Bridge No-1

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING
SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY . is planning to propose construction of

Bridge on R/F M anneguda to Regadmamidipally via Chengomul . 0000000000 entrusted
the work of Geotechnical Investigation to M/s. CIVIL TECH LABS . Hyderabad. M/s .
Medini Geo Engineering Services (MGES) . has been appointed by M/s. CIVIL TECH LABS
. for carrying out the geotechnical Investigation at the site. The work of
geotechnical investigation has been awarded to us, A layout plan showing the
locations of our field investigation is illustrated on Plate 1. This report
includes the details of methodology of investigatio n, collections of samples,
field test results, and laboratory test results including their interpretation/
analysis, recomme ndations for the properties essential to the design of
foundations and recommendations. 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY The over all purpose of this
study are to investigate the stratigraphy at the site and to develop preliminary
geotechnical recommendations for initial planning. To a ccomplish these purposes,
the study is being conducted in the following phases:
(i)
Drilling of four borehole at e very structures in the proposed Bridge , each bore
hole drilled up to maximum depth of 10 . 0 0 m or refusal, whichever is earlier, in
order to evalua te the stratigraphy at the site and to collect soil samples for
laboratory testing;
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

SERVICES
(ii)
Analysing all field and laboratory data to develop geotechnical recommendations for
design and construction of Bridge on R/F M anneguda to Regadmamidipally via
Chengomul .
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK EXPLORATORY BORE HOLES
S.NO
BORE HOLE NO
CHAINAGE , Kms
LOCATION
TERMINATION DEPTH, m
1 BH - A 1 10.00
2 BH - P1 10. 00
3 BH - P2 10.00
4 BH - A2 10.00
2.0 METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION The investigation is planned to obtain the

subsurface stratification in the proposed project site and collect soil s amples
for laboratory testing to determine the engineering properties such as shear
strength along with basic engineering classification of the subsurface stratum to
arrive at the foundation design parameters. 2.1 SOIL BORING The Boreholes in soil
are progressed by Rotar y drilling method as per IS: 1892 – 1979 and approved
methodology. Boring is advanced at selected / specified borehole locations. The
following steps are adopted during boring operations. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON
BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

SERVICES
1) Boring rig with power winch is assembled at site and was shifted and erect ed at
the borehole location. 2) Taken out the top soil up to approximately 500 mm. 3) The
auger is joined at the end of hollow drill rod, which is rotated manually. 4) After
reaching the drill rod attached with the auger attained its full dept h another
piece (extension rod) was attached and the process is continued the drilling up to
the level of water table. 5) Below the water table shell is used instead of auger
and the casing pipe is lowered as per requirement. 6) Casing is used as per the
prevailin g soil conditions, to stabilize the borehole. 7) Required field tests i.
e, Standard Penetration Tests are conducted, and collection of undisturbed
/disturbed samples are collected as per requirements at specified depths. 8) This
process is cont inued till the achievement of full depth of bore hole as per
requirement. 2.2 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) are
conducted in the borehole at 1.5 m intervals, by connecting a split spoon sampler
to ‘A’ rods and driving it by 45 cm using a 63.5 kg hammer f alling freely from a
height of 75 cm. The tests are conducted in accordance with IS: 2131 - 1981. The
number of blows for each 15 cm of penetration is 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’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F
MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

SERVICES
values exceed 100 blows for 30 cm penetration or when practical refusal to further
penetration by shell and auger is encountered. Disturbed samples are collected from
the split spoon after conducting SPT. The samples are preserved in transparent
polythene bags. Undisturbed samples are collected by attaching a 75 mm diameter
thin - walled ‘Shelby’ tubes and driving the sampler using a 63.5 kg ham mer in
accordance with IS:2132 - 1986. The tubes are sealed with wax at both ends. All
samples are transported to our laboratory for further examination and testing. 2.3
UNDISTURBED The undisturbed soil samples are collected in good quality thin walled
seamless tubes, o f min. dia of 100mm and length of 450 mm with area ratio less
than 10%. The UDS tubes are gently pushed in soil using hydraulic push rig/gently
hammering action. After retrieval of UDS tube from the borehole, ends of the tube
with sample are sealed with fr eshly molten wax of minimum 20 mm thick, properly
labelled , marked an arrow showing upward direction and dispatched to laboratory
for testing. At site, sample tubes wer e covered with wet gunny bags. When the UDS
tubes are not penetrated the subsoil strata, it is clearly mentioned on the bore
log sheet. 2.4 DISTURBED SAMPLE Disturbed soil samples are also collected from the
bore holes at suitable depths/intervals t o supplement the boring records. These
samples are collected in polythene bags of suitable size. These samples a re
properly sealed, labelled, recorded & carefully transported to the laboratory for
testing. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA
CHENGOMUL.

SERVICES
2 . 5 GROUND WATER TABLE The depth at which groundwater is struck during boring is
carefully noted and the depth of water table was ascertained subsequently in the
completed borehole by one of the following methods. The water table in the borehole
could stabilize after depressing the water lev el adequately by bailing. Stability
of the borehole sides and bottom is be ensured at all times. The bore hole was
filled with water and then ba iled out to various depths. Observations were made at
each depth to see if the water level is rising or falling. The depth at which
neither a fall nor rise is observed, was considered as the water table depth. 3.0
LABORATORY TESTS The laboratory testing has been carrie d out at CIVIL TECH LAB .
Its NABL accredited laboratory. The quality procedures in our laboratory conform to
ISO/IEC - 17025 - 2005 . Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples
to determine their physical and engineering properties. The testing p rocedures
were in accordance with current applicable IS specifications. The following tests
were conducted on selected soil and groundwater samples recovered from the
boreholes. ON SOILS:
S.NO TEST NAME Ref.IS CODE
01 Natural moisture content IS: 2720 (Part - 2) - 286A3
02 Grain size analysis IS: 2720 (Part - 4) - 1985
03 Specific gravity IS: 2720 (Part - 3) - 1980
04 Liquid limit and plastic limit IS: 2720 (Part - 5) - 1985
05 Unconfined compression test IS: 2720 (Part - 10) - 1995

SERVICES
06
Consolidated drained direct she ar test
IS: 2720 (Part - 13) - 1986
07 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) IS:2720 (Part - 16)1979
08 Bulk & Dry Density IS:2720(Part - 14) - 1983
09
Permeability constant head method
IS :2720 (Part - 17)
09 Heavy compaction test IS:2720 (Part - 8)1980
10 11 12
Chemical Analy sis of Soil
pH value IS : 2720 (Part 26) - 1987,2007 Sulphates IS : 2720 (Part - 27) -
1977,2010 Chlorides IS : 2720 (Part - 32) - 1977,2010
13 14 15
Chemical Analysis of soil
pH value Sulphates Chlori des
IS : 3025 (Part - 11) - 1983 IS : 3025 (Part - 24) - 1983 IS : 3025 (Part - 32) -
1986
4.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITION 4.1 SITE STRATIGRAPHY Based on the boring information,
the following subsoil profile was inferred up to final depth
Bore Hole No
Depth, m From To
Strata Description
SPT ’N’ Value
Core Recovery (%)
RQD (%)
BH - 0 1 0.00 1 . 5 0
Grey col ored Fine to Medium Silty Sand (SM)
1 9
-
-
1.50 3 .00
Silty Gravels, Poorly Graded Gravel - Sand Silt mixtures (GM)
25
-
-
3.00 7.00 SDR 64 - 100 - -
7.00 10 .0 Ha rd Rock 56 - 75 29 - 42
BH - P1 0.00 1.50
Grey colored Fine to Medium Silty Sand (SM)
15
-
-
1. 50 2.5 0
-
-

SERVICES
Bore Hole No
Depth, m From To
Strata Description
SPT ’N’ Value
Core Recovery (%)
RQD (%)
2.50 8 .00 SDR 54 - 100 - -
8 .00 10 .00 Ha rd Rock 54 - 68 33 - 43
BH - P2 0.00 2 .50
1 5
-
-
2 .50 8 .00 SDR 41 - 100 - -
8 .00 10 .00 Ha rd Rock 57 - 68 31 - 43
BH - A2
0 .00 1.5 0
1 7
-
-
1 . 5 0 3 .00
23
-
-
3.00 7.00 SDR 40 - 100
7 .00 10 . 0 Ha rd Rock 48 - 72 24 - 41
5.0 CONCEPT FOR FOUNDATION ANALYSIS 5.1 GENERAL A suitable f oundation 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 structur e. We consi der that
foundation designed in accordance with the recommendations given herein will
satisfy these criteria . PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA
DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

SERVICES
5. 2 FOUNDATION TYPE AND We suggest the following alternative foundation schemes

for the facilities planned: 5. 3 BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR OPEN
FOUNDATIONS Bearing capacity analysis was carried out based on the shear parameters
(c - f ), as interpreted from field and laboratory tests to determine the safe net
bearing capacity (shear criterion). The bearing capacity equation used is as
follows:
q net safe = 1 /F [cNc z c dc+ p(Nq - 1) z q dq+ 0.5 B ¡ N g z g d g Rw]
where :
q net safe = Safe net bearing capacity of soil, based on the
shear failure criterion.
c = Cohesion intercept
f = A ngle of internal friction
¡ = T otal unit weight of soil
p = overburden pressure
B = width of foundation
Rw = water table correc tion factor
F = Factor of safety, taken as equal to 3.0 in accordance
with IS:1904 Nc,Nq,N g

=
Bearing capacity factors which are a function of f .
z c, z q, z g = Shape factors. For Strip footings, z c = z q = z g = 1

SERVICES
For Square footing = z c = 1.3 , z q = 1.2, z g = 0. 8
dc ,dq, d g = Depth factors
For f £ 10, dc = 1 + 0.2 tan (45 + f /2) D/B, dq = d g = 1 For f > 10, dq = d g = 1
+ 0.1 tan (45 + f / 2) D/B Appropriate values have been substituted into the
bearing capacity equation given above t o compute the safe net bearing capacity.
The values have been c hecked 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 ca pacity 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 s tresses 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 settle ments.
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. 6.0 FOUNDATION A NALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS Keeping
in mind, the field test results, laboratory test results and IS codes of practice
the following recommendations are hereby made: May be provided for the all RCC
framed columns of building structures. The depth and corresponding safe net bearing
ca pacity shall be as follows: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO
REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

SERVICES
S.NO BH.NO
Depth Below G.L, m
Strata Description
Footing Size (B x L) m
Safe Net Bearing Pressure (t/m 2 )
1 A 1 1. 5 0 Silty Sand 1.00 x 1.00 12.91
2 3. 00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 32.65
3 4 . 5 0 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 68.54

4 P1 1.50 Silty Sand 1.00 x 1.00 4.69
5 3.00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 14.77
6 4.50 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 43.86
7 P2 1.50 Silty Sand 1.00 x 1.00 5.53
8 3.00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 15.22
9 4.50 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 45.38
10 A2 1.50 Silty Sand 1.00 x 1.00 6.74
11 3.00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 20.58
12 4.50 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 52.08
The following points are highlighted with reference to the above - recommended safe
net bearing pressures: 1. The above values include a bearing capacity safety factor
of 3.0 . The appropriate value of net bearing capacity may be selected depending
upon the permissible settlement. 2. Net bearing capa city for foundations at
intermediate depths may be interpolated li nearly between the values given above.

SERVICES
3. The soils at foundation level should be compacted thoroughly prior to

construction to ensure that there are no loose soil pockets below the foundati on.
4. Foundation size and shape may base on the design load. 5. A ll depths measured
from existing ground levels. 6. If any loose pocket strata are found during the
excavation, the foundation shall be laid only after ensuring that the same has been
cleared and appropriate remedial measures have been adopted. If needed, t he same
may please be brought to the notice of the undersigned . 7 . 0 LIMITATIONS:
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations,
subsurface exploration, laboratory tests an d some assumptions. It is often
possible that soil strata observed from bore log profiles to that of actual field
strata could vary due to limitations in exploration of boreholes. If soil
conditions encountered during construction differs from those descri bed herein,
concerned person at construction is requested to notify the same immediately, in
order that a review may be made and any su pplementary recommendations be provided.
It is recommended that the suggested bearing capacity values to be ascertained d
uring construction phase through field testing methods. For MEDINI GEO ENGINEERI NG
SERVICES PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA
CHENGOMUL.
M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES

SUB SURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
PROJECT
:
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGADMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.
BORE HOLE NUMBER : B H : 1 CHAINAGE NO : 22400 DATE COMMENCED : 16 February 2020
BRIDGE NO : 1 CORE TYPE : SINGLE DATE COMPLETED : 16 February 2020

COORDINATES E : N : GROUND ELEVATION : TOTAL DEPTH (m) :
341385.9926 2098337.142 -0.03 meter 10.00 meter
CORE DIAMETER (mm) : 75 WEIGHT OF HAMMER (Kg) : 63.5 DIST.FALLING HAMMER (cm : 75
CASSING DIAMETER (MM) : 150
GEO-TECH ENGINEE : WATER TABLE : DRILLING MASTER : METHOD OF SAMPL :
NEELAKANTAM SRINIVAS RAO ROTARY DRILLING
m
S O I L P R O F I L E L O G
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS
SPT BLOWS 15- 30-45 cms
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NUMBER OF BLOWS
0.00 0.50 1.00

Grey Coloured Fine to Medium Grained Silty Sand (SM)
DS
1.50 SPT 6 8 11 19
2.00 2.50
Grey Coloured Silty Gravels, Poorly Graded Gravel - Sand Silt mixtures (GM)
DS
3.00 SPT 9 11 14 25
3.50 4.00 4.50

SPT
22 28 36 64
DS
5.00 5.50
Soft Designtegrated Rock(SDR)
6.00
SPT 50 Blows 5cms>100 DS
6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

Core Recovery 56% & RQD 29%
8.50
Moderately Weathered Granite Rock
9.00 Core Recovery 64% & RQD 32%
9.50 10.0
REMARK : SPT- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST UDS - UNDISTURBED SAMPLE DS - DISTURBED

SAMPLE
RQD- ROCK QUALITY DESIGNTEGRATED CR- CORE RECOVERY GWL- GROUND WATER LEVEL
Sheet 1 Of 1
DATE
DEPTH (m)
Depth of
Cassing
G.W.L (m)
SPT/UDS
TEST
TYPE OF
SAMPLE
SPT 'N'VALUE
REMARKS
WATER
COLOR
CORE
RECOVERY
BORE
PROFILE
Recycling water is Brown in color
Cassing 10.00 mts
Ground Water table was Encountered at 1.20 m
16 February 2020
PROJECT
:

341592.3689 2098448.271 0.16 meter 10.00 meter
CASSING DIAMETER (MM) : 150 S O I L P R O F I L E L O G
m
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS
0.00 0.50 1.00

1.50 SPT 5 7 8 15
2.00 2.50
DS
3.00 SPT 18 25 29 54
DS
3.50 4.00 4.50

5.00 5.50
6.00
6.50 7.00 7.50

SPT
Refusal >100
DS
8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.0

Core Recovery 54% & RQD 33% Core Recovery 68% & RQD 43%

SAMPLE
Sheet 1 Of 1
DATE
DEPTH (m)
Depth of
Cassing
G.W.L (m)
SPT/UDS
TEST
TYPE OF
SAMPLE
SPT 'N'VALUE
WATER
COLOR
CORE
RECOVERY
BORE
PROFILE
REMARKS
Cassing 10.00 mts
17 February 2020
PROJECT
:

341576.4055 2098068.283 -0.09 meter 10.00 meter
m
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
Grey Coloured Fine to Medium Grained Silty Sand (SM) Soft Designtegrated Rock(SDR)
SPT SPT SPT
DS DS DS
5 7 8 15 16 18 23 41 20 25 31 56
6.00
SPT 50 Blows 6.3 Cms>100 DS
6.50 7.00 7.50

SPT
Refusal >100
DS
8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.0

Core Recovery 57% & RQD 31% Core Recovery 68% & RQD 43%

SAMPLE
Sheet 1 Of 1
DATE
DEPTH (m)
Depth of
Cassing
G.W.L (m)
SPT/UDS
TEST
TYPE OF
SAMPLE
SPT 'N'VALUE
WATER
COLOR
CORE
RECOVERY
BORE
PROFILE
REMARKS
Cassing 10.00 mts
17 February 2020
PROJECT
:

341807.8578 2098074.944 -0.09 meter 10.00 meter
m
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS
0.00 0.50 1.00

DS
1.50 SPT 5 7 10 17
2.00 2.50
DS
3.00 SPT 10 10 13 23
3.50 4.00 4.50

SPT
13 19 21 40
DS
5.00 5.50
6.00
SPT 50 Blows 4.7cms>100 DS
6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00

8.50
9.00 Core Recovery 68% & RQD 38%
9.50 10.0

SAMPLE
Sheet 1 Of 1
DATE
DEPTH (m)
Depth of
Cassing
G.W.L (m)
SPT/UDS
TEST
TYPE OF
SAMPLE
SPT 'N'VALUE
WATER
COLOR
CORE
RECOVERY
BORE
PROFILE
REMARKS
Cassing 10.00 mts
18 February 2020
MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES STANDARED PENETRATION TEST GRAPHS PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGADMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.
MEDINI GEOENGINEERING SERVICES

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH,m Bulk
BOREHOLE No. REDUCED LEVEL:

1 100.00 m
From 0.00 1.50
To 1.50 3.00
Density,t/m 3 1.76 1.83
WATER TABLE=
5.00
m
3.00 4.50 6.00
4.50 6.00 7.50
1.85 1.85 1.85
Depth (m)
Overburden Pressure T/m 2
Corr. Overburden Press. kg/cm 2
C N
Field Value N
N'
N"
Reduced level , m
1.50 2.64 0.26 1.45 19 27.50 27.50 98.50
3.00 5.39 0.54 1.21 25 30.22 30.22 97.00
4.50 8.16 0.82 1.07 64 68.47 68.47 95.50
6.00 10.94 0.99 1.00 100 100.40 75.00 94.00
DEPTH,m Bulk
2 100.00 m
From 0.00 1.50
To 1.50 3.00
Density,t/m 3 1.74 1.83
WATER TABLE =
5.50
m
3.00 4.50 6.00
4.50 6.00 7.50
1.85 1.85 1.85
Depth (m)
C N
Field Value N
N'
N"
Reduced level , m
1.50 2.61 0.26 1.45 15 21.76 21.76 98.50
3.00 5.36 0.54 1.21 54 65.38 65.38 97.00
4.50 8.13 0.81 1.07 100 107.10 107.10 95.50
MEDINI GEOENGINEERING
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH,m Bulk

3 100.00 m
From 0.00 1.50
To 1.50 3.00
Density,t/m 3 1.75 1.78
WATER TABLE =
5.50
m
3.00 4.50 6.00
4.50 6.00 7.50
1.85 1.85 1.85
Depth (m)
C N
Field Value N
N'
N"
Reduced level , m
1.50 2.63 0.26 1.45 15 21.74 21.74 98.50
3.00 5.30 0.53 1.21 41 49.79 49.79 97.00
4.50 8.07 0.81 1.07 56 60.12 60.12 95.50

6.00 10.85 1.63 0.84 100 83.75 80.00 94.00
DEPTH,m Bulk

4 100.00 m
From 0.00 2.00
To 2.00 4.00
Density,t/m 3 1.76 1.85
WATER TABLE =
5.20
m
4.00 6.00 8.00
6.00 8.00 10.00
1.85 1.85 1.85
Depth (m)
C N
Field Value N
N'
N"
Reduced level , m
1.50 2.64 0.26 1.88 17 31.96 31.96 98.50
3.00 5.37 0.54 1.70 23 39.10 39.10 97.00
4.50 8.15 0.81 1.45 40 58.00 58.00 95.50
6.00 10.92 1.01 1.00 100 99.78 83.00 94.00
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
F I E L D N V A L U E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
L E G E N D
Symbol
BH.No. 1 2 3 4 0 0
D E P T H, m
C O R R E C T E D " N " V A L U E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
L E G E N D
Symbol
BH.No. 1 2 3 4 0 0
D E P T H, m
F I E L D N V A L U E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90
L E G E N D
Symbol
BH.No. 1 2 3 4 0 0
Reduced Level,m 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
R E D U C E D L E V E L, m
C O R R E C T E D " N " V A L U E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90
Symbol
L E G E N D BH.No. Reduced Level,m 1 100.00 2 100.00 3 100.00 4 100.00 0 0.00 0
0.00
R E D U C E D L E V E L, m
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES
PROJECT NAME : PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGADMAMIDIPALLY

VIA CHENGOMUL.
BORE HOLE NO TYPE OF BRIDGE GROUND LEVELS

: : :
A1 Major Bridge 100.000
m
BRIDGE NO CHAINAGE NO TERMINATION DEPTH
: : :
2 0 10.00
m m
FIELD INVESTIGATION DATA LABORATORY TEST IN SOIL TESTS IN ROCK
SPT
Shearing Strength characteristic
Description of Strata
100.0 0.00
99.5
0.50
Grey Coloured Fine to Medium Grained Silty
99.0 DS 1.00 Sand (SM)
98.5 SPT 1.50 1.5 19 1.50 SM 0.0 66.0 23.0 11.0 8.5 1.76 1.62 2.36 DT 0.03 27.40 -
- - - - - - - -
98.0 2.00 Grey Coloured Silty
97.5 DS 2.50 97.0 SPT 3.00 96.5 3.50 96.0 4.00 95.5 SPT 4.50 95.0 DS 5.00 94.5 5.50
94.0 SPT 6.00 93.5 DS 6.50 93.0 7.00 92.5 7.50
25 25 4.5 64 >100 >100
Gravels, Poorly Graded Gravel - Sand Silt mixtures (GM) Soft Designtegrated
Rock(SDR)
3.00 GM 13.0 53.0 25.0 9.0 5.3 1.83 1.74 2.47 In SDR Values taken based on SPT N
Value as per IS 2131 In SDR Values taken based on SPT N Value as per IS 2131 7.00
DT 0.00 30.2 - - DT 0.00 32.00 - - DT 0.00 32.00 - -
- - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
92.0 8.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56.0 29.0 23.3
91.5 91.0 90.5

8.50 9.00 9.50
-
- - - -
-
- - - -
-
-
-
-
- - 64.0 32.0
25.5
90.0 10.00 10.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75.0 42.0 27.7
NOTES :
SPT : STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DS : DISTURBED SAMPLE UDS : UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
N.M.C : NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT C : CHOESION Ф : ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
RQD : ROCK QUALITY DESIGNTEGRATED CR : CORE RECOVERY : GROUND WATER TABLE
TS : TRIAXIAL TEST DT : DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Depth
(m)
"N"Value
Type of
test
C
(Kg/cm 2 )
Ф
(degree)
Classification
Water
Absorprtion
UCS (Mpa)
Hardness
Plasticity
Index(%)
compression
index (Cc)
Initial Void
Ratio(eo )
%Core Recovery
% R Q D
N.M.C. (%)
Bulk Density
(t/m 3 )
% Gravel
% Sand
% Silt
Abration Test
Elevation(m)
Nature of
sampling
Depth below
ref.level
Level of water
table (m)
Hatching
Dry Density
(t/m 3 )
Specific Gravity
Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Layerv
Thickness (m)
IS Classification
% Clay

VIA CHENGOMUL.

: : :
P1 Major Bridge 100.000
m
: : :
2 8 10.00
m m
SPT
100.0 0.00
99.5
0.50
99.0 DS 1.00 98.5 SPT 1.50 98.0 2.00

1.5 15
Sand (SM) Grey Coloured Silty Gravels, Poorly
1.50
SM 0.0 72.0 21.0 7.0 7.5 1.74 1.62 2.35
DT 0.02 26.50 - -
-
- - -
-
- -
97.5 DS 2.50
Graded Gravel - Sand Silt mixtures (GM)
2.50 GM 13.0 53.0 25.0 9.0 5.3 1.83 1.74 2.47
DT 0.00 30.0 - -
-
- - -
-
-
-
97.0 SPT 3.00 54 54
96.5 3.50
96.0 4.00 95.5 SPT 4.50

4.5 >100
In SDR Values taken based on SPT N Value as per IS 2131
DT 0.00 32.00 - -
-
- - -
-
-
-
95.0 DS 5.00 Soft Designtegrated
94.5 5.50 Rock(SDR)
94.0 SPT 6.00 6 >100 In SDR Values taken based on SPT N Value as per IS 2131 DT
0.00 32.00 - - - - - - - - -
93.5 DS 6.50
93.0 7.00
92.5 7.50 In SDR Values taken based on SPT N Value as per IS 2131 DT 0.00 32.00 - -
- - - - - - -
92.0 8.00 8.00
91.5 8.50
91.0 90.5 90.0

9.00 9.50 10.00
CS - 10.0 CS -
- - - - - - - -
- -
- - - - - - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- - 54.0 33.0 - - 68.0 43.0
23.5 26.5
NOTES :
Depth
(m)
"N"Value
Type of
test
C
(Kg/cm 2 )
Ф
(degree)
Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Layerv
Thickness (m)
IS Classification
% Clay
Abration Test
Elevation(m)
Nature of
sampling
Depth below
ref.level
Level of water
table (m)
Hatching
Dry Density
(t/m 3 )
Specific Gravity
Classification
Water
Absorprtion
UCS (Mpa)
Hardness
Plasticity
Index(%)
compression
index (Cc)
Initial Void
Ratio(eo )
%Core Recovery
% R Q D
N.M.C. (%)
Bulk Density
(t/m 3 )
% Gravel
% Sand
% Silt

VIA CHENGOMUL.

: : :
P2 Major Bridge 100.000
m
: : :
2 16 10.00
m m
SPT
100.0 0.00
99.5 0.50 99.0 DS 1.00 98.5 SPT 1.50 98.0 2.00 97.5 DS 2.50 97.0 SPT 3.00 96.5 3.50
96.0 4.00 95.5 SPT 4.50 95.0 DS 5.00 94.5 5.50 94.0 SPT 6.00 93.5 DS 6.50 93.0 7.00
1.5 15 41 41 4.5 56 6 >100
Grey Coloured Fine to Medium Grained Silty Sand (SM) Soft Designtegrated Rock(SDR)
SM 0.0 68.0 23.0 9.0 7.76 1.75 1.62 2.40 2.50 SM 0.0 18.0 5.0 7.20 1.78 1.66 2.42
In SDR Values taken based on SPT N Value as per IS 2131 In SDR Values taken based
on SPT N Value as per IS 2131
DT 0.02 28.00 - - DT 0.00 29.2 - - DT 0.00 32.00 - - DT 0.00 32.00 - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - -
92.5 7.50 7.5 >100 In SDR Values taken based on SPT N Value as per IS 2131 DT 0.00
32.00 - - - - - - - - -
92.0 8.00 8.00
91.5 8.50
91.0 90.5
9.00 9.50
-
- - - -
-
- - - -
-
-
-
-
- - 57.0 31.0
25.5
90.0 10.00 10.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68.0 43.0 26.0
NOTES :
Depth
(m)
"N"Value
Type of
test
C
(Kg/cm 2 )
Ф
(degree)
Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Layerv
Thickness (m)
IS Classification
% Clay
Abration Test
Elevation(m)
Nature of
sampling
Depth below
ref.level
Level of water
table (m)
Hatching
Dry Density
(t/m 3 )
Specific Gravity
Classification
Water
Absorprtion
UCS (Mpa)
Hardness
Plasticity
Index(%)
compression
index (Cc)
Initial Void
Ratio(eo )
%Core Recovery
% R Q D
N.M.C. (%)
Bulk Density
(t/m 3 )
% Gravel
% Sand
% Silt

VIA CHENGOMUL.

: : :
A2 Major Bridge 100.000
m
: : :
2 24 10.00
m m
SPT
100.0 0.00
99.5
0.50
99.0 DS 1.00 Sand (SM)
98.5 SPT 1.50 1.5 17 1.50 SM 0.0 71.0 21.0 8.0 8.54 1.76 1.62 2.36 DT 0.02 28.20 -
- - - - - - - -
98.0 2.00 Grey Coloured Silty
97.5 DS 2.50 97.0 SPT 3.00 96.5 3.50 96.0 4.00 95.5 SPT 4.50 95.0 DS 5.00 94.5 5.50
94.0 SPT 6.00 93.5 DS 6.50 93.0 7.00 92.5 7.50
23 23 4.5 40 >100 >100
Gravels, Poorly Graded Gravel - Sand Silt mixtures (GM) Soft Designtegrated
Rock(SDR)
3.00 GM 12.0 62.0 18.0 8.0 5.54 1.85 1.75 2.49 In SDR Values taken based on SPT N
Value as per IS 2131 In SDR Values taken based on SPT N Value as per IS 2131 7.00
DT 0.00 31.0 - - DT 0.00 32.00 - - DT 0.00 32.00 - -
- - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
92.0 8.00 CS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48.0 24.0 22.5
91.5 91.0 90.5 90.0

8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00
CS - 10.0 CS -
- - - - - - - -
- -
- - - - - - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- - 68.0 38.0 - - 72.0 41.0
24.4 26.4
NOTES :
Depth
(m)
"N"Value
Type of
test
C
(Kg/cm 2 )
Ф
(degree)
Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Layerv
Thickness (m)
IS Classification
% Clay
Abration Test
Elevation(m)
Nature of
sampling
Depth below
ref.level
Level of water
table (m)
Hatching
Dry Density
(t/m 3 )
Specific Gravity
Classification
Water
Absorprtion
UCS (Mpa)
Hardness
Plasticity
Index(%)
compression
index (Cc)
Initial Void
Ratio(eo )
%Core Recovery
% R Q D
N.M.C. (%)
Bulk Density
(t/m 3 )
% Gravel
% Sand
% Silt
M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES (Analysis as
per IS 6403-1981)
SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL BH-A1
The Bearing Capicity equation is as follows
q net safe =
{ "# ! $ ! % ! & ' # " ( ) $ " % " & * . ,- . # . $ . % . / # } 12"34546 $26839
Where:-
q net safe q ! "# , "$ , "! %# , %$ , %! &# , &$ , &! C B FS
: Safe Net Bearing Capacity : Over burden pressure : Bulk density of soil below
founding leve : Bearing capicity Factors,which are function of Ø : Depth factors :
Shape Factors : Cohesion intercept : Foundation width : Factor of safety
DEPTH, SOIL PARAMETERS BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS SHEAR FAILURE
BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS

1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50
C : 0.20 Ø : 27.4 "# : 24.66 "! : 15.33 "$ : 13.78 General Shear C' : 0.13 Ø' :
19.1 "# ' : 13.99 "! ' : 4.72 "$ : 5.83 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 29.0 "# : 27.86 "!
: 19.34 "$ : 16.4 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 20.3 "# ' : 15.10 "! ' : 5.60 "$ :
6.58 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 31.0 "# : 32.7 "! : 25.99 "$ : 20.6 General Shear
C' : 0.00 Ø' : 21.8 "# ' : 16.7 "! ' : 6.96 "$ : 7.69 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 32.0
"# : 35.5 "! : 30.21 "$ : 23.2 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 22.6 "# ' : 17.6 "! ' :
7.77 "$ : 8.33 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 33.0 "# : 38.6 "! : 35.19 "$ : 26.1 General
Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 23.4 "# ' : 18.6 "! ' : 8.69 "$ : 9.03 Local Shear
DENSITY PROFILE
Factor of safety : 3.00 Water Table : 5.00 m From To Density(T/m 3 )
Rw Factor: Constant value (V) for worst condition or Calculate 0.00 1.50 1.76
C based on WT depth V Rw = 0.5 1.50 3.00 1.83
For computation of Depth Factor,Depth to be ingnored in Depth Factor Co 3.00 4.50

1.85
looose soils,poorly compacted backfill, scour etc. = Depth factor to be considered

Y Shape of the Foundation: Square
1.00
4.50 6.00 6.00 7.50
1.85 1.85 1.90
FAILURE CRITERIA: Average OF LOCAL & GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE
Foundation Dimension B,m L,m

Depth ,m
Rw
Shape Factor &# &$ &!
%#
GSF %$
Depth Factor %! %#
LSF %$
%!
q net safe , T/m 2 GSF LSF
Safe Net Bearing Capacity (T/m 2 )
1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.16 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.07 1.07 18.93 6.89 12.91
1.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.34 1.34 1.00 1.29 1.29 48.64 16.66 32.65
1.00 1.00 4.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 102.5 34.57 68.54
1.00 1.00 6.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 139.6 44.27 91.93
1.00 1.00 7.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 177.3 56.29 116.80

SETTLEMEMT ANALYSIS SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS BASED ON N - VALUES
Analysis as per IS:8009(Part 1)-1976 , Clause 9.1.4
BH-A1
Design Water Table Depth : R w factor : Calculate ( C ) based on water table depth
or Fixed Value( V ) for worst condition : Rw factor for design : Fox's Depth Factor
to be considered ?
V 0.5 Y
5.0
m
Depth to be ignored in Depth Factor Computation for loose soils, poorly compacted
backfill, scour, etc.
1.0
m
Tolerable Total Settlement : 25 mm
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50
Square Square Square Square Square
27 30 68 75 46
7.12 6.33 2.63 2.37 3.97
0.50 0.76 1.00 0.50 0.83 1.00 0.50 0.86 1.00 0.50 0.88 1.00 0.50 0.90 1.00
23.10 23.79 55.28 59.85 34.95
Foundation
Depth,m
Coorected N-
value
Settlement @
1kg/cm 2 ( as read
off from graph ), mm
Rw
Fox's Depth
Factor, df
Rigidity Factor,
dr
Foundation
Width,m
Foundation
Length,m
Shape
Net Allowable
Bearing
Pressure, T/m 2
per IS 6403-1981)
SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL BH-P1
q net safe =
{ "# ! $ ! % ! & ' # " ( ) $ " % " & * . ,- . # . $ . % . / # } 12"34546 $26839
Where:-
q net safe q ! "# , "$ , "! %# , %$ , %! &# , &$ , &! C B FS

0.50 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00
18.4 "# ' : 13.42 "! ' : 4.29 "$ : 5.46 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 30.0 "# : 30.14 "!
: 22.40 "$ : 18.4 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 21.1 "# ' : 15.87 "! ' : 6.24 "$ :
C' : 0.00 Ø' : 22.6 "# ' : 17.6 "! ' : 7.77 "$ : 8.33 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 32.0
"# : 35.5 "! : 30.21 "$ : 23.2 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 22.6 "# ' : 17.6 "! ' :
DENSITY PROFILE

1.72

1.00
3.00 4.50 4.50 6.00
1.78 1.79 1.90

Depth ,m
Rw
%#
GSF %$
Depth Factor %! %#
LSF %$
%!
1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 0.84 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.93 6.74 2.64 4.69
1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.17 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.07 1.07 22.09 7.45 14.77
1.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.36 1.36 1.00 1.30 1.30 66.9 20.78 43.86
1.00 1.00 4.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 109.7 34.47 72.08
1.00 1.00 6.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 138.8 45.48 92.16

BH-P1
to be considered ?
V 0.5 Y
5.5
m
1.0
m
1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
1.50 3.00 4.50
Square Square Square
21 65 100
9.49 2.76 1.76
0.50 0.76 1.00 0.50 0.83 1.00 0.50 0.86 1.00
17.32 54.64 82.50

Foundation
Depth,m
Coorected N-
value
Settlement @
1kg/cm 2 ( as read
Rw
Fox's Depth
Factor, df
Rigidity Factor,
dr
Foundation
Width,m
Foundation
Length,m
Shape
Net Allowable
Bearing
Pressure, T/m 2
per IS 6403-1981)
SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL BH-P2
q net safe =
{ "# ! $ ! % ! & ' # " ( ) $ " % " & * . ,- . # . $ . % . / # } 12"34546 $26839
Where:-
q net safe q ! "# , "$ , "! %# , %$ , %! &# , &$ , &! C B FS

0.50 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00
19.5 "# ' : 14.39 "! ' : 5.03 "$ : 6.10 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 30.0 "# : 30.14 "!
: 22.40 "$ : 18.4 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 21.1 "# ' : 15.87 "! ' : 6.24 "$ :
C' : 0.00 Ø' : 22.6 "# ' : 17.6 "! ' : 7.77 "$ : 8.33 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 32.0
"# : 35.5 "! : 30.21 "$ : 23.2 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 22.6 "# ' : 17.6 "! ' :
DENSITY PROFILE

1.79
1.00
3.00 4.50 4.50 6.00
1.79 1.79 1.90

Depth ,m
Rw
%#
GSF %$
Depth Factor %! %#
LSF %$
%!
1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.93 8.06 3.01 5.53
1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.17 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.07 1.07 22.77 7.68 15.22
1.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.36 1.36 1.00 1.30 1.30 69.3 21.51 45.38
1.00 1.00 4.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 112.1 35.24 73.65
1.00 1.00 6.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 141.1 46.23 93.68

BH-P2
to be considered ?
V 0.5 Y
5.5
m
1.0
m
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00
Square Square Square Square
21 49 60 80
9.49 3.72 3.00 2.22
0.50 0.76 1.00 0.50 0.83 1.00 0.50 0.86 1.00 0.50 0.88 1.00
17.32 40.54 48.48 64.00

Foundation
Depth,m
Coorected N-
value
Settlement @
1kg/cm 2 ( as read
Rw
Fox's Depth
Factor, df
Rigidity Factor,
dr
Foundation
Width,m
Foundation
Length,m
Shape
Net Allowable
Bearing
Pressure, T/m 2
per IS 6403-1981)
SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL BH-A2
q net safe =
{ "# ! $ ! % ! & ' # " ( ) $ " % " & * . ,- . # . $ . % . / # } 12"34546 $26839
Where:-
q net safe q ! "# , "$ , "! %# , %$ , %! &# , &$ , &! C B FS

0.50 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00
19.7 "# ' : 14.53 "! ' : 5.14 "$ : 6.19 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 31.0 "# : 32.67 "!
: 25.99 "$ : 20.6 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 21.8 "# ' : 16.69 "! ' : 6.96 "$ :
C' : 0.00 Ø' : 22.6 "# ' : 17.6 "! ' : 7.77 "$ : 8.33 Local Shear C : 0.00 Ø : 32.0
"# : 35.5 "! : 30.21 "$ : 23.2 General Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 22.6 "# ' : 17.6 "! ' :
Shear C' : 0.00 Ø' : 25.0 "# ' : 20.8 "! ' : 10.9 "$ : 10.69 Local Shear DENSITY
PROFILE

1.85
0.10
3.00 4.50 4.50 6.00
1.85 1.90 1.90

Depth ,m
Rw
%#
GSF %$
Depth Factor %! %#
LSF %$
%!
1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.13 1.06 1.06 1.00 1.06 1.06 10.04 3.44 6.74
1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.21 1.21 31.17 10.00 20.58
1.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.44 1.44 79.4 24.72 52.08
1.00 1.00 4.50 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 116.4 36.60 76.48
1.00 1.00 6.00 0.50 1.30 1.20 0.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 206.5 61.37 133.95

BH-A2
to be considered ?
V 0.5 Y
5.0
m
1.0
m
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00
Square Square Square Square
31 39 58 83
6.10 4.75 3.11 2.14
0.50 0.76 1.00 0.50 0.83 1.00 0.50 0.86 1.00 0.50 0.88 1.00
26.95 31.73 46.78 66.50

Foundation
Depth,m
Coorected N-
value
Settlement @
1kg/cm 2 ( as read
Rw
Fox's Depth
Factor, df
Rigidity Factor,
dr
Foundation
Width,m
Foundation
Length,m
Shape
Net Allowable
Bearing
Pressure, T/m 2

Bridge No-1

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

Bridge No-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

1.0 INTRODUCTION SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY . is planning to propose construction of

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK EXPLORATORY BORE HOLES

2.0 METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATION The investigation is planned to obtain the

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

S.NO TEST NAME Ref.IS CODE

01 Natural moisture content IS: 2720 (Part - 2) - 286A3

02 Grain size analysis IS: 2720 (Part - 4) - 1985

03 Specific gravity IS: 2720 (Part - 3) - 1980

04 Liquid limit and plastic limit IS: 2720 (Part - 5) - 1985

05 Unconfined compression test IS: 2720 (Part - 10) - 1995

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

07 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) IS:2720 (Part - 16)1979

08 Bulk & Dry Density IS:2720(Part - 14) - 1983

09 Heavy compaction test IS:2720 (Part - 8)1980

3.00 7.00 SDR 64 - 100 - -

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

2.50 8 .00 SDR 54 - 100 - -

8 .00 10 .00 Ha rd Rock 54 - 68 33 - 43

2 .50 8 .00 SDR 41 - 100 - -

8 .00 10 .00 Ha rd Rock 57 - 68 31 - 43

3.00 7.00 SDR 40 - 100

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

5. 2 FOUNDATION TYPE AND We suggest the following alternative foundation schemes

q net safe = 1 /F [cNc z c dc+ p(Nq - 1) z q dq+ 0.5 B ¡ N g z g d g Rw]

q net safe = Safe net bearing capacity of soil, based on the

shear failure criterion.

f = A ngle of internal friction

¡ = T otal unit weight of soil

Rw = water table correc tion factor

F = Factor of safety, taken as equal to 3.0 in accordance

with IS:1904 Nc,Nq,N g

z c, z q, z g = Shape factors. For Strip footings, z c = z q = z g = 1

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON BRIDGE R/F MANNEGUDA TO REGA DMAMIDIPALLY VIA CHENGOMUL.

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

For Square footing = z c = 1.3 , z q = 1.2, z g = 0. 8

dc ,dq, d g = Depth factors

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

1 A 1 1. 5 0 Silty Sand 1.00 x 1.00 12.91

2 3. 00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 32.65

3 4 . 5 0 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 68.54

5 3.00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 14.77

6 4.50 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 43.86

7 P2 1.50 Silty Sand 1.00 x 1.00 5.53

8 3.00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 15.22

9 4.50 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 45.38

10 A2 1.50 Silty Sand 1.00 x 1.00 6.74

11 3.00 Silty Gravel 1.00 x 1.00 20.58

12 4.50 SDR 1.00 x 1.00 52.08

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING

3. The soils at foundation level should be compacted thoroughly prior to

M E D I N I GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES MEDINI GEO ENGINEERING SERVICES

BORE HOLE NUMBER : B H : 1 CHAINAGE NO : 22400 DATE COMMENCED : 16 February 2020

BRIDGE NO : 1 CORE TYPE : SINGLE DATE COMPLETED : 16 February 2020

0.00 0.50 1.00

3.50 4.00 4.50

6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00