i

FINAL REPORT ON:

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR

BRIDGE OVER KRISHNA RIVER

BRIDGE OVER KRISHNA RIVER

AT CHAINAGE 14+740 KMS ~ 16+600 KMS.

Submitted to:

M/s. Simplex.
 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sheet No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 1

2.1 Soil Borings 1
2.2 Groundwater 2

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS 2

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3

5.0 CONCEPTS FOR FOUNDATION ANALYSIS 4

5.1 General 4
5.2 Bearing Capacity and Settlement Analysis for
Open Foundations 5
5.3 Axial Capacity of Bored Cast-in-Situ Piles 6
5.4 Well Foundations 7

6.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 6

6.1 Details of Investigation 6
6.2 Site Stratigraphy 6
6.3 Groundwater 6

7.0 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS 7

8.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 8

8.1 Scour Depth 8
8.2 Foundation Type and Depth 9
8.3 Open Foundations at Abutment location 9
8.4 Pile Foundations 9
8.5 Well Foundations 10
8.6 Definition of Gross and Net Bearing Pressure 10

9.0 VARIABILITY IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 11

10.0 CLOSURE 12
 iii

TABLES
Table No.

Soil Profiles 1 to 4

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. No.

Plan of Field Investigation 1

Summary of Borehole Profile 2
Standard Penetration Test 3
Grain Size Analysis 4 to11
Shear Test Result 12 to 16

Typical Calculations: Sheet Nos. 1 & 37

-------------------------------------------------------
 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

M/s. Simplex Infrastructures Limited is planning to construct a

Major Bridge over the Krishna River at Chainage 17+500 Kms. At this
location; twelve (12) preliminary boreholes have been drilled to
32.0~50.0 m depth.

A Major Bridge is planned over the Krishna River at

Chainage 14+470 Kms ~ 17+482 Kms. At this location; twelve (12)
boreholes have been drilled to 32.0~50.0 m depth. As per the
information provided to us, the average ground level in the vicinity of
the completed boreholes is around RL 14.702~20.342 m

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.1 Soil Borings

The boreholes were progressed using a shell and auger to the

specified depth or refusal, whichever is encountered earlier. Where
caving of the borehole occurred, casing was used to keep the borehole
stable. The work was in general accordance with IS:1892-1979.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted in the

borehole at 1.5 m interval to 15 m depth, and thereafter at an interval
of 3 m interval, by connecting a split spoon sampler to ‘A’ rods and
driving it by 45 cm using a 63.5 kg hammer falling freely from a height
of 75 cm. The tests were conducted in accordance with IS: 2131-
1981.

The number of blows for each 15 cm of penetration was

recorded. The blows required to penetrate the initial 15 cm of the split
spoon for seating the sampler is ignored due to the possible presence
of loose materials or cuttings from the drilling operation. The
cumulative number of blows required to penetrate the balance 30 cm
of the 45 cm sampling interval is termed the SPT value or the ‘N’
value.

The ‘N’ values are presented on the profiles for each borehole.
Refusal to further boring penetration was considered when the ‘N’
values exceed 100 blows for 30 cm penetration or when practical
refusal to further penetration by shell and auger was encountered.
 2

Disturbed samples were collected from the split spoon after

conducting SPT. The samples were preserved in transparent
polythene bags. Undisturbed samples were collected by attaching a
75 mm diameter thin-walled ‘Shelby’ tubes and driving the sampler
using a 63.5 kg hammer in accordance with IS:2132-1986. The tubes
were sealed with wax at both ends. All samples were transported to
our Hyderabad laboratory for further examination and testing.

2.2 Groundwater

Groundwater level was measured in the boreholes 24 hours

after drilling and sampling was completed. The measured water levels
are recorded on the individual soil profiles.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

The laboratory-testing programme was aimed at verifying the

field classifications and developing parameters for engineering
analysis. All the tests were performed in accordance with the current
applicable IS specifications. The following tests were conducted on
selected soil and groundwater samples recovered from the boreholes:

Laboratory Test IS Code Referred

Natural moisture content IS : 2720 (Part-2)-1973
Grain size analysis IS : 2720 (Part-4)-1985
Specific gravity IS : 2720 (Part-3)-1980
Liquid limit and plastic limit IS : 2720 (Part-5)-1985
Unconfined compression test IS : 2720 (Part-10)-1995
Consolidated drained direct shear test IS : 2720 (Part-13)-1986

All test results are presented on the individual soil profiles on the
Tables 1 to 4 as well as on the illustrations section of this report.

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The proposed road falls in the state of Andhra Pradesh,

Geologically in the Eastern Ghat region of Peninsular India. The
present study includes Chinnakakni (0+000 Km) to Pedda Avutappalle
(47+800 Km) corssing the Krishana River near about 14+000 Km
chainage location. The project area comprised of Clays of dark colour,
igneous rocks i.e Charnockites, Khondalites as shown in the map
below. Which are generally trending in a N.E-S.W direction. To their
west lies a gneissic tract overlain by basin of Proterozoic rocks which
 3

is highly disturbed on its eastern side, and which might have originally
extended farther to the east.

The proposed stretch near Krishana River recent alluvium with

Clay, Sand and Gravel are observed. Although at some places, there
are rare exposures of Archean Basement, Gollapalli Sandstone and
Tertiary Rajahmundry Sandstone. The Archean group of rocks includes
Kondalite, peninsular gneiss, Charnockite, Dharwar and Dolerite dyke,
which are found in the extreme north and northwestern part of the
delta area.

The soils of the Krishna Delta are very deep, moderately drained
and very dark greyish brown in colour. Hydrogeologically, soils differ in
their infiltration capacity in different parts of the delta depending upon
the kind of soil. The alluvial soil, which occupies the deltaic plain, is
fertile with very high clay content.

5.0 CONCEPTS FOR FOUNDATION ANALYSIS

5.1 General

A suitable foundation for any structure should have an adequate

factor of safety against exceeding the bearing capacity of the
supporting soils. Also the vertical movements due to compression of
the soils should be within tolerable limits for the structure. We
consider that foundation designed in accordance with the
recommendations given herein will satisfy these criteria.

5.2 Bearing Capacity and Settlement Analysis for Open Foundations

Bearing capacity analysis was carried out based on the shear

parameters (c-), as interpreted from field and laboratory tests to
determine the safe net bearing capacity (shear criterion).

The bearing capacity equation used is as follows:

qnet safe = 1 [cNcc dc+ p(Nq -1) q dq+ 0.5 B N d Rw]
F

where :

qnet safe = safe net bearing capacity of soil, based on the shear failure
criterion.
c = cohesion intercept
 4

 = angle of internal friction

 = total unit weight of soil
p = overburden pressure
B = width of foundation
Rw = water table correction factor

F = Factor of safety, taken as equal to 2.5 in accordance with

IS:1904
Nc,Nq,N = Bearing capacity factors which are a function of .
c, q,  = Shape factors. For Strip footings, c = q =  = 1
For Square footing = c = 1.3, q = 1.2,  = 0.6
dc ,dq, d = Depth factors
For   10, dc = 1 + 0.2 tan (45 + /2) D/B, dq = d = 1
For  > 10, dq = d = 1 + 0.1 tan (45 +  / 2) D/B

Appropriate values have been substituted into the bearing

capacity equation given above to compute the safe net bearing
capacity. The values have been checked to determine the settlement
of the foundation under the safe bearing pressure. The allowable
bearing pressure has been taken as the lower of the two values
computed from the bearing capacity shear failure criterion as well as
that computed from the tolerable settlement criterion.

In predominantly granular soils, settlement analysis has been

performed based on the SPT values in accordance with Clause 9.1.4
of IS 8009 (Part 1) - 1976 Fig.9.

Where applicable (typically where substantial incremental

stresses are anticipated in cohesive strata below groundwater table),
settlement analysis has been performed based on classical theory; as
the sum of elastic settlement and consolidation settlements. The
elastic settlement is calculated in accordance with Clause 9.2.3 of IS
8009 Part 1-1976. The consolidation settlement is computed in
accordance with Clause 9.2.2 of IS 8009 (Part 1)-1976.

5.3 Axial Capacity of Bored Cast-in-Situ Piles

The axial capacity for bored piles have been computed based
on static analysis using c-values as interpreted from the site
stratigraphy, SPT values and laboratory test results.
 5

The ultimate pile compressive capacity has been computed

using the following equation as given in IS 2911 Part-I Sections 1 & 2.

 n 
Qult   fsAsLi   quAp
 i 1 
 n

  (ci  pik tan i ) AsLi    cpNc  qpNq  Ap
 i 1 

where :
Qult = ultimate pile capacity
fs = unit skin friction
 = adhesion factor
ci = cohesion intercept in ith layer
pi = overburden pressure at centre of ith layer
k = coefficient of lateral earth pressure
i = angle of friction between soil and pile (taken as equal to i) for
the ith layer
As = surface area of pile per m length
Li = length of pile section in ith layer
cp = cohesion intercept in bearing strata
qu = unit end bearing
qp = overburden pressure in bearing strata
Nc,Nq = bearing capacity factors, which are a function of  in the
bearing strata
Ap = pile cross sectional area

Overburden pressure has been considered below cut-off-level.

The overburden pressure is usually assumed to become constant
below a depth of about 15 pile diameters.

For computation of pullout resistance, the second term in the

above equation is ignored.

The lateral load carrying capacity of bored pile has been

computed based on Appendix, Clause 5.5.2 of IS:2911 (Part 1/Sect.2)-
1979. The pile head is considered to be fixed.

The depth of fixity has been computed as per Fig.2 of

Appendix C, Clause 5.5.2 of IS:2911, Part 1, Section 2. The lateral
load carrying capacity of pile has been computed for a permissible
 6

horizontal deflections of 5 mm and 1% of pile diameter using the

following equation for fixed head pile.
12 y E I
Q  3
( L1  Lf )

where:
Q = lateral load
E = the Young’s modulus of pile material
I = moment of inertia of pile cross section.
Lf = depth of fixity
L1 = length of pile section below cut-off-level that may not contribute
significantly to lateral resistance (in loose/weak soils)
y = horizontal deflection

5.4 Well Foundations

The total load carrying capacity of the well foundation is equal to

skin friction along the well surface plus the end bearing on the well tip.
As per MORT&H / IRC specifications, the skin friction on the well
surface has been ignored and the axial load carrying capacity of the
well is computed as equal to the end bearing on the well tip.

The bearing capacity equation generally used for analyzing well

foundations is as follows:

qgross safe = 1 [cNc c dc + pNq q dq + 0.5 B N d Rw]

F

where :

qgross safe= safe gross bearing capacity of soil based on the shear failure
criterion.
c = cohesion intercept
 = angle of internal friction
 = unit weight of soil
p = overburden pressure computed below the level of maximum
scour
Nc,Nq,N = Bearing capacity factors which are a function of .
Rw = water table correction factor
F = Factor of safety, taken as equal to 2.5
c, q,  = Shape factors
dc, dq, d = Depth factors
For  <10 dc = 1+ 0.2 tan(45+  /2) D/B, dq=d=1
 7

For  >10 dq = d = 1 + 0.1 tan (45 +  /2) D/B

Appropriate values have been substituted into the bearing

capacity equation given above to compute the safe bearing capacity.
The values have been checked to determine the settlement of the well
under the safe bearing pressure. The allowable bearing pressure has
been taken as the lower of the two values computed from the bearing
capacity shear failure criterion as well as that computed from the
tolerable settlement criterion.

6.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

6.1 Details of Investigation

Details of structure planned, and boreholes drilled, at Chainage

14+740 Kms ~ 17+482 Kms. are tabulated below:

Design Borehole
Cross- Borehole Surface Elevation at
Chainage, Structure termination,
stream No. borehole location (RL), m
Km m
17+482 BH-1 19.871 47.0
17+160 BH-2 14.702 46.0
16+600 BH-3 11.018 32.0
16+182 BH-4 16.857 39.0
15+620 BH-5 20.165 45.0
15+220 Major Krishna BH-6 19.704 45.0
15+090 Bridge River BH-7 15.773 50.0
14+920 BH-8 18.456 50.0
14+740 BH-9 13.650 50.0
15+620 BH-4A 20.165 51.5
15+570 BH-5A 20.142 46.8
15+520 BH-5B 20.342 49.5

A layout plan showing the locations of our field investigation is

illustrated on Fig.1.

6.2 Site Stratigraphy

a) BH – 1 & BH – 2

A very stiff clay is encountered at these locations from ground

level to about 23m in BH-1 and 38m in BH-2. Field SPT values in this
layer ranges between 23 – 30. Underneath this layer, fine dense to
 8

very dense silty sand / clayey sand is encountered till the termination
depth. Field SPT values in this layer are almost over 50.

b) BH – 4 & BH – 4A

A medium dense silty sand is encountered from the top level to

the termination depth. Field SPT value ranges from 15 – 30. Except in
BH-4, highly weathered rock is encountered at 27m – 39m depth.

c) BH – 5 & BH – 5A

A loose to medium dense silty sand is encountered from the

ground level to a depth of around 23m. Field SPT values range from 7
– 35. This is underlain by a very soft to firm clay till the depth of around
47m. Field SPT values in this layer range from 3 – 10.

d) BH-3, BH-6, BH-7, BH-8 & BH-9

A medium dense to very dense silty sand / clayey sand is

encountered from the ground surface till the termination depth in these
boreholes. Field SPT values in this layer range from 20 – 60.

e) BH – 5B

A medium dense to dense silty sand was encountered at the top

level to a depth of around 32m followed by stiff clay up to a depth of
around 45m. This is underlain by a small layer of around 3-4m of very
dense silty sand followed by highly weathered rock. Field SPT values
in the top silty sand layer ranges from 25-50 and 16 – 20 in the clay
layer.

Detailed description of the materials encountered at the

borehole locations are presented on the individual soil profiles in
Tables 1 to 12. SPT values are plotted on Fig. 2a to 2e.

6.3 Groundwater

Based on our measurement in the completed borehole,

groundwater was encountered at low bed level during the period of our
field investigation (July~Aug, 2012). Fluctuations may occur in the
measured water levels due to seasonal variations in rainfall and
surface evaporation rates.
 9

As per the information given to us, the high flood level (HFL) of
the Krishna River is at RL 23.5 m. Groundwater may be considered at
the HFL of the river for the purpose of design and analysis.
Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur due to seasonal
variations in rainfall and surface evaporation rates as well as flow of
water in the Krishna River.

7.0 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS

Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular

material from a solid to a liquefied state as a consequence of
increased pore-water pressure and reduced effective stress
(Marcuson, 1978)(1). Increased pore pressure may be induced by the
tendency of granular materials to compact when subjected to cyclic
shear deformation, such as in the event of an earthquake.

As per IS:1893-2002, liquefaction is likely to occur in fine sand

(SP) below water table for SPT value less than 15. As per
stratigraphy, silty fine sand with is encountered to the final explored
depth of 32.0 ~ 50.0 m.

Reviewing all the soil conditions, SPT values and soil gradation,
we are of the opinion that the liquefaction at the site is not likely to
occur during earthquakes.

As per IS:1893-2002, the project site is in earthquake Zone-III.

The design parameters applicable for Zone-III should be used for the
structural design.

8.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Scour Depth

The hydrological and scour depth data provided to us by

Simplex (vide email dated 12st Oct, 2012) is tabulated below:

Design HFL (m) 23.5

Normal Scour Depth, (m) 5.31
Maximum Scour Depth below HFL at pier, (m) 10.62

8.2 Foundation Type and Depth

1 ()
Markuson, W.F. (III) (1978), “Definition of terms related to liquefaction”, J. Geotech Engrg.
Div,, ASCE, 104(9), 1197-1200
 10

As explained in the previous section, there is no potential for

liquefaction at this location. As summarized in the table above, the
maximum scour depth at this location is given to us as RL 10.62 m.

It is clearly evident from the closely spaced Bore Hole No.s 5,

5A and 5B that the site stratigraphy is very critical and observed a
drastic variation in the soil profiles encountered in these BH’s. At BH-5
and 5A well foundations are not feasible. Further, well foundation is
suggested based on BH-5B only.

We suggest that open foundations at abutment locations

(ignoring scour depth) and pile/well foundations be provided at pier
locations to support the structural loads. Recommendations are
presented herein for each borehole.

As per IRC recommendations, the minimum foundation level for

the well works out at about 15.0 m below the planned soffit level.

Furthermore, the recommendations presented herein are based

on limited data of twelve preliminary (12) boreholes only. Detailed
geotechnical investigation to be done at the proposed bridge location.

A summary of our recommended foundation types for each of

the proposed structures is presented on Table No-5 of this report.

8.3 Open Foundations at Abutment location (BH No-01)

Basic concepts used for analysis of open foundations are

presented on Section 5.3 of this report.

The following table presents our recommended values of net

allowable bearing pressures for open foundations at different depths
(Ignoring scour level):

Recommended Net Allowable Bearing

Foundation Embedment
Pressure, T/m2 for Total Settlement of 50
Depth, m
mm
3.0 16.0
4.0 17.5
5.0 19.5
6.0 21.5
 11

The above values include a bearing capacity safety factor of 2.5.

Net bearing pressures for foundations at intermediate depths may be
interpolated linearly between the values given above. The appropriate
value of net bearing pressure may be selected based on the
displacement/deflections computed from soil-structure interaction, and
the permissible settlement criterion.
Typical calculations are presented at the end of this report.
8.4 Pile Foundations

Basic concepts used for analysis of pile foundations are

presented in Section 5.5 of this report.

The following table presents our recommended safe pile

capacities for 1200 mm diameter RCC bored cast-in-situ piles

Recommended Safe Pile Capacity, Tonnes

Pile Pile Length
Location Diameter, below Cut- Lateral* (fixed
mm Off-Level, m Compressive Pull-Out head horizontal
deflection)
26.0 215 185
BH No: 2 1200 30.0 374 234 91.3*
32.0 443 263
20.0 308 177
BH No: 3 and
1200 22.0 362 195 91.3*
4
24.0 407 212
36.0 274 177
BH No: 5 and
1200 37.0 352 195 91.3*
5A
38.0 428 212
26.0 312 151

BH No: 5B 28.0 345 169

1200 91.3*
and 4A 30.0 378 186
32.0 404 201
15.0 230 103

BH No: 6, 7, 8 18.0 302 149

1200 91.3*
and 9 21.0 385 199
24.0 434 251
* Applicable at the Pile COL
 12

Only one (12) borehole has been drilled at Recommendations

given here are based on these boreholes. We suggest that deeper
boreholes be drilled at these locations during construction/confirmatory
investigation phase.

The following points should be considered while using the

recommended capacities:

1. The recommended pile capacities values have been calculated in

accordance with IS:2911 (Part 1)-Section 2, and include a safety
factor of 2.5.

2. Capacities for piles of intermediate lengths may be interpolated

linearly between the recommended values.

3. The pile capacities given in this report are based on static loading
conditions only, and do not take into account dynamic loading. .

4. The lateral capacities given in the above table are for a fixed pile
head deflection of 1% of pile diameter respectively, and
minimum M35 grade of concrete.

5. The lateral capacities corresponding to the scour level case are

applicable at the base of the scour depth. The pile section
between cut-off-level and the bottom of the scour depth may act
as a free-standing column.

6. The pile capacities given above may be taken as a guideline for

initial design. Final pile capacities should be confirmed by
conducting pile load tests as per IS: 2911-Part-IV.

Typical calculations are presented at the end of this report.

8.5 Well Foundations

Basic concepts used in the analysis of well foundation are

presented in section 5.2 of this report.

As per IRC recommendations, the minimum foundation level for

the well works out at about 15.0 m below the planned soffit level.
 13

We suggest the following values of gross bearing pressure at

the bridge location:

Well Founding Depth, Safe Gross Bearing

Location
Diameter, m m Capacity, T/m2
25.0 50.0
6.0
28.0 55.0
25.0 52.0
BH-2 7.0
28.0 58.0
25.0 55.0
7.5
28.0 60.0
15.0 55.0
6.0
18.0 60.0
15.0 60.0
BH-3 7.0
18.0 65.0
15.0 62.0
7.5
18.0 70.0
15.0 35.0
6.0
18.0 36.0
15.0 36.0
BH-4 & 7 7.0
18.0 37.0
15.0 37.0
7.5
18.0 37.5
15.0 43.0
6.0
18.0 45.0
15.0 45.0
BH-5B & 4A 7.0
18.0 52.0
15.0 46.5
7.5
18.0 55.0
 14

Well Founding Depth, Safe Gross Bearing

Location
Diameter, m m Capacity, T/m2
15.0 38.0
6.0
18.0 50.0
15.0 40.0
BH-6, 8, & 9 7.0
18.0 52.0
15.0 45.0
7.5
18.0 55.0

The above values include a bearing capacity safety factor of 2.5.

As discussed in section 8.2, the recommendations presented herein
are based on limited data of twelve (12) widely spaced boreholes only.

Typical calculations are presented at the end of this report.

8.6 Definition of Gross and Net Bearing Pressure

For the purposes of this report, the net allowable bearing

pressure should be calculated as the difference between total load on
the foundation and the weight of the soil overlying the foundation
divided by the effective area of the foundation. The gross bearing
pressure is the total pressure at the foundation level including
overburden pressure and surcharge load.

The following equations may be used -

qnet = [(Ps + Wf +Ws) / Af] - Sv

qgross = qnet + Sv = (Ps + Wf + Ws) / Af

where:
qnet = net allowable bearing pressure
qgross = gross bearing pressure
Ps = superimposed static load on foundation
Wf = weight of foundation
Ws = weight of soil overlying foundation
Af = effective area of foundation
Sv = overburden pressure at foundation level

It may please be noted that safe bearing pressures

recommended in this report refer to “net values”. Where filling is
done, it should be treated as a surcharge over the foundation.
 15

9.0 VARIABILITY IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions encountered during construction may

vary somewhat from the conditions encountered during the site
investigation. In case significant variations are encountered during
construction, we request to be notified so that our engineers may
review the recommendations in this report in light of these variations.

10.0 CLOSURE
We appreciate the opportunity to perform this investigation for
you and have pleasure in submitting this report. Please contact us
when we can be of further service to you.

for GEO TECHNICAL SERVICES

Chief Consultant