GI and

Preliminary
Design
Friday, February 16, 2024

We’re redefining exceptional

 Agenda

Layout Plan

Project Constraints

Project Risks

Concept schemes

Conclusion
2
 Preliminary Design & Geotechnical Investigation

3
Friday, February 16, 2024

N5
Layout Plan

N8
N4
N3

N1
N2
Project Constrains

Point of interest Chainage

Rail crossing 48+300

Road Intersection 13+700

Pond/Oxbow lake 65+000

Low land 61+000

4
Industrial Area 29+300 to 33+000
Location Map 11
10
9

Height (m)
8
7
6
ent
ignm
D OR RP Al 5
48000 48100 48200 48300 48400 48500 48600

Chainage (m)

line
• Elevation Difference (3m)

er Gauge
• Compressible soil

Tongi-Bhairab Met
• Seasonal Flood

5
Location Map 9

Height (m)
5

1
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Chainage (m)

Dhaka
-Arich
a Highw
ay • Elevation Difference (2m)

• Agricultural Land

• Seasonal Flood

ent
Alignm
D O R RP

6
Location Map
8
7
6

Height(m)
5
4
3

64750

64800

64850

64900

64950

65000

65050

65100

65150

65200

65250
Chainage (m)

• Elevation Difference (2m)

• Compressible Soil

• Organic soil

• Slope instability

7
Location Map 10

Height (m)
4

60200

60400

60600

60800

61000

61200

61400

61600

61800
Chainage (m)

• Elevation Difference (2m)

• Compressible & Organic

Soil

• Slope instability

• Settlement

• Seasonal Flood

8
Location Map
• Scarcity of land

• High price of land

Industry
Jo
yd
• Construction difficulties
eb
pu
r-T
an
ga
il h
igh
wa
y

DO
RR
Al P
ign
m en
t

9
Project Risk-Geological

10
Project Risk-Geological • Peat

• Organic
soil

• Settleme
nt

• Slope
Failure

• Liquefact
ion

11
Project Risk-Seismic

Length Seismic Seismic

Chainage
(km) Zone Coefficient

30+950 to
42.65 Z-3 0.28
73+600

Rest of the
129.65 Z-2 0.2
Alignment

12
Project Risk- Seismic

• Project site class

can be SC, SD, SE,
Site Shear wave SPT Value Undrained shear
Soil type S1, S2 which is
Class Velocity(m/s) (blows/30cm) strength(Kpa)
highly
dependent on
actual soil
SA Hard Rock > 800 - - investigation

• Shear wave
SB Very Dense 360 to 800 > 50 > 250
velocity is
unknown and
SC Dense to Medium 180 to 360 15 to 50 70 to 250 can be
determined by
SD Loose to Medium < 180 < 15 < 70 seismic test

SE Surface Alluvium layer - - -

S1 Soft clay/silt PI>40 < 100 (indicative) - 10 to 20

S2 Liquefiable soil - - -
13
BNBC, 2020
Project Risk-Geological and Seismic
• Data from Dhaka
Chittagong National
highway project is
taken for example

14
Project Risk- Soil Profile

• Soft soil up to
5-6m

• Loose sand
up to 10m

• Liquefaction
prone
formations

15
Project Risk- Flood

44+000

122+000

16
Project Risk- Flood

12 10
9
10
8
7
8
Flood height (m)

Flood Height (m)

6 5
4
4 3
2
2
1

0 0
0+000 5+000 10+000 15+000 20+000 25+000 30+000 35+000 40+000 45+000 50+000
0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+
Chainage
4 5 6 7 8 Chainage
9 10 11 12 13

12

10
• Return Period 50 years
Flood Height (m)

8
• Highest Level -11m
6

4
• Lowest Level-6.5m

2 • As per ,Chapter 3 :Drainage design

0
(RHD Pavement design guide ,April
120+000 130+000 140+000 150+000 160+000 170+000 180+000
2005)
Chainage

17
Concept Scheme - Earthen Embankment
Typical cross section grade 4 lane without emergency lane

18
Concept Scheme - Earthen Embankment
Typical cross section grade 6 lane without emergency lane

19
Concept Scheme-Geotechnical Investigation as per BS-5930-2015

Selection of Bore Depth Selection of Bore Spacing

• As per BS-5930-2015, Section 17.7.3 The depth • As per EN-1997-2:2007, Section B.3. For linear
of the exploration for embankments should be structures like roads, railways, channels, pipelines,
sufficient to check possible shear failure through dikes, tunnels, retaining walls a spacing of 20 to
the foundation strata and to assess the likely 200m can be adopted
settlement.
• As per BNBC 2020 Section 3.4.4 Spacing of
exploration depends upon nature and condition of
soil, nature and size of the project.
• In uniform soil, spacing of exploration (boring) may
be 30 m to 100 m apart or more and in very erratic
soil conditions, spacing of 10 m or less may be
required.

20
Concept Schemes-Geotextile and geogrid

21
Concept schemes-Prefabricated Vertical Drain with surcharge
(PVD)

22
Concept schemes -Sand Compaction Pile (SCP)

23
Concept schemes-Deep Soil Mixing (DSM)

24
 • Suitable for industrial area
Concept Scheme -Reinforced Earth Wall (RE Wall)
• Suitable for very high embankment

• Abutment

• For narrow space

25
Concept Schemes

Schemes Advantages Disadvantages Remarks

Engineered Fill with • Quality control

• Economic • Most used method
combination of • Time Consuming
• Known technology • Suitable for good sub soil
geotextile and geo • Geotextile is available ,but geogrid is
condition
grid required to import.
• Time-consuming
• long-term monitoring dependent
Prefabricated Vertical
• Economic, • Not applicable for non-cohesive soil • Known and proven
Drain with surcharge
• Locally available • Suitable for very soft to soft clayey soil technology.
(PVD)
only

• Ground settlement
• Higher initial cost
Sand Compaction reduction • Both static and dynamic
• Limited depth
Pile (SCP) • Suitable for all type of SCP may be required .
soil
• Achieve high shear
strength
• Reduction of ground • Expensive
Deep Soil Mix (DSM) • Advance technology
settlement • Required larger amount of mud disposal
• Fast and Effective
• reliable
26

• Suitable for industrial

 Conslusion
 abcd

27
Redefining exceptional
Through our specialist expertise, we’re challenging
boundaries to deliver advanced infrastructure
solutions.

acebd.com