture content, unit weight, specific gravity, gradation characteristics
(gravel, sand and fines content – the silt & clay fractions) and consistency limit. The strength tests were performed to
determine the shear parameters (cohesion, friction angle) of soil; the consolidation tests were performed to find out the
consolidation properties (preconsolidation pressure, initial void ratio, compression & recompression index, coefficient of
volume compressibility and vertical consolidation).
4-6
The index tests were performed on disturbed split-spoon soil samples or undisturbed samples, except the natural moisture
content and dry density tests, which were performed only on the undisturbed soil samples.
The strength tests consisted of the direct shear box and the Tri-axial Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) test. The consolidation
characteristics tests were performed on a one-dimensional consolidometer. The strength and consolidation tests were
performed on undisturbed soil samples.
The index and strength tests were performed on both cohesive and cohesion less soil samples. The consolidation tests
were performed on predominantly cohesive soil samples. The chemical tests consisted of pH, chloride and sulphate
contents.
Unconfined compression, point load index, water absorption and porosity, unit weight tests were conducted on rock
wherever cores were recovered. If RQD obtained was nil to poor, point load index test, otherwise unconfined compression
test were conducted on selected rock cores.
The tests were performed according to the Indian Standards (IS) code of practice for testing of soil, rock and groundwater
samples. The various IS codes of testing used in the program are listed in the following Table 4-5.
Table 4-5: BIS Codes Followed in Laboratory Tests
Laboratory Test Number of IS Code
Natural Moisture Content IS: 2720 (Part-II)-1973
Specific Gravity IS: 2720 (Part-III)-1980
Particle Size Analysis IS: 2720 (Part-IV)-1985
Liquid & Plastic Limits IS: 2720 (Part-V)-1985
Unconfined Compression IS: 2720 (Part-X)-1991
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Triaxial Shear IS: 2720 (Part-XI)-1993
Consolidated Undrained (CU) and Consolidated Drained (CD) Triaxial Shear IS: 2720 (Part-XII)-1981
Direct Shear IS: 2720 (Part-XIII)-1986
One-Dimensional Consolidation IS: 2720 (Part-XV)-1986
Modified Proctor Compaction IS: 2720 (Part-VIII)-1983
Free Swell Index IS: 2720 (Part-XL)-1977
Swelling Pressure IS: 2720 (Part-41)-1977
Permeability IS: 2720 (Part-17)-1986
Point load index of Rock IS: 8764 - 1978
Unconfined Compression IS: 9143 - 1979
Water Absorption & Porosity IS: 1124 & 1122
Unit Weight -
pH (Soil) IS: 2720 (Part-XXVI)-1973
Sulphate Content (Soil) IS: 2720 (Part-XXVII)-1977
Chloride Content (Soil) -
Chemical Analysis (Water) IS: 3025 – 1964
4.3. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF AREA
4.3.1. General Geology of Madhyapradesh State
The oldest group of rocks comprising of Archaeans and Proterozoic formation .These group of formation constitute nearly
45% area of the state. They are overlain by younger formation of Carboniferous to lower Cretaceous comprising Gondwana
Super Group, which covers 10% area. The formation of Cretaceous to Paleocene comprising mostly of Deccan Trap basalt.
They occupy 38% area of the state.
A brief geological succession can be expressed as follows:
4-7

The Geotechnical investigation carried out for proposed four lanning of the Obaidullaganj – Betul section of NH 69 in MP
covers mainly Betul, Hosangabad and Bhopal districts of MP.
As Geology of the region does not follow the geographical/political outlines, we have incorporated all the three districts.
4.3.1.1. General Geology of Betul District
Betul district is underlain by various geological formations, forming different types of the aquifer in the area. Main geological
units of the area are, Archean, Gondwana Lameta, Deccan traps, Laterite and soils. The hard rocks are consisting of
primary & secondary porosity like joints and fractures in gondwana sandstone and vasicular basalts. In deccan traps also
have some extent of primary porosity play an important role in ground water movement.
Following is the Geological succession of the Betul district.
4-8
Various formations present in the district are as follows.
Achaeans: ‐
The crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks cover approximately 20% of the total district area. The igneous rocks are
intensive granite and pegmatite veins intruding the metamorphic rocks. Quartz pegmatite veins are common features and
occur as broad dykes and thin strings.
The archeans are mainly occupying the Beutal, Chicholi, Multai and Amla regions. These rocks do not have primary
porosity. The weathered part of the crystalline rocks is called saprolite. The thickness of these zones in the entire district
area ranges from 2.5 to 30.00 m. in this formation, aquifers also occurs where bed rock and quartz pegmatite intensive vein
are jointed and fractures.
Gondwana: ‐
The Gondwana rocks comprise succession of sand stone, shales with seems of coal lying over themetamorphic rocks of
crystalline archean system with a district unconformity. The beds of Gondwana rocks are distributed in patches and lie in a
liner trends coinciding almost with the present river valleys. There rocks show considerable faulting. The Talchir beds
consisting of sandstone and green clays with boulders contain plant fossils. There are bounded by faults. In the west and
North West of Betul, there are Gondwana rocks which separate Deccan traps from archeans rocks. Barkars of Gondwana
group contains coal seams. In Gondwana system mostly groundwater structures tapped sandstone and argillaceous shale
and rarely clays.
Deccan Traps: ‐
Deccan traps comprising varies types of basaltic lava flows and most extensive rocks in the district. There rocks occupying
in Betul, Multai, Bhimpura, Chicholi, Bhainsdehi, Atner and Prabkat pattam regions. The base of the flow consists of porous
layers of earthy basalt which passes rapidly into the main body. Generally the Deccan trap in the area occurs in the form of
fractures, weathered and vesicular basalts.
4.3.1.2. General Geology of Hosangabad District
The district is bounded by Satpura ranges is south and by Narmada River in the north. The area slopes North West towards
the Narmada River. The slope is generally steep at the foot hills of Satpura but moderate to gentle towards Narmada River.
The land surface attains a maximum altitude of 1352 m above MSL at Dhupgarh (77022’30”: 22027”00”), near Panchmarhi
and minimum altitude of 270 m, above MSL at confluence of Ganjal river with the Narmada (77012’30”: 22033’30”).
4-9
The area may be divided into three zones on the basis of the Physiography:
1. The Satpura range in the South,
2. An Alluvial plain in the middle and,
3. Badland topography zone confined to the vicinity of Narmada River,
The maximum width of the valley between Satpura and Narmada River is about 30 kms.
The adamgarh hill stands out in the valley portion near Hoshangabad and another hill also stands out in the valley portion is
near Chautalia village close to Narmada river. A large number of north westerly flowing tributaries originating from the
Satpura join the Narmada along the left bank.
Soils of the area are characterized by black grey, red and yellow colours, often mixed with red and black alluvium and
ferruginous red gravel or lateritic soils. These soils are commonly known black soils. About15% of the area is covered by
sandy loam soils immediately on the high bank of Tawa river. Remainingpart is occupied by clay loam with big pockets of
sandy clay loam and sandy loam. The permeability ofthe soil is low when the clay contains montmorillonite. They swell
intensively when wet and shrink with deep cracks when dry.
The rocks occurring in the district range in age from paleoproterozoic to quaternary. The Mahakoshal Group of rocks mainly
comprises quartzite, slate and phyllites. The rocks of Vindhyan Supergroupcomprise Bhander Group & consist of Lower
Bhander sandstone which is fine to coarse grained and at places pebbly and quartzitic.
The Gondwana sequence belonging to the Gondwana basin of Central India comprises of Talchir, Barkar, Motur, Bijori,
Panchmari, Denwa, Bagra and Jabalpur Formations. The Talchir formation comprises tillite, fine to medium grained
sandstone and grey to olive green shale. The Barkar Formation is dominantly made up of coarse grained feldpathic
sandstone, grey shale and carbonaceous shale. Motur Formationoverlies Barkar Formation with a gradational contact. It
comprises coarse grained sandstone with pebblyinterbands, variegated shale and clay. The Bijori Formation is exposed as
a broad band of olive and buff coloured clays and shale, alternating with massive sandstone. The Panchmarhi Formation
consists of thick beds of coarse to granular, white arenite or grawacke, separated by lenses or thin layers oc conglomerate
and thin red clay bands. The Denwa Formtion consists mainly of alternating bands of sandstone and red to variegated
calcareous clay. The Bagra Foramtion comprises of conglomerate variegated shales and subordinate limestone bands.
The youngest Gondwana sequence is represented by Jabalpur Formation. It consists mainly of massive sandstone
alternating with white clays. Lenses of conglomerate are common. Discontinuous patchy exposures of Lamet Group are
seen east of Barapura, Gotabari and Tangna, the basaltic lava flows of Deccan trap are well exposed in the southern and
south western part of the district. These flows, grouped under Satpura Group are mainly of ‘Aa’ type and non-porphyritic to
porphyritic to mega porphyritic in nature. The thickness of individual flows varies from 15m to 47m. The Satpura Group
comprises of 18 to 21 basaltic flows which are further classified in 5 Formations. Numerous dykes and sills, mostly of
doleritic composition intrude the Gondwana rocks and basaltic flows.
The dykes range in the length from few hundred meters to few Kilometers, with width ranging from few meters to few
hundred meters. Most of the dykes trend in NE-SW direction. Quaternary Narmada alluvial deposits occupy a major part of
the district have been divided into seven litho-stratigraphic formations viz. Surajkund formation, Beneta formation, Hirdepur
formation, Bauras formation and Ramgarh formation, on the basis of lithological characters, degree of oxidation, calcification
of the sediments, erosional unconformities, soil stratigraphy, morpho‐stratigraphy and presence of volcanic ash.
4-10
Vindhyans:
Upper Vindhyans are represented by lower Bhander sandstone, exposed in south of Hoshangabad in Adamgarh quarry and
at the confluence of Hather nala and river Narmada, north of Misrod and Dhamasa village near Chautalai village. These
sandstones are medium grained, hard compact, red light pink in colour and dip 12* due N. Top of sandstone is buff coloured
and fine grained and traversed by two sets of joints, one parallel to the strike and another at right angles to it. The rocks
have poor groundwater potential as they form hills in the district. The Vindhyan sandstone serves as a good building stone.
Gondwanas:
Lower Gondwanas are well exposed in the Satpura region of the district on the sides of upper Denwa valley in the southern
base of Panchmarhi hills, and at the confluence of the Anjan river and at Pathapani due north of Fatehpur. The lower
Gondwana are divided into the Talchirs (pebbles and Boulders and green clays shale and sandstones) and the Damuda
series (white to brown coloured , coarse grained sandstones, micaceous flagstones, grits, conglomerates, shales and
carbonaceous shale. Damuda series of the lower Gondwanas is overlain by the rocks of the Mahadeva (Coarse grained red
to buff coloured Pachmarhi sandstone with thin intercalation of pebbles, red Denwa clays containing calcite nodules, with a
few bands of white to yellow sandstones and Bagra conglomerates and pebbles beds with occasional bands of calcareous
sandstones, variegated clays, limestone and dolomites) and Jabalpur series (soft, fine grained, occasionally pebbly
sandstones with thin subordinated bands of conglomerate, earthy hematite coal, carbonaceous red clays, shale and chert)
of Upper Gondwana system. Gondwana rocks are criss-crossed by dykes/sills in the southern part of the district.
In the Gondwana occupying the southern part of the district, the aquifers are formed by fractured/wethered occurring below
alluvium from confined/semiconfined aquifer which are not groundwater potential. Gondwana rocks at Pathrai, Taron,
Mahuakhera, Sohagpur, Manegaon, Pathrota, Guraria and Kalkuhi are water bearing zones. The pachmarhi sandsrone
especially in Pachmarhi are hard and massive may have water due to fractured and jointed nature.
Deccan Trap: ‐
Deccan Trap basaltic lava flows are exposed in the southern part of the district and also criss-cross the Gondwana
formations as dykes and are also encountered as basement rocks below alluvium around Powarkhera and Itarsi.
4-11
Alluvium: ‐
The alluvium aquifer system in the district is the most extensive. Two to three granular zones and at places more number of
potential granular zones comprising of fine to medium to coarse grained sand, gravel sand, gravel and pebbles and laterite
are encountered in alluvium.
4.3.1.3. General Geology of Bhopal District
In general the topography around Bhopal is undulating with hills formed by Vindhyan formations and valleys occupied by
alluvium and basalts. Basaltic formation is underlain by Vindhyan. The Vindhyan sandstones occur with intercalation of
Shale and conglomerates at deeper depths.
The quartzitic and ferruginous sandstone is reported to be compact with poor permeability.
The upper part of Vindhyan is weathered sandy alluvium with pebbles. The weathered basalt overlying the Vindhyan is
variable, shallow and poor in groundwater potential.
The top is covered with black cotton soil followed by gray to black silty clay. It is underlain by weathered basalt Further it is
followed by yellow and white silty clay, the sandy alluvium with pebbles. This zone is further followed by hard sandstone
Most of the part of the Bhopal district is covered by Deccan trap basaltic flow and Vindhyan sandstone of Bhander group.
The rock exposed around Obidullaganj is sandstone of Barker group. These rocks show weathering effect for the upper
layers.
In Conclusion it can be said that the proposed four lanning of the Obaidullaganj – Betul section of NH 69 in MP passes from
Betul Gneiss (Metamorphic rocks) from Betul to barker formation (Consolidted sandstone - Sedimentary rocks) of Vindhyan
group and pebbles and Boulders and green clays, shale and sandstones of Talchair formations (Unconsolidated as well as
consolidated Sedimentary rocks) of Lower Gondwana between Betul and Hoshangabad.
At places between Betul and Hosangabad, Deccan trap basaltic flow (Basic volcanic Igneous rocks) may encounter. The
alluvium cover (Recent to Quaternary sedimentary formations) of quaternary age is widely exposed at and around
Hosangabad. The four lanes reach up to Obidullaganj, and the area is exposed by the Barker Sandstone formation of
Vindhyan group.
4.4. GROUND WATER TABLE

The ground water table as measured in the boreholes are summarized in Table 4-6. Majority of the rivers in this stretch are
not perennial and flashy in nature except River Narmada. Fluctuations may occur in measured water levels due to seasonal
variation in rainfall and surface evaporation rates as well as flow of water in the drain.
4.5. SEISMICITY OF AREA

The occurrence of earthquakes generally depends on the geo-tectonic conditions of the region. Seismicity is associated with
the zones of weaknesses, such as shear zones, fractures, faults, thrust-blocks and so on.
As per the latest seismic hazard map, the project site is located in Zone III. The zone factor of this area as per IS: 1893 (Part
1): 2002, depending on the perceived maximum seismic risk characterised by Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), is
0.12.
4-12
4.6. SITE-SPECIFIC SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS

The site-specific sub-surface conditions at the project site have been characterized using the field and laboratory-testing
data obtained during exploration. Generally, the sub-soil comprises of following four different stratums:
 Stratum I: Silty Clay / Clayey Silt with Sand,

 Stratum II: Silty Sand / Clayey Sand / Gravelly Sand intermixed with Boulder,
 Stratum III: Boulder intermixed with sand,
 Stratum IV: Highly Weathered Rock,
 Stratum V: Severely / Moderately Weathered Rock.
The top Silty Clay / Clayey Silt with sand layer is underlain by Silty Sand / Clayey Sand / very dense Gravelly Sand
intermixed with Boulder. This is followed by Boulder intermixed with sand layer. This layer is followed by highly weathered
rock whose core recovery varies from nil to 20%. In this case, rock material either is completely converted to soil or more
than half of the rock material is decomposed and/ or disintegrated to soil. Rock fabric is, in general, discernible i.e. the
original rock mass structure is still found to be largely intact. SPT value is refusal in this stratum. The severely to moderately
weathered rock, which is lying beneath the highly weathered rock, is having core recovery more than 20%. Table 4-6
summarizes the stratification with lower and upper limit of elevations for majority of the important structures.
Based on soil classification / rock weathering, consistency / compactness / soundness, compressibility / plasticity, etc., soil /
rock profiles for all-important structures were considered to evaluate and assess the behaviour of soil / rock strata. The soil /
rock profiles were prepared for locations where two or more borings per site were executed. For locations with one boring
per site, the sub-soil conditions were derived from boring data itself. Wherever the boreholes were not available at particular
structure location, adjoining borehole data were used for analysis. The soil / rock profiles for flyovers, ROB, major & minor
bridges indicating soil / rock type with respect to depth (RL), “N” value, position of ground water table, core recovery and
RQD for rock is presented in Table 4-6 below. The bore logs, which include field observations and laboratory test results of
various structures, are detailed in APPENDIX – 4.1 entitled “Geotechnical Investigation Data”.
Table 4-6: Summary of Anticipated Sub-soil Conditions for Major & Minor Bridges / ROB / Flyovers / Vehicular Underpasses /
Pedestrian Underpasses
Sub-surface Conditions
Approximate Elevations/ Range of Elevations of Bottom of
Soil Strata (m)
Proposed Ground
Silty
Type of Chainage of Borehole Existing Clay / Highly Water
Structure Structure No. Ground/ Clayey Silty Sand / Clayey Sand Boulder
Weathered Elevation
(km) / Gravelly Sand intermixed Moderately Weathered (m)
Bed Silt Rock (CR<
intermixed with Boulder with sand Rock (CR> 20%) – Layer V
Level with 20%) – Layer
– Layer II – Layer III
(M) Sand - IV
Layer I
A) MAJOR BRIDGES
0–
BH 1 100.00 16.50 16.50 – 19.50 ± - - 19.50 – 22.50 ± 95.500
±
0–
BH 2 100.00 15.00 15.00 – 19.00 ± - - 19.00 – 22.00 ± 95.000
31+050 ±
Major Bridge (Gunjari BH 3 100.00 - 0 – 11.00 ± - - 11.00 – 14.00 ± 95.000
Nallah) 0–
BH 4 100.00 16.50 16.50 – 19.50 ± - - 19.50 – 24.00 ± 95.100
±
0–
BH 5 100.00 16.50 16.50 – 19.50 ± - - 19.50 – 24.00 ± 95.100
±
4-13
Soil Strata (m)
Proposed Silty Ground
Weathered Elevation
Bed Silt Rock (CR<
(M) Sand - IV
Layer I
0–
11.50 –
BH P2 100.00 11.50 - - - 96.000
18.00 ±
±
7.50 –
BH P3 100.00 - 0 – 7.50 ± - - 97.500
28.50 ±
21.00
– 6.00 –
BH P4 100.00 0 – 6.00 ± - - 97.000
26.00 21.00 ±
±
1.00 – 2.00 –
BH P5 100.00 0 – 1.00 ± - - 99.000
2.00 ± 20.00 ±
34+400 1.20 –
Major Bridge (River 2.00 ±
Narmada) &
2.00 –
BH P6 100.00 12.00 0 – 1.20 ± - - 99.500
12.00 ±
–
15.00
±
2.50 –
BH P25 100.00 - 0 – 2.50 ± - - 99.000
15.00 ±
6.00 –
BH P26 100.00 - 0 – 6.00 ± - - 98.500
29.00 ±
1.00 – 0 – 1.00 ± 12.00 –
BH P27 100.00 10.00 - - 89.500
& 10.00 – 12.00 ± 21.00 ±
±
0–
BH 1 98.620 25.00 - - - - 92.120
55+160 ±
Major Bridge (Tawa
Canal) 0–
BH 3 98.375 25.00 - - - - 91.375
±
0–
BH 1 98.350 - - 1.50 – 5.00 ± 5.00 - 8.00 ± 95.350
1.50 ±
BH 2 96.950 - 0 – 3.00 ± - - 3.00 – 5.00 ± 94.650
92+870 BH 3 95.800 - 0 – 3.00 ± - - 3.00 – 4.50 ± 95.400
Major Bridge (River 4.00 – 5.00 ± &
Bhounra) 5.00 – 6.00 ± & 8.00 – 9.50 ±
BH 4 97.700 - 0 – 4.00 ± - 6.00 – 8.00 ± & 94.700
& 10.50 – 16.50 ±
9.50 – 10.50 ±
0–
BH 5 98.820 4.00 – 6.00 ± - 6.00 – 7.00 ± 7.00 – 12.00 ± 95.820
4.00 ±
BH 1 99.850 - - - - 0 – 3.00 ± 97.350
96+577 BH 2 96.180 - - - - 0 – 1.00 ± 95.380
Major Bridge
(River Sukhi) BH 3 95.250 - - - - 0 – 1.00 ± 95.250
BH 4 99.930 - 0 – 0.50 ± - - 0.50 – 3.50 ± 97.330
4.00 –
BH 1 98.350 - 0 – 4.00 ± - 12.00 – 15.00 ± 90.850
12.00 ±
104+241 0 – 4.00 ±
Major Bridge (River BH 2 92.400 - 4.00 – 5.50 ± & 5.50 – - 6.50 – 7.50 ± 91.200
Machna) 6.50 ±
5.00 –
BH 3 91.500 - 0 – 5.00 ± - 6.00 – 9.00 ± 91.500
6.00 ±
4-14
Soil Strata (m)
Weathered Elevation
Bed Silt Rock (CR<
(M) Sand - IV
Layer I
4.70 –
BH 4 91.700 - 0 – 4.70 ± - 5.50 – 6.50 ± 91.450
5.50 ±
BH 5 92.400 - 3.00 – 4.50 ± 0 – 2.00 ± - 2.00 – 3.00 ± & 4.50 – 7.50 ± 91.900
5.00 – 8.00
BH 6 99.990 - 0 - 5.00 ± & 8.00 – 10.50 ± - 10.50 – 13.50 ± 91.990
±
B) PROPOSED FLYOVERS
0–
BH 1 100.00 - - - 2.00 – 5.00 ± 99.000
2.00 ±
0–
BH 2 100.00 - - - 0.60 – 2.50 ± 97.800
Flyover 27+200 0.60 ±
0–
BH 3 100.00 - - - 1.00 – 1.90 ± 98.500
1.00 ±
BH 4 100.00 - 0 – 0.50 ± - - 0.50 – 1.50 ± 99.500
0–
BH 1 99.400 4.50 – 13.50 ± - 13.50 – 19.50 ± - 88.900
4.50 ±
0–
BH 2 98.220 4.50 – 10.50 ± - 10.50 – 16.50 ± - 87.720
4.50 ±
13.50 –
15.00
±& 0 – 13.50 ± & 15.00 –
BH 3 98.750 - - - 88.250
17.00 – 17.00 ±
Flyover 39+590 30.00
±
0–
1.00 ±
& 9.00
– 15.00 1.00 – 9.00 ± & 15.00 –
BH 4 98.210 - - - 87.710
±& 16.50 ±
16.50 –
30.00
±
0–
Flyover 58+925 BH 1 98.720 10.50 10.50 – 15.00 ± - - - 87.720
±
C) PROPOSED ROBs
0–
BH 1 100.00 30.00 - - - - 96.50
±
0–
BH 2 100.00 30.00 - - - - 98.00
±
ROB 53+450
0–
BH 3 100.00 30.00 - - - - 98.25
±
0–
BH 4 100.00 30.00 - - - - 98.25
±
2.00 – 0 – 2.00 ± & 9.50 – 13.50
BH 1 98.920 - 13.50 – 17.00 ± 17.00 – 20.00 ± NE
9.50 ± ±
ROB 64+740
0–
BH 2 98.230 0.50 – 1.50 ± - 1.50 – 7.50 ± - NE
0.50 ±
4-15
Soil Strata (m)
Weathered Elevation
Bed Silt Rock (CR<
(M) Sand - IV
Layer I
BH 1 99.900 - 0 – 2.00 ± - 4.00 – 5.00 ± 2.00 – 4.00 ± & 5.00 – 8.00 ± NE
ROB 86+559 0–
BH 2 100.162 - - - 1.00 – 4.00 ± NE
1.00 ±
D) PROPOSED MINOR BRIDGES
0–
Minor Bridge 4+200 BH 1 100.00 - - 10.50 – 13.50 ± 7.50 – 10.50 ± 98.500
7.50 ±
0–
Minor Bridge 4+700 BH 1 100.00 6.00 – 8.50 ± - 8.50 – 14.50 ± - 98.500
6.00 ±
Minor Bridge 14+350 No Permission has been granted by Forest Dept. to carry out Geotechnical Investigation.
0–
Minor Bridge 22+300 BH 1 100.00 - - - 0.20 – 3.20 ± 97.500
0.20 ±
0–
Minor Bridge 34+980 BH 1 98.850 10.10 10.10 – 15.00 ± - - - 88.750
±
0–
Minor Bridge 36+540 BH 1 97.350 4.00 – 19.00 ± - 19.00 – 25.00 ± - 91.350
4.00 ±
1.00 –
6.00 ±
& 9.00 0 – 1.00 ± & 6.00 – 9.00 ±
Minor Bridge 39+475 BH 1 98.220 - - - 87.720
– & 14.00 – 15.00 ±
14.00
±
0–
Minor Bridge 40+465 BH 1 98.150 2.00 – 10.00 ± - - - NE
2.00 ±
0–
12.00
±&
13.50 –
Minor Bridge 42+170 BH 1 98.125 18.00 12.00 – 13.50 ± - - 84.125
18.00 ±
–
25.00
±
0–
5.00 ±
&
15.50
–
5.00 – 15.50 ± & 21.00 –
Minor Bridge 43+460 BH 1 98.650 21.00 - - - 94.150
22.00 ±
±&
22.00
–
25.00
±
0–
Minor Bridge 50+360 BH 1 98.950 15.00 - - - - NE
±
0–
Minor Bridge 56+080 BH 1 98.000 10.00 - - - - NE
±
0–
Minor Bridge 57+650 BH 1 98.210 15.00 - - - - 86.210
±
4-16
Soil Strata (m)
Weathered Elevation
Bed Silt Rock (CR<
(M) Sand - IV
Layer I
0–
0.60 ±
& 3.00
–
10.00
±
0– 4.00 – 5.00
Minor Bridge 66+086 BH 1 99.470 0.50 – 4.00 ± 5.00 – 7.50 ± 7.50 – 10.50 ± NE
0.50 ± ±
10.00
–
Minor Bridge 67+349 BH 1 98.980 0 – 10.00 ± - - - NE
20.00
±
0.40 –
BH 1 98.230 20.00 0 – 0.40 ± - - - 98.130
±
Minor Bridge 68+863
4.00 –
BH 2 98.200 20.00 - 0 – 4.00 ± - - 98.100
±
0–
6.00 ±
& 7.50
–
15.00
±
6.00 –
BH A1 99.000 10.00 - 0 – 6.00 ± 10.00 – 20.00 ± - 93.500
±
Minor Bridge 71+209 4.00 – 6.00 ± &
8.00 – 12.00 – 14.00 ± 3.00 – 4.00 ± & 6.00 – 8.00 ±
BH P1 97.500 12.00 - 0 – 3.00 ± & 15.00 – 17.00 & 14.00 – 15.00 ± & 17.00 – 97.000
± ± & 18.00 – 18.00 ±
20.00 ±
BH A1 97.000 - - - 0 – 1.00 ± 1.00 – 4.00 ± NE
Minor Bridge 77+900
BH P1 96.000 - 0 – 0.50 ± - 0.50 – 2.00 ± 2.00 – 5.00 ± 94.500
0.50 – 1.50 ± &
Minor Bridge 81+635 BH 1 99.520 - 0 – 0.50 ± - 1.50 – 3.50 ± & 4.50 – 5.50 ± NE
3.50 – 4.50 ±
Minor bridge 84+364 BH 1 99.640 - - - - 0 – 3.00 ± 98.640
0 – 1.00 ± &
Minor bridge 90+175 BH 1 100.030 - - - 1.00 – 2.00 ± & 4.00 – 7.00 ± NE
2.00 – 4.00 ±
0–
Minor bridge 97+912 BH 1 98.350 - - - 0.30 – 3.30 ± 96.350
0.30 ±
0–
Minor bridge 103+576 BH 1 99.950 3.00 – 5.00 ± - - 5.00 – 8.00 ± NE
3.00 ±
0– 0.50 – 2.50
Minor bridge 105+625 BH 1 99.750 2.50 – 4.50 ± - 4.50 – 7.50 ± 96.750
0.50 ± ±
Minor bridge 112+307 BH 1 98.750 - 0 – 1.70 ± - 1.70 – 6.00 ± 6.00 – 7.50 ± NE
Minor bridge 112+698 BH 1 95.440 - 0 – 9.00 ± - - - 94.440
0–
Minor bridge 115+005 BH 1 99.000 - - 3.00 – 9.00 ± - NE
3.00 ±
0–
Minor Bridge 116+975 BH 1 99.210 - - 1.50 – 7.50 ± - NE
1.50 ±
Minor bridge 117+961 BH 1 99.100 - 0 – 3.00 ± - 3.00 – 5.00 ± 5.00 – 7.00 ± NE
4-17
Soil Strata (m)
Weathered Elevation
Bed Silt Rock (CR<
(M) Sand - IV
Layer I
0–
Minor Bridge 118+961 BH 1 98.250 2.00 – 4.50 ± - 4.50 – 10.00 ± - NE
2.00 ±
Minor Bridge 119+352 BH 1 98.250 - 0 – 4.00 ± - 4.00 – 10.00 ± - NE
0–
Minor Bridge 119+800 BH 1 97.900 - - 2.40 – 5.40 ± 5.40 – 8.40 ± 95.900
2.40 ±
123+116 (in
0– 6.50 – 9.00 2.50 – 6.00 ± & 6.00 – 6.50 ± 14.00 – 15.00
Minor Bridge Padar BH 1 99.080 0.50 – 2.50 ± 98.080
0.50 ± ± 9.00 – 14.00 ± ±
Bypass)
Minor Bridge 127+026 BH 1 98.820 - 0 – 1.50 ± - - 1.50 – 4.50 ± 96.320
0–
Minor Bridge 129+416 BH 1 98.500 - - - 0.50 – 3.50 ± 96.000
0.50 ±
0+
Minor Bridge 134+406 BH 1 98.200 1.50 – 5.80 ± - 5.80 – 10.50 ± - 95.700
1.50 ±
E) PROPOSED VEHICULAR UNDER PASSES (VUP)
0–
VUP 32+925 BH 1 100.00 12.00 12.00 – 15.00 ± - - - 97.000
±
0–
VUP 35+610 BH 1 99.900 1.50 – 15.00 ± - - - 89.900
1.50 ±
0–
VUP 37+300 BH 1 99.380 12.00 12.00 – 15.00 ± - - - 90.380
±
0–
VUP 43+800 BH 1 99.220 7.00 – 15.00 ± - - - 94.720
7.00 ±
0–
VUP 45+245 BH 1 98.250 14.20 14.20 – 15.00 ± - - - 84.250
±
0–
5.00 ±
& 9.00 5.00 – 9.00 ± & 14.00 –
VUP 47+240 BH 1 98.250 - - - 89.750
– 15.00 ±
14.00
±
0–
VUP 48+780 BH 1 99.725 14.00 14.00 – 15.00 ± - - - NE
±
0–
VUP 51+380 BH 1 99.560 15.00 - - - - NE
±
0–
VUP 104+858 BH 1 99.950 3.00 – 5.00 ± - - 5.00 – 8.00 ± NE
3.00 ±
0–
VUP 121+765 BH 1 100.520 0.50 – 3.00 ± - - 3.00 – 6.00 ± NE
0.50 ±
F) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASSES (PUP)
0–
PUP 102+350 BH 1 99.750 1.50 – 3.00 ± - - 3.00 – 6.00 ± NE
1.50 ±
0–
PUP 103+294 BH 1 97.250 0.50 – 3.00 ± - - 3.00 – 6.00 ± NE
0.50 ±
PUP 104+350 BH 1 99.500 - 0 – 10.00 ± - - - NE
PUP 120+200 BH 1 99.000 - 0 – 10.00 ± - - - 98.500
PUP 121+000 BH 1 99.400 - 0 – 6.00 ± - 6.00 – 9.00 ± - NE
NOTE: 1. NE – Not encountered 2. Seasonal variation is expected in case of GWT
4-18
4.7. ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOIL & ROCK

The engineering properties e.g. gradation, consistency limits, bulk density, natural moisture content of cohesive or
cohesionless soil as obtained from laboratory test on disturbed/ undisturbed samples were generally adopted for analysis
purpose. The shear parameters determined from laboratory for loose to medium dense cohesionless soil have also been
used in design considerations. For cohesionless soil, angle of internal friction was estimated in accordance with IS: 6403 –
1981.
The completely to highly weathered rock has been treated as granular mass and based on SPT values, its shear
parameters have been assigned. Generally, continuous refusals have been observed in completely to highly weathered
rock. In case of severely to moderately weathered rock where cores were recovered, the rock was classified based on
geomechanics of jointed rock mass in terms of Rock Mass Rating (after Bieniawski 1989) as per IS: 13365 (Part I), 1998.
The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) was determined on the basis of strength of intact rock material, drill core quality (RQD),
spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, ground water and adjustment for discontinuity orientations. The RMR
works out to be around 8 and 63 respectively for highly weathered and moderately to partly weathered rock. These ratings
signify that the highly and moderately weathered rock belongs to a very poor and poor to fair rock mass class respectively.
The unconfined compressive strength of rock varies from 200 to 500 kg/cm2. A typical calculation for RMR in highly
weathered and moderately to partly weathered rock is presented in Table 4-7 below:
Table 4-7: Typical Rock Mass Rating (RMR) For Rock
Rating in Highly Weathered Rock Rating in Moderately to Partly Weathered Rock
Rock Parameters
Basis of Rating Rating Basis of Rating Rating
Strength of Intact Rock Compressive strength between 10 – 25 Compressive strength between 25 – 50
2 4
Material MPa MPa
Rock Quality Designation Poor RQD i.e. RQD ranges between 25%
Very Poor RQD i.e. RQD < 25% 3 8
(RQD) - 50%
Close spacing i.e. Spacing between 0.06m
Spacing of Discontinuities Very close spacing i.e. Spacing < 0.06m 5 8
– 0.2m
Slickensided wall rock surface or 1 – 5 mm Slightly rough and moderately to highly
Condition of
thick gauge or 1 – 5mm wide opening, 10 weathered wall rock surface, separation < 20
Discontinuities
continuous discontinuity 1mm
Ground Water Condition Dripping condition 4 Wet condition 7
Adjustment for Joint Strike and Dip orientation of joints for Raft Strike and Dip orientation of joints for Raft
-7 -7
Orientation foundation is “Fair” foundation is “Fair”
Based on the laboratory test results, the ranges of properties of each soil / rock stratum encountered at different locations
are presented below in Table 4-8
Table 4-8: Range of Engineering Properties of Sub-soil/ Rock
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/
Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
MAJOR BRIDGES
Silty Clay /
17 -
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - -
37
Sand - Layer I
Major Bridge
@ 31+050 Silty Sand /
(Gunjari Clayey Sand /
Nallah) Gravelly Sand 16 -
- - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with >100
Boulder –
Layer II
4-19
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately 21 /
Weathered (11
- - - - - - - -
Rock (CR> –
20%) – Layer V 19)
Silty Clay /
14 -
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - -
>100
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 13 -
- - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 30
Boulder –
Layer II
Major Bridge Boulder
@ 34+400 intermixed with 22 -
- - - - - - - - - - -
(River sand – Layer >100
Narmada) III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
17 - 19 - 1.81- 13.87- 5.0 - 9- 0.317-
Clayey Silt with 13.0 - - - -
84 40 2.10 30.23 32.9 28 0.396
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Major Bridge
@ 55+160 Boulder
intermixed with
(Tawa - - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
Canal)
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
4-20
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Clay /
17-
Clayey Silt with 8-15 1.59 13.94 3.5 12 - - - - - -
23
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand/
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 9- NP 1.65 - 11.19 - 0- 30 -
- - - - - -
intermixed with >100 -4 1.91 17.48 1.2 37
Boulder –
Layer II
Major Bridge Boulder
@ 92+844 intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(River sand – Layer
Bhounra) III
Highly
Weathered (0 -
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - 19) / 2.40 2.16 -
20%) – Layer 0
IV
Moderately (25-
Weathered 71) / 1.95 - 22.1 -
- - - - - - - - 2.36
Rock (CR> (0 - 2.39 53.0
20%) – Layer V 40)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
Major Bridge
intermixed with
@ 96+577 - - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
(River Sukhi)
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately (56-
Weathered 99) / 2.38- 287.0-
- - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR> (12- 2.55 697.3
20%) – Layer V 85)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - 8 1.74 14.30 3.50 30 - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Major Bridge
Gravelly Sand 8- NP 1.66 – 8.29 - 0– 7-
@ 103+860 - - - - - -
intermixed with >100 - 22 2.01 20.4 3.80 33
(River
Boulder –
Machna)
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with 60 - 1.79 – 10.27 – 33 -
NP 0 - - - - - -
sand – Layer >100 1.90 14.23 42
III
4-21
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(22
Moderately –
Weathered 79) / 2.57 – 3.70 – 79.9 –
- - - - - - - -
Rock (CR> (Nil 2.70 4.96 676.2
20%) – Layer V –
79)
FLYOVERs
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Fly Over @ sand – Layer
27+200 III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(22
Moderately –
Weathered 100)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR> / (Nil
20%) – Layer V –
100)
Silty Clay /
15- 23- 1.61- 15.87-
Clayey Silt with 10.5 15 - - - - - -
>100 55 1.92 42.32
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 13- NP 1.80- 10.25- 0– 14-
- - - - - -
intermixed with >100 - 37 2.06 19.09 8.0 34
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
Fly Over @ intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
39+590 sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
4-22
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Clay /
19- 1.80- 20.21- 6.2 –
Clayey Silt with 11-33 11 6.0 0.367 - - - -
25 1.94 22.23 36.4
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 28 -
>100 - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 30
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
Fly Over @ intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
ROB s
Silty Clay /
1.63- 10.42- 3.50- 0.259-
Clayey Silt with 8 -63 21-44 8 -24 7 - 20 - - - -
2.10 42.35 15.2 0.437
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
ROB @ intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
26- 24 -
Clayey Silt with 1.77 18.32 2.80 27 17.0 0.259 - - - -
>100 32
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 25 -
ROB @ 9 - 26 - - - - - - - - - -
64+740
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
4-23
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Highly
Weathered (Nil -
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - 7) / - - -
20%) – Layer Nil
IV
Moderately (50-
Weathered 76) /
- - - - - - - - 2.62 - 64.2
Rock (CR> (Nil-
20%) – Layer V 25)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand – Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 24 -
32 - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 25
Boulder-- Layer
II
Boulder
intermixed with - - - - - - - - - - - -
ROB @
sand – Layer III
86+559
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Severely
Weathered to (33-
Moderately 98) / 2.20- 83.0-
- - - - - - - - -
Weathered (Nil- 2.33 361.4
Rock (CR> 55)
20%) - Layer V
MINOR BRIDGE s
Silty Clay /
16 -
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - -
>100
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
Minor Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
@ 4+200
III
Highly
(11
Weathered
–
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - -
13) /
20%) – Layer
Nil
IV
(20
Moderately
–
Weathered
- - - - - - - - 25) / - - -
Rock (CR>
(Nil
20%) – Layer V
– 7)
Silty Clay /
Minor Bridge
Clayey Silt with 12 - - - - - - - - - - -
@ 4+700
Sand - Layer I
4-24
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 23 -
- - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 27
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered (7 –
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - 12) /
20%) – Layer Nil
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with No Permission has been granted by Forest Dept. to carry out Geotechnical Investigation.
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
No Permission has been granted by Forest Dept. to carry out Geotechnical Investigation.
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
Minor Bridge intermixed with
@ 14+350 sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< No Permission has been granted by Forest Dept. to carry out Geotechnical Investigation.
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
intermixed with
Boulder –
Minor Bridge Layer II
@16+000 Boulder
intermixed with
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
20%) – Layer
IV
4-25
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Moderately
Weathered
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
III
Highly
Weathered
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
Minor Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
@ 22+300
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(22
Moderately
–
Weathered
- - - - - - - - 23) / - - -
Rock (CR>
(Nil–
20%) – Layer V
15)
Silty Clay /
14 - 17- 1.85- 17.65-
Clayey Silt with 3.20 13 - - - - - -
22 32 2.07 24.82
Sand - Layer I
Minor Bridge Silty Sand /
@ 34+980 Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 25 -
NP - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 71
Boulder –
Layer II
4-26
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with 15 22 2.03 22.96 4.5 16 - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
12-66 NP - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
23 -
Clayey Silt with 10-68 1.76 17.07 5.5 18 - - - - - -
35
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 35 - 8-
1.97 16.87 - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 48 27
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
4-27
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - 21 1.78 19.24 2.0 11 - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 25 -
35 1.96 20.15 - - - - - - - -
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
35 - 1.85 - 19.54- 6.0 - 17 -
Clayey Silt with 23-60 8.0 0.307 - - - -
46 2.00 25.17 27.4 21
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
>100 25 - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
Minor Bridge intermixed with 40 -
22 1.83 11.05 1.5 31 - - - - - -
@ 42+170 sand – Layer 41
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
12 - 23 - 1.74 – 18.85 - 3.2 - 12 -
Clayey Silt with - - - - - -
>100 36 1.98 26.56 4.4 22
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
NP
Gravelly Sand 21- 1.87 –
Minor Bridge - 5.95 0 36 - - - - - -
intermixed with >100 2.00
@ 43+460 28
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
4-28
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
10 - 31 - 1.64 - 21.97 - 1.5 - 11 -
Clayey Silt with 21.0 0.292 - - - -
48 41 2.12 31.25 5.0 19
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
31 - 1.72 - 23.41 - 3.0 -
Clayey Silt with 9 - 18 8 18.0 0.358 - - - -
45 1.93 30.49 10.7
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Minor Bridge 11 - 19 - 1.70 - 24.37 -
Clayey Silt with 5.20 12 13.0 0.31 - - - -
@ 57+650 64 32 1.83 26.54
Sand - Layer I
4-29
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
13 - 21 - 1.64 - 16.27 - 3.2 -
Clayey Silt with 14 12.0 0.266 - - - -
50 24 1.89 24.43 17.6
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
11 18 - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 30 -
NP 1.78 4.36 0 33 - - - - - -
intermixed with 38
Boulder –
@ 66+086 Boulder
intermixed with
40 NP 1.99 7.96 0 44 - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< >100 8 - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
4-30
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Moderately (28-
Weathered 54) /
- - - - - - - - 2.35 - 72.5
Rock (CR> (Nil-
20%) – Layer V 10)
Silty Clay /
19 - 1.85 - 7.23 - 5.5 - 30 -
Clayey Silt with >100 - - - - - -
24 1.94 9.09 6.0 32
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 40 - 7– 1.79 - 6.06 - 1.5- 32 -
- - - - - -
intermixed with >100 14 1.86 9.25 3.2 34
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
14 - 17 - 1.87 - 14.23 - 6.2 - 12 -
Clayey Silt with - - - - - -
>100 41 2.05 20.21 8.0 30
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
18-24 NP - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
11 - 25 -
Clayey Silt with 1.84 15.63 5.5 19 15.0 0.263 - - - -
>100 30
Sand - Layer I
Gravelly Sand
31 30 1.90 14.54 3.5 30 - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
4-31
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
16 -
Clayey Silt with >100 2.15 6.66 5.0 30 - - - - - -
22
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
Minor Bridge >100 NP - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
@ 71+209
III
(Nil
Highly
–
Weathered
19) /
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - -
(Nil
20%) – Layer
–
IV
13)
Moderately (21-
Weathered 55) / 2.17 - 4.41 -
- - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR> (13- 2.48 6.76
20%) – Layer V 31)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- 24 - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered (Nil -
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - 8) / - - -
20%) – Layer (Nil)
IV
Moderately (30-
Weathered 97) / 2.24 - 112.5-
- - - - - - - - 3.47
Rock (CR> (11- 2.27 174.7
20%) – Layer V 87)
4-32
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- 23 - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered (15-
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - 17) / 2.19 - 46.7
20%) – Layer Nil
IV
Moderately (30-
Weathered 60) /
- - - - - - - - 2.26 - 69.1
Rock (CR> (Nil -
20%) – Layer V 11)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately (45-
Weathered 80) /
- - - - - - - - 2.26 - 157.1
Rock (CR> (Nil -
20%) – Layer V 39)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
Minor Bridge - - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
@ 90+175
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
4-33
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered 32 - 2.18 - 131.1 -
- - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR> 98 2.27 137.7
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately (75-
Weathered 92) /
- - - - - -- - - 2.83 - 307.0
Rock (CR> (28-
20%) – Layer V 59)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - 26 1.81 23.58 4.0 11 - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 33 -
25 - - - - - - - - - -
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Minor Bridge sand – Layer
@ 103+576 III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(60
Moderately –
Weathered 76) /
- - - - - - - - 2.52 - 245.2
Rock (CR> (44
20%) – Layer V –
72)
Silty Clay /
Minor Bridge
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
@ 105+625
Sand - Layer I
4-34
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- NP 1.80 15.65 0 36 - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
18 NP - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(35
Moderately –
Weathered 55) /
- - - - - - - - 2.45 3.54 77.9
Rock (CR> (Nil
20%) – Layer V –
10)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 9-
>100 2.0 - 5.2 37 - - - - - --
intermixed with 13
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered (Nil -
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - 19) / 2.51 6.1 -
20%) – Layer Nil
IV
Moderately
Weathered 27 /
- - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR> 12
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 26- 1.75- 14.65- 32-
Minor Bridge NP 0 - - - - - -
intermixed with >100 1.82 15.62 35
@ 112+698
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
4-35
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - 32 1.61 30.29 - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
>100 - 1.93 14.86 0 40 - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Minor Bridge
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
@ 117+961
Sand - Layer I
4-36
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
38 14 1.82 13.63 4.0 34 - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
(45-
Weathered
- - - - - - - - 50) / 2.86 - 901.9
Rock (CR>
20
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - 25 1.62 40.73 1.5 9 - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
39 12 1.85 13.62 2.0 35 - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 NP 2.0 10.31 0 41 - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
2.50
Gravelly Sand 15 - 2.02 - 12.03 - 32 -
11 - 11.0 0.129 - - - -
intermixed with 24 2.03 14.80 33
5.50
Boulder –
@ 119+352 Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 NP - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
4-37
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 NP - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately (50-
Weathered 53) /
- - - - - - - - 2.58 20.3 -
Rock (CR> (12-
20%) – Layer V 22)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
30 6 1.68 19.72 - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with 25 -
24 - - - - - - - - - -
Minor Bridge sand – Layer >100
@ 123+116 III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
(45
Moderately –
Weathered 90)
- - - - - - - - 2.50 - 1154.4
Rock (CR> / (Nil
20%) – Layer V –
15)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Gravelly Sand
- - 1.67 12.67 1.0 30 - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
4-38
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(86
Moderately –
Weathered 94) /
- - - - - - - - 2.53 - 191.3
Rock (CR> (65
20%) – Layer V –
81)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately (50 -
Weathered 56) /
- - - - - - - - 2.54 49.3 -
Rock (CR> (Nil -
20%) – Layer V 56)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - 35 1.66 28.51 2.3 7 - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
>100 NP - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 - - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
4-39
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
VEHICULAR UNDERPASSES
Silty Clay /
18 -
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - -
34
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 38 -
- - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 43
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
VUP @ intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 18 - 12 -
2.05 15.65 4.5 28 - - - - - -
intermixed with 50 20
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
23 - 25 - 1.82 - 13.42 -
Clayey Silt with 5.50 24 - - - - - -
45 41 1.89 28.57
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 44 -
VUP @ - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 50
37+300
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
4-40
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
11 - 32 - 1.70 - 20.91 - 5.0 -
Clayey Silt with 14 14.5 0.282 - - - -
12 39 1.75 21.92 14.0
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 30 -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
37 - 1.77 - 23.34 - 4.5 -
Clayey Silt with 9 - 32 8 17 0.379 - - - -
42 1.94 27.94 19.5
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
71 - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
VUP @ 12 - 1.99 - 24.21 - 2.5 -
Clayey Silt with 38 7 14.0 0.436 - - - -
47+240 40 2.09 24.25 24.5
Sand - Layer I
4-41
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 26 -
- - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with 51
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
11 - 24 - 3.5 -
Clayey Silt with 1.75 15.55 19 15.0 0.349 - - - -
28 36 12.0
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
38 - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
20 - 25 - 1.82 - 13.42 -
Clayey Silt with 5.50 24 - - - - - -
63 41 1.89 28.57
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
- - - - - - - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
VUP @ Layer II
51+380 Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
4-42
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - 26 1.81 23.58 4.0 11 - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 33 -
25 - - - - - - - - - -
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
VUP @ sand – Layer
104+858 III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(60
Moderately –
Weathered 76) /
- - - - - - - - 2.52 - 245.2
Rock (CR> (44
20%) – Layer V –
72)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand
>100 NP 1.83 8.93 0 40 - - - - - -
intermixed with
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately (25-
Weathered 70) /
>100 - - - - - - - 2.58 37.8 -
Rock (CR> (Nil-
20%) – Layer V 70)
PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASSES
Silty Clay /
PUP @
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
102+350
Sand - Layer I
4-43
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 16 -
- 1.86 10.40 3.5 28 - - - - - -
intermixed with 17
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately (51
Weathered –
- - - - - - - - 2.31 5.87 -
Rock (CR> 64) /
20%) – Layer V Nil
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
18
Gravelly Sand
13 – 1.76 15.23 3.5 33 - - - - - -
intermixed with
20
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
PUP @ sand – Layer
103+294 III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
(26
Moderately –
Weathered 50) /
- - - - - - - - 2.55 - 392.7
Rock (CR> (Nil
20%) – Layer V –
20)
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 9- 3- 1.72 – 14.23 –
PUP @ 2.5 33 - - - - - -
intermixed with >100 17 1.75 15.56
104+350
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
sand – Layer
III
4-44
For Soil For Rock
Unit Weight (gm/

Core Recovery /
Strength Index
Strength (Kg/
Compressive
Unconfined
Point Load
 (degree)
b (gm/cc)
Description of
NMC (%)
(Kg/cm2)
RQD (%)
Pc (t/m2)
SPT (N)
C (t/m2)
Structure
PI (%)
cm2)
Soil/Rock
cc)
Cc
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 10 -
NP 1.70 15.47 0 30 - - - - - -
intermixed with 31
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
PUP @ intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Rock (CR< - - - - - - - - - - - -
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Silty Clay /
Clayey Silt with - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sand - Layer I
Silty Sand /
Clayey Sand /
Gravelly Sand 30 -
NP 1.75 7.87 0 36 - - - - - -
intermixed with 41
Boulder –
Layer II
Boulder
PUP @ intermixed with
- - - - - - - - - - - -
III
Highly
Weathered
Nil /
Rock (CR< >100 NP - - - - - - - - -
Nil
20%) – Layer
IV
Moderately
Weathered
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock (CR>
20%) – Layer V
Note:
1) N : Standard Penetration Test; PI : Plasticity Index; b : Bulk density; NMC : Natural Moisture Content; C : Cohesion;  :
Angle of internal friction; Pc : Preconsolidation pressure; Cc : Compression index.
4-45
The bore logs including soil properties as evaluated from laboratory tests are presented in APPENDIX – 4.1 entitled
“Geotechnical Investigation Data”.
4.8. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS & DESIGN
4.8.1. Design of Embankments
A. Introduction
The existing alignment of NH-69 as well as the proposed widening to 2/4 lanes is having embankments whose heights may
vary from about 1.0 m to a maximum of 18.0 m. A perusal of the engineering characteristics of the foundation soils
presented in section “Site-Specific Sub-soil Conditions” indicates that the project stretch in general consists of from CL/MI to
SP-GP and underlain by highly to moderately weathered rock. As such, while running embankments can be designed using
routine engineering methods, the design of high embankments forming approaches to various major bridges, minor bridges,
ROBs, flyovers and underpasses etc. would require detailed analysis in respect of their slope stability and settlement
aspects. The bearing capacity aspect of the foundation soils did not appear to be critical in view of the good quality
foundation soils encountered. Accordingly, the following paragraphs focus on the evaluation of slope stability and settlement
aspects for the high approaches.
B. Slope Stability Analysis
Stability analyses have been carried out to check the global stability (slope, toe and base) of the embankment for assessing
the adequacy of the slopes at locations of approach embankments to various structures. The analyses of stability of the high
embankments were performed using Bishop’s Modified Method for establishing the minimum factor of safety (FOS) against
rotational failure along the potential slip circles. The geometry (top and bottom width, slope, height) of the embankment was
depicted from highway cross- sections generated for each approach location. Height of the approach was considered from
ground level to finished road level inclusive of the existing embankment height. Analysis was carried out for the maximum
height of the particular approach embankment. The embankment is considered to be built up with approved fill material, in
the vicinity of embankment stretches, having required properties as per the guidelines of MORT&H, IRC: 36-1970, IRC: 58 –
2001. The embankment is considered to be built up with either “Borrow Soil” (Sand / Silty Sand / Clayey Sand etc.) or with
Pond Ash / Fly Ash as available in nearby Thermal Power Plant. The following parameters are used in stability analysis of
embankments:
1. Embankment Fill:
(a) Type: Cohesionless Soil (Sand / Silty Sand / Clayey Sand etc.)
or Pond / Fly ash
(b) c = 0 kg/cm2,  = 30o &  = 1.90 gm/cc
2. Embankment Geometry:
(a) Top width: 26.00 / 27.50 m
(b) Height: Maximum height from ground level to FRL as per highway c/s drawing for both the approaches
3. Foundation Soil Properties: Sub-soil corresponds to individual structure location
4. Traffic Surcharge: 2.0 t/m2.
The computer software “XSTABL” (version 5.00) software package (developed by Interactive Software Designs, Inc, USA)
was used for stability analysis under static condition. A minimum FOS of 1.20 was used to design the safe height of the
embankment in rotational stability. Slope stability for earthquake condition was analyzed using the same “XSTABL” (version
5) software package as mentioned before. Horizontal peak ground acceleration of soil for this zone was considered as 0.08g
to 0.10g. A FOS of about 1.00 or more was considered to be safe under seismic condition. The FOS against static as well
4-46
as seismic condition is presented in Table 4-9 for various high approach embankments. For simulating the worst condition
during its service life, the effect of side cover and intermediate layer has not been considered for road embankment.
Table 4-9: Summary of Slope Stability and Settlement Analysis
Embankment Geometry
Settlement at Center
Approach Location
Type of Structure
Factor of Safety
Estimated Post
Chainage (KM)
Maximum Design
Construction
Top Width (m)
Remarks
Side Slope
Height (m)
Sl.No.
(mm)
Major Bridge Approaches
A1 6.00 26.00 2H : 1V 2.196 127 -
1 31+050 MJBR
A2 6.00 26.00 2H : 1V 2.314 127 -
A1 11.00 26.00 2H : 1V 1.612 137 -
2 34+400 MJBR
A2 11.00 26.00 2H : 1V 1.648 204 -
3 92+844 MJBR A1 7.00 26.00 2H : 1V 1.851 121 -
A1 8.00 26.00 2H : 1V 1.855 22 -
4 96+577 MJBR
A2 6.00 26.00 2H : 1V 2.016 19 -
A1 9.00 26.00 2H : 1V 1.532 25 -
5 104+241 MJBR
A2 7.00 26.00 2H : 1V 1.625 24 -
Flyover Approaches
A1 8.20 27.50 Vertical 1.246 154 -
8 39+590 Flyover
A2 7.50 27.50 Vertical 1.574 224 -
A1 7.50 27.50 Vertical 2.150 79 -
9 58+925 Flyover
A2 8.00 27.50 Vertical 2.054 89 -
ROB Approaches
10 53+450 ROB A1 11.50 27.50 Vertical 1.280 1108 -
11 64+740 ROB A2 10.00 26.00 2H : 1V 1.610 32 -
A1 6.20 26.00 2H : 1V 1.938 84 -
12 86+559 ROB
A2 6.50 26.00 2H : 1V 1.866 45 -
Note:
1. Borrow area, which is in the vicinity of the structure, was considered for analysis
2. Shear parameters were obtained from laboratory testing of borrow samples. For cohesive material unconsolidated
undrained and for cohesion less soil consolidated drained triaxial tests/ direct shear tests were conducted.
The above table indicates that the proposed slopes of high approach embankments and R.E.Wall supported embankments
are safe and stable under static condition with a F.O.S. of more than 1.20. Also in case of seismic analysis it has been found
that FOS are 1.00 and above.
Sample calculations of static and seismic stability analysis for the high approach embankment and RE Wall supported
approach embankment are presented respectively in Appendix 4.2 entitled “Geotechnical Assessment”.
C. Settlement Analysis
The consolidation settlements of compressible clay deposits under the action of embankment loads are estimated using
Terzaghi’s One-dimensional consolidation theory. The immediate settlement of foundation soil is considered to be over
during the construction stage and hence is not significant. Various design parameters of sub-soil required for the analysis
are based on the boreholes applicable to each structure. The computer software ‘HED’ [Version 1.0, Reference: Ministry of
Surface Transport, Road Wing (1992)] for the computation of settlements based on Terzaghi’s theory of consolidation, is
included in the above mentioned publication “Computer Aided Design System for High Embankment Problem ” and the
4-47
same is used to analyse the problem. The estimated total consolidation settlement for different approach embankment is
summarised in the above Table 4-10.
Due to presence of highly weathered rock at shallow depth, the post construction consolidation settlements are well within
the permissible limits as specified in clause 4.6 of IRC: 75 – 1979.
Sample calculations of settlement analysis for the high approach embankment and RE Wall supported approach
embankment are presented respectively in Appendix 4.2 entitled “Geotechnical Assessment”.
4.9. FOUNDATION DESIGN

The Geotechnical design of foundations considered the bearing capacity and deformation aspects of the foundation soil.
The anticipated foundation loads included vertical and horizontal loads. The selection of the type of foundation was based
on the following major aspects:
 Availability of suitable bearing strata under anticipated vertical loads,

 Whether settlements of foundation soils under anticipated vertical loads are within the permissible limits,
 Availability of adequate uplift capacity under anticipated loads
 Anticipated discharge and flow of the channel and corresponding scour level,
 Position of ground water table, liquefaction and swelling potential etc.
 Foundation type in the existing structure at the vicinity
Shallow and deep foundations were adopted in the design for various structures based on the above considerations.
4.9.1. Shallow (i.e. Open) Foundations
The shallow foundation was considered, where the foundation load requirement was met at shallow depth (foundation
depth/width (d/B) ratio of <=1), and/ or to suit with the hydraulic requirement. The depth of foundation was decided based on
scour level, competent founding strata, liquefaction potential etc. The minimum embedment criterion as specified in Clause
705.2.1 of IRC: 78 – 2000 for open foundation in soil / rock is followed in the design.
a) Bearing Capacity
Bearing capacity for shallow foundations in soil has been analysed in accordance with IS: 6403-1981, which is based on,
modified Terzaghi’s classical approach. The weighted average of shear parameters for various strata up to a significant
influence zone of 2.0 B (B = width of the foundation) below the foundation level is used in the analysis. Considering the
fluctuation of ground water, it is assumed that water table will be at foundation level or at HFL and accordingly the water
table correction is applied. A factor of safety of 2.5 is selected based on clause 706.3.1.1.1 of IRC 78-2000 to estimate the
net safe bearing capacity from ultimate net bearing capacity.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results are also used to determine the safe bearing capacity of shallow foundation in
accordance with IS: 6403-1981 for non-cohesive soil, hard clay and completely disintegrated weathered rock. While using
this approach, the N value was corrected, wherever applicable, below the footing base to at least 1.5B below the base to
account for the effects of energy ratio, adopted boring procedure, dilation for submerged Silty fine sands /fine sands as well
as that due to the overburden pressure (Reference: IS: 2131-1981, “Foundation Analysis and Design” by J.E.Bowles).
Bearing capacity for shallow foundation in rock has been estimated based on the guidelines of IS: 12070 in addition to the
codal provisions as given in IRC: 78.
The safe bearing capacities as determined from analytical approach and from field test results are compared with
presumptive pressures for the said foundation soil (Reference: “Foundation Analysis and Design” by J.E.Bowles, US Naval
Facility Command, NAVFAC, Design Manual DM 7.02 -1986).
4-48
b) Settlement
The magnitude of settlement, when foundation loads are applied, depends upon the compressibility of the underlying strata
and rigidity of the substructure. In cohesive deposition, the post construction settlement is caused by dissipation of pore
pressures and hence is time dependent so that consolidation settlement is computed for such soils using Terzaghi’s one-
dimensional consolidation theory. The immediate settlements in clays are estimated using the elastic theory considering the
effect of a rigid stratum underlying the foundation soils (Reference: “Foundation Analysis and Design” by J.E.Bowles). The
immediate settlements in cohesion-less soil are estimated using elastic theory as mentioned above, Schmertmann Method
and using SPT value as per IS: 8009 (Part 1). For completely weathered rock, which is treated, as granular mass, only
elastic / immediate settlement is considered and is determined based on the approach adopted as that of for cohesion-less
soil.
The bore logs and profiles developed on the basis of sub-soil investigation conducted along the project corridor indicated
that a major portion of the soils within the significant influence zone of the foundations i.e. 2.00 B below the base of the
foundation is represented by silty sand / sand underlain by highly weathered rock wherein immediate settlement will govern.
The immediate settlement of foundation soil is considered to be over during the construction stage and hence the settlement
of open foundation seems to be of little concern.
The allowable bearing capacity for each structures and type of soil are so determined that the settlement caused due to net
soil pressure on the base does not exceed the permissible limit as given in IS: 1904 – 1978 for isolated and raft foundations
(B > 6.0m).
Sample calculations of bearing capacity and settlement analysis for shallow (i.e. open) foundation in soil / soft weathered
rock and hard rock are given respectively in Appendix 4.2 entitled “Geotechnical Assessment”.
4.9.2. Well Foundations
Well foundation is recommended at the major bridge over river Narmada @ 34+400 where maximum scour level is quite
deep. In maximum of the cases the well tips are resting on very dense gravelly sand with boulder strata. The total load
carrying capacity of well foundation is a combination of skin friction along the surface and end bearing at well tip. However,
as per MORT&H specifications, the frictional resistance of well surface was ignored and the axial load carrying capacity of
the well was computed as equal to the end bearing on the well tip / well bottom.
The approach adopted for evaluating safe bearing capacity and settlement for well foundations both on soil and rock are in
general similar to that for shallow foundation and in accordance with IS: 6403, IS: 12070 – 1987 and IS: 8009 (Part 1). The
depth of foundation was decided so that it was safe against scour and was not less than those of existing structures in the
vicinity. Even though there is no stipulation as regards to minimum embedment depth in rock, clause 705.2.2 of IRC: 78 –
2000 have been followed as a conservative approach for seating of well in rock. The water table was considered at ground
level for analysis purpose. It is proposed to make a sump in rock inside the well along with grouting of dowels to provide an
anchorage as per Clause 705.3.2 of IRC: 78 – 2000.
Sample calculations of bearing capacity and settlement analysis for well foundation in soil / soft weathered rock are given
respectively in Appendix 4.2 entitled “Geotechnical Assessment”.
The recommended allowable load bearing capacities for shallow foundations and well foundations for various structures
including foundation details are summarized below in Table 4-10.
4-49
Table 4-10: Summary of Shallow (i.e. Open) Foundations, Well Foundations
Safe Bearing Capacity (T/

Classification of Bearing
Ground Improvement (If

Foundation Dimension
Approx. Ground Level/
Ground Level/ Lowest

Lowest Bed Level (m)
Foundation Location
Foundation below
Approx. Depth of
Foundation Type
Founding RL (m)
Bed Level (m)

Structure
Stratum
any)
m2)
(m)
MAJOR BRIDGES
Very Stiff / Hard Silty
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 100.000 94.000 6.00 25.0 -
Clay
MJBR @ 31+050 Hard Clay with Grannular
P1 8.00 x 10.00 Open 100.000 94.000 6.00 25.0 -
KM over Gunjari Material
Nallah P2 8.00 x 10.00 Open 100.000 94.000 6.00 Dense Sand 25.0 -
P3 8.00 x 10.00 Open 100.000 94.000 6.00 Very Stiff Clay 25.0 -
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 100.000 94.000 6.00 Very Stiff Clay 25.0 -
6.0 m Outer Very Dense Gravelly
A1 Well 100.00 81.000 19.00 75.0 -
Diameter Sand with Boulders
P1 Well 100.00 81.000 19.00 75.0 -
P2 Well 100.00 81.000 19.00 75.0 -
P3 Well 100.00 80.000 20.00 100.0 -
P4 Well 100.00 80.000 20.00 100.0 -
6.0 m Outer Hard Reddish Brown
P5 Well 100.00 80.000 20.00 100.0 -
Diameter Clayey Silt with Boulders
6.0 m Outer Hard Reddish Brown
MJBR @ 34+400 P6 Well 100.00 80.000 20.00 100.0 -
Diameter Clayey Silt with Boulders
KM over
Narmada Dense / Very Dense
6.0 m Outer
P25 Well 100.00 80.000 20.00 Sand with Gravels & 100.0 -
Diameter
Boulders
Dense / Very Dense
6.0 m Outer
P26 Well 100.00 80.000 20.00 Sand with Gravels & 100.0 -
Diameter
Boulders
P27 Well 100.00 83.000 17.00 75.0 -
P28 Well 100.00 83.000 17.00 75.0 -
P29 Well 100.00 83.000 17.00 75.0 -
A2 Well 100.00 83.000 17.00 75.0 -
Hard Dark Brown Sandy
MJBR @ 55+160 A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.620 93.620 5.00 35.0 -
Clayey Silt with Kankar
KM over Tawa
Canal Very Stiff Blackish Sandy
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.375 93.375 5.00 35.0 -
Clayey Silt
Medium Dense Brownish
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.820 93.820 5.00 30.0 -
Silty Fine Sand
Completely / Very
MJBR @ 92+870
P1 8.00 x 10.00 Open 97.700 91.700 6.00 Severely Weathered 30.0 -
KM over
Rock
Bhounra
Completely / Very
Rock
4-50



Foundation Location
Foundation below
Approx. Depth of
Foundation Type
Founding RL (m)
Bed Level (m)

Structure
Stratum
any)
m2)
(m) Completely / Very
Rock
Completely / Very
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.350 93.350 5.00 Severely Weathered 30.0 -
Rock
White / Greyish
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 99.930 97.430 2.50 Moderately Weathered 35.0 -
Rock
White / Greyish Slightly
MJBR @ 96+577 P1 7.00 x 10.00 Open 95.250 92.750 2.50 35.0 -
Weathered Rock
KM over Sukhi
P2 7.00 x 10.00 Open 96.180 93.680 2.50 35.0 -
Weathered Rock
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 99.850 97.350 2.50 35.0 -
Weathered Rock
Very Dense Gravelly
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 99.990 93.990 6.00 35.0 -
Sand
Moderately Weathered
P1 7.00 x 10.00 Open 92.400 86.900 5.50 35.0 -
Rock
Severely Weathered
P2 7.00 x 10.00 Open 91.700 86.200 5.50 35.0 -
MJBR @ Black Basalt
104+241 KM Yellowish Brown Silty
over Machna P3 7.00 x 10.00 Open 91.500 86.000 5.50 Sand / Clayey Sand with 35.0 -
Gravels
Very Dense Gravelly
P4 7.00 x 10.00 Open 92.400 86.900 5.50 35.0 -
Coarse sand
Very Dense Gravelly
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.350 92.350 6.00 35.0 -
Coarse sand
FLYOVERS
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 100.000 96.000 4.00 30.0 -
Rock
P1 8.00 x 10.00 Open 100.000 96.000 4.00 30.0 -
FLYOVER @ Rock
27+200 KM Moderately Weathered
P2 8.00 x 10.00 Open 100.000 96.000 4.00 30.0 -
Rock
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 100.000 96.000 4.00 30.0 -
Rock
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.210 94.210 4.00 30.0 -
Silty Sand with Kankar
Medium Dense Brown /
P1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.750 94.750 4.00 30.0 -
Dark Brown Silty Sand
FLYOVER @
39+590 KM Stiff / Very Stiff Dark
P2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.220 94.220 4.00 30.0 -
Brown Sandy Clayey Silt
Stiff / Very Stiff Dark
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 99.400 95.400 4.00 Brown / Black Sandy 30.0 -
Clayey Silt
FLYOVER @
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.720 94.720 4.00 Stiff Sandy Clayey Silt 30.0 -
58+925 KM
4-51



Foundation Location
Foundation below
Approx. Depth of
Foundation Type
Founding RL (m)
Bed Level (m)

Structure
Stratum
any)
m2)
(m) ROB s
A1
ROB @ P1
R.C Bored Pile
53+450 KM P2
A2
Completely / Very
A1 6.50 x 8.00 Open 98.230 94.730 3.50 35.0 -
ROB @ Severely Weatherd Rock
64+740 KM Completely / Very
A2 6.50 x 8.00 Open 97.650 94.150 3.50 35.0 -
Severely Weatherd Rock
Completely / Very
A1 6.50 x 8.00 Open 99.900 96.900 3.00 Severely Weathered 35.0 -
ROB @ Rock
86+559 KM
Moderately / Slihgtly
A2 6.50 x 8.00 Open 100.162 97.162 3.00 35.0 -
Weathered Rock
MINOR BRIDGES
MNBR @ 4+200
BOX 12.00 x 14.10 Open 100.000 99.400 0.60 Very Stiff Silty Clay 12.0 -
KM
0.50 m
MNBR @ 4+700 Replacement
BOX 12.00 x 23.35 Open 100.000 99.400 0.60 Stiff / Very Stiff Silty Clay 12.0
KM with Granular
Material
MNBR @
14+350 KM
MNBR @
16+000 KM
MNBR @
16+750 KM
MNBR @ Severely Weathered
BOX 12.00 x 19.50 Open 100.000 99.400 0.60 12.0 -
22+300 KM Rock
MNBR @ Stiff Brown / Dark Brown
BOX 12.00 x 16.90 Open 98.850 98.250 0.60 15.0 -
34+980 KM Sandy Clayey Silt
MNBR @ Medium Dense Brown
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 97.350 92.850 4.50 20.0 -
36+540 KM Silty Fine Sand
MNBR @ Dark Brown Silty Sand
BOX 10.90 x 12.00 Open 98.220 97.620 0.60 10.0 -
39+475 KM with Kankar
0.50 m
MNBR @ Dark Brown Clayey Silty Replacement
BOX 7.00 x 12.00 Open 98.150 97.550 0.60 10.00
40+465 KM Sand with Granular
Material
MNBR @ Very Stiff Brownish Sandy
A1 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.125 94.625 3.50 25.0 -
42+170 KM Clayey Silt with Kankar
MNBR @ Medium Dense Brownish
A2 9.50 x 12.00 Open 98.650 93.650 5.00 32.0 -
43+460 KM Silty Sand with Kankar
0.50 m
MNBR @ Replacement
BOX 10.50 x 12.00 Open 98.950 98.350 0.60 Blackish Clayey Silt 10.0
50+360 KM with Granular
Material
4-52



Foundation Location
Foundation below
Approx. Depth of
Foundation Type
Founding RL (m)
Bed Level (m)

Structure
Stratum
any)
m2)
MNBR @ (m) Medium Stiff / Stiff Dark
BOX 6.50 x 12.00 Open 98.000 97.400 0.60 Brown Clayey Silt with 10.0 -
56+080 KM
Sand
MNBR @ Dark Brown / Black
BOX 10.50 x 12.00 Open 98.210 97.610 0.60 10.0 -
57+650 KM Clayey Silt with Sand
MNBR @
BOX 6.50 x 12.00 Open 98.250 97.650 0.60 Silty Clayey Sand with 15.0 -
57+690 KM
Kankar
MNBR @ Dense Brown Sandy
A1 8.10 x 12.00 Open 99.470 95.470 4.00 30.0 -
66+086 KM Gravels with Silt
Very Dense Whitish
MNBR @
A2 7.40 x 12.00 Open 98.980 94.980 4.00 Brown Silty Sand / Clayey 30.0 -
67+349 KM
Sand with Kankar
Hard Reddish Brown
A1 10.50 x 12.00 Open 98.230 92.730 5.50 30.0 -
MNBR @ Clayey Silt
68+863 KM Hard Reddish / Greyish
P1 7.50 x 10.00 Open 98.200 92.700 5.50 32.0 -
Brown Clayey Silt
Stiff Dark Brown / Black
MNBR @
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 97.270 96.670 0.60 Sandy Clayey Silt with 15.0 -
70+038 KM
Kankar
Very Dense Brownish
A2 11.30 x 12.00 Open 99.000 94.000 5.00 30.0 -
Gavels with Sand
MNBR @
71+209 KM Brownish / Whitish Very
Rock
White / Light Brownish
A2 8.00 x 12.00 Open 97.000 93.000 4.00 Moderately / Slightly 25.0 -
MNBR @ Weathered Sandstone
77+900 KM White / Light Brownish
P1 8.00 x 10.00 Open 96.000 92.000 4.00 Moderately / Slightly 25.0 -
Weathered Sandstone
Light Brown / Greyish
MNBR @
A2 7.70 x 12.00 Open 99.520 95.020 4.50 Brown Very Severely 30.0 -
81+635 KM
Weatherd Sand stone
Greyish Brown
MNBR @
A2 6.10 x 12.00 Open 99.640 97.140 2.50 Moderately / Slightly 25.0 -
84+364 KM
Weathered Rock
Greyish / Greenish
MNBR @
A2 7.50 x 12.00 Open 100.030 95.530 4.50 Moderately Weathered 30.0 -
90+175 KM
Rock
Greyish / Blackish
MNBR @
BOX 8.70 x 12.00 Open 98.350 97.550 0.80 Moderately / Slightly 30.0 -
97+912 KM
Weathered Rock
MNBR @ Stiff Dark Brown Sandy
BOX 10.50 x 12.00 Open 98.650 97.850 0.80 20.0 -
103+576 KM Clayey Silt
MNBR @ Medium Dense Brownish
BOX 10.50 x 12.00 Open 99.750 98.950 0.80 20.0 -
105+625 KM Sandy Gravels
Hard Brownish Gavelly
MNBR @
BOX 9.00 x 12.00 Open 98.750 97.950 0.80 Sand with Little percent 20.0 -
112+307 KM
of Silt & Clay
4-53



Foundation Location
Foundation below
Approx. Depth of
Foundation Type
Founding RL (m)
Bed Level (m)

Structure
Stratum
any)
m2)
MNBR @
BOX 7.00 x 12.00(m) Open 95.440 94.640 0.80
Very Dense Dark Brown /
12.0 -
112+698 KM Black Sand with Boulders
0.50 m
MNBR @ Brownish Clayey Silt with Replacement
BOX 7.00 x 12.00 Open 99.000 98.400 0.60 10.0
115+005 KM Sand with Granular
Material
MNBR @ Loose Reddish Brown
BOX 9.00 x 12.00 Open 99.210 98.610 0.60 10.0 -
116+975 KM Silty Sand with Clay
Medium Dense / Dense
MNBR @
BOX 7.00 x 12.00 Open 99.100 98.500 0.60 Reddish Brown Silty 20.0 -
117+961 KM
Sand with Gravels
MNBR @ Dark Brownish Sandy
BOX 12.00 x 12.75 Open 98.250 97.450 0.80 10.0 -
MNBR @ Dark Brown Silty Sand
BOX 8.00 x 12.00 Open 98.250 97.650 0.60 10.0 -
119+352 KM with Kankar
0.50 m
MNBR @ Dark Brown / Brownish Replacement
BOX 9.00 x 12.00 Open 97.900 97.300 0.60 10.0
119+800 KM Clayey Silt with Sand with Granular
Material
MNBR @
BOX 11.00 x 12.00 Open 99.080 98.480 0.60 Silty Sand with Little 20.0 -
123+116 KM
percent of Clay
Dark Brown / Brown
MNBR @
BOX 7.00 x 12.00 Open 98.820 98.220 0.60 Clayey Sand / Silty Sand 20.0 -
127+026 KM
with kankar
MNBR @ Brown Moderately
BOX 7.00 x 12.00 Open 98.500 97.900 0.60 15.0 -
129+416 KM Weathered Rock
Dark Brown / Brownish
MNBR @
BOX 11.00 x 12.00 Open 98.200 97.600 0.60 Clayey Sandy Silt with 10.0 -
134+406 KM
Kankar
VEHICULAR UNDERPASSES
VUP @
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 100.000 99.400 0.60 Silty Clay 12.0 -
32+925 KM
VUP @ Brownish Clayey Silt with
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 99.900 99.300 0.60 12.0 -
35+610 KM Kankar
Very Stiff / Hard Dark
VUP @
37+300 KM
Little percent of Sand
VUP @ Blackish Clayey Silt with
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 99.220 98.620 0.60 12.0 -
43+800 KM Kankar
VUP @ Blackish Clayey Silt with
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 98.250 97.650 0.60 12.0 -
45+245 KM Kankar
Stiff Blackish / Dark
VUP @
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 98.250 97.650 0.60 Brown Sandy Clayey Silt 12.0 -
47+240 KM
with Kankar
VUP @ Dark Brown Sandy
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 99.725 99.125 0.60 12.0 -
Reddish Brown / Dark
VUP @
51+380 KM
Kankar
4-54



Foundation Location
Foundation below
Approx. Depth of
Foundation Type
Founding RL (m)
Bed Level (m)

Structure
Stratum
any)
m2)
VUP @
BOX (m)
11.50 x 12.00 Open 98.650 97.850 0.80
Stiff Dark Brown Sandy
20.0 -
VUP @ Reddish Brown Silty
BOX 11.50 x 12.00 Open 100.520 99.920 0.60 15.0 -
121+765 KM Sand with kankar
PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASSES
PUP @ Brownish Clayey Silt with
BOX 5.60 x 12.00 Open 99.750 99.150 0.60 10.0 -
102+350 KM Kankar
Stiff Reddish Brown
PUP @
BOX 5.60 x 12.00 Open 97.250 96.650 0.60 Clayey Sand / Silty Sand 10.0 -
103+294 KM
with Gravels
PUP @ Stiff Dark Brown / Brown
BOX 5.60 x 12.00 Open 99.500 98.900 0.60 10.0 -
104+350 KM Clayey Silty Sand
PUP @ Loose / Medium Dense
BOX 5.60 x 12.00 Open 99.000 98.400 0.60 10.0 -
120+200 KM Brownish Silty Sand
PUP @ Dark Brown Silty fine
BOX 5.60 x 12.00 Open 99.400 98.800 0.60 10.0 -
121+000 KM Sand with Kankar
Note: 1. Complete floor protection is assumed and hence scour effect is not considered.
2. Minimum foundation embedment of 0.60 m & 1.50 m shall be ensured in hard and weathered rock
respectively.
3. Wherever there will have a discrepancy in foundation RL, depth of foundation from GL / LBL along with
foundation stratum shall have precedence over RL as per site condition.
4. Fill material consists of Silty Clayey Sand / Silty Sandy Clay / Sandy Gravel with or without kankars, gravels,
fragmented rock pieces etc.
From the table, it can be seen that in general open foundations were proposed to be placed on soil / completely to highly
weathered rock. It is proposed to carry out Plate Load Test (PLT) at alternate pier location in each carriageway for ROB,
major and minor bridges prior to actual construction of foundation to confirm the designed allowable bearing capacity of
weathered rock.
Note:
1) PCC thickness is proposed to be of minimum 200 mm of M 20 grade
2) Any loose pockets/ voids at founding level shall be removed, compacted and filled with lean concrete of M 20
grade.
3.) It is assumed that floor protection of bed has been provided all through
The Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of Pile Foundation is summarized in Table 4-11
4-55
Table 4-11: Summary of Allowable Load Carrying Capacity of Pile Foundation
from Cut - off Level (m)
Compressive Capacity
Founding RL / Pile Tip
Safe Lateral Capacity

End Bearing Stratum
Foundation Location
Safe Uplift Capacity

Total Length of Pile
Ground Level (m)
Pile Cut-off Level
Safe Vertical
Pile Dia. (m)
Level (m)
(tons)
(tons)
(tons)
Sl.
(m)
Str. No.
No.
Hard Clayey Silt /

A1 1.0 100.0 98.05 72.05 26.0 200.0 10.0 130.0
Sandy Clayey Silt
Dense Sandy Silt
P1 1.0 100.0 98.05 72.05 / Clayey Sandy 26.0 250.0 10.0 140.0
ROB @ Silt
1
53+450Km Dense Sandy
P2 1.0 100.0 98.05 72.05 Clayey Silt / 26.0 150.0 10.0 90.0
Clayey Sandy Silt
Very dense
A2 1.0 100.0 98.05 72.05 26.0 260.0 10.0 150.0
Clayey Sandy Silt
The safe load carrying capacity of the pile shall be established by pile load test as per IS: 2911, Part 4.
4.10. DESIGN OF HILL CUT SECTION
4.10.1. Introduction
The existing alignment of Obaidullaganj - Betul Road along NH-69 is cutting across the hilly terrain from chainage around
111+050 to 114+882. In view of the proposed widening scheme to 2/4 lanes, excavation of existing hill slope is
necessitated. This excavation will expose the constituent of hill material directly to nature due to localised deforestation. In
this section stable slope of the hill, landslide and erosion probability and correction techniques are discussed.
The samples collected from the hill slope reveals that the stratum consists of low plastic / non plastic Sandy Silt / Silty Sand
with gravels. The slope materials in general are partly cohesive to cohesion less in nature. The soil properties at some of
selected locations of hill cut areas are summarised below in Table 4-12.
Table 4-12: Properties of Soil Samples (UDS) collected from some of selected locations of Hill Cut Areas
Sample Location Natural Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits Shear Parameters
(Existing Chainage) Density Liquid Plastic C Φ (in
(gm/cc) Gravel Sand Silt Clay PI
Limit Limit (Kg/cm2) degree)
64+000 1.78 29 50 21 0 NP - - 0.00 38
66+800 (Kesla Ghat) 1.94 20 53 16 11 30 24 6 0.10 35
112+400 (Satpura) 1.75 10 28 53 9 34 29 5 0.40 34
113+500 1.69 21 44 24 11 35 25 10 0.60 30
113+500 1.94 11 67 22 0 NP - - 0.00 36
116+300 1.80 3 54 31 12 24 18 6 0.30 35
116+300 1.95 11 66 23 0 NP - - 0.00 39
116+500 1.85 9 52 29 10 30 22 8 0.35 35
116+500 1.82 3 41 44 12 33 25 8 0.50 30
4.10.2. Slope Stability Analysis
Excavation method in hilly terrain consists primarily of proper slope design. In the overall approach of stability analysis it is
considered that the slides of the excavated slope is moving down slope towards the proposed road and the slides that
undermine the road on its downward slope is not significant. Since the slope material is predominantly granular in nature,
the slope will fail by sliding parallel to the slope instead of failing along a circular surface. The stability of granular material is
analysed using the simple infinite slope analysis which describes that slope of any height would be stable as long as the
4-56
slope is less than the angle of internal friction. Based on laboratory test results as furnished in table, a slope of 1(V): 1.5(H)
is recommended generally for hill slope excavation in this type of strata.
If during excavation of hilly area, hard rock is encountered slope can be kept as per guideline given in IRC: SP: 58-1998
after studying the geology of the particular area.
4.10.3. Land Slide
Landslide, which is defined as failure of a slope mainly under the action of its own weight in which the displacement has
both vertical and horizontal components of considerable magnitude, is not common and hence not critical along the project
corridor. The major causes of such landslides are identified as rainfall and surface erosion. Even though, the present stretch
under study is away from landslide hazard zone, suitable protective measures are suggested to preserve the hill slope
stability.
4.10.4. Surface Erosion
Due to no or low cohesion of the hill material as has been from the Geotechnical Investigation which is common in this
project corridor, the slopes are highly conducive to the initiation of surface erosion and in long term the extent of slope area
affected by erosion increases and deepens which eventually results in large scale mass movements. Though the annual
total rainfall is low to moderate, but rainfall intensity in 24-hour is severe in this region as per climatological table of Indian
Meteorological Deptt. This short duration rainfalls of high intensity aggravate the erosion process, which may be a major
cause of landslide, Brand et. al (1984).
The soil’s resistance against erosion can be enhanced by increasing its strength and also simultaneously the impact of
agents of erosion can be reduced. These measures would help develop a sustain vegetation growth along the slope and
also have controlled run-off. Detailed erosion management strategies are proposed in the following paragraphs which would
help to mitigate the effects of the run-off.
4.10.5. Slope Treatment by Jute Geotextile (JGT) Netting
Jute Geotextile (JGT) is capable of reducing the erosive effects of raindrops and controlling migration of soil particles of the
exposed surface. On biodegradation, JGT forms mulch and fosters quick vegetative growth. Since the slope material is
purely granular in nature, a 250mm thick clayey soil (but not heavy clays) shall be provided as a blanket covering the slopes
of the hill and tamped it well on the slopes prior to install JGT. Type 1 (open mesh fabrics) JGT in accordance with IS:
14986: 2001 shall be used for this purpose. Generally, the open area (%) and water holding capacity (%) on dry weight of
JGT shall be 40% and 500% respectively. Durability of JGT shall be of 2 years from the date of installation.
During handling, transporting, storing etc. care shall be taken to keep it free from moisture (being hygroscopic), fire,
microbial action etc. Preferably, forklift or front-end loader lifted with a long tapered pole (carpet pole/ stinger) shall be used
for unloading purpose. Nylon straps/ ropes/ roll pullers may also be used. Not more than three JGT rolls should be lifted/
unloaded at a time. Chains and cables should not be used for unloading. During site handling, it should be kept above the
ground till it is placed on slope and should be covered with a tarpaulin or a thick plastic sheet. JGT should not be stored for
a long period, which may impair its strength.
The slopes shall be initially demarcated, graded, fenced and fertilised. The levelling of the area must be uniform so that the
netting laid is flush with the ground, permitting water to flow over the netting. JGT should be laid by unrolling the JGT from
top towards the bottom i.e. in the direction of surface run-off. It should be ensured that the fabric touches all points of the
base soil and is in intimate contact with it. The width of netting shall be secured against displacement by an overlap of
minimum 150mm at side and ends. The JGT shall be pegged down with “J” shape staples of 300mm length (straight
portion) of 11 gauge steel rods, 150mm (normal to slope) apart both in longitudinal and transverse directions. It shall be
ensured that the full length of steel staple penetrates into the soil without causing any damage to JGT. A manual test for pull
out should be made before finally hammering the staple down. At the overlapping zone of JGT, staples shall be inserted at
100mm c/c. When JGT is to be laid under wet conditions, it should not be laid fully taut as JGT may get displaced from its
initially placed position due to shrinkage. JGT should be laid with the overlaps in the direction of the water flow.
4-57
The two ends of JGT roll shall be properly anchored in a trench at least 500mm deep and 300mm wide. The anchoring
trenches shall be backfilled with excavated granular material along with stapling on the vertical and horizontal faces of the
trench at an interval of 150mm. It shall be ensured that no aggregate/ granular material is trapped between JGT and the
base-soil either at the bottom or sides. During laying if JGT is damaged, the same shall be overlapped with new pieces of
JGT of identical specifications duly stapled at all sides. The installation procedure, monitoring, packing, marking etc. shall be
as per IS: 14986-2001 unless otherwise specified herein. Installation of JGT and seeding shall be such that the entire work
is completed prior to monsoon. Initial broadcasting of seeds shall be taken up prior to JGT installation. A second dose of
seed broadcasting shall be given over the laid JGT along with dibbling of locally available grass. Seeding at the rate of 5kg
per acre or dibbling of the root slips of locally available grasses or as specified in IRC: 56-1974, 15cm apart row-to-row and
plant-to-plant shall be done.
Sampling and criterion for conformity shall be as per IS: 14715-2000 to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The tests shall be
conducted on samples selected by the Engineer preferably at the laboratory of Indian Jute Industries Research Association
(IJIRA) or Jute Manufacturers Development Council (JMDC) to confirm its physical properties (mass per unit area,
thickness, width, ends, picks, aperture size, drapability, open area) and mechanical properties (breaking load and
elongation, puncture strength). The tests shall be carried out in accordance to the relevant IS codes as per IS: 14986 – 2001
or as per pertinent ASTM codal provision. The JGT, which does not satisfy all the physical and mechanical requirements,
stipulated in IS: 14986 – 2001 shall be rejected and replaced with fresh one.
4.10.6. Benching of Slopes
Where the cutting height of hill is more than 6.00 m, a 2.50 m wide bench is proposed at every 6.0m height measured from
proposed finished road level. Though narrow in width, the bench has multiplex functions apart from increasing the stability of
slopes by dividing the long slopes into segments of smaller slope. It will provide space for catch drain and intermediate
anchor pit for JGT and will minimise the rock falls directly on to the roadway. Since, the rock materials are having little or no
cohesion, the bench should slope away from the road.
4.10.7. Catch Drain
In order to intercept and divert the water from hill slope, catch water drain is proposed along the inner edge of the bench.
Catch water drain shall be lined and have a gradient of 1 in 50 to avoid high water velocity and possible wash out.
4.10.8. Breast wall
Breast wall of 1.50 m heights is proposed all along the roadside slope in the hilly area where excavation is required for
widening of the road. The breast wall will be of random rubble masonry. The top thickness shall be 0.60 m, the front batter
of 1 in 3 and back face vertical. Masonry courses shall be normal to face batter and the back of the wall can be left rough.
Additional breast wall shall be constructed at every 12.00 m height measured from FRL.
4.11. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

As discussed in section “Seismicity of Area”, the proposed stretch is in zone III, prone to moderate earthquake intensity.
Considering this aspect, a study on liquefaction probability was carried out for shallow structural and embankment
foundation soil.
Liquefaction is the sudden loss of shear strength of the loose fine-grained sands due to earthquake-induced vibration under
saturated conditions. The liquefaction generally takes place in loose fine-grained sands (fines < 10 %, D60, 0.20 mm to 1.0
mm and Cu between 2 to 5) with N value less than 15. Seed (1969) concludes that in case of soil strata indicating N>15, the
liquefaction of soil will not possibly take place. The Seed’s procedure was used to estimate the factor of safety (FSL) from
the ratio of cyclic resistance and cyclic stress. The soil was considered liquefied if FSL<=1.0.
The sub-soils within the liquefiable zone i.e. where confining pressure is less than 15.00 m, is mostly comprised of dense to
very dense sandy soil and completely to highly weathered rock followed by hard rock. Further, the ground water table is
4-58
generally deep due to which saturation of the founding soil is very unusual. In view of the above the probability of
liquefaction is of less concern in this project corridor.
4.12. OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS
4.12.1. Clearing the Proposed Site

During excavation of hill slope no uprooting or grubbing of undergrowth / shrubs shall be done as it causes damage to the
top soil cover, except for the areas coming under road bed where all vegetation and other deleterious materials shall be
removed. The technique and pattern of cutting of trees shall be such that the trees from hillside as well as valley side fall on
to the proposed alignment and not away from it, so as to avoid damage to the jungle on either side. In order to restrict
cutting down of the trees to the bare minimum for protection of environment as well as to avert erosion, the area shall be
inspected by an experienced / responsible officer from Contractor and a tree-cutting plan shall be submitted for prior
approval from Engineer. The trees, which are not interfering directly with the construction of road, shall not be cut.
4.12.2. Excavation
Generally majority of the open foundations as recommended are shallow and excavations of up to about 5.00 m depths are
anticipated at the site. Foundation soil comprised of boulder/ gravel with sand will pose problems for excavation as well as
the stability of open excavations. Mechanical excavation will be suitable compared to manual in order to achieve higher
output and removing of big boulders from pit. No blasting shall be required to advance the excavation. Open excavations in
granular soils are susceptible to cave-ins, especially if no lateral support measures are provided and also hazardous from
safety aspect. The lateral support measures include providing temporary sheeting or bracing or sand bag stacking, or
flattening of the excavation side slopes. A slope of 1(V): 1.5(H) can be adopted for such soil depending on boulder size,
position of ground water table etc. For deeper excavations, the side slopes should be constructed with benching in between
the slopes.
For construction of hill road, a combination of manual and mechanical cutting will be required. Proper precaution in the form
of temporary netting/ fencing etc. should be taken to prevent falling of loose boulders/ gravels towards existing roadway. If
blasting in sound rock is at all resorted to, it shall always be controlled.
4.12.3. Dewatering
Presence of ground water will be of concern during excavation of boulder deposit filled with sand in riverbed. Though
generally the ground water as encountered during exploration was below foundation level, fluctuation of GWT should be
anticipated during monsoon and accordingly the excavation contractor should be prepared with dewatering measures to
keep the excavation dry till the casting of foundation. Co-efficient of permeability of this type of layer will be within a range of
10-1 to 10-3 cm/sec. Dewatering scheme such as sump pumping, well point systems etc. can be adopted depending on site
condition. However, excavation of shallow foundation trench can be taken up in dry season to avoid any likely requirement
of dewatering in majority of the bridge sites.
4.12.4. Erosion Control

In view of the high rain intensity in this terrain, slope protection against erosion is considered to be an important aspect. The
embankment wherever will be made up with clayey soil, simple vegetative turfing by planting locally available grasses and
shrubs on side slope shall be adopted as an erosion control measure. When predominantly cohesionless soil will be used as
embankment fill material, a non-expansive compacted clayey soil cover will be laid over the slope for simple vegetative
turfing. Should extremely dry weather conditions prevail during the growth period of plantation and/or due to non-availability
of artificial water sources required for the growth of plants, ready-made vegetative turfs may need to be substituted for the
natural plantation cover. Should clay soils be not available in abundance, cohesionless soils mixed with cohesive soils may
be used in the soil cover.
For approach embankments (within 50m from the abutments) of bridges and flyovers, stone pitching with concrete is
recommended as an erosion control measure. It is recommended that the stone pitching be provided for the entire face of
the embankment slope.
4-59
5. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS &
RECOMMENDATION
5. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION
5.1. INTRODUCTION-THE CORRIDOR
The project corridor starts from the junction with NH-12 at Obaidullagunj and ends at Betul. The project corridor starts km
2.800 of NH-69 at Umaria village (Goharganj taluka) and traverses through Goharganj taluka of Raisen district, Budni taluka
of Sehore district, further runs across Narmada river and enters into Hoshangabad & Itarsi taluka of Hoshangabad district and
further runs through Shahpur, Ghoradongari and Betul taluka of Betul districts and ends at km 137.000 of NH-69 Major
settlements along the corridor are Barkheda, Budni, Hoshangabad, Itarsi, Pathrota, Kesla, Sukhtawa, Bhonra, Shahpur,
Padarbuzurg, and Bhart Bharti. Total length of the corridor is approximately 134 km. The map showing the project corridor is
given in Figure 5-1
D u ra h a
R A IS E N
Is la m n a g a r N a rw a r
P ip a l
B a ira g a rh D ehgaon S ilv a n i S
R a isen
D istr ict
BHOPAL
SEHORE
S irw a ra
S u lta n p u r
m la h a
Ic h h a w a r
O B A ID U L L A G A N J B a ri
S eh ore G o h a rg a n j
O b a id u lla g a n j B a re li
U
D istr ict B a rk h e ra
S a in k
L a rk u i
Shahganj
Budhni
P ip a ria
R e h ti
N a s ru lla h g a n j HOSHANGABAD
Bam bai
Sohagpur
K h a te g a o n Ita rs i S e m ri
H o sh a n ga b a d M a tk u li
D istr ict P a g a ra
ia K e s la
P a c h m a rh i
S e o n i M a lw a
T im u rn i M u a fi C h a u k ip u ra
B o rd h a
S o d a lp u r R am pur
ARDA Ta
R a h a tg a o n D h o d ra m o u P u n ji
K h irk ia n
Shahpur
M a g a rd h a N im ia J u n n a rd e o
H arda B o ri C h ira p a tla

S a la iy a
D istr ict C h ic h o li
N im p a n i
B o rd e h i
R a n ip u r
B etu l
V ik ra m p u r
C
A v a liy a D istr ict B e tu l B a z a r
A m la
D unaw a
r K h e ri
BETUL
C h ik h li
G o ra k h a r M u lta i
J h a lla r
B h a in s d e h i
T ig a o n
P a tta n
Figure 5-1: Project Corridor
An inventory of the project corridor has been carried out through dimensional measurement and visual inspection. Features
like kilometer age, terrain and land-use, height of fill or depth of cut, hydraulic condition of cross drainage structures, drainage
5-1
pattern and adequacy of structures were recorded. These surveys were carried out by visual observation supplemented with
sample measurements using tape etc. Photographs of each cross drainage structures and drainage/ land use were taken.
The road inventory has been referenced to the existing kilometre posts established along the roadside. Following were
recorded during the road reconnaissance survey.
 terrain
 land-use
 location of water bodies (lakes and reservoirs), at every occurrence; and,
 height of embankment or depth of cut @ every 200m and every change of feature whichever is earlier
 land width i.e. ROW
 roadside arboriculture
 general drainage conditions
Salient observations of the project road are given below:
The project road in general has a carriageway width of about 5.5m at most places and 7m at other places. There are earthen
shoulders on either side of 1.5m width. Roadway width of road varies from 9.5-14 m for most of length. The road passes
through plain terrain in most of the stretch; however there is a ghat section of 2.8km from chainage 113.4 to 116.2 where the
terrain is hilly. Forest areas have rolling terrain.
The project road crosses at grade railway line at the following locations:
i) Km 32+200
ii) Km 41+500
The existing road has an embankment varying in height from 0.5-2.5 m for most of the length except at bridge approach
where the embankment height is 3.0-4.0m, and at GHAT sections.
The Project corridor lies in upper Narmada and Tapi subzone-3(c). The important tributaries of upper Narmada are Bhurhnar,
Benjar, Sher, Shakkar, Dudha, Tawa, Ganjal and Chhota along left bank and Hiran , Tendori, Barna, Kolar, Jamner and
Datuni along right bank. The project region majorly falls in the Satpura plateau. The project corridor passes through mainly
Plain areas. Rolling terrain exists between km 16+000 to 26+000 and hilly area exists between km 64+100 to 66+500 & km
121+600 to km 116+600. However, the slopes of the hills are moderate. The average elevation of the project road varies
between 400 m to 650 m from MSL. As we move from North to South the altitude increases. Maximum rainfall occurs under
the influence of the South West monsoons (June-September). Total annual rainfall recorded at Hoshangabad and Betul
stations are 1221.2 mm and 1177.8 mm respectively. Maximum precipitation recorded as 392.1 mm and 379.3 mm during the
month of August at Hoshangabadand Betul station respectively.
5.2. SCOPE OF WORK

The existing cross drainage structures needs to be examined with regards to drainage capacity corresponding to its existing
span and vent size i.e. adequacy for passing designed flood of 50 years return period /observed peak flood, in addition to
storm water coming from the road through side drains. The main objective of the hydrological and hydraulic study is to
determine the required size of drainage structures to allow the estimated design flow of the streams to cross the road safely,
and to check whether waterways of existing structures are adequate enough to make passage for the flow without risk so that
appropriate decisions could be taken concerning their rehabilitation/replacement.
The hydrological and hydraulic study for the project has been based on:
 Topographic survey data of cross drainage structures

 Topographical data and maps of streams, upstream and downstream
 Rainfall pattern of the project site
 Site study of the characteristics of the catchment areas, HFL from local enquiries and tell-tale marks, and hydraulic conditions
at the existing drainage structures.
5-2
5.2.1. Field Reconnaissance
The serviceability and longevity of road depends on hydraulic condition of existing cross drainage structures such as bridges,
culverts and an effective storm water drainage system through a network of drains, for passing safely the severe floods in
future. For this, history of the hydraulic functioning of structure over the years needs to be assessed and presently, has been
done, by visual inspection and extensive local inquiry. There are total no of 267 cross drainage structures, out of which 58 are
Bridges (6 major and 52 minor bridges) and 209 are the balancing type culverts including existing and proposed additional.
5.2.2. Data collection and Data Analysis
Requirements for Hydrological and Hydraulic Design
The hydrological study aims at estimating the peak discharge of the flood generated by the run-off of rainfall within the
catchment area. The hydrological study requires:
 Knowledge of the characteristics of peak rainfall in the regions

 Knowledge of the characteristics of the catchment areas
 Topographic data about the stream, upstream and downstream
 Survey of India topo maps to a scale of 1:50,000 for identification of catchment area and its characteristics.
Hydrological Data
After assessing the hydraulic condition of each structure thoroughly by visual observations, visits to the local offices of PWD,
Bridge construction department, Water resource department, irrigation department of Government of Bihar, were made to
collect the available hydrological data. For the Major rivers and corresponding control structure like, barrage on them,
hydraulic data for the same was collected.
For analysis of the existing major and minor bridges the Topographic maps on 1:50,000 and 1:2, 50,000 scale, obtained from
Survey of India has been utilized for the Hydrological Calculations.
Meteorological Data
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 280 to 320 mm. (Ref: “Flood Estimation Report
for Upper Narmada and Tapi Subzone-3(c)), published by the CWC).
Topographic maps, obtained from Survey of India, on 1:50,000 and 1:2, 50,000 scales, have been utilized for the hydrological
study in the corridor.
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 determine the cross-section and the slope. A number of cross-
sections have been asked to take 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.
5-3
5.3. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS OF THE CROSS – DRAINAGE

STRUCTURES
5.3.1. Assessment of Peak Discharge
The peak discharge and the HFL have been calculated by the following methods
 Area velocity method

 Rational method
 SUH method
 Dickens’s Formula
5.3.2. Area – Velocity Method (Manning’s Formula)
This method has been utilized to calculate the discharge from the stream cross-section and stream slope/bed slope at the
proposed bridge sites, for both major and minor bridges. After plotting the cross section of the river, and marking the
observed HFL, the cross sectional area (A) and wetted perimeter (P) have been computed. In the absence of the flood slope
of the stream, the bed slope of the river has been estimated along its length.
The velocity and Discharge have been calculated using the 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 value of ‘n’ has been adopted as per soil criteria and river bed characteristics, observed at site and are based on Table 3
in IRC SP-13 which has been reproduced below in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Value of “n” as per soil criterion
Surface Perfect Good Fair Bad
Natural Streams
Clean, straight bank, full stage, no rifts or deep pools 0.025 0.0275 0.030 0.033
Same as (I), but some weeds and stones 0.030 0.033 0.035 0.040
Winding, some pools and shoals, clean 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050
Same as (3), lower stages, more ineffective slope and sections 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055
Same as (3) some weeds and stones 0.033 0.035 0.040 0.045
Same as (4), stony sections 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060
Sluggish river reaches, rather weedy or with very deep pools 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080
Very weedy reaches 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150
5.3.3. 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
5-4
Organization (RDSO), Ministry of Railways, Government of India, in March 1990; the Rational Formula has been improved
and given as follows:
Q T  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 5-2:
Table 5-2: 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/ Wooded Areas C = 0.415 (R x F) 0.2
4. Black Cotton/ Clayey Soil/ Lightly Covered/ lightly Wooded/ Plain and Barren/ Submontane and Plateau C = 0.456 (R x F) 0.2
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
5-3:
Table 5-3: Values of Areal Reduction Factor (F)
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 Bransby Williams’’ formula, as in most of the places the
catchments area is elongated, which is given by:
 L 
t c  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
5-5
The following steps obtain rainfall intensity (I) of return period T-years, lasting for tc-hours:
Get the T-year, 24-hour rainfall (RT(24)) from the report “Flood Estimation Report Narmada and Tapi Subzone-3(c) ” for return
period, T;
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=RT(tc) / tc
The catchment area “A” for the major and minor bridge structures has been determined from the topographic sheets of
1:50,000 or 1:2, 50, 000.
5.3.4. 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 falls in the Narmada and Tapi Subzone-3(c). A
detailed approach and equations of unit hydrograph has been given in the report “Flood Estimation Report for Narmada and
Tapi Subzone-3(c)”, published in October 2002. In this method the design flood discharge has been calculated as per
guidelines given in the report.
5.3.5. Dickens’ Formula
Q= C(M) ¾
Where, Q is the peak runoff in cu.m/ sec. And M is the catchment area in Sq. Km.
C = 11-14 where the annual rainfall is 60-120 cm;
=14-19 in where the annual rainfall is more than 120 cm;
= 22 in Western ghat
5.4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN HFL

In hydraulic analysis, the Design HFL has been calculated corresponding to the Design Discharge by Manning’s Equation at
the bridge site, as described above.
5.4.1. 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.
5-6
5.4.2. Scour Depth Calculation
To provide an adequate margin of safety for design of foundation, a further increase by 30% has 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:
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, Ksf, 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.
5.4.3. 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.
5.4.4. Recommendations
The detailed hydrological & hydraulic calculations of 6major and 52 minor bridges have been presented in Appendices and
the summary of these calculations and scouring levels has been presented in Table 5-4, to Table 5-5.
5-7
Table 5-4-: Summary of Hydrological and Hydraulic Study Minor Bridges

Proposed Discharge Design HFL Existing span Hydraulic
Sr.No Name of River Velocity Avg. Depth LBL (m) Appendix No.
Chainage (cumecs) (m) (m) Adequacy
1 Local Nalla 4+200 51.63 447.63 3.25 2.95 444.06 13.2 Adequate B1
Local Nalla
4 (Hosangabad 28+800 Hosangabad By-Pass 6 - B4
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
5-8

Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
Local Nalla
bypass)
24 Local Nalla 66+86 60.79 385.68 1.53 2 382.6 25 Adequate B24
25 Local Nalla 67+349 25.27 378.06 1.03 1.73 375.99 15 Adequate B25
26 Sukhi River (Kesla) 68+863 212.231 372.186 2.26 3.16 368.49 40 Adequate B26
5-9

29 Local Nalla 77+900 2172.3 361 349.46 51 349.46 51 Adequate B29
31 84+364 194.99 380.6 2.37 3.1 376.54 30 Adequate B31
32 Polapattar 90+175 109.74 380.595 1.89 2.216 377.71 30 Adequate B32
Local Nalla
33 97+912 287.13 384.03 2.56 5.73 378.05 20 Adequate B33
(Magardoh)
Local Nalla
34 102+642 Shahpur By-Pass - B34
(Shahpur Bypass)
Local Nalla
(Shahpur Bypass)
Local Nalla
(Shahpur Bypass)
Local Nalla
(Shahpur Bypass)
38 Local Nalla 111+926 4.1 477 0.46 0.66 476.2 8 Adequate B38
39 Local Nalla 112+317 28.87 488 0.33 1.383 486.2 6 Adequate B39
41 Local Nalla 116+975 11 580.1 4.1 0.42 579.63 8 Adequate B41
Panghat Nalla in
46 120+899 6.6 593.31 1.32 0.56 592.74 6 Adequate B46
(Padar Bypass)
Panghat Nalla in
47 121+607 1.8 640.32 1.04 0.246 640.07 6 Adequate B47
(Padar Bypass)
Panghat Nalla in
48 123+498 24.13 641.95 0.75 0.47 641.3 6 Adequate B48
(Padar Bypass)
Panghat Nalla in
49 123+832 Padar Byapss 6 B49
(Padar Bypass)
50 Local Nalla 127+27 - - - - - 6 B50
51 Local Nalla 129+417 - - - - - 6 B51
5-10
Major Bridges
Sr. Proposed Discharge Design HFL Existing span Hydraulic Appendix No.
Name of River Velocity Avg. Depth LBL (m)
No chainage (cumecs) (m) (m) Adequacy
1 (Hosangabad bypass) 31+050 498.16 296.32 2.39 1.68 293.73 80 Adequate A1
2 Narmada (Hosangabad bypass) 34+400 33593 305.3 12.4 20.28 279 900 Adequate A2
3 Tawa canal (Hosangabad bypass) 55+160 Adequate A3
4 Bhounra 92+870 493.66 364.075 2.26 3.81 358.72 80 Adequate A4
5 - 96+577 607.27 376.14 2.44 4.78 370.41 60 Adequate A5
6 Machna (Shahpur By-Pass) 104+241 3285.42 386.86 4.59 5.1 379.71 150 Adequate A6
Table 5-5-: Summary of Scour Level for Minor Bridges

Silt Factor (Ksf) Scour Depth Level in (m)
Sr. Proposed Discharge Design HFL
Name of River Abutment Abutment Pier Pier Pier Abutment Abutment Remarks
No Chainage (cumecs) (m) Pier 1
1 2 1 2 3 1 2
1 Local Nalla 4+200 51.63 447.63 1 - - - - 442.439 - - -
2 Local Nalla 4+700 85.535 448.27 1 - - - - 441.003 - - -
3 Local Nalla 22+300 13.168 429.32 0.6 - - - - 427.301 - - -
Local Nalla (Hosangabad
4 28+800 Hosangabad By-Pass - - - - - - - - -
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
5-11

1 2 1 2 3 1 2
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
bypass)
24 Local Nalla 66+086 60.79 385.68 1.62 - - - - 382.247 - - -
25 Local Nalla 67+349 25.27 378.06 1.71 - - - - 375.66 - - -
26 Sukhi River (Kesla) 68+863 212.231 372.186 0.65 - - - - 364.995 - - -
27 Local Nalla 70+038 32.32 368.86 0.85 - - - - 364.47 -
28 Local Nalla 71+209 568.74 368.94 3.98 - - 3.71 - 361.359 - 356.715 -
Rock almost from EGL
29 Local Nalla 77+900 2172.3 361 - - - - - - - -
(below 0.5m)
30 Local Nalla 81+635 184.92 374.053 - - - - - - - -
(below 0.5m)
31 84+364 194.99 380.6 1.67 - - - - 374.569 -
32 Polapattar 90+175 109.74 380.595 1.75 - - - - 376.491 - - -
5-12

1 2 1 2 3 1 2
33 Local Nalla (Magardoh) 97+912 287.13 384.03 - - - - - - - -
(below 0.3m)
Local Nalla (Shahpur
34 102+642 Shahpur By-Pass - - - - - - - - -
Bypass)
35 103+052 Shahpur By-Pass - - - - - - - - -
Bypass)
36 103+576 Shahpur By-Pass - - - - - - - - -
Bypass)
37 106+007 Shahpur By-Pass - - - - - - - - -
Bypass)
38 Local Nalla 111+926 4.1 477 2.38 - - - - 476.028 - - -
39 Local Nalla 112+317 28.87 488 2.71 - - - - 483.856 - - -
40 Local Nalla 115+005 9.05 580.05 1.64 - - - - 577.789 - - -
41 Local Nalla 116+975 11.00 580.1 1.36 - - - - 577.838 - - -
42 Local Nalla 117+962 6.55 594.74 2.55 - - - - 593.127 - - -
Limited Rock level up to
43 Local Nalla 118+961 127.55 584.3 2.3 - - - - 576.618 - -
7.70m
44 Local Nalla 119+353 0.23 590.76 2.62 - - - - 590.47 - - -
Limited Rock level up to
45 Local Nalla 119+800 123.1 590.14 1.81 - - - - 579.85 - -
5.4m
Panghat Nalla in (Padar
46 120+899 6.6 593.31 3.24 - - - - 591.85 - -
Bypass) -
47 121+607 1.8 640.32 1.86 - - - - 639.581 - -
Bypass) -
Panghat Nalla in (Padar Rock almost from EGL
48 123+498 24.13 641.95 - - - - - - - -
Bypass) (below 0.5m)
49 123+832 Padar Byapss -
Bypass)
50 Local Nalla 127+027 - - - - - - - - - - -
51 Local Nalla 129+417 - - -
52 Local Nalla 134+407 30.95 627.12 1.89 - - - - 623.638 - - -
5-13
Summary of Scour Level for Major Bridges
Design Silt Factor (Ksf) Scour Depth Level in (m)

Sr. Proposed Discharge
Name of River HFL Pier Pier Pier Abutment Abutment Remarks
No chainage (cumecs) Abutment1 Abutment2 Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3
(m) 1 2 3 1 2
1 (Hosangabad bypass) 31+050 498.16 296.32 -
Limited to
2 Narmada (Hosangabad bypass) 34+400 33593 305.3 2.16 2.14 2.42 - - 286.928 286.928 277.58 - -
Rock level
3 Tawa canal (Hosangabad bypass) 55+160 - - - - - - - - -
Limited to
4 Bhounra 92+870 493.66 364.075 1.85 - 1.56 1.6 1.27 358.47 - 354.53 354.607 353.85
Rock level
5 - 96+577 607.27 376.14 - - - - - - - - - - -
Limited to
6 Machna (Shahpur By-Pass) 104+241 3285.42 386.86 3.96 3.33 3.23 2.44 376.648 376.04 369.47 367.96 -
Rock level
5-14
5.5. OVERTOPPING STRETCH

Road profile in the entire project follows the more or less plain ground profile due to which there are few sharp horizontal
curves along the corridor. Thus, majority of the bridges and culverts are located either on horizontal curves of the road.
Floods are frequent from wide spread rainfall as the corridor is in Upper Narmada delta. All the approaches of causeways
are getting overtopped in the corridor. These causeways are converted into High Level bridges with adequate raising of
these approaches.
As stated in IRC: SP 84-2009 the following cause may be referred for raising the FRL
5.6. EMBANKMENT
The height of the embankment shall be measured with respect to the finished road levels. The following principles shall be
kept in view while fixing the road level:
i. No section of the road is overtopped. The finished road level shall be at lease 0.6 m above ground level (except in
cutting and transition length).
ii. The bottom of sub-grade is generally 1.0 m above the high flood level/ high water table. However, in the case of
existing old roads where it may be difficult to fulfill this criterion without needing reconstruction or raising in substantial
length, the criteria may be relaxed depending on site conditions, ensuring that the bottom of sub-grade is 0.6 m above
High Flood Level (HFL). The HFL should be decided by intelligent inspections, local observations, enquiries and
studying the past records. If raising of any section(s) of the existing road is required, the same shall be specified in
Schedule “B” of the Concession Agreement.
5.7. 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 for recommending modification to existing drainage system or proposing
new drainage system. A detailed field survey for the existing drainage system has therefore been carried out to assess the
ground realities.
In project corridor, few rectangular drains were seen in the urbanized areas. In the rural section almost no drains are seen
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 generally proposed where the road runs over the canal bank. The rainwater is disposed off in
the ground in between disposal points or to nearest disposal point if gradient permits.
 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, Urban

ii) Median Cuts / Drains in Super Elevated Sections
iii) Down take Drainage Pipes at RE Wall Locations
iv) Chute Drains at High Embankments
The hydraulic adequacy of the drains are checked as per IRC SP-42 “Guidelines on Road Drainage” IRC SP-50 “Guidelines
on Urban Drainage”
5-15
Road-side Drain
In rural areas, open unlined trapezoidal drains with 0.6 m width and 1V: 1H side slope have been proposed near ROW on
both sides of the road as per guidelines given IRC SP-42. The design return period for the drains has been taken as 25
years.
In Urban Areas, lined rectangular covered footpath drains with 1.2m width have been proposed near ROW on both sides of
road as per guidelines given in IRC SP-50.The design return period for urban drainage has been taken as 5 years.
5.7.1. Median Cuts / Drains in Super Elevated Sections
Median cuts at 10m c/c have been provided at the location of super-elevation to pass the surface runoff of one carriageway
to other carriageway. Wherever edge of the outer carriageway on the horizontal curves is lower than that of the inner
carriageway, lined 100 mm thick PCC (M-15) median drains with 0.6m width have been provided.
5.7.2. Down take Drainage Pipes at RE wall/Fly over Locations
At the location of flyovers/RE walls, the water from MCW have been carried out by 150mm diameter PVC down take pipe
provided at spacing of 10m c/c, which will discharge into the drainage system.
5.7.3. 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 have provided to channelise the flow and are led
down by lined chute drains. And these chute drains ultimately discharge the water into roadside drains.
5.7.4. 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.
5.7.5. 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.
5.7.6. Additional Balancing Culvert on Main Carriage Way
Additional balancing culverts on Main Carriage Way are to be provided if it is required for planning of adequate drainage
system.
5.8. LONGITUDINAL DRAINS
5.8.1. Road Side Drains Design
Approach
The longitudinal drains are proposed to be provided on both side of the road so that the storm water/seepage water does
not damage the pavements layers. These drains are proposed to be discharged into nearby culverts. The longitudinal drains
are proposed to be lined so that it is periodically cleaned easily.
5.8.2. General
Adequate drainage is a primary requirement for maintaining the structural soundness and functional efficiency of a road.
Inadequate surface drainage results in
5-16
(i) Weakening if pavement structural and sub grade through infiltration of water from the top
(ii) Erosion of shoulders, verges and embankment slops coos by water running of the pavement
Continuous gradients of roads and intensity of rainfall require effective drainage system viz. longitudinal drains along roads
and cross drainages (culverts).
Longitudinal drains are proposed to be provided on both carriageways in between main carriageway and service road.
Storm water flows from the one side towards other sides across the carriageway.
5-17

Detailed Project Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detailed Project Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detailed Project Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Highways Authority of India

(Ministry of Road Transport & Highways)

DETAILED PROJECT REPORT

VOLUME-II: DESIGN REPORT

Consultancy Services for Preparation of Detailed

H arda B o ri C h ira p a tla

LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd.

1. HIGHWAY DESIGN ...........................................................................................................................1-1

2. PAVEMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................................................2-1

3. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES..............................................................................................................3-1

4. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES..............................................................................................................4-1

5. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................5-1

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... III

Table 1-1: Proposed RoW .....................................................................................................................................................................1-2

Figure 2-1: Characteristic Deflections (Homogeneous Section) ............................................................................................................2-2

1.2. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS

1.2.1. Project Corridor

1.2.2. Rural Areas

1.2.3. Urban Areas/ Settlement Stretches

1.2.4. Development of Typical Cross Sections

1) Design standards and specifications related to cross sectional elements itself

Conditions of Land Availability

 AT GHAT SECTION: A RoW of 45.0m

1.2.5. Improvement Option –Widening Scheme

1.3. HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN

1.3.1. Base Plan Preparation

 Format survey data to suit the requirements of CIVIL3D environment

1.3.2. Horizontal Alignment

 Location of Utility lines

62211 62256 45 150 45 62365.8 62410.8

1.3.3. Vertical Profile

1.3.4. Sampled cross sections

1.4. DESIGN OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

1.4.1. Roadside Drainage

S.No Chainage Length, m Remarks

1.4.6. Toll Plazas

1.4.7. Pedestrian Crossings

1.4.8. Utility Relocation

2.2. PAVEMENT INVESTIGATIONS

2.2.1. Pavement Condition Survey

2.2.2. Pavement Deflection Survey (BBD)

Correction for Seasonal Variation

Characteristic deflection (Homogenous section)

Figure 2-1: Characteristic Deflections (Homogeneous Section)

2.3. PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2.4. DESIGN PERIOD

2.4.1. Vehicle Damage Factors

Table 2-2: Adopted Vehicle Damage Factors (Location-2) at km 137+000

2.4.2. Design Traffic Considerations

2.5. PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CRUST THICKNESS

Table 2-4: Layer Thickness for New Pavement

The same pavement composition proposed for paved shoulder.

2.6. PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR THE SERVICE ROAD

2.7. PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR CROSS ROAD

2.8. STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT

Table 2-8: Granular Layer thickness New/Existing Pavement

2.9. RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION FOR THE EXISTING PAVEMENT

2.10. PERIODIC MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

2.11. RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN