GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH

Public Works Department

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program

Part – A: Project Preparation

DETAILED PROJECT REPORT

Volume - II: Design Report
Hamirpur–Rath Road (SH-42)

May 2018

India
Consulting engineers pvt. ltd.
 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Volume-II : Design Report

Document Name
(Detailed Project Report)

Document Number EIRH1UP020/DPR/002

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program

Project Name Part – A: Project Preparation including Detailed Engineering Design and
Contract Documentation

Project Number EIRH1UP020

Document Authentication

Name Designation

Prepared by Sanjay Kumar Sr. Highway Design Engineer

Sanjeev Verma Sr. Bridge Engineer
Seema Drainage Design Engineer

Reviewed by Sudhendra Kumar Karanam Sr. General Manager (Roads & Highways)
Rajeev Kumar Gupta Deputy Team Leader

Approved by Rajeev Kumar Gupta Deputy Team Leader

History of Revisions
Version Date Description of Change(s)

Rev. 0 14/10/2014 First Submission

Rev. 1 24/11/2014 Compliances to Comments

Rev. 2 12/12/2014 Compliances to Comments
Rev. 3 12/11/2015 Structure details added
Rev. 4 22/02/2016 Submission for TS

Page i| Rev: R4
 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Design Considerations .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Codes and Specifications for Road Design and Safety ............................................................. 1-2
1.4 Codes and Specifications of Bridge Design ............................................................................. 1-3
1.5 Key Design Parameters of Road Components ......................................................................... 1-3

2 ROAD CARRIAGEWAY AND CROSS-SECTIONS ............................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Road Carriageway and Cross-sectional Elements .................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Roadway Width/ Formation Width ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Right of Way (ROW) ............................................................................................................ 2-2
2.5 Typical Cross-Sections .......................................................................................................... 2-2

3 WIDENING PROPOSALS ............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Formulation of Proposals ...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Widening Scheme (Site Specific) ........................................................................................... 3-2

4 ALIGNMENT DESIGN .................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................................................ 4-1
4.3 Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................................ 4-9

5 JUNCTIONS/ INTERSECTIONS ..................................................................... 5-1

5.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Basic Design Principles ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Site Specific ......................................................................................................................... 5-2

6 PAVEMENT DESIGN ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Review of Design Methods for New Construction .................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Design Methodology ............................................................................................................. 6-2
6.4 Evaluation of Pavement Design Parameters ........................................................................... 6-3
6.5 Use of Flyash in Embankment Construction ........................................................................... 6-5

Page ii| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

6.6 Evaluation of Design Traffic (MSA) for Pavement Design ........................................................ 6-5
6.7 Design of Pavement Structure as per IRC: 37-2012 ................................................................ 6-6
6.8 Design of Rigid Pavement Structure as per IRC: 58-2015 ....................................................... 6-8
6.9 Design of Strengthening Overlay for Existing Carriageway ...................................................... 6-8
6.10 Proposed Maintenance/Repair Strategy before Placing Overlay ............................................. 6-11
6.11 Preparation of Surface and Profile Correction Course (PCC) .................................................. 6-13
6.12 Pavement Composition for Truck Lay byes ........................................................................... 6-14

7 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Planning Of Geotechnical Investigation Programme ................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.4 Methodology of Investigation ................................................................................................ 7-2
7.5 Subsurface Conditions / Geotechnical Assessment .................................................................. 7-3
7.6 Liquefaction Assessment ...................................................................................................... 7-8
7.7 Foundation Support .............................................................................................................. 7-8
7.8 Chemical Test Results ........................................................................................................ 7-12

8 CROSS-DRAINAGE STRUCTURES – MAJOR AND MINOR BRIDGES ............... 8-1

8.1 Design Standards for Bridges/Structures................................................................................ 8-1
8.2 Design of Structures ............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 8-3
8.4 Design Methodology ............................................................................................................. 8-8
8.5 Improvement Proposal for Bridges ...................................................................................... 8-11

9 CROSS-DRAINAGE STRUCTURES – CULVERTS ............................................. 9-1

9.1 Hydrological and Hydraulic Investigation ............................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Requirement of Structures .................................................................................................... 9-1
9.3 Locations of culverts ............................................................................................................ 9-2
9.4 Types of Culverts ................................................................................................................. 9-2
9.5 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.6 Observed Data ..................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 9-6
9.8 Improvement Proposals for Culverts ...................................................................................... 9-6

10 DRAINAGE DESIGN..................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Hydrological and Hydraulic Investigation ............................................................................. 10-1
10.3 Types of Drains.................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.4 Site Specific ....................................................................................................................... 10-2
10.5 Drainage Data ................................................................................................................... 10-2

Page iii| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

10.6 Abstract of Drain Design ..................................................................................................... 10-3

10.7 Drainage Drawings ............................................................................................................. 10-4

11 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY MEASURES .............................................. 11-1

11.1 Road Signs ........................................................................................................................ 11-1
11.2 Road Markings ................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.3 Kilometre Stones ................................................................................................................ 11-2
11.4 Delineators and Object Markers .......................................................................................... 11-2
11.5 Guard Post ........................................................................................................................ 11-3
11.6 Road Reflective Pavement Marker ....................................................................................... 11-3
11.7 Crash Barriers .................................................................................................................... 11-3

12 PROJECT FACILITIES AND TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES......................... 12-1

12.1 Project Facilities ................................................................................................................. 12-1
12.2 Truck Lay-Byes .................................................................................................................. 12-1
12.3 Traffic Calming Measures ................................................................................................... 12-2

Page iv| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Design Codes / Specifications ........................................................................................... 1-2

Table 1.2: Codes and Publications used for the Design ....................................................................... 1-3
Table 1.3: Design Parameters for Plain and Rolling Terrain ................................................................. 1-4
Table 2.1: Codes Pertaining to Road Cross Sections ........................................................................... 2-1
Table 2.2: Typical Cross-Section Details ............................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2.3: Typical Cross-Section Schedule ....................................................................................... 2-11
Table 3.1: Widening Schedule ........................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3.2: Improvement Proposals along Major Built-up Areas ............................................................ 3-3
Table 3.3: Improvement Proposals along Semi Built-up Areas ............................................................. 3-3
Table 4.1: Codes Pertaining to Alignment Design ............................................................................... 4-1
Table 4.2: Minimum Radii of Horizontal Curves (in meters) ................................................................. 4-2
Table 4.3: Horizontal Alignment Details ............................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4.4: Overtopping Sections ....................................................................................................... 4-9
Table 4.5: Vertical Alignment Details ............................................................................................... 4-10
Table 4.6: Minimum Length of Vertical Curves ................................................................................. 4-19
Table 5.1: Major Intersections .......................................................................................................... 5-2
Table 5.2: Minor Intersections .......................................................................................................... 5-2
Table 6.1: Base Year Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 6-4
Table 6.2: Vehicle Damage Factors ................................................................................................... 6-4
Table 6.3: Design MSA for New/Widening of Pavement ...................................................................... 6-6
Table 6.4 : Existing Pavement Composition ....................................................................................... 6-6
Table 6.5: Proposed Pavement Composition and Thickness for New and Reconstruction of Pavement ... 6-7
Table 6.6: Proposed Rigid Pavement Composition .............................................................................. 6-8
Table 6.7: The Summary of BBD Analysis .......................................................................................... 6-9
Table 6.8: Estimated Overlay Composition and Thickness ................................................................. 6-10
Table 6.9: Corrective/Remedial Measures for Distresses before Overlay ............................................ 6-11
Table 6.10: Profile Correction Course (PCC) - Criteria - Km 0+000 To Km 19+000; ............................ 6-13
Table 6.11: Profile Correction Course (PCC) - Criteria - Km 19+000 To Km 36+000 ........................... 6-13
Table 6.12: Profile Correction Course (PCC) - Criteria - Km 42+000 To Km 44+000; Km 52+300 to Km
65+500 ............................................................................................................................. 6-13
Table 6.13: Profile Correction Course (PCC) – Overlay Location ........................................................ 6-14
Table 6.14: Laboratory Test Results of Sub Grade Soil-Test Pits ........................................................ 6-16
Table 6.15: Field Test Results of Existing Sub-grade Soil .................................................................. 6-18
Table 8.1: Summary of Bridges ....................................................................................................... 8-11
Table 8.2: Details of New Minor Bridges, Rehabilitation/ Repair/ Widening Scheme for Existing Minor
Bridges .............................................................................................................................. 8-12
Table 8.3: Details of New Major Bridges, Rehabilitation/ Repair/ Widening Scheme for Existing Major
Bridges .............................................................................................................................. 8-12
Table 9.1: List of New Culverts ......................................................................................................... 9-6

Page v| Rev: R4
 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 9.2: Summary of Culverts ........................................................................................................ 9-7

Table 9.3: Rehabilitation/Widening/Reconstruction of Existing Culverts ............................................... 9-7
Table 11.1: Curve Section............................................................................................................... 11-3
Table 11.2: For Embankment Higher Greater than 3m ...................................................................... 11-4
Table 11.3: At Existing Bridge Approaches with Narrow Width .......................................................... 11-4
Table 11.4: At Chanduli Tir Village .................................................................................................. 11-4
Table 11.5: At Pond Locations ........................................................................................................ 11-5
Table 11.6: At Gantry location ........................................................................................................ 11-5
Table 12.1: Locations for Bus bay / Bus shelter ................................................................................ 12-1
Table 12.2: Truck Lay-byes ............................................................................................................ 12-2

Page vi| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Typical Cross-section ..................................................................................................... 2-10

Figure 6.1: Flow Chart Showing the Pavement Design Methodology .................................................... 6-3
Figure 8.1: Typical Cross-sections for New Two Lane Minor Bridge ...................................................... 8-9
Figure 9.1: CWC Rainfall Isopluvial Map ............................................................................................ 9-4

Page vii| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

APPENDICES

Appendix – 6.1 : Design of Rigid Pavement

Appendix – 7.1 : Borehole Location Plan

Appendix – 7.2 : Field and Laboratory Test Results

Appendix – 7.3 : Bearing Capacity Calculations

Appendix – 8.1 : Results of Hydrology

Appendix – 9.1 : Calculation of Discharge for New Culverts

Appendix – 10.1 : Details of the Drain Design Abstract

Page viii| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

ABBREVIATIONS

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ADT Average Daily Traffic
BBD Benkelman Beam Deflection
BIS Bureau of Indian Standard
BOQ Bill of Quantities
CAD Computer Aided Design
CBR California Bearing Ratio
C-D Cross-drainage
Ch. Chainage
CMS Content Management System
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CRN Core Road Network
CWC Central Water Commission
DPR Detailed Project Report
DTM Digital Terrain Model
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
EL Electrical Lines
EMP Environment Management Plan
FSR Feasibility Study Report
GAD General Arrangement Drawing
GFC Good for Construction
Govt. Government
GSB Granular Sub-base
IRC Indian Road Congress
IRC-SP Indian Road Congress – Special Publication
Km Kilometer (Chainage)
Km Kilometer (Length)
LA Land Acquisition
LHS Left Hand Side
MDR Major District Road
MoRTH Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
NAASRA National Association of Australian State Road Authorities
NH National Highway
NPV Net Present Value

Page ix| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

OD Origin – Destination
OFC Optical Fiber Cable
PAP Project Affected Person
PIA Project Influence Area
PMIS Project Management Information Systems
PWD Public Works Department
QAP Quality Assurance Plan
R&R Rehabilitation and Resettlement
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
RFP Request for Proposal
RHS Right Hand Side
ROB Road Over Bridge
ROW Right of Way
RUB Road Under Bridge
SH State Highway
SMA Stone Mastic Asphalt
SPT Standard Penetration Test
TAC Transport Association of Canada
TOR Terms of Reference
TYP Typical
UPCRNDP Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
VDF Vehicle Damage Factor
VOC Vehicle Operating Costs
VUP Vehicular Underpass

Page x| Rev: R4
 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The improvement proposal primarily covers widening and strengthening of existing road, CD
structure improvement and strengthening, user facilities etc. . The design of the project road
components includes following design components:

analysis of present traffic and future projections;

analysis of existing pavement structure and its residual strength;
determination of requirements for the new pavement including overlay over the design
period;
determination of adequacy of the CD structures;
review of existing condition of existing structures;
review of the road’s geometry (horizontal as well as vertical) and measures for
improvement;
determination of adequacy of intersections and measures for improvement; and
road safety aspects through provision of traffic control devices, roadside furniture and
project facilities.

1.2 Design Considerations

The design comprises geometric design i.e. the horizontal alignment and the vertical profile, and
the design of appurtenances and structures, traffic control devices, roadside furniture and other
project facilities. The geometric design consists of the below mentioned features. The design
standard/ practices proposed to be adopted for structure design are given in Chapter 8 and 9.

design of horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, intersections and other features for
upgrading the existing lanes to required 2-lane with paved shoulder configuration by
widening including realignment where required;
minimizing shifting/acquisition avoiding obstructions or constraints like trees, utilities and
structures as far as possible without affecting safety;
the geometric design is based on available right of way (ROW) and shall conform to the
standards, set out as minimum, as far as possible; safety mitigation measures to be
provided wherever desirable design standards cannot be achieved
wherever the existing road geometrics are deficient, due importance to improvement of
these sections to meet the standards subject to land constraints;
the uniformity of design standards is maintained throughout the length of the Project
road, to the extent practical with due consideration to safety;
Correction of any deficiencies in the vertical profile in respect of grades layout and sight
distance to meet the minimum requirements;
Design of road side appurtenances and project facilities in accordance with relevant
codes of IRC or other international standards;
The design of cross drainage works in accordance with the relevant IRC Codes and
considers the location of the cross drainage (CD) works, bridges and other structures. In

Page 1-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

case of major bridges (above 60 m), the design alignment shall give precedence to the
bridge location.
Site Specific: The project roads pass through plain and rolling terrain having villages and towns
along the road. Considering the physical condition and cost effectiveness, the improvement
proposals are conceived and developed under following standards:

The desirable standards which could be adopted as a rule; and

The minimum standards, which could be accepted for difficult stretches where application
of the desirable standards, would lead to exorbitant costs.
Accordingly, design standards for geometric elements would be considered under "desirable" and
"minimum" categories. The proposed standards have to be consistent with and fall within the
parameters recommended in the related standards of the Indian Roads congress.

1.3 Codes and Specifications for Road Design and Safety

The highway design is based on the IRC Codes and publications shown in Table 1.1 and is in
conformity with requirements set forth in MORT&H Specifications for Road and Bridge Works.
Design codes proposed to be adopted are detailed below. A recently published Standard IRC:SP -
73 “Two Laning of State highways on BOT Basis” covering all requirements of 2-lane road, also
based on current practices would be largely adopted for detailed design of roads.

Table 1.1: Design Codes / Specifications

S.
Description Design Code
No
IRC:38 Guidelines for design of horizontal curves
IRC:SP-23 – Vertical curves for Highways
IRC:39 – Standards for Road rail level crossings
IRC:64– Capacity of Roads in Rural Areas
Geometric Designs &
1. IRC:66 – Sight Distance on Rural Highways
standards
IRC:73 – Geometric Design standards for Rural (non-urban) Highways
IRC:75 – Guidelines for design of High Embankment
IRC:86 – Geometric Design standards for urban roads in plains
IRC::106 – Guidelines on capacity of urban roads in plain areas
IRC:37 – Guidelines for Design of Flexible Pavement
2. Design of Pavement IRC:58 – Guidelines for Design of Rigid Pavements
IRC:81 – Guidelines for strengthening of flexible pavements
IRC:65- Traffic Rotaries
Junctions/Intersections/
3. IRC:92 - Guidelines for Design of Interchanges
interchanges
IRC:SP:41 – Design of At grade junctions
Kilometer stones, 200m IRC:81 – Type Design for Highway kilometer stones
4. stones and boundary IRC:26 -Type design for 200m stones
pillar IRC:25 -Type design for boundary stones
IRC:31 – Route marker signs for state routes
IRC:67 – Code of practice for road signs
5. Traffic Signs
IRC:79– Recommended practice for Road Traffic signs
IRC:SP:31 – Road Traffic signs
6. Road Markings IRC:35 – Code of practice for road markings, road delineators

Page 1-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

S.
Description Design Code
No
IRC:80 – Type design for pick up bus stops on Rural Highways
7. Ancillary Works
IRC: SP: 12 – Guidelines on provision of parking areas.
IRC:SP:42 – Guidelines on Road Drainage
8. Drainage
IRC:SP:50 – Guidelines on urban drainage
IRC:103 – Guidelines for pedestrian facilities
9. Safety Measures IRC:SP:44 – Highway Safety Code
IRC:SP:55 – Guidelines for safety in construction zones

1.4 Codes and Specifications of Bridge Design

The following codes and publications (latest editions) have been used for the design of bridge
components including approaches:

Table 1.2: Codes and Publications used for the Design

IRC: 5-1998 Standard Specification and code of Practice for Road bridges, Section 1 – General
Features of Design ( Seventh Revision)
IRC: 6-2014 Standard specifications and code of practice for Road bridges
(Section : II) Loads and Stresses
IRC: 21- 2000 Standard Specification and code of Practice for Road bridges, Section III – Cement
concrete (Plain and reinforced)
IRC: 112 – 2011 Code of practice for concrete road bridges
IRC:SP:13 – 2004 Guidelines for the design of small bridges and culverts
IRC: 78-2014 Standard Specification and code of Practice for Road bridges, Section VII –
Foundation and Substructure ( Second Revision)
IRC: 83-1999 (Part I) Standard Specification and code of Practice for Road bridges, Section IX – Bearing ,
Part I: Metallic Bearing
IRC: 83-1987 (Part II) Standard Specification and code of Practice for Road bridges, Section IX – Bearing ,
Part II: Elastomeric Bearings
IRC: 83-2002 (Part III) Standard Specification and code of Practice for Road bridges, Section IX – Bearings
, Part III: POT, POT-CUM-PTFE, PIN and Metallic Guide Bearings
IRC : 89 -1997 Guide lines for design and construction of River Training and Control Works for
Road Bridges ( First Revision)
IRC: SP:35 -1990 Guidelines for inspection and Maintenance of Bridges
IRC: SP: 40 – 1993 Guidelines on techniques for strengthening and Rehabilitation of Bridges.
IRC: SP: 73-2007 Manual of Standards & specifications for 2 laning of State Highways on B.O.T Basis.
Specifications For Road and Bridge Works (5th Revision, Reprint 2013)

Where IRC Codes are silent, relevant BIS codes have been followed. In case even the BIS codes
are silent, sound engineering practice have been adopted.

1.5 Key Design Parameters of Road Components

The design standards are primarily based on IRC publications, MORTH Specifications and relevant
international standards and industry best practice. Where the design standards are silent, the
consultant has based the design on their past experience and sound engineering practices. e.g.:
geometrics embankment, pavement, structures, drainage, drawings, traffic safety and materials.

Terrain Classification

The following terrain classification recommended by IRC:38-1988 /IRC:SP:73-2007 is proposed to

be adopted:

Page 1-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Terrain Cross Slope (%)

Plain <10
Rolling 10 – 25
Mountainous 25 -60
Steep > 60

Site Specific: The project road from Hamirpur - Rath passes through predominately in plain
terrain.

Design Speed

The allowed speeds are dependent on both terrain and horizontal curvature. While the project
roads are in plain and rolling terrain, the roads have many horizontal curves not meeting the
design speed. In view of this, the design speeds that could be achieved shall be reviewed based
on the current geometry and efforts will be towards making the road safe and conforming to
design standards within the constraints.

The design speed of 100 and 80 Kph as ruling and minimum as per IRC: SP:73 has been adopted
for road falling in plain terrain.

Site Specific: There are 22 villages with numerous schools and colleges along the road with lots
of activities. Traffic calming is also proposed in 9 built-up areas. The reduced design speed of 40
kmph in urban areas has been imposed to enhance safety of users (both motorized, non-
motorised and other vulnerable users as pedestrians). As per Road Safety Audit
recommendations, the max speed limit posted is 65 kmph instead of 80Kmph, as, either frequent
calming down for safety will result in low average speed or the drivers will have a tendency to
ignore the signage and measures.

Horizontal, vertical and other design parameters are detailed in subsequent sections and
summary is given in Table 1.3 as follows.

Table 1.3: Design Parameters for Plain and Rolling Terrain

S. No. Description Details
1 Design Speed 100 /80 Kph
2 Lane width 3.5 m
3 Camber (Pavement & Paved shoulder) 2.50%
4 Camber (Gravel shoulder) 3.00%
5 Kerb shyness on footpath / separator side 0.25 m
6 Maximum super-elevation 7.00%
7 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) 180 / 120 m
8 Intermediate Sight Distance (ISD) 360 / 240 m
9 Minimum radius of horizontal curve 360 / 230 m
10 Minimum radius of horizontal curve without transition 2000/ 1200 m
11 Min. vertical gradient (primarily on new/ reconstruction carriageway) 0.30%
12 Ruling maximum vertical gradient 3.30%
13 Minimum length of vertical curve 60 m/ 50 m

Page 1-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

2 ROAD CARRIAGEWAY AND CROSS-SECTIONS

2.1 Introduction

The project area was studied from satellite imaginaries and topographical maps (from Survey of
India) to understand the terrain, environmental and social features including water bodies, forest
areas, built-up areas etc. Reinforced with the information from maps, site visits were made to
study and understand various site constraints, land uses, environmental sensitive features,
developmental activities and presence of utilities. These were followed by detailed inventory and
surveys of various road and structure features including carrying out of utility survey.

The following IRC codes and standards have been referred to for finalizing the design of cross
sectional elements.

Table 2.1: Codes Pertaining to Road Cross Sections

(i) IRC:73 Geometric Design Standards for Rural (Non-Urban) Highways
(ii) IRC:86 Geometric Design Standards for Urban Roads in Plains
(iii) IRC:106 Guidelines for Capacity of Urban Roads in Plain Areas
(iv) IRC:64 Guidelines for Capacity of Roads in Rural Areas.
(v) IRC:SP:73 Manual for Two Laning of State Highways

2.2 Road Carriageway and Cross-sectional Elements

The cross sectional elements of road comprise of:

Right of way (ROW);

Road carriageway;
Width at cross drainage structures;
Shoulders;
Width of drainage or footpath and
Camber or cross fall.

The above elements together constitute complete road cross section. Adoption of various
elements in an appropriate manner, in accordance with IRC guidelines for safe movement of
traffic is a major design requirement. These are detailed in the following sections.

2.3 Roadway Width/ Formation Width

The IRC 73 lays down formation width guidelines for 2 lane carriageway configuration for State
Highways in plain & rolling terrain as 7.0m.

Shoulders

The normal shoulder width as per IRC: SP 73 shall be 2.5m on either side in roads passing
through plain and rolling terrain, out of this 1.5m will be paved shoulder.

Page 2-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Camber

As per IRC: SP 73 a camber of 2.5% in straight sections of bituminous pavement surface

(including paved shoulder) and 3.0% in the shoulder is recommended and same will be adopted.

Footpath

Footpath width of minimum 1.5m to be adopted in built-up areas

Site Specific

The project road is proposed to be widened from existing single/intermediate/ 2-lane to standard
2-lane carriageway with paved shoulder. Since the road is important and considering the safety
and future capacity issues, it is proposed to have formation width as 12m; as also based on
discussion with PWD. The formation width components shall comprise of as under:

Carriageway - 1 x 7.0 =7.0 m

Paved Shoulders - 2 x 1.5 = 3.0 m
Earthen Shoulders - 2 x 1.0 = 2.0 m
Following would be some departures/ changes from above:

On horizontal curves, the carriageway width is increased to account for the extra
widening requirements for curvature
Paved shoulder and/ or earthen shoulder width will be reduced at the location of key land
constraints
Paved shoulder and/ or earthen shoulder width will be reduced to have smooth transition
to match with minor or major bridges width (existing and to be retained bridges having
less than 10.0m width)
In built-up areas, the earthen shoulder will be replaced by footpath
In built-up areas, having ROW (property line to property line) width more than 13m,
tactile paving is proposed till end of footpath
At built-up sections and other locations where traffic calming measures are considered,
central hatching in for virtually segregating directional traffic may be provided where
enough space is available

2.4 Right of Way (ROW)

The ROW details have been collected from the local agencies and from revenue maps. The
widening/improvement work is within the existing right of way avoiding land acquisition.

2.5 Typical Cross-Sections

Based on above features, operational requirements and to meet design standards stated in the
Two Lanes Manual for the State Highways; typical cross-sections for widening and new
construction of road have been developed. The main features of cross-sections are given in
Table 2.2 below. Typical road cross-sections are shown in Figure 2.1 and also provided in
Drawings Volume.

Page 2-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 2.2: Typical Cross-Section Details

S. Cross Section
Description
No. Type
1. TCS -1A Overlay + Widening in Rural Section
2. TCS -2A Overlay + Widening in Urban Section
3. TCS -4A Overlay + Widening in Semi Urban Section
4. TCS -1C Widening + New Construction due to Raising
5. TCS -1Ci Widening + New Construction due to Raising (Rigid Pavement)
6. TCS -1D Reconstruction from Subgrade + Widening in Rural Section (Rigid Pavement)
7. TCS -3 2 Lane with Paved Shoulders (Chanduli Tail Village) Rigid Pavement
8. TCS -1B Reconstruction from WMM + Widening in Rural Section
9. TCS -1Bi Reconstruction from GSB + Widening in Rural Section (Rigid Pavement)
10. TCS -2B Reconstruction from WMM + Widening in Urban Section
11. TCS -4B Reconstruction from WMM + Widening in Semi Urban Section

The cross section schedule for the project road is given in Table 2.3.

Page 2-3| Rev: R4

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Page 2-4| Rev: R4

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Page 2-5| Rev: R4

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Page 2-6| Rev: R4

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Page 2-7| Rev: R4

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Page 2-8| Rev: R4

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Page 2-9| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Figure 2.1: Typical Cross-section

Page 2-10| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 2.3: Typical Cross-Section Schedule

Design Chainage (Km)
S. No. Length (Km) Cross section Type
Start End
1 2+065 3+380 1.315 1Ci
2 3+380 3+680 0.300 3
3 3+680 3+960 0.280 1Bi
4 3+960 5+020 1.060 1Ci
5 5+020 5+460 0.440 1Bi
6 5+460 5+660 0.200 4Bi
7 5+660 7+360 1.700 1Bi
8 7+360 7+540 0.180 1Ci
9 7+540 9+950 2.410 1Bi
10 9+950 11+000 1.050 2Bi
11 11+000 18+500 7.500 1Bi
12 18+500 19+000 0.500 1D
13 19+000 20+410 1.410 1B
14 20+410 20+830 0.420 4B
15 20+830 21+960 1.130 1B
16 21+960 22+180 0.220 1C
17 22+180 25+400 3.220 1B
18 25+400 26+500 1.100 2B
19 26+500 33+900 7.400 1B
20 33+900 35+000 1.100 2B
21 35+000 36+000 1.000 1B
22 36+000 36+860 0.860 1A
23 36+860 37+100 0.240 1C
24 37+100 41+380 4.280 1A
25 41+380 41+850 0.470 4A
26 41+850 42+000 0.150 1A
27 42+000 44+000 2.000 1B
28 44+000 47+875 3.875 1A
29 47+875 48+185 0.310 4A
30 48+185 50+490 2.305 1A
31 50+490 52+300 1.810 2A
32 52+300 56+200 3.900 1B
33 56+200 56+400 0.200 1C
34 56+400 58+600 2.200 1B
35 58+600 58+960 0.360 1C
36 58+960 61+300 2.340 1B
37 61+300 61+500 0.200 1C
38 61+500 64+340 2.840 1B
39 64+340 64+440 0.100 1C
40 64+440 65+500 1.060 1B
41 65+500 74+850 9.350 1A
Total 72.785

Page 2-11| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

3 WIDENING PROPOSALS

3.1 Formulation of Proposals

3.1.1 Widening Options

The widening strategy is primarily based on the following options:

Concentric widening i.e. widening will take place on both sides of existing carriageway
Eccentric widening i.e. widening will take place on one side (left - LHS/right - RHS) of
the existing carriageway

In both sides widening, existing carriageway have to be widened on both sides

symmetrically/asymmetrically to 7.0m carriageway + 1.5m paved shoulder on both sides + 1.0m
granular shoulder making total 12.0m wide carriageway.

In one side widening, existing carriageway have to be widened either on the left or right side
of the existing carriageway. The existing carriageway may be partially used/ fully fully/or may not
be used.

The existing carriageway has to be strengthened by overlay or may require reconstruction based
on the pavement investigations and alignment options. The existing cross-drainage structures
would be either extended or reconstructed. The longitudinal drains would be provided on both
sides. Footpath cum covered drains would be provided on outside of carriageway in urban/ built-
up sections. Utility duct would be accommodated with footpath.

3.1.2 Selection of Widening Options

The widening options will largely depend on the constraints and land use (mainly open country
v/s built-up). Both sides widening is the preferred option in areas of constraints on both sides of
road. One side widening may be preferred option in rural areas. In some curve/geometry
improvement areas and near bridges that need to be widened concentric/eccentric widening will
be considered based on the site conditions. In such cases, key criteria will be that existing ROW is
utilized to the maximum possible extent.

3.1.3 Re-alignment and Bypasses

In location of geometric improvements, re-alignment is the option and may entail land
acquisition. Where land acquisition is not possible and therefore geometric improvement,
additional measures to mitigate the adverse effects on safety, have been considered. Bypasses
may be required in areas of some settlements that pose serious constraints for widening to 2 lane
standard. In this particular road, no re-alignment and bypasses are envisaged due to land
constraint.

3.1.4 Other Improvements

In addition to alignment proposals, other major improvement proposals include:

Strengthening or reconstruction of existing pavement after pavement investigation

Page 3-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Re-designing of major and minor junctions to IRC Standards

Adequate drainage provision, both surface and sub-surface
Cross-drainage structures – improvements and new
Provision of road safety devices and road side furniture both for motorized and non-
motorized users (pedestrians, cyclists etc)
New project facilities
Landscaping and tree plantation

3.2 Widening Scheme (Site Specific)

The locations with eccentric widening are shown in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1: Widening Schedule

Chainage
Length Side Remarks
To From
2+065 3+300 1235 R Built up /Tree line on left side
3+300 3+450 150 L Alignment improvement
3+500 3+600 100 R Alignment improvement
7+700 7+800 100 R Alignment improvement
25+200 25+900 700 L Widening of bridge at left side
27+550 27+650 100 L Alignment improvement
30+900 31+000 100 R Alignment improvement
33+750 33+850 100 R Alignment improvement
41+690 41+730 40 R Alignment improvement
42+270 42+340 70 L Alignment improvement
54+790 55+070 280 L Tree line
57+730 57+770 40 L Alignment improvement
57+770 58+040 270 R Alignment improvement
58+110 58+220 110 L Alignment improvement
60+010 60+030 20 R Alignment improvement
60+300 60+470 170 L Alignment improvement
62+330 62+640 310 R Alignment improvement
62+640 64+500 1860 L Tree line
66+380 66+630 250 R Alignment improvement
68+480 68+820 340 R Minor bridge
71+380 71+900 520 R Minor bridge
72+350 72+800 450 R Alignment improvement

3.2.1 Proposals along Major Settlements

The details of major and minor settlements and improvement proposals in built-up sections of
existing road are given in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 below.

Page 3-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 3.2: Improvement Proposals along Major Built-up Areas

Major Built up Locations (SH 42)
Existing Ch (Km) Proposed Ch. (Km) Length Remarks
Village Name
From To From To Km
Pothiya 9+980 11+000 9+950 11+000 1.05 Footpath with
Chani 25+400 26+500 25+400 26+500 1.10 covered drain
+ Paver block
Biwar 33+900 34+950 33+900 34+950 1.05
at available
Muskara 50+400 51+800 50+500 52+300 1.80 space
(Building side)

Table 3.3: Improvement Proposals along Semi Built-up Areas

Minor Built up Locations (SH 42)
Existing Ch (Km) Proposed Ch. (Km) Length Remarks
Village Name
From To From To Km
Kaloliteer 5+495 5+695 5+460 5+660 0.2 Covered drain
Swasa Khurd 20+430 20+850 20+410 20+830 0.42 + Paver block
at available
Chilli 41+300 41+770 41+380 41+850 0.47 space
Baswani 47+825 48+145 47+875 48+185 0.31 (Building side)

Page 3-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

4 ALIGNMENT DESIGN

4.1 Introduction

The existing road is a single/ intermediate- lane/ 2-lane and has relatively good geometry. The
road has been proposed to be improved for design speed of 100/80 kmph.

The following IRC codes and standards have been referred to for finalizing the alignment.

Table 4.1: Codes Pertaining to Alignment Design

(i) IRC:73 Geometric Design Standards for Rural (Non-Urban) Highways
(ii) IRC:86 Geometric Design Standards for Urban Roads in Plains
(iii) IRC:106 Guidelines for Capacity of Urban Roads in Plain Areas
(iv) IRC:64 Guidelines for Capacity of Roads in Rural Areas.
(v) IRC:SP:73 Manual for Two Laning of State Highways

The various alignment (horizontal and vertical) elements of any road comprise of:

Radius of curve
Super-elevation
Transition length
Extra widening
Vertical Curve length
Gradient

The above elements together are integral part of geometry of road. Adoption of various elements
in an appropriate manner, in accordance with IRC codes for safe movement of traffic is a major
design requirement and is detailed in the following sections.

4.2 Horizontal Alignment

4.2.1 General

As per the requirements of IRC: 73, the following guidelines were followed during the design:

 uniformity of design standards and speed;

 horizontal alignment to be fluent and blend well with the surrounding topography;
 limit the adverse impact to the existing environment
 design of horizontal alignment in consideration of the longitudinal profile and vice versa;
and
 alignment near location of bridges and their approaches integrated keeping in view the
overall technical feasibility and improvement proposal of bridges

The geometric design shall also be undertaken so as to minimize impact on trees, utilities,
properties, religious places and avoid extending beyond the existing right of way (ROW).

Page 4-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Site Specific

The Project road is a State Highway. ROW details in the form of boundary stones are not found
at site, therefore ROW details based on Sajra map and observed property lines are considered for
the design of alignment.

The horizontal alignment has been designed in such a way that additional land requirement
/acquisition is minimum (to nil) and the impact of widening is less on existing built up areas and
existing environmental and social features. The existing carriageway, structures/bridges etc. are
utilized to the extent possible unless proved otherwise.

4.2.2 Design Elements

Radii of Horizontal Curves

In general, horizontal curves consist of a circular curve portion flanked by a spiral transition on
both ends. These shall correspond to the ruling minimum and absolute minimum design speeds
and the maximum permissible values of super-elevation as per IRC: 73:1980 guidelines.

For the roads in plain/ rolling terrain, for the design speed of 100 kmph, the radius of more than
360 m and for the design speed of 80 km/h, the radius of more than 230 m shall be provided in
design for the horizontal curves and is as per IRC:SP:73/IRC:73. Wherever possible and
permissible, higher radii will be adopted.

The minimum radii of horizontal curves for different terrain conditions considering a maximum
super-elevation of 5% is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Minimum Radii of Horizontal Curves (in meters)

Plain Terrain Rolling Terrain
Ruling Minimum Absolute Minimum Ruling Minimum Absolute Minimum
360 230 230 155

Super Elevation

Super elevation is required for all the horizontal curves with radius less than 1800 m in order to
counteract the effect of centrifugal force. As per IRC: 38-1988, super-elevation to fully counteract
the centrifugal force for 75% of the design speed neglecting the lateral friction developed will be
adopted in design.

The maximum super elevation allowed as 7%, however maximum adopted is 5% on the project
road.

Widening of Carriageway of Curves

At sharp horizontal curves, it is necessary to widen the carriageway to provide for extra width
occupied by vehicle’s wheel path on curves and ensure safe passage of vehicle.

Radius of curve (m) Up to 20 21-40 41-60 61-100 101-300 Above 300

Extra width (m) Two-lane 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 Nil

Page 4-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Widening is effected by increasing the width at an approximately uniform rate along the transition
curve. Extra width is continued over the full length of the circular curve.

Transition Curves - Transition curves are necessary for a vehicle to have smooth entry from a
straight section into a circular curve. The transition curves also improve aesthetic appearance of
the road besides permitting gradual application of the super-elevation and extra widening of
carriageway as may be needed at the horizontal curves.

The horizontal curves with radius of curvature < 1800 m for 100 Kph and <1100 m for 80 Kph,
transition curves are provided on both ends of circular curve.

4.2.3 Site Specific

Based on above methodology, the horizontal alignment has been designed using MX Road
software. The horizontal alignment details with intersection points along with radius are listed in
Table 4.3 below.

Extra widening at curves is proposed depending upon the radii that are less than 300m.

Due to constraints in ROW, large scale easing of sub-standard curves is not feasible. Wherever,
improvement of curves for design speed considerations is not possible, speed limitation has been
applied along with necessary safety measures.

Page 4-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 4.3: Horizontal Alignment Details

Trailing transition Leading transition
Deviation Transition Side of Straight
Radius, R Length length Super Elevation Speed
Angle, D Length, TL Curve
Start End Start End Start End Length
e% V(KMPH) 2063 2330.66 267.66
10000 1.062 100 Left 2516.058 2577.322 61.264
40 86.264 2577.322 2612.322 2637.546 2672.546 35 4.4 20 Left 2672.546 3168.567 496.021
670 34.501 3168.567 3238.567 3572.015 3642.015 70 6.6 100 Left 3642.015 5307.102 1665.087
10000 0.598 100 Right 5411.54 5461.831 50.291
1000 6.000 5461.831 5511.831 5566.556 5616.556 50 4.4 100 Left 5616.556 5785.837 169.281
20000 0.407 100 Right 5927.882 6008.959 81.077
2000 7.012 100 Left 6253.715 6504.199 250.484
2000 3.597 100 Left 6629.775 7535.497 905.722
1000 7.073 7535.497 7585.497 7658.943 7708.943 50 4.4 100 Left 7708.943 8552.773 843.83
8000 0.371 100 Left 8604.581 8728.857 124.276
1000 8.419 8728.857 8778.857 8875.796 8925.796 50 4.4 100 Left 8925.796 9331.868 406.072
1500 2.861 9331.868 9366.868 9406.769 9441.769 35 3.0 100 Right 9441.769 9549.029 107.26
500 11.891 9549.029 9594.029 9652.798 9697.798 45 5.7 80 Right 9697.798 9748.462 50.664
5000 2.255 100 Left 9945.249 10006.13 60.883
1000 6.473 10006.13 10036.13 10119.11 10149.11 30 2.8 80 Right 10149.11 10271.85 122.744
400 34.690 10271.85 10326.85 10514.03 10569.03 55 4.0 80 Left 10569.03 10782.08 213.046
400 15.385 10782.08 10837.08 10889.48 10944.48 55 4.0 80 Right 10944.48 11206.35 261.867
20000 0.403 100 Left 11346.94 11766.96 420.016
3000 1.835 100 Left 11863.03 12268.69 405.66
1000 7.940 12268.69 12318.69 12407.27 12457.27 50 4.4 100 Left 12457.27 12742.65 285.387
2000 5.136 100 Left 12921.94 13170.32 248.38
800 8.334 13170.32 13230.32 13286.68 13346.68 60 5.6 100 Right 13346.68 13441.05 94.361
400 19.244 13441.05 13496.05 13575.39 13630.39 55 7.0 80 Right 13630.39 13685.41 55.016
10000 0.649 100 Left 13798.63 13926.7 128.069
10000 0.469 100 Right 14008.59 14394.05 385.466

Page 4-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Trailing transition Leading transition

Deviation Transition Side of Straight
Radius, R Length length Super Elevation Speed
Angle, D Length, TL Curve
Start End Start End Start End Length
400 16.741 14394.05 14449.05 14510.93 14565.93 55 7.0 80 Right 14565.93 14796.54 230.612
20000 0.261 100 Right 14887.5 15510.19 622.695
4000 0.708 100 Left 15559.6 15643.06 83.466
650 20.209 15643.06 15713.06 15872.32 15942.32 70 6.8 100 Right 15942.32 17043.92 1101.6
400 16.976 17043.92 17098.92 17162.44 17217.44 55 7.0 80 Left 17217.44 17883.93 666.487
20000 0.749 100 Left 18145.45 19052.74 907.291
15000 0.284 100 Left 19126.98 20166.72 1039.74
10000 0.388 100 Left 20234.45 20481.98 247.532
800 10.053 20481.98 20541.98 20622.35 20682.35 60 5.6 100 Right 20682.35 21489.5 807.156
400 16.716 21489.5 21544.5 21606.2 21661.2 55 7.0 80 Left 21661.2 22021.35 360.153
10000 0.496 100 Right 22107.99 22435.34 327.344
20000 0.250 100 Left 22522.66 23845.44 1322.778
10000 0.356 100 Left 23907.57 24138.51 230.936
2000 6.804 100 Right 24376.01 24889.53 513.523
10000 0.915 100 Left 25049.31 25683.81 634.499
15000 0.822 100 Right 25899.01 25926.79 27.775
5000 0.921 100 Left 26007.15 26211.12 203.966
200 26.726 26211.12 26271.12 26304.41 26364.41 60 4.0 65 Left 26364.41 26464.83 100.423
20000 0.660 100 Right 26695.14 27407.46 712.322
800 15.596 27407.46 27467.46 27625.22 27685.22 60 5.6 100 Left 27685.22 28815.06 1129.836
20000 0.257 100 Right 28904.88 30731.93 1827.056
1500 7.563 30731.93 30766.93 30929.93 30964.93 35 3.0 100 Right 30964.93 31213.31 248.375
400 21.990 31213.31 31268.31 31366.83 31421.83 55 7.0 80 Right 31421.83 32080.56 658.73
1200 6.673 32080.56 32120.56 32220.33 32260.33 40 3.7 100 Right 32260.33 33499.56 1239.233
20000 0.296 100 Left 33602.9 33676.16 73.265
700 21.218 33676.16 33746.16 33935.39 34005.39 70 4.0 100 Left 34005.39 34734.24 728.845
20000 0.238 100 Left 34817.16 35282.19 465.03
5000 0.53 100 Right 35282.19 36026.46 744.269

Page 4-5| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Trailing transition Leading transition

Deviation Transition Side of Straight
Radius, R Length length Super Elevation Speed
Angle, D Length, TL Curve
Start End Start End Start End Length
5000 0.97 100 Right 36072.48 36688.71 616.226
1000 7.12 36921.79 36966.79 37046.06 37091.06 45 4.4 100 Left 36773.16 36921.79 148.631
3000 0.57 100 Right 37091.06 37983.97 892.914
1000 4.63 38190.6 38235.6 38271.43 38316.43 45 4.4 100 Left 38013.81 38190.6 176.794
6000 0.65 100 Right 38316.43 38626 309.571
6000 0.45 100 Right 38694.58 39371.76 677.179
3000 1.23 100 Right 39419.22 41392.51 1973.288
200 40.28 41591.11 41651.11 41731.71 41791.71 60 7.0 65 Right 41457.04 41591.11 134.075
10000 1.04 100 Right 41791.71 42204.71 413.006
2000 7.11 100 Left 42386.28 43058.58 672.3
10000 0.37 100 Left 43306.7 43501.99 195.295
1200 5.43 44179.57 44219.57 44293.35 44333.35 40 3.7 100 Left 43566.94 44179.57 612.629
3000 1.44 100 Right 44333.35 44485.96 152.617
1000 6.46 100 Left 44561.53 46010.48 1448.955
400 11.89 46561.85 46616.85 46644.85 46699.85 55 7.0 65 Right 46123.16 46561.85 438.688
325 17.98 48222.35 48262.35 48316.49 48356.49 40 5.8 65 Right 46699.85 48222.35 1522.503
10000 0.77 100 Left 48356.49 49226.09 869.606
10000 0.87 100 Right 49361.34 49768.44 407.1
2000 0.85 100 Left 49919.76 51257.69 1337.934
200 21.42 51450.87 51470.87 51525.64 51545.64 20 4.0 35 Right 51287.24 51450.87 163.635
100 44.10 51592.66 51627.66 51669.62 51704.62 35 4.0 35 Left 51545.64 51592.66 47.017
2000 3.35 100 Left 51704.62 51750.99 46.366
10000 0.49 100 Right 51868.09 52079.28 211.189
700 8.51 52279.82 52314.82 52383.83 52418.83 35 4.0 65 Left 52164.59 52279.82 115.231
2000 6.29 100 Left 52418.83 52529.16 110.335
2000 3.06 100 Right 52748.64 53269.78 521.14
10000 0.18 100 Left 53376.61 54347.05 970.441
200 30.14 55033.7 55093.7 55138.91 55198.91 60 7.0 65 Right 54379.2 55033.7 654.502

Page 4-6| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Trailing transition Leading transition

Deviation Transition Side of Straight
Radius, R Length length Super Elevation Speed
Angle, D Length, TL Curve
Start End Start End Start End Length
5000 0.49 100 Left 55198.91 55585.76 386.852
325 24.76 56374.57 56449.57 56504.23 56579.23 75 7.0 65 Right 55628.44 56374.57 746.125
2000 6.05 100 Right 56579.23 57486.82 907.585
300 15.61 57945.64 57985.64 58027.39 58067.39 40 6.3 65 Left 57697.88 57945.64 247.755
2000 1.50 100 Left 58067.39 58432.26 364.872
2500 8.28 100 Right 58484.49 58798.05 313.567
500 15.84 59251.14 59276.14 59389.36 59414.36 25 3.8 65 Right 59159.33 59251.14 91.812
200 31.01 59435.22 59495.22 59543.45 59603.45 60 7.0 65 Left 59414.36 59435.22 20.863
700 30.78 60002.31 60067.31 60378.37 60443.37 65 4.1 65 Right 59603.45 60002.31 398.857
2000 1.89 100 Left 60443.37 60929.34 485.963
2000 1.60 100 Right 60995.4 61172.23 176.837
200 28.94 61432.13 61492.13 61533.14 61593.14 60 7.0 100 Left 61228.07 61432.13 204.054
2000 2.20 100 Left 61593.14 61861.26 268.121
800 15.86 62168.12 62223.12 62389.6 62444.6 55 5.6 100 Left 61938.14 62168.12 229.985
2000 0.94 100 Right 62444.6 62731.37 286.77
2000 2.24 100 Right 62764.3 64322.87 1558.565
5000 0.76 100 Left 64401.22 64609.01 207.793
4000 1.02 100 Right 64675.28 64809.99 134.712
4000 0.80 100 Right 64881.55 65131.12 249.573
2000 5.58 100 Right 65187.13 65612.46 425.329
2000 1.86 100 Left 65807.39 66791.51 984.123
2500 1.99 100 Right 66856.39 66921.65 65.257
2000 1.01 100 Left 67008.64 67606.1 597.461
2000 1.85 100 Right 67641.27 67653.57 12.306
1000 9.22 68113.14 68158.14 68274.14 68319.14 45 4.4 100 Right 67718.17 68113.14 394.972
2000 0.74 100 Left 68319.14 68623.95 304.815
3000 2.32 100 Right 68649.86 69064.61 414.746
2000 2.45 100 Left 69186.29 69389.49 203.203

Page 4-7| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Trailing transition Leading transition

Deviation Transition Side of Straight
Radius, R Length length Super Elevation Speed
Angle, D Length, TL Curve
Start End Start End Start End Length
2500 3.76 100 Right 69474.85 69565.14 90.281
5000 1.87 100 Left 69729.39 70624.26 894.861
2000 4.85 100 Left 70787.31 71256.95 469.634
5000 1.78 100 Left 71426.29 72417.07 990.781
3000 1.42 100 Right 72572.38 73987.02 1414.641

Page 4-8| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

4.3 Vertical Alignment

4.3.1 General

The vertical alignment is proposed to provide for a smooth longitudinal profile consistent with
design speed, layout of the terrain and land-use . Too frequent grade changes cause kinks and
visual discontinuities in the profile. Considering this, a gap of 150m has been adopted between
two grades, mainly on sections with re-construction of pavement.

The existing road profile has been followed as far as possible, where the project road
improvement is limited to widening and strengthening of the existing road. In case where the
existing pavement has disintegrated and in sections which are prone to submergence,
reconstruction of the pavement has been proposed and the design road level have been fixed
taking into consideration the HFL.

Decks of small cross-drainage structures will conform to the profile of the new road section in
case of new construction / reconstruction. Where existing structures are retained, the profile of
the road has been suitably adjusted to avoid loading the existing deck with
overburden/surcharge.

Site Specific

Details of submergence have been collected local enquiry and discussions with PWD. These are
included in the Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4: Overtopping Sections

Start Chainage (Km) End Chainage (Km) Length (km) HFL from Existing Road (m)
2+065 3+380 1.315 0.4 – 0.7
3+960 5+020 1.06 0.4 – 0.7

The vertical profile has been suitably raised in these sections as per IRC:SP:73.

The vertical alignment details are provided in the Table 4.5 below.

Page 4-9| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 4.5: Vertical Alignment Details

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient
S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
1 2240 107.475 2190 107.625 2290 107.625 100 Sag -0.3 0.3 166.666
2 2414.926 108 2339.926 107.775 2489.926 107.775 150 Hog 0.3 -0.3 249.999
3 2929.144 106.457 2829.144 106.757 3029.144 106.757 200 Sag -0.3 0.3 333.332
4 3174.8 107.194 3124.8 107.044 3224.8 107.044 100 Hog 0.3 -0.3 166.667
5 3402.495 106.511 3327.495 106.736 3477.495 106.736 150 Sag -0.3 0.3 249.919
6 3722.215 107.471 3672.215 107.321 3772.215 107.371 100 Hog 0.3 -0.2 199.921
7 3905.764 107.104 3855.764 107.204 3955.764 107.204 100 Sag -0.2 0.2 249.999
8 4407.953 108.108 4307.953 107.908 4507.953 107.808 200 Hog 0.2 -0.3 400.001
9 4610.648 107.5 4535.648 107.725 4685.648 107.725 150 Sag -0.3 0.3 250
10 5080.136 108.908 5030.136 108.758 5130.136 108.832 100 Hog 0.3 -0.153 220.563
11 5287.726 108.59 5212.726 108.705 5362.726 108.959 150 Sag -0.153 0.492 232.373
12 5529.917 109.782 5479.917 109.536 5579.917 109.822 100 Hog 0.492 0.081 243.164
13 6121.713 110.261 6046.713 110.2 6196.713 109.94 150 Hog 0.081 -0.427 295.181
14 6437.842 108.91 6337.842 109.337 6537.842 109.171 200 Sag -0.427 0.261 290.548
15 6779.908 109.803 6719.908 109.646 6839.908 109.707 120 Hog 0.261 -0.16 284.803
16 7000.004 109.45 6950.004 109.53 7050.004 109.523 100 Sag -0.16 0.145 327.645
17 7384.701 110.008 7234.701 109.79 7534.701 109.742 300 Hog 0.145 -0.177 930.792
18 7877.956 109.133 7727.956 109.399 8027.956 109.786 300 Sag -0.177 0.436 489.338
19 8340.322 111.147 8265.322 110.821 8415.322 110.915 150 Hog 0.436 -0.31 201.161
20 8664.904 110.141 8589.904 110.374 8739.904 110.013 150 Sag -0.31 -0.171 1081.74
21 9055.39 109.472 8980.39 109.601 9130.39 109.674 150 Sag -0.171 0.268 341.213
22 9284.367 110.087 9234.367 109.953 9334.367 110.151 100 Hog 0.268 0.129 715.404
23 9648.522 110.555 9598.522 110.49 9698.522 111.316 100 Sag 0.129 1.523 71.732
24 10040.017 116.516 9965.017 115.374 10115.017 117.277 150 Hog 1.523 1.015 295.319
25 10342.849 119.588 10282.85 118.98 10402.85 118.982 120 Hog 1.015 1.011 59.245
26 10585.858 117.132 10460.858 118.396 10710.858 119.304 250 Sag 1.011 1.737 90.972
27 10835.672 121.472 10785.672 120.603 10885.672 122.169 100 Hog 1.737 1.395 291.921
28 11072.749 124.779 10972.749 123.384 11172.749 124.577 200 Hog 1.395 -0.202 125.258
29 11896.853 123.114 11796.853 123.316 11996.853 123.33 200 Sag -0.202 0.216 478.461
30 12392.117 124.184 12242.117 123.86 12542.117 123.674 300 Hog 0.216 -0.34 539.824
31 12840 122.662 12790 122.832 12890 122.463 100 Hog -0.34 -0.398 1716.659

Page 4-10| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
32 13158.847 121.393 13108.847 121.592 13208.847 121.831 100 Sag -0.398 0.876 78.491
33 13320.23 122.807 13270.23 122.369 13370.23 122.864 100 Hog 0.876 0.113 131.055
34 13559.999 123.078 13509.999 123.022 13609.999 123.322 100 Sag 0.113 0.487 267.457
35 13720.458 123.86 13680.458 123.665 13760.458 123.911 80 Hog 0.487 0.128 222.85
36 14018.801 124.241 13958.801 124.165 14078.801 124.022 120 Hog 0.128 -0.365 243.28
37 14209.722 123.544 14169.723 123.69 14249.723 123.667 80 Sag -0.365 0.308 118.83
38 14427.612 124.215 14377.612 124.061 14477.612 123.981 100 Hog 0.308 -0.468 128.912
39 14674.677 123.059 14624.677 123.293 14724.677 123.155 100 Sag -0.468 0.193 151.357
40 15125.599 123.929 15025.599 123.736 15225.599 124.029 200 Hog 0.193 0.1 2153.526
41 15584.477 124.387 15524.477 124.327 15644.477 124.892 120 Sag 0.1 0.841 161.919
42 15771.51 125.961 15731.51 125.624 15811.51 126.062 80 Hog 0.841 0.254 136.261
43 16140.066 126.897 16080.066 126.744 16200.066 126.772 120 Hog 0.254 -0.208 259.477
44 16341.345 126.477 16291.345 126.581 16391.345 126.553 100 Sag -0.208 0.151 277.881
45 16539.588 126.777 16489.588 126.702 16589.588 126.601 100 Hog 0.151 -0.352 198.689
46 17238.281 124.319 17188.281 124.495 17288.281 124.482 100 Sag -0.352 0.328 147.159
47 17599.675 125.503 17499.675 125.175 17699.675 125.203 200 Hog 0.328 -0.3 318.656
48 17851.145 124.748 17811.145 124.868 17891.145 124.864 80 Sag -0.3 0.291 135.451
49 18113.108 125.51 18063.108 125.364 18163.108 125.56 100 Hog 0.291 0.1 524.599
50 18787.236 126.184 18687.236 126.084 18887.236 126.084 200 Hog 0.1 -0.1 999.999
51 19295.576 125.675 19120.576 125.85 19470.576 125.85 350 Sag -0.1 0.1 1749.998
52 20066.264 126.446 19991.264 126.371 20141.264 126.371 150 Hog 0.1 -0.1 749.992
53 20350.109 126.162 20250.109 126.262 20450.109 126.582 200 Sag -0.1 0.42 384.705
54 20616.892 127.282 20566.892 127.072 20666.892 127.162 100 Hog 0.42 -0.241 151.405
55 20916.737 126.561 20856.737 126.705 20976.737 126.623 120 Sag -0.241 0.104 348.189
56 21688.048 127.363 21588.048 127.259 21788.048 127.579 200 Sag 0.104 0.216 1790.072
57 22077.565 128.204 21927.565 127.88 22227.565 127.897 300 Hog 0.216 -0.205 713.268
58 22580 127.175 22520 127.298 22640 127.44 120 Sag -0.205 0.443 185.233
59 22802.328 128.16 22727.328 127.827 22877.328 128.047 150 Hog 0.443 -0.15 252.841
60 23310 127.397 23270 127.457 23350 127.439 80 Sag -0.15 0.106 312.663
61 23501.785 127.599 23391.785 127.483 23611.785 127.131 220 Hog 0.106 -0.425 414.328
62 23693.09 126.786 23643.09 126.998 23743.09 126.679 100 Sag -0.425 -0.213 469.952
63 23982.189 126.171 23922.189 126.299 24042.189 126.269 120 Sag -0.213 0.164 318.827

Page 4-11| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
64 24251.33 126.612 24176.33 126.489 24326.33 126.535 150 Hog 0.164 -0.102 564.826
65 24425.737 126.434 24375.737 126.485 24475.737 126.484 100 Sag -0.102 0.1 495.607
66 24697.799 126.706 24622.799 126.631 24772.799 126.437 150 Hog 0.1 -0.359 326.604
67 24995.509 125.637 24945.509 125.816 25045.509 125.655 100 Sag -0.359 0.037 252.094
68 25504.808 125.827 25464.808 125.812 25544.808 125.374 80 Hog 0.037 1.133 68.335
69 25606.837 124.671 25576.837 125.011 25636.837 124.719 60 Sag 1.133 0.161 46.341
70 25731.439 124.872 25701.439 124.824 25761.439 125.172 60 Sag 0.161 0.998 71.69
71 25848.618 126.042 25798.618 125.543 25898.618 125.902 100 Hog 0.998 -0.279 78.272
72 26080 125.396 26030 125.536 26130 125.506 100 Sag -0.279 0.22 200.303
73 26437.783 126.183 26387.783 126.073 26487.783 126.133 100 Hog 0.22 -0.1 312.48
74 26642.954 125.978 26542.954 126.078 26742.954 126.078 200 Sag -0.1 0.1 1000.009
75 26957.588 126.293 26882.588 126.218 27032.588 126.218 150 Hog 0.1 -0.1 750.008
76 27247.121 126.003 27147.121 126.103 27347.121 126.17 200 Sag -0.1 0.167 749.445
77 27464.057 126.365 27414.057 126.282 27514.057 126.315 100 Hog 0.167 -0.1 374.723
78 27674.1 126.155 27624.1 126.205 27724.1 126.274 100 Sag -0.1 0.237 296.604
79 28071.559 127.098 28031.559 127.003 28111.559 127.051 80 Hog 0.237 -0.118 225.547
80 28290.086 126.841 28240.086 126.9 28340.086 126.891 100 Sag -0.118 0.1 459.686
81 28540 127.091 28480 127.031 28600 127.359 120 Sag 0.1 0.447 345.531
82 28741.677 127.993 28681.677 127.724 28801.677 127.88 120 Hog 0.447 -0.188 188.992
83 29162.212 127.204 28962.212 127.579 29362.212 127.404 400 Sag -0.188 0.1 1390.547
84 29580 127.621 29530 127.571 29630 127.783 100 Sag 0.1 0.322 450.004
85 29839.034 128.456 29789.034 128.295 29889.034 128.311 100 Hog 0.322 -0.291 163.155
86 30016.231 127.941 29966.231 128.086 30066.231 128.032 100 Sag -0.291 0.182 211.678
87 30320 128.493 30240 128.348 30400 128.17 160 Hog 0.182 -0.404 273.363
88 30491.867 127.799 30441.867 128.001 30541.867 127.849 100 Sag -0.404 0.1 198.579
89 30785.219 128.093 30735.219 128.043 30835.219 128.292 100 Sag 0.1 0.399 334.981
90 30946.153 128.734 30906.153 128.575 30986.153 128.602 80 Hog 0.399 -0.33 109.853
91 31179.999 127.963 31099.999 128.227 31259.999 128.206 160 Sag -0.33 0.304 252.597
92 31460 128.813 31400 128.631 31520 128.889 120 Hog 0.304 0.126 673.991
93 31620.005 129.014 31570.005 128.952 31670.005 129.143 100 Sag 0.126 0.256 764.494
94 31800 129.476 31750 129.348 31850 129.461 100 Hog 0.256 -0.031 347.972
95 31950.379 129.43 31900.379 129.445 32000.379 129.505 100 Sag -0.031 0.151 548.621

Page 4-12| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
96 32457.821 130.198 32407.821 130.122 32507.821 130.329 100 Sag 0.151 0.263 899.135
97 32640 130.676 32590 130.545 32690 130.617 100 Hog 0.263 -0.118 263.1
98 32800 130.488 32750 130.547 32850 130.538 100 Sag -0.118 0.1 459.745
99 34098.909 131.787 34048.909 131.737 34148.909 131.887 100 Sag 0.1 0.2 995.094
100 34317.042 132.224 34267.042 132.124 34367.042 132.088 100 Hog 0.2 -0.273 211.369
101 34608.627 131.429 34558.627 131.566 34658.627 131.487 100 Sag -0.273 0.116 257.44
102 34933.181 131.805 34853.181 131.712 35013.181 131.711 160 Hog 0.116 -0.118 684.239
103 35093.685 131.616 35043.685 131.675 35143.685 131.772 100 sag -0.118 0.313 232.197
104 35377.496 132.503 35347.496 132.409 35407.496 132.537 60 Hog 0.313 0.113 300.308
105 35535.618 132.682 35460.618 132.597 35610.618 132.481 150 Hog 0.113 -0.268 393.119
106 36002.901 131.428 35972.901 131.509 36032.901 131.309 60 Hog -0.268 -0.397 466.845
107 36102.326 131.034 36072.326 131.153 36132.326 130.967 60 Sag -0.397 -0.222 342.47
108 36262.148 130.679 36162.148 130.901 36362.148 131.035 200 Sag -0.222 0.356 346.304
109 36641.557 132.029 36611.557 131.923 36671.557 131.911 60 Hog 0.356 -0.394 80.041
110 36943.636 130.84 36843.636 131.234 37043.636 131.142 200 Sag -0.394 0.302 287.278
111 37482.492 132.469 37452.492 132.379 37512.492 132.473 60 Hog 0.302 0.012 206.32
112 37977.85 132.527 37947.85 132.523 38007.85 132.586 60 Sag 0.012 0.197 323.38
113 38241.966 133.048 38211.966 132.988 38271.966 133.245 60 Sag 0.197 0.658 130.139
114 38343.684 133.717 38313.684 133.52 38373.684 133.616 60 Hog 0.658 -0.338 60.206
115 38482.492 133.247 38452.492 133.349 38512.492 133.246 60 Sag -0.338 -0.004 179.412
116 38882.05 133.232 38852.05 133.233 38912.05 133.258 60 Sag -0.004 0.087 658.968
117 39023.731 133.355 38993.731 133.329 39053.731 133.453 60 Sag 0.087 0.326 251.307
118 39191.324 133.901 39161.324 133.803 39221.324 133.881 60 Hog 0.326 -0.069 152.095
119 39392.08 133.763 39362.08 133.784 39422.08 133.807 60 Sag -0.069 0.146 280.078
120 39589.627 134.051 39559.627 134.007 39619.627 134.116 60 Sag 0.146 0.218 831.037
121 39851.675 134.622 39821.675 134.556 39881.675 134.635 60 Hog 0.218 0.045 346.648
122 40191.51 134.773 40161.51 134.76 40221.51 134.743 60 Hog 0.045 -0.1 413.855
123 40384.27 134.58 40354.27 134.61 40414.27 134.705 60 Sag -0.1 0.417 116.095
124 40502.075 135.071 40472.075 134.946 40532.075 135.018 60 Hog 0.417 -0.177 101.08
125 40766.857 134.602 40736.857 134.655 40796.857 134.626 60 Sag -0.177 0.079 234.564
126 40942.492 134.74 40912.492 134.717 40972.492 134.916 60 Sag 0.079 0.585 118.504
127 41096.238 135.64 41066.238 135.464 41126.238 135.64 60 Hog 0.585 -0.001 102.429

Page 4-13| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
128 41682.533 135.636 41652.533 135.636 41712.533 135.757 60 Sag -0.001 0.403 148.44
129 41789.302 136.066 41759.302 135.945 41819.302 136.066 60 Hog 0.403 0 148.703
130 41923.129 136.067 41893.129 136.067 41953.129 136.158 60 Sag 0 0.306 196.331
131 41995.477 136.288 41965.477 136.196 42025.477 136.214 60 Hog 0.306 -0.246 108.782
132 42098.057 136.035 42068.057 136.109 42128.057 136.248 60 Sag -0.246 0.709 62.81
133 42212.492 136.847 42182.492 136.634 42242.492 136.72 60 Hog 0.709 -0.425 52.908
134 42342.693 136.294 42252.693 136.676 42432.693 136.456 180 Sag -0.425 0.18 297.718
135 42536.276 136.642 42506.276 136.588 42566.276 136.665 60 Hog 0.18 0.075 572.203
136 42992.195 136.984 42962.195 136.962 43022.195 136.952 60 Hog 0.075 -0.106 331.612
137 43117.005 136.852 43087.005 136.884 43147.005 136.852 60 Sag -0.106 0 566.46
138 43382.393 136.852 43352.393 136.852 43412.393 136.891 60 Sag 0 0.131 457.974
139 43538.104 137.056 43508.104 137.017 43568.104 137.167 60 Sag 0.131 0.371 249.709
140 43647.506 137.462 43617.506 137.351 43677.506 137.334 60 Hog 0.371 -0.428 75.027
141 43763.373 136.966 43733.373 137.094 43793.373 137.072 60 Sag -0.428 0.355 76.564
142 43902.492 137.46 43872.492 137.353 43932.492 137.33 60 Hog 0.355 -0.433 76.153
143 44042.559 136.854 44012.559 136.984 44072.559 136.842 60 Sag -0.433 -0.04 152.828
144 44204.597 136.789 44174.597 136.801 44234.597 136.979 60 Sag -0.04 0.634 89.012
145 44332.26 137.599 44302.26 137.408 44362.26 137.541 60 Hog 0.634 -0.192 72.605
146 44528.8 137.22 44498.8 137.278 44558.8 137.24 60 Sag -0.192 0.067 231.607
147 44814.485 137.411 44784.485 137.391 44844.485 137.46 60 Sag 0.067 0.163 619.741
148 44967.577 137.661 44937.577 137.612 44997.577 137.845 60 Sag 0.163 0.613 133.619
149 45102.492 138.488 45072.492 138.304 45132.492 138.337 60 Hog 0.613 -0.502 53.841
150 45242.492 137.785 45212.492 137.936 45272.492 137.905 60 Sag -0.502 0.4 66.503
151 45402.472 138.426 45372.472 138.305 45432.472 138.356 60 Hog 0.4 -0.232 94.855
152 45542.792 138.1 45512.792 138.169 45572.792 138.13 60 Sag -0.232 0.1 180.646
153 45794.797 138.352 45764.797 138.322 45824.797 138.454 60 Sag 0.1 0.343 247.36
154 45963.05 138.928 45933.05 138.825 45993.05 139.223 60 Sag 0.343 0.985 93.369
155 46069.513 139.977 46039.513 139.681 46099.513 139.85 60 Hog 0.985 -0.423 42.624
156 46275.648 139.106 46245.648 139.232 46305.648 139.292 60 Sag -0.423 0.622 57.435
157 46373.926 139.717 46343.926 139.53 46403.926 139.72 60 Hog 0.622 0.008 97.725
158 46452.492 139.723 46422.492 139.721 46482.492 139.634 60 Hog 0.008 -0.299 195.634
159 46651.287 139.13 46621.287 139.22 46681.287 139.182 60 Sag -0.299 0.172 127.53

Page 4-14| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
160 46844.333 139.462 46814.333 139.41 46874.333 139.479 60 Hog 0.172 0.058 525.363
161 47140.585 139.633 47110.585 139.616 47170.585 139.64 60 Hog 0.058 0.024 1766.722
162 47543.785 139.729 47513.785 139.722 47573.785 139.748 60 Sag 0.024 0.064 1490.75
163 47904.833 139.96 47874.833 139.941 47934.833 139.894 60 Hog 0.064 -0.218 212.76
164 48139.375 139.449 48109.375 139.514 48169.375 139.536 60 Sag -0.218 0.291 117.8
165 48496.348 140.489 48466.348 140.401 48526.348 140.435 60 Hog 0.291 -0.178 127.77
166 48686.804 140.149 48656.804 140.202 48716.804 140.225 60 Sag -0.178 0.255 138.579
167 48956.443 140.836 48881.443 140.645 49031.443 140.641 150 Hog 0.255 -0.259 291.916
168 49213.258 140.17 49163.258 140.3 49263.258 140.504 100 Sag -0.259 0.667 108.02
169 49343.978 141.042 49313.978 140.842 49373.978 141.211 60 Hog 0.667 0.564 586.613
170 49542.708 142.163 49512.708 141.994 49572.708 141.915 60 Hog 0.564 -0.828 43.105
171 49718.84 140.705 49688.84 140.954 49748.84 140.831 60 Sag -0.828 0.418 48.168
172 49838.14 141.204 49788.14 140.995 49888.14 141.35 100 Hog 0.418 0.291 787.102
173 50266.667 142.451 50236.667 142.364 50296.667 142.504 60 Hog 0.291 0.177 524.922
174 50802.013 143.397 50772.013 143.344 50832.013 143.502 60 Sag 0.177 0.35 345.977
175 51053.975 144.279 50953.975 143.929 51153.975 144.127 200 Hog 0.35 -0.152 398.146
176 51315.805 143.88 51285.805 143.926 51345.805 143.975 60 Sag -0.152 0.315 128.461
177 51623.144 144.848 51593.144 144.754 51653.144 144.693 60 Hog 0.315 -0.518 72.078
178 51846.811 143.69 51816.811 143.846 51876.811 143.855 60 Sag -0.518 0.547 56.34
179 51989.059 144.469 51959.059 144.305 52019.059 144.506 60 Hog 0.547 0.123 141.39
180 53010.886 145.726 52910.886 145.603 53110.886 145.604 200 Hog 0.123 -0.122 816.715
181 53242.492 145.443 53212.492 145.48 53272.492 145.515 60 Sag -0.122 0.238 166.693
182 53422.492 145.872 53392.492 145.8 53452.492 145.836 60 Hog 0.238 -0.12 167.563
183 53653.954 145.594 53623.954 145.63 53683.954 145.651 60 Sag -0.12 0.189 193.849
184 53979.918 146.212 53949.918 146.155 54009.918 146.173 60 Hog 0.189 -0.13 187.809
185 54146.336 145.996 54116.336 146.034 54176.336 146.043 60 Sag -0.13 0.157 208.889
186 54383.332 146.368 54353.332 146.321 54413.332 146.338 60 Hog 0.157 -0.1 233.178
187 54559.937 146.192 54529.937 146.222 54589.937 146.25 60 Sag -0.1 0.195 203.241
188 54802.146 146.664 54752.146 146.567 54852.146 146.602 100 Hog 0.195 -0.124 312.957
189 54927.336 146.509 54897.336 146.546 54957.336 146.616 60 Sag -0.124 0.359 124.165
190 55118.22 147.194 55088.22 147.086 55148.22 147.267 60 Hog 0.359 0.246 532.026
191 55834.856 148.957 55804.856 148.883 55864.856 148.921 60 Hog 0.246 -0.119 164.201

Page 4-15| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
192 56597.147 148.047 56567.147 148.083 56627.147 148.158 60 Sag -0.119 0.369 122.817
193 56682.492 148.362 56652.492 148.252 56712.492 148.222 60 Hog 0.369 -0.467 71.735
194 56802.332 147.803 56772.332 147.943 56832.332 147.767 60 Sag -0.467 -0.119 172.483
195 56992.869 147.575 56962.869 147.611 57022.869 147.393 60 Hog -0.119 -0.608 122.686
196 57506.939 144.448 57476.939 144.63 57536.939 143.921 60 Hog -0.608 -1.756 52.282
197 57758.702 140.027 57728.702 140.553 57788.702 140.013 60 Sag -1.756 -0.046 35.09
198 57982.895 139.923 57952.895 139.937 58012.895 139.688 60 Hog -0.046 -0.785 81.25
199 58112.149 138.909 58082.149 139.144 58142.149 139.198 60 Sag -0.785 0.962 34.354
200 58342.84 141.128 58272.84 140.455 58412.84 139.587 140 Hog 0.962 -2.201 44.261
201 58806.45 130.923 58706.45 133.125 58906.45 132.607 200 Sag -2.201 1.683 51.485
202 59019.98 134.518 58969.98 133.676 59069.98 134.388 100 Hog 1.683 -0.26 51.455
203 59357.447 133.641 59327.447 133.719 59387.447 134.1 60 Sag -0.26 1.53 33.516
204 59593.572 137.254 59563.572 136.795 59623.572 137.254 60 Hog 1.53 0 39.21
205 59916.105 137.254 59886.105 137.254 59946.105 136.772 60 Hog 0 -1.608 37.322
206 60123 133.928 60093 134.41 60153 133.905 60 Sag -1.608 -0.076 39.181
207 60490.643 133.648 60460.643 133.67 60520.643 133.737 60 Sag -0.076 0.297 160.828
208 60707.186 134.29 60677.186 134.201 60737.186 134.214 60 Hog 0.297 -0.256 108.615
209 61103.139 133.278 61073.139 133.355 61133.139 133.905 60 Sag -0.256 2.091 25.567
210 61587.453 143.406 61462.453 140.792 61712.453 144.577 250 Hog 2.091 0.937 216.642
211 62020.002 147.459 61970.002 146.991 62070.002 147.693 100 Hog 0.937 0.467 212.481
212 62262.492 148.591 62232.492 148.451 62292.492 148.785 60 Sag 0.467 0.648 330.695
213 62626.953 150.952 62576.953 150.628 62676.953 150.799 100 Hog 0.648 -0.307 104.69
214 63245.255 149.053 63215.255 149.145 63275.255 148.771 60 Hog -0.307 -0.938 95.078
215 63442.124 147.206 63392.124 147.675 63492.124 147.564 100 Sag -0.938 0.716 60.45
216 63617.677 148.463 63587.677 148.248 63647.677 148.554 60 Hog 0.716 0.306 146.193
217 64170.45 150.151 64070.45 149.846 64270.45 148.99 200 Hog 0.306 -1.162 136.313
218 64383.085 147.681 64333.085 148.262 64433.085 148.159 100 Sag -1.162 0.956 47.227
219 64629.891 150.04 64529.891 149.085 64729.891 149.626 200 Hog 0.956 -0.414 145.957
220 64930.113 148.796 64900.113 148.92 64960.113 149.078 60 Sag -0.414 0.942 44.235
221 65105.846 150.451 65075.846 150.169 65135.846 150.275 60 Hog 0.942 -0.586 39.259
222 65285.113 149.4 65255.113 149.576 65315.113 149.327 60 Sag -0.586 -0.244 175.179
223 65638.566 148.538 65608.566 148.611 65668.566 148.674 60 Sag -0.244 0.455 85.86

Page 4-16| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
224 65742.198 149.009 65712.198 148.873 65772.198 149.199 60 Sag 0.455 0.634 335.9
225 65821.282 149.51 65791.282 149.32 65851.282 149.625 60 Hog 0.634 0.383 239.385
226 65952.635 150.013 65922.635 149.898 65982.635 150.066 60 Hog 0.383 0.177 291.646
227 66532.539 151.04 66502.539 150.987 66562.539 151.051 60 Hog 0.177 0.038 431.103
228 66706.693 151.106 66676.693 151.095 66736.693 151.182 60 Sag 0.038 0.254 277.709
229 66860.507 151.497 66830.507 151.421 66890.507 151.439 60 Hog 0.254 -0.195 133.762
230 66995.692 151.234 66965.692 151.292 67025.692 151.267 60 Sag -0.195 0.109 197.691
231 67311.785 151.578 67281.785 151.546 67341.785 151.435 60 Hog 0.109 -0.478 102.227
232 67413.192 151.094 67383.192 151.237 67443.192 151.145 60 Sag -0.478 0.173 92.21
233 67562.516 151.352 67532.516 151.3 67592.516 151.323 60 Hog 0.173 -0.094 224.966
234 67842.849 151.088 67812.849 151.116 67872.849 151.215 60 Sag -0.094 0.425 115.655
235 67960.202 151.586 67930.202 151.459 67990.202 151.512 60 Hog 0.425 -0.247 89.316
236 68237.586 150.901 68207.586 150.975 68267.586 150.959 60 Sag -0.247 0.19 137.191
237 68422.497 151.253 68392.497 151.196 68452.497 151.247 60 Hog 0.19 -0.022 282.498
238 68576.384 151.219 68546.384 151.226 68606.384 151.087 60 Hog -0.022 -0.442 142.874
239 68670.144 150.805 68640.144 150.938 68700.144 150.816 60 Sag -0.442 0.037 125.153
240 68740.938 150.832 68710.938 150.82 68770.938 151.124 60 Sag 0.037 0.976 63.961
241 68829.518 151.696 68799.518 151.403 68859.518 151.735 60 Hog 0.976 0.132 71.111
242 68921.663 151.817 68891.663 151.778 68951.663 151.922 60 Sag 0.132 0.35 275.083
243 69021.473 152.166 68991.473 152.061 69051.473 152.153 60 Hog 0.35 -0.043 152.538
244 69117.38 152.125 69087.38 152.138 69147.38 152.171 60 Sag -0.043 0.156 301.507
245 69631.395 152.924 69601.395 152.877 69661.395 152.94 60 Hog 0.156 0.054 593.512
246 69890.455 153.065 69860.455 153.049 69920.455 153.071 60 Hog 0.054 0.02 1753.325
247 70150.268 153.117 70120.268 153.111 70180.268 153.084 60 Hog 0.02 -0.111 458.573
248 70286.935 152.966 70256.935 152.999 70316.935 153.039 60 Sag -0.111 0.242 170.384
249 70369.705 153.166 70339.705 153.094 70399.705 153.145 60 Hog 0.242 -0.072 191.378
250 70540.669 153.043 70510.669 153.065 70570.669 153.094 60 Sag -0.072 0.171 246.96
251 70672.52 153.268 70642.52 153.217 70702.52 153.285 60 Hog 0.171 0.056 521.269
252 71122.5 153.52 71092.5 153.503 71152.5 153.634 60 Sag 0.056 0.382 184.145
253 71216.244 153.878 71186.244 153.763 71246.244 153.814 60 Hog 0.382 -0.213 100.902
254 71315.607 153.666 71285.607 153.73 71345.607 153.666 60 Sag -0.213 0 281.748
255 71542.939 153.666 71512.939 153.666 71572.939 153.736 60 Sag 0 0.235 255.343

Page 4-17| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

VIP Details Details of Vertical Curve Gradient

S. No. K Value
Chaianage Level Start Level End Level Length Type Grade In Grade Out
256 71653.077 153.925 71623.077 153.854 71683.077 153.883 60 Hog 0.235 -0.139 160.63
257 71746.833 153.795 71716.833 153.836 71776.833 153.843 60 Sag -0.139 0.162 199.698
258 71921.074 154.077 71891.074 154.028 71951.074 154.079 60 Hog 0.162 0.008 388.679
259 72015.323 154.084 71985.323 154.082 72045.323 154.144 60 Sag 0.008 0.2 311.786
260 72162.493 154.378 72132.493 154.318 72192.493 154.314 60 Hog 0.2 -0.215 144.671
261 72365.229 153.943 72335.229 154.007 72395.229 154.021 60 Sag -0.215 0.261 126.057
262 72583.633 154.514 72553.633 154.435 72613.633 154.514 60 Hog 0.261 0 229.697
263 72722.492 154.514 72692.492 154.514 72752.492 154.594 60 Sag 0 0.268 224.271
264 72802.482 154.727 72772.482 154.647 72832.482 154.746 60 Hog 0.268 0.063 293.665
265 72891.854 154.784 72861.854 154.765 72921.854 154.893 60 Sag 0.063 0.364 199.757
266 72972.083 155.076 72942.083 154.967 73002.083 155.046 60 Hog 0.364 -0.1 129.288
267 73055.966 154.991 73025.966 155.022 73085.966 155.039 60 Sag -0.1 0.159 231.339
268 73362.395 155.478 73332.395 155.431 73392.395 155.498 60 Hog 0.159 0.067 655.867
269 73792.194 155.768 73762.194 155.748 73822.194 155.826 60 Sag 0.067 0.195 469.841
270 74222.831 156.608 74192.831 156.549 74252.831 156.58 60 Hog 0.195 -0.091 209.478
271 74348.292 156.493 74318.292 156.521 74378.292 156.635 60 Sag -0.091 0.472 106.531
272 74410.597 156.787 74380.597 156.646 74440.597 156.803 60 Hog 0.472 0.052 142.807
273 74678.555 156.926 74648.555 156.91 74708.555 157.014 60 Sag 0.052 0.295 247.125
274 74766.258 157.184 74736.258 157.096 74796.258 157.122 60 Hog 0.295 -0.207 119.667

Page 4-18| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

4.3.2 Design Elements

Gradients - Grades have been selected carefully keeping in view the design speed, terrain
conditions and nature of traffic on the road.

The ruling and absolute maximum longitudinal gradients are recommended by IRC:SP:73 as
3.3% and 6.7% respectively for plain terrain. Similarly, for rolling terrain ruling & absolute
maximum gradients are 5.0% & 7.0% respectively. Profile design of existing carriageway has
been done keeping in view to minimize profile corrective course (PCC) quantity.

Minimum Gradient for Drainage – As per IRC 73, on un-kerbed pavements on embankment,
near level grades may be acceptable when the pavement has sufficient camber to drain the storm
water laterally. However, in cut sections, or roads at ground level, or where the pavement is
provided with kerbs, it is necessary to provide some gradient for efficient drainage.
Recommended minimum gradient for this purpose is 0.5% if side drains are lined and 1.0%, if
these are unlined.

Further, a minimum longitudinal gradient of 0.3% would be ideally adopted from drainage point
of view in re-construction sections.

Vertical Curves - These are introduced for smooth transition at grade changes. There are two
types:

summit curves or convex vertical curves or hog curves; and

valley curves or concave vertical curves or sag curves.

Length of these curves is controlled by sight distance requirement, but curves with greater length
are aesthetically better and improves safety. Minimum lengths of vertical curves as per IRC: 73-
1980 and adopted are shown in Table 4.6 below.

Table 4.6: Minimum Length of Vertical Curves

Maximum grade change (per cent ) Minimum length of vertical
Design Speed (Km/h)
not requiring a vertical curve curve (meters)
Up to 35 1.5 15
40 1.2 20
50 1.0 30
65 0.8 40
80 0.6 50
100 0.5 60

Due to changes in grade in the vertical alignment of the road, vertical curves at the intersection
of the different grades will be provided in the design so as to smoothen the vertical profile
resulting in easing off of the changes in the gradients for the fast moving vehicles. Both summit
curves and valley curves will be introduced as per IRC guidelines.

Length of summit curves is governed by the choice of sight distance. Length of the valley curves
should be such that for night travel, the head light beam distance is equal to the stopping sight
distance. The lengths of the valley curves are worked out as per the guidelines and formula given
in the IRC: 73.

Page 4-19| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

4.3.3 Sight Distance

As per IRC recommendations, the minimum sight distance (Stopping sight distance) is 180 m for
100 Kph and 120m for 80 Kph.

4.3.4 Site Specific

The vertical profile of the existing road is having the grades which are within permissible limits as
per the terrain requirements. The profile will be smoothened by providing smooth vertical curves.

The profile of new and existing carriageway alignment has been designed with reference to the
existing profile. The proposed alignment has been designed with smooth gradients. The profile of
the existing road has many undulations, which have also been smoothened.

The details of vertical profiles are given in the drawing, enclosed in the Drawings Volume. The
given profile shows the proposed levels along the proposed center line along with the details
super elevation, extra widening and all existing features.

The existing road has been used to maximum extent possible. The maximum proposed road
gradient is 2.5% to provide a smooth longitudinal. The height of embankment has also been
raised considering the hydrological data and HFL criteria. The road is designed for intermediate
sight distance.

Page 4-20| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

5 JUNCTIONS/ INTERSECTIONS

5.1 General

Intersections are important element of road and at grade intersections are very common. The
design scope covers improvement of existing at grade junctions and intersections. The main
objective of the intersection design is to minimize the severity of potential conflicts between cars,
buses, trucks, cycles and pedestrians, while facilitating the convenience, ease and comfort of
people traversing the intersections.

Intersection design should be fitted closely to the operating characteristics of users. Basic
elements that have been considered in intersection design are:

• Human Factors: driving habits of road users, reaction time of various road users
• Traffic Considerations
• Physical Elements: median and island provisions, land availability, traffic control devices,
drainage features etc.
• Economic Factors: cost of improvements.

5.2 Basic Design Principles

Primary considerations are safety, smooth and efficient flow of traffic. Intersections are designed
having regard to flow, speed, composition, distribution and future growth of traffic. Design has to
be specific for each site with due regard to physical conditions of the site, the amount and cost of
land. Cost of construction and the effect of proposal on the neighborhood. Allowances for space
are needed to accommodate traffic signs, lighting columns where applicable, drainage, public
utilities etc.

Intersections are to be designed for peak hour volumes. Estimation of future traffic and its
distribution during peak hours is done on the basis of estimated traffic and by accounting form
factors like new development of land, socio-economic changes etc.

The radii of intersections curves depend on the turning characteristics of design vehicles their
numbers and the speed at which vehicles enter or exit the intersection area. In urban area
additional conditions like restriction of right of way widths, abutting developments, pedestrian
crossings, parked vehicles and high cost of land govern minimum radii at intersections. However,
to ensure traffic operation on arterial streets as per IRC SP:41, the common turning radii of 4.5 to
7.3 for passenger cars and 9m to 15 m for trucks and buses are recommended. And also in urban
area if curve radii is increased, the pedestrian crossing distance increases. Since this has
pedestrian safety implications, this should be kept in view while deciding on the turning radius to
be provided.

In hilly and rolling terrain, site condition governs the alignment, grade of the intersection. The
following are the basic principles to be given due attention during the design.

 the intersecting roads shall meet at or nearly at right angle. However, angles above 60 o
do not warrant realignment;

Page 5-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

 intersection on sharp curves should be avoided because the superelevation and widening
of pavement complicates the design;
 The gradient of intersecting highways should be as flat as practicable up to section that
are used for storage space; and
 Grades in excess of 3 percent should, therefore, be avoided on intersections while those
in excess of 6 per cent should not be allowed.
 Junctions/ Intersections should be avoided inside the horizontal curves; primarily sharp as
they obstruct the sightlines/ forward visibility

The specific intersection design depends on physical conditions of the site, such as topography,
available ROW, land use, development along the intersecting roads, expected volume of through
and turning traffic.

It is desirable to provide kerbs at the intersections in urban and sub-urban area. Kerbs are to be
of mountable type except for pedestrian refuge where these shall be non-mountable. In
intersection design the possible use of traffic control devices and other road furniture is
considered. The common types of traffic control devices are: road markings; road signs;
reflectors/ delineators and railings

5.3 Site Specific

The majority of the existing road junctions are formed with village and minor roads except and
there are a few junctions formed with BT road that necessitate careful design considerations. No
new intersections or junctions are envisaged. The major and minor intersections are as below:

Table 5.1: Major Intersections

Cross Road Details
Design Type of Direction Towards
Side Width
Chainage Junction Type (BT/CC/Gravel/Kaccha)
Left Right Left Right
2+065 ├ R 10 BT HAMIRPUR
2+600 ├ R 4 Kaccha River
5+800 ┼ Both 3 4 BT BT Helapur Sehjana
12+500 ┼ Both 3 4 BT Kaccha Sikri Sahurapur
26+750 ┼ Both 2.5 3.5 BT BT Visishat Mandi Shripura
33+880 ┤ L 5.5 BT NH-86
71+395 ┼ Both 2.6 2.5 BT BT Dhamna Aunta

Table 5.2: Minor Intersections

Cross Road Details
Design Type of Direction Towards
Side Width Culvert
Chainage Junction Type (BT/CC/Gravel/Kaccha)
Left Right Left Right
3+080 ┼ BOTH 3 2.5 WBM KACCHA Amerta Agriculture
5+220 ┤ L 4 2 BT KACCHA Helapur
6+460 ├ R 3.2 BT _ kaloliteer
7+545 ┤ L 2.8 WBM chunodi
7+632 ├ R 3.2 BT _ Kiratpur
No Culvert on
10+510 ├ R 2.5 CC pothiya
cross road

Page 5-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Cross Road Details

Design Type of Direction Towards
Side Width Culvert
Chainage Junction Type (BT/CC/Gravel/Kaccha)
Left Right Left Right
No Culvert on
10+583 ┼ BOTH 2.5 3.2 CC CC Pothiya Pothiya
cross road
No Culvert on
10+840 ┼ BOTH 4.5 3.0 BR CC Pothiya Pothiya
cross road
13+810 ┼ BOTH 2.9 2.5 BR BR Agriculture agriculture
14+100 ┤ L 3 CC village
16+727 ┤ L 3.3 BT lalpura
16+820 ├ R 3 WBM _ kumaupur
20+070 ├ R 2.5 BT Sawasa khurd
20+370 ┼ BOTH 2.7 3.3 KACCHA CC Agriculture Sawasa buzurg
25+010 ├ R 3.5 BT bajetha
No Culvert on
25+480 ├ R 3 BR chaani
cross road
No Culvert on
25+690 ┤ L 3.5 BT engotha
cross road
30+290 ├ R 3 BT lodhipur_
30+930 ┤ L 3 BT _mokhri kharva
31+000 ├ R 3.5 CC niwada
31+140 ├ R 3.5 CC niwada
31+790 ├ R 3 CC niwada
No Culvert on
34+200 ├ R 7 BT Uday bhan
cross road
No Culvert on
34+680 ┤ L 3.2 BT umri
cross road
No Culvert on
34+830 ┤ L 2 BR biwar
cross road
38+218 ┤ L 3.5 CC jalla
38+270 ├ R 2.5 BT jalla
38+694 ├ R 2.3 BT Mau-mahera
40+610 ┤ L 2.8 BT Umri
No Culvert on
41+415 ┤ L 3.2 CC village
cross road
No Culvert on
41+690 ├ R 4.8 CC chilli
cross road
43+370 ├ R 2.6 BT chilli
43+825 ├ R 2.8 BT Khejri lodhan
45+900 ├ R 3.5 BT Modha dam
45+925 ┼ Both 3.5 3 KACCHA BT Math Modha dam
47+566 ┤ L 3 BT masgaon
No Culvert on
50+620 ├ R 2.8 BT Agriculture
cross road
No Culvert on
51+100 ├ R 3.15 BT Chileta rath
cross road
No Culvert on
51+530 ┤ L 4 CC muskara
cross road
No Culvert on
51+650 ├ R 3 BT muskara
cross road
No Culvert on
51+675 ├ R BR muskara
cross road
No Culvert on
51+860 ┼ BOTH 3 3.1 BT CC mahoba temple
cross road
No Culvert on
52+020 ├ R 3 BT Chandora
cross road
No Culvert on
52+238 ┤ L 2.7 CC muhawa
New basti cross road

Page 5-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Cross Road Details

Design Type of Direction Towards
Side Width Culvert
Chainage Junction Type (BT/CC/Gravel/Kaccha)
Left Right Left Right
52+420 ├ R 2.2 BR
54+850 ┤ L 2.6 BT temple
55+352 ├ R 2.4 BT Bihuni khurd
56+680 ┤ L 3.1 BT bundela
60+534 ├ R 2.5 WBM dharampura
61+790 ├ R 3.2 BT Bihuni dera
62+331 ├ R 3 BT Bihuni dera
62+744 ┤ L 2.8 BT jakhedi
62+947 ├ R 2.88 BT tunna
65+637 ├ R 3.5 BT nevnipura
66+657 ┼ Both 3.2 2.4 BT KACCHA Sarsada agriculture
67+140 ├ R 3.2 BT nevnipura
67+175 ┤ L 4 BT Dhanori
67+510 ├ R 3.5 BT village
67+650 ┤ L 3.3 CC village
68+076 ┤ L 3.2 BT Dhanori
69+437 ┤ L 3.3 BT Akona
71+205 ├ R 3.2 BT chilli
71+383 ├ R 2.68 BT aunta
72+625 ├ R 3.7 BT Bada gaon
73+437 ┤ L 2.5 BT akona
74+623 ├ R 2.4 WBM temple

Road junctions with village/ minor roads, typical standard designs as per MORTH are proposed
with appropriate modifications, considering the ROW constraint and additional safety measures.
Specific designs will also be produced, as necessary.

The vertical profile/ grade line of cross-roads would meet the project road without undue steep
gradients with a flat section adjoining mainline; with due consideration given to land and local
constraints.

Page 5-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

6 PAVEMENT DESIGN

6.1 Introduction

Pavement design aims at determining the total thickness of the pavement structure as well as the
thickness of the individual structural components for carrying the estimated traffic loading under
the prevailing environmental conditions. Many design methods, from purely empirical to rigorous
analytical ones are available and these are practiced in different parts of the world. The design
methods adopted in other countries may not be applicable to Indian climatic conditions. In India,
the generally adopted method of design of flexible pavement is based on IRC: 37. Accordingly
IRC: 37-2012 “Tentative Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements”, have been adopted.
The overlay design has been carried out based on the procedure outlined in IRC: 81-1997.

6.2 Review of Design Methods for New Construction

The AASHTO and IRC methods of pavement design have been reviewed before recommending
the pavement composition. However, in the perspective of such review, it is important to note
that no method in practice can be considered better than the other as each method has its own
inherent limitations, owing to the characteristics of materials used in construction and their
complex interaction, climatic and traffic conditions. The other methods of TAC and NAASRA may
not be applicable for the current project road pavement design due to limitations on fatigue
failure criteria and nature of materials considered in the design criteria does not suit the project
requirements and hence the same were not considered for pavement design.

6.2.1 AASHTO-93, Guide for Design of Pavement Structures

This method of approach is based on empirical expressions obtained from the AASHO road tests.
This approach considers the ‘Present Serviceability Index’ (or PSI, the performance variable),
‘reliability’ (probability that the pavement system will perform its intended function over the
design life and under the conditions encountered during the operation period), resilient modulus
of sub-grade besides the constituent materials, drainage and climatic conditions.

This method gives the total required pavement composition in terms of the parameter ‘Structural
Number’ (SN, which is represented by the sum of the product of the layer coefficient, the
thickness expressed in inches and the drainage coefficient of each layer of pavement) and a
procedure to arrive at the individual pavement layer thicknesses in relation to the strength
characteristics of the pavement layers, defined as layer coefficients. An acceptable ‘serviceability’
is considered as a main design criterion in this method. The end of design life is considered in the
form of a terminal PSI, which usually corresponds to a minimum acceptable riding quality.

6.2.2 IRC: 37 – 2012, Tentative Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements

The pavement designs given in this guide are based on the results of pavement research work
done in India and experience gained over the years on the performance of the designs given
therein. Flexible pavement has been modelled as a three-layer structure with stresses and strains
at critical locations computed using the linear elastic model FPAVE developed under the Ministry

Page 6-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

of Road Transport & Highways Research Scheme, R – 56 and further updated it with IITPAVE
recently .

The pavement designs are given for sub-grade CBR values ranging from 2% to 15% for different
pavement type options like Cement Treated base and Sub base, use of RAP in asphalt layer with
foamed bitumen or emulsion. The pavement compositions given in the design catalogue are
relevant to Indian conditions, materials and specifications. Where changes to layer thickness and
specification are considered desirable from practical considerations, the guidelines recommend
modifications using an analytical approach. Hence, the design has been carried out based on the
procedure given in IRC: 37-2012.

6.3 Design Methodology

The design shall be based on various design parameters as evaluated from various field and
laboratory investigations, design procedures with the objective to ascertain optimal pavement
structure meeting the structural requirements for the traffic and complying with the provisions of
the relevant codes and guidelines. The structural requirements are:

(i) The total thickness of the pavement and the thickness of individual layers should be
designed in such a way that they are not subjected to stresses or strains exceeding those
admissible in view of the material characteristics and performance factors,

(ii) The pavement layers should be able to with stand repeated applications of wheel loads of
different magnitudes under the actual conditions of sub grade, climate, drainage, and
other environmental factors during the design life without causing
a. excessive permanent deformation in the form of rutting and undulations;
b. cracking of bituminous layers; and
c. other structural and functional deficiencies such as potholes
(iii) Ensure structural and functional performance under varied conditions and factors
affecting the performance of the road i.e. soil type , traffic, environment, etc

Pavement design guidelines given in IRC:37-2012 adopts are based on the Analytical method
which is believed to have been developed based on performance of existing designs and using
analytical approach (to limit the vertical compressive strain at the top of sub grade and horizontal
tensile strain at bottom of bituminous layer adopting linear elastic model). Flow chart showing the
various steps involved in the design process is given in Figure 6.1 below.

Page 6-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Basic Design Parameters Surveys & Investigations

(Inputs)

CBR Soil Investigation

Traffic Volume & Growth Rate Traffic Surveys and Analysis
Vehicle Damage Factors Axle Load Survey
Design Life As per code/financial analysis

Assessment of Design Traffic in

MSA

Pavement Design
as per IRC

Finalization of Pavement
Thicknesses

Finalization of materials as
per MoRTH Specifications

Figure 6.1: Flow Chart Showing the Pavement Design Methodology

6.4 Evaluation of Pavement Design Parameters

6.4.1 Design Life

Design life is the time from original construction to a terminal condition for a pavement structure.
Structural design is carried to withstand the pavement for a traffic loading encountered over the
design life. IRC: 37-2012 suggests design life of 15 years for the flexible pavements and
accordingly, design period of 15 years has been considered for the design of pavement.

6.4.2 Traffic Volumes

A detailed traffic surveys and analysis for the project roads have been conducted in the year
2014, hereinafter called, “Base Year”. Detailed traffic projections over the design life and growth
rates obtained for different types of vehicles are discussed in traffic chapter. For the purpose of
pavement design, commercial vehicles of gross vehicle weight more than 3 ton have been
considered. Such vehicles consisted of buses, LCVs, 2 axle trucks, 3 axle trucks and multi axle
trucks.

From total projected base year AADT and estimated traffic growth rates, vehicle category-wise
traffic volume projections have been made for various design periods. Table 6.1 gives the total
projected base year (2014) traffic volumes in terms of AADT for each of the identified traffic

Page 6-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

homogeneous section and has been used for the estimation of design traffic in terms of MSA for
pavement design.

Table 6.1: Base Year Traffic Volumes

Type of Commercial Vehicles Hamirpur-Rath Road
Near Lalpur at Km 17+000 Near Bihunikurd at Km
Location
(Hamirpur-Bewar) 58+000 (Bewar-Rath)
LCV 28 47
2-Axle 199 42
3-Axle 319 43
MAV 22 14
Bus 62 69
Total 630 215

6.4.3 Projected Traffic

The total projected traffic is the sum of generated traffic, induced and diverted traffic. The total
projected traffic on to the project road has been presented in Table 5.37 of Chapter 5.

6.4.4 Vehicle Damage Factors

Project specific comprehensive axle load surveys were conducted for each the project road to
estimate the loading behaviour of commercial vehicles plying on the project road. The detailed
analysis and raw data of axle loads collected from site from axle load surveys is provided in
Chapter-3, Surveys & Investigations of this report. The summary of VDFs is given in Table 6.2
below.

Table 6.2: Vehicle Damage Factors

Road Name Hamirpur-Rath Road (Near Bihunikurd at Km 58+000) (Bewar-Rath)
Hamirpur-
Hamirpur

Adopted
Average
Rath-

Type of Commercial
Rath

VDF

VDF
Vehicles

LCV 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.5

Bus 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0
2 axle trucks 16.5 17.1 16.8 17.1
3 axle trucks 41.8 20.1 30.9 41.8
MAV 24.1 10.4 17.2 24.1

The maximum VDF’s have been adopted in estimating the design traffic in MSA. These VDF
factors have been used for estimating MSA.

6.4.5 Strength of Sub grade

The strength of sub-grade in terms of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is required for the design of
new flexible pavement as per IRC: 37-2012. Consultants have explored the potential sources of
suitable borrow areas with minimal leads from the project road by enquiring from local
inhabitants. The details of borrow materials investigation and testing have been briefly covered in
the surveys and Investigations chapter. As per MoRT&H clause 305, the borrow earth material
shall satisfy the following engineering properties for use in the sub grade and embankment.

Page 6-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Filled in Free Swell Index LL PI MDD (g/cc)

Sub grade,
earthen shoulders/ ≤50% 50% 25% ≥1.75
verges
≥1.52 up to 3m height (not subjected to
extensive flooding)
Embankment ≤50% 50% 25%
≥1.60 more than 3m height (or
embankments of any height subjected
to long periods of inundation)

From laboratory test results of soil samples collected from few borrow areas along the project
alignment it was found that the available soil type is well graded with CBR values varying from
6.9 to 12.1 % and they also satisfy the above basic index properties. The soils in sufficient
quantity are available in the close vicinity of the project area. The CBR of 8% has been
considered as design CBR for subgrade construction as 9 out of 16 borrow soil areas are having ≥
8% CBR and FSI ≤ 20. However during construction the contractor can identify more borrow
areas in the close vicinity of the project for getting suitable material for subgrade and earthwork
construction. The borrow areas having CBR < 8% can be used in earthwork/embankment
construction.

6.5 Use of Flyash in Embankment Construction

Use of Fly ash in construction of embankment is mandatory as per environmental regulations

when Thermal Power Plant producing fly ash is situated within 100 km range of the project road.
Fly ash source at Panki Thermal plant (at Kanpur) is within 100 km range from the project road.
Since the present road project is to widen the current road to two lanes along the existing
alignment, substantial use of fly ash is not anticipated in this project; and only limited use of fly
ash is expected at few locations, where the road profile has been raised due to HFL criteria.

6.6 Evaluation of Design Traffic (MSA) for Pavement Design

Base year traffic (vehicle category-wise & in terms of AADT), traffic growth rates, design life (in
terms of number of years) and vehicle damage factors are required to estimate the design traffic
in terms of equivalent standard axles. The following data have been considered to arrive at the
design traffic (MSA).

 Base year – 2014

 Traffic opening year – 2017 (assumed)
 Design Life – 15 years (i.e., from year 2017 to year 2031, inclusive of both the years)
 Traffic growth rates adopted from project traffic studies conducted but minimum 5%.
 Vehicle damage factor – as listed above.
For flexible pavements, the percentage of vehicles in heaviest loaded lane are determined as per
IRC: 37-2012 guidelines and is given below:

Type of Facility Lane Distribution Factor

2- lane single carriageway roads 50 % of total two directional traffic

With the base year traffic in terms of CVPD, annual growth rate of each of commercial vehicle
over the design period, design traffic in terms of MSA over the design life can be estimated using
the following formula.

Page 6-5| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Where, N = Cumulative number of standard axles to be catered

A = Initial number commercial vehicles per day in the year when the road is operational
r = Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic
n = Design period in years
D = Lane distribution factor, given below
F = Vehicle Damage Factor

The summary of MSA is given in Table 6.3 below.

Table 6.3: Design MSA for New/Widening of Pavement

Traffic Chainage (km)
S. Traffic
Project Road Homogenous From To Length
No.
Sections (THS) (km) (km) (km) (msa)
Hamirpur-Rath THS-1 2+065 36+000 33.935 108
1
Road THS-2 36+000 74+850 38.850 30

6.7 Design of Pavement Structure as per IRC: 37-2012

Design of new flexible pavement applies to the widened portions of existing carriageway lanes
including paved shoulders. Paved shoulders are proposed to be constructed to the same standard
as the main carriageway and thus forming an integral part of the paved carriageway. The design
also applies to reconstruction stretches where the existing crust is much less than the required
design thicknesses and the existing BT layers are cracked; potholed, patched and are in poor
condition. In such cases, the existing bituminous surfacing (BT layers) are completely removed
and then the pavement is built up with WMM and bituminous layers.

Test pits were excavated along the existing road to understand the existing pavement
composition and layer thicknesses. The observed details are given in Table 6.4 below:

Table 6.4 : Existing Pavement Composition

S. No Location (Km) Side BT Non BT Total
1 2+500 RHS 0 280 280
2 4+500 RHS 90 560 650
3 5+000 LHS 60 310 370
4 8+500 LHS 0 380 380
5 9+600 RHS 60 330 390
6 13+500 RHS 50 100 150
7 15+000 LHS 60 370 430
8 18+500 LHS 60 400 460
9 20+000 RHS 55 325 380
10 23+500 RHS 70 500 570
11 25+000 LHS 100 355 455
12 26+500 LHS 50 450 500
13 30+000 RHS 55 390 445
14 31+500 RHS 50 500 550

Page 6-6| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

S. No Location (Km) Side BT Non BT Total

15 35+000 LHS 70 445 515
16 36+500 LHS 80 400 480
17 40+000 RHS 70 415 485
18 43+500 RHS 110 370 480
19 45+000 LHS 100 420 520
20 48+500 LHS 40 570 610
21 50+000 RHS 120 375 495
22 53+500 RHS 140 440 580
23 55+000 LHS 60 205 265
24 58+500 LHS 30 300 330
25 59+900 RHS 55 215 270
26 63+500 RHS 100 320 420
27 64+000 LHS 50 155 205
28 67+500 RHS 80 420 500
29 69+000 RHS 65 380 445
30 72+500 LHS 80 430 510
31 74+000 LHS 70 380 450

The summary of layer thicknesses is:

BT Non BT Total
Max 140 570 650
Min 0 210 260
Avg 67 383 450

With the design traffic loading in MSA and the sub grade strength in terms of CBR, the pavement
composition has been worked out by IRC catalogue design procedure to account for the design
period of 15 years. 500mm thick sub grade will be placed on embankment top layer. This layer
will also be constructed with selected borrow area soils with 8% CBR, and over which the
pavement crust will be built. The pavement structure has been worked out for all the
homogeneous sections of the project road and is given in Table 6.5 below.

Table 6.5: Proposed Pavement Composition and Thickness for New and
Reconstruction of Pavement
Traffic Chainage (km) New Construction/ Widening Reconstruction by Removing
Homogenous Traffic
From To Length CBR (mm) the BT Layers (mm)
Sections
(THS) (km) (km) (km) (msa) BC DBM WMM GSB Total BC DBM WMM GSB Total
2+065 18+500 16.435 108 8 Rigid Pavement Nil
THS-1 18+500 19+000 0.500 108 8 Rigid Pavement Reconstruction of Subgrade
19+000 36+000 17.000 108 8 50 145 250 200 645 50 145 250 0 445
36+000 42+000 6.000 30 8 40 100 250 200 590 Overlay
42+000 44+000 2.000 30 8 40 100 250 200 590 40 100 250 0 390
THS-2 44+000 52+300 8.300 30 8 40 100 250 200 590 Overlay
52+300 65+500 13.200 30 8 40 100 250 200 590 40 100 250 0 390
65+500 74+850 9.350 30 8 40 100 250 200 590 Overlay
Total 72.785

Page 6-7| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Drainage Layer – Considering the requirements of drainage, as per the provisions of IRC: SP:
42, the GSB layer for full thickness shall be extended over entire formation width i.e. till the
embankment slope on both sides of the pavement carriageway.

6.8 Design of Rigid Pavement Structure as per IRC: 58-2015

A part of road section from Design Ch. 2+065 to Ch. 18+000 (L=16.935 km) is used by trucks
carrying wet sand mined from nearby Betwa River. The water drips down from the trucks on the
pavement surface all along the road way and has damaged the pavement in the form of
stripping, cracking, potholes including base course failure. Rigid pavement is proposed in this
length of 16.935km as dripping of water on concrete surface will not result in “stripping”.

In order to provide a stable construction platform and non-erodible support for PQC, a DLC sub-
base, 150mm thick, is included as part of the pavement structure. Similarly, a layer of relatively
open graded GSB Gr-6 (as per IRC:58-2015 Table VI-I), 150mm thick above the sub grade has
been considered for drainage of water to prevent excessive softening of sub grade and prevent
erosion of the sub grade under adverse moisture condition.

A separation membrane of 125 micron polyethylene is considered to be placed between PQC and
DLC to reduce inter-layer friction.

The rigid pavement structure has been worked out (Appendix – 6.1) for this section of the
project road and summary is given in Table 6.6 below.

Table 6.6: Proposed Rigid Pavement Composition

Chainage (km)
Pavement Layer Composition (mm)
From To Length Panel
Traffic Homogenous
Size (m) CBR
Sections (THS)
PQC DLC *GSB
(km) (km) (km) Total Remarks
(M40) (M7) Gr-6

2+065 18+500 16.435 3.5 x 4.5 8 300 150 150 600 -

THS-1 Reconstruction of
18+500 19+000 0.500 3.5 x 4.5 8 300 150 150 600
Subgrade

Note: *GSB Gr-6 (as per IRC:58-2015 Table VI-I)

The dimensions of dowel bars & tie bars are given below:

 Contraction joint spacing @ 4.5 m

 Longitudinal joint @ 3.5 m width and @ 1.5 m width (tied shoulder)
 Dowel bars 38 mm dia plain, 500 mm long @ 300 mm spacing
 Tie bars 12 mm dia deformed , 640 mm long @ 600 mm spacing

6.9 Design of Strengthening Overlay for Existing Carriageway

Design of overlay as per IRC: 81-1997

The design of overlay for the existing pavement of project roads has been done taking into
account the strength of the existing pavement based on BBD testing. The BBD testing has been

Page 6-8| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

carried out on all project roads and deflections were measured for the identified homogeneous
sections of similar performance based on the pavement condition. The summary of data analysis
for overlay design is presented in below table.

Table 6.7: The Summary of BBD Analysis

S. No. From (Km) To (Km) Ch. Deflection (mm)
1 36+000 37+000 1.28
2 37+000 38+000 1.32
3 38+000 39+000 1.25
4 39+000 40+000 1.32
5 40+000 41+000 1.20
6 41+000 42+000 1.26
7 44+000 45+000 1.31
8 45+000 46+000 1.28
9 46+000 47+000 1.25
10 47+000 48+000 1.30
11 48+000 49+000 1.26
12 49+000 50+000 1.28
13 50+000 51+000 1.38
14 51+000 52+000 1.26
15 65+000 66+000 1.58
16 66+000 67+000 1.62
17 67+000 68+000 1.55
18 68+000 69+000 1.57
19 69+000 70+000 1.48
20 70+000 71+000 1.64
21 71+000 72+000 1.57
22 72+000 73+000 1.58
23 73+000 74+000 1.63
24 74+000 74+850 1.57

The BBD values vary from 1.64mm to 1.2mm with average value of 1.4mm for the entire project
length.

However at three locations i.e. from km 36 to km 42, km 44 to Km 52 and Km 65 to Km 74.85

the top BT surface is found in good to fair condition and existing average crust thicknesses are
more than 480mm. At these three locations bituminous overlays are proposed. In the remaining
lengths the top BT surface is either nonexistent or cracked and in poor condition. The existing
average crust thicknesses are less than 450mm. Therefore the existing pavement is strengthened
by granular (WMM) layer followed by overlays with bituminous layers.

Design of overlay is based on IRC: 81, “Guidelines for strengthening of flexible pavement using
Benkelman Beam deflection Technique”, which provides design curves relating to characteristic
deflection (Dc) to the cumulative number of standard axles to be carried over the design life.
These curves (fig 9 of IRC: 81) give the thickness of BM overlay to be placed over an existing
road against the cumulative number of standard axles and characteristic deflection.

Page 6-9| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

The thickness obtained from design curves is the overlay thickness in terms of Bituminous
Macadam. This thickness is converted into BC and DBM by taking a conversion equivalency 0.70
AC/DBM for 1 part of BM as per the guidelin1es of IRC: 81

As per IRC: SP: 73, the minimum design life of 10 years or operation period has to be adopted.
The design life adopted for the new designs is 15 years; accordingly the design life of 15 years
has been adopted for overlay sections to match with new pavement design.

The overlay thickness worked out is given in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8: Estimated Overlay Composition and Thickness

Chainage (km) Overlay Construction as per IRC:81-1997
Traffic Overlay in terms
S. Project Average Overlay
Loading of BC+DBM (mm)
No. Road Characteristic in terms
From To Length in MSA
Deflection of BM
for BC DBM
(mm) (mm)
Overlay
36+000 42+000 6.000 32 1.27 140 40 60
42+000 44+000 2.000 32 Reconstruction
Hamirpur-
1 44+000 52+300 8.300 32 1.29 140 40 60
Rath Road
52+300 65+500 13.200 32 Reconstruction
65+500 74+850 9.350 32 1.57 165 40 80

6.9.1 Binder Selection for BC and DBM layers

The long term satisfactory performance of pavements is influenced by the pavement ingredient
materials and their properties. In bituminous pavements besides stone aggregates, the
bituminous binder is the key ingredient which makes its selection an important task. It is the
costliest component of the bituminous mix. In India, the bitumen grading was practised until
1992 on the basis of penetration test, which is conducted at a temperature of 25°C, and 60/70
penetration grade bitumen, was widely used. The most common problem in the performance of
bituminous mix with this binder was rutting during hot summer. The bitumen becomes soft in the
60 to 70°C temperature range (typical road surface temperature on a hot summer day) and starts
to push and shove under loaded truck tyres leading to rutting and corrugations in the wheel
tracks of the roadway. To minimise this problem, the BIS switched over from Penetration based
grading system (IS: 73-1992) to Viscosity based grading system (IS: 73-2006). This standard has
been further revised and the current standard is IS: 73-2013 (Paving Bitumen-Specifications).

The MORTH Specifications for Road and Bridge Works 5th revision allows use of both viscosity
grade bitumen and modified bitumen. It is proposed to use modified bitumen complying with the
IRC: SP: 53 and IS: 15462 for BC. For DBM layer VG30 bitumen is proposed for the present
project.

The project area lies in the region where the 7 days average maximum air temperature is in the
range from 38°C to 45°C and the lowest daily mean air temperature is more than -10oC. Hence
modified bitumen satisfying the properties given in column (5) of Table 2 of IRC: SP: 53 – 2010
which correspond to the ‘Highest Mean Air Temperature Above 35 0C and ‘Lowest Mean Air
Temperature Above (-) 10 0C is recommended for BC layer i.e. the top wearing course layer,
except the softening point. The softening point requirement is required to be increased from
60 0C to 65 0C [S.N. (ii) of Table 2 of IRC: SP: 53 – 2010] as the maximum temperature in the
project area exceeds 40 0C in summers.

Page 6-10| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

The modified bitumen requires the use of appropriate industrial process and plant with high shear
mill, and testing facilities to achieve stable and homogeneous mix. Transportation tanks and
storage tanks need to be insulated and equipped with effective heating system and circulation/
agitating device to maintain the specified temperature, homogeneity and viscosity of bitumen
during transit and storage. The contractor will be required to fulfil all the requirements as
specified in the IRC: SP: 53 – 2010 “Guidelines on use of Modified Bitumen in Road Construction
for manufacture, transportation, storage, design of mixes, construction operations, quality
assurance plan at site etc.

Binder Content for DBM

To increase fatigue life of pavement, higher bitumen content of 0.55% than the optimum has
been considered with 3% air voids in DBM mix. Hence minimum bitumen content proposed for
DBM is as under:

DBM Gr. 1 4.0 + 0.55 = Min. 4.55% by mass of total mix

DBM Gr. 2 4.5 + 0.55 = Min. 5.05% by mass of total mix

6.10 Proposed Maintenance/Repair Strategy before Placing Overlay

Before implementing the overlay, the existing surface irregularities shall be corrected and brought
to proper profile by filling the cracks, pot holes, ruts and undulations. Based on the pavement
condition survey, major distresses noticed are potholes, cracking, patching, raveling at few
locations,. These defects would require rectification before placing an asphalt overlay. The
suggested remedial measures are given below in Table 6.9.

Table 6.9: Corrective/Remedial Measures for Distresses before Overlay

Suggested Treatment
Description
Description of Treatment Materials to be Use Execution Steps
a) Sweep area (surface must be
clean & dry),
b) Mark out the area to be
Cutback bitumen,
Very fine sealed, with chalk
coarse sand up to 5
cracking; no c) Distribute binder (use water
Local Sealing mm, chippings 6 to 10
structural can) 1kg/m2; do not overheat
mm size for local
damage. bitumen.
repairs
d) Distribute aggregate by
scattering with shovel. Whole
area must be covered.
a) Air blow and clean.
b) Sweep the area (surface must
be dry and clean)
c) Mark out the area to be
repaired, with a chalk
Narrow inter- d) Prepare bitumen slurry by
Sealing with bituminous Bituminous emulsion
connecting mixing 6 litres of bitumen
slurry & coarse sand
cracks emulsion with20 litres of
coarse sand (< 5mm)
e) Spread the slurry and
squeegee in thin layer (5 mm
thick) over marked area. Allow
it to dry before allowing traffic.

Page 6-11| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Suggested Treatment
Description
Description of Treatment Materials to be Use Execution Steps
a) Mark out the area with chalk
(draw a rectangle around
defect)
b) Excavation of area: Remove all
material of road surface from
the marked out area and apply
tack coat.
c) Increase depth of hole until
firm dry material is found.
Trim the walls of the hole to
be vertical. Remove all
moisture
d) Trim bottom of hole so that it
is flat horizontal and free of
Pothole Related to Bituminous
Pothole patching loose material and compacte)
patching Concrete
Fill hole with selected well
graded material.
f) Place material in the hole and
compact in one or more
layers. The last layer to have
greater thickness (1/5th extra)
to allow for settlement after
compaction
g) For compaction, use vibratory
roller, plate compactor or
rammer depending on size of
excavation
h) Reseal with thin surfacing to
prevent penetration of water
a) Air blow and clean.
b) Sweep the area (surface must
be dry and clean)
c) Prepare bitumen slurry by
Sealing with bituminous Related to Bituminous mixing 6 litres of bitumen
Ravelling
slurry Concrete emulsion with20 litres of
coarse sand (< 5mm)
d) Spread the slurry and
squeegee in thin layer (5 mm
thick) over marked Area
a) Air blow and clean.
b) Sweep the area (surface must
be dry and clean)
c) Prepare bitumen slurry by
Rectified
Bituminous emulsion mixing 6 litres of bitumen
Shoved Local Sealing
& coarse sand emulsion with20 litres of
portion
coarse sand (< 5mm)
d) Spread the slurry and
squeegee in thin layer (5 mm
thick) over marked area.
Plastic
movement of
a) Remove the shoved area
pavement
Replacement of shoved Related to Bituminous (minimum 30mm below
materials
materials Concrete adjoining level).
resulting in
b) Fill with thin surfacing BC mix
localized
bulging

Page 6-12| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

6.11 Preparation of Surface and Profile Correction Course (PCC)

The existing granular or black-topped surface for laying bituminous course shall be prepared as
per Section 501.8 of the MORT&H specifications.

Profile Correction Course (PCC)

A profile corrective course for correction of any deficiency in profile/ camber or super elevation of
the existing carriageway shall be provided as per Section 501.8.3.4 of the MORT&H specifications.
Profile Correction Course (PCC) criteria for reconstruction sections are given in following tables:

Table 6.10: Profile Correction Course (PCC) - Criteria - Km 0+000 To Km 19+000;

Level Difference
between proposed FRL
and existing road level Removal of Existing Pavement
Case Treatment (mm)
(D) plus existing BT Layer
thickness (h) in (mm)
(D+h)
BT layer and part base layer (Using
Case-1 =<600 300PQC+150DLC+150GSB
loosening and recompacting Subgrade)
300PQC+150DLC+150GSB+150
Case-2 >600 and <=750 BT layer only
(max) PCC with GSB
300PQC+150DLC+150GSB+500S
Case-3 750 and <=1100 BT+granular
G
300PQC+150DLC+150GSB+500S
Case-4 >1100 BT layer to be roughened
G+Embankment

Table 6.11: Profile Correction Course (PCC) - Criteria - Km 19+000 To Km 36+000

Level Difference between
Removal of
proposed FRL and existing road
Case Treatment (mm) Existing
level (D) plus existing BT
Pavement Layer
thickness (h) in (mm) (D+h)
As directed by
Case-1 < 445 50BC+145DBM+250WMM
the Engineer
50BC+145DBM+250WMM+75 (max)
Case-2 > 445 and < 520 BT layer only
PCC with WMM
50BC+145DBM+250WMM+200 (max)
Case-3 > 520 and < 645 BT layer only
PCC with GSB
50BC+145DBM+250WMM+200GSB+5
Case-4 > 645 and < 1145 BT layer only
00SG
50BC+145DBM+250WMM+200GSB+5 BT layer to be
Case-5 > 1145
00SG+Embankment roughened

Table 6.12: Profile Correction Course (PCC) - Criteria - Km 42+000 To Km 44+000;

Km 52+300 to Km 65+500
Level Difference between
Removal of
proposed FRL and existing road
Case Treatment (mm) Existing
level (D) plus existing BT
Pavement Layer
thickness (h) in (mm) (D+h)
As directed by
Case-1 < 390 40BC+100DBM+250WMM
the Engineer
40BC+100DBM+250WMM+75 (max)
Case-2 > 390 and < 465 BT layer only
PCC with WMM

Page 6-13| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Level Difference between

Removal of
proposed FRL and existing road
Case Treatment (mm) Existing
level (D) plus existing BT
Pavement Layer
thickness (h) in (mm) (D+h)
40BC+100DBM+250WMM+200 (max)
Case-3 > 465 and < 590 BT layer only
PCC with GSB
40BC+100DBM+250WMM+200GSB+5
Case-4 > 590 and < 1090 BT layer only
00SG
40BC+100DBM+250WMM+200GSB+5 BT layer to be
Case-5 > 1090
00SG+Embankment roughened

Table 6.13: Profile Correction Course (PCC) – Overlay Location

Gross Difference (FRL-ERL)
Scarification PCC Strategy
Case From (mm) To (mm)
Case-1 < designed overlay thickness As directed by the Engineer
Designed overlay
Case-2 hOL + 100 0 PCC with BC/ DBM
thickness, hOL
(Thickness of BC+DBM for Remove BT/ PCC with WMM along
Case-3 hOL + 100 new Pavement) + BT Granular as with new pavement
thickness + 250 required layers
(Thickness of (Thickness of
Remove BT/ PCC with GSB along
BC+DBM for new BC+DBM+WMM for new
Case-4 Granular as with new pavement
Pavement) + BT Pavement) + BT thickness +
required layers
thickness + 250 200
(Thickness of
PCC with GSB/500SG
BC+DBM+WMM for Remove existing
Case-5 ≤ 1000 along with new
new Pavement) + BT Crust
pavement layers
thickness + 200
PCC with Earthwork
BT to be
Case-6 >1000 along with new
roughened
pavement layers

After the PCC, granular/ bituminous layers as estimated above shall be provided.

6.12 Pavement Composition for Truck Lay byes

Interlocking concrete block pavement option is proposed for truck lay bye locations. The choice of
concrete block pavement option has been based on following technical advantages:

Technical Advantages

Paving blocks are manufactured from high strength, low absorption concrete in controlled
conditions, ensuring high quality control. High/low temperatures, moisture, petrochemicals do not
damage them. They offer high frictional resistance. They come to construction site as a finished
product, and require no curing, allowing traffic immediately after installation.

Paving blocks can be easily removed in order to correct pavement distress, or to allow utility
repair etc. Paving blocks have a good record of long-term performance under heavy loads in
industrial, airport and port applications also.

Short/ long duration parking of trucks is envisaged at the truck lay-bye areas. Hence these areas
will experience POL droppings from the truck engines and water spills [from trucks carrying wet
sand from Betwa River] for which concrete blocks will be more durable compared to bituminous
surface.

Page 6-14| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Uneven and differential deformation of subgrade/ underlying soils is more easily handled by
interlocking paving blocks as they can withstand greater deformation than conventional
pavements while remaining in service.

Design of Paver Blocks:

The design of paver blocks is based on guidelines specified in following standard:

IRC: SP: 63 – 2004, “Guidelines for the use of interlocking concrete block Pavement”

In order to provide a stable construction platform and firm support for CC blocks, a granular
aggregate base course (WMM), 250mm thick, is included as part of the pavement structure. To
provide a cushion between block pavements and base a layer of sand bedding is provided.
Similarly, a layer of open graded GSB, 250mm thick above the sub grade has been considered for
drainage of water to prevent excessive softening of sub grade and prevent erosion of the sub
grade under adverse moisture condition.

Following pavement composition is suggested:

CC Blocks (M-50) 100 mm

Sand Bedding 30 mm
WMM (Min. CBR =100%) 250 mm
GSB (Open Graded)-drainage layer 250 mm (Over 500mm thick sub grade with 8% CBR)

The laboratory and field test results for the subgrade soils are presented in Table 6.14 and
Table 6.15.

Page 6-15| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 6.14: Laboratory Test Results of Sub Grade Soil-Test Pits

Chainage/ Sieve Analysis Passing Atterberg MDD
Side Proctor Test Field
No. Percentage By Weight Limits Average 97 % Saturation Differential
S. IS Moisture
CBR Moisture Free Swell
No 4.75 2.00 0.425 0.075 PL PI Group OMC MDD Content
Km LHS/RHS LL % Value gm/cc % Index %
mm mm mm mm %
% % % gm/cc
1 2.500 L 95 93 88 79 29 21 8 CL 11.6 2.0 11.6 2.0 14.2 33.0 15.2
2 4.500 R 100 100 81 32 Non Plastic SM 7.5 1.8 9.3 1.7 11.0 6.0 3.7
3 5.000 L 88 83 65 48 Non Plastic SM 9.8 2.0 14.3 1.9 15.1 NIL 6.7
4 8.500 L 100 100 96 88 36 22 14 CI 8.0 2.0 5.5 1.9 13.0 10.8 4.6
5 9.600 R 90 84 71 58 Non Plastic ML 10.0 2.0 12.7 1.9 12.8 10.0 9.2
6 13.500 R 95 87 35 11 Non Plastic SM 8.0 1.8 9.3 1.7 11.0 5.0 3.3
7 15.000 L 90 81 54 36 38 23 15 CI 12.8 1.9 5.6 1.9 14.8 22.0 14.0
8 18.500 L 100 100 96 90 32 CL 7.5 1.9 8.1 1.9 14.0 10.2 3.6
9 20.000 R 98 96 91 83 32 20 12 CL 13.2 2.0 8.6 1.9 14.6 30.0 9.2
10 23.500 R 98 88 45 17 29 25 4 ML 7.0 2.1 9.2 2.0 13.0 6.7 5.0
11 25.000 L 100 97 92 83 28 22 6 CL-ML 11.6 2.0 10.4 1.9 13.2 15.0 8.9
12 26.500 L 100 100 96 91 35 23 12 CI 8.5 1.9 6.2 1.9 14.0 13.3 10.2
13 30.000 R 88 79 58 48 Non Plastic SM 8.8 2.0 12.4 1.9 12.6 NIL 5.6
14 31.500 R 100 100 95 91 38 22 16 CI 9.0 2.0 6.0 1.9 15.0 11.7 10.9
15 35.000 L 96 93 85 74 Non Plastic ML 10.2 1.9 10.2 1.9 12.4 NIL 12.0
16 36.500 L 100 100 95 88 30 18 12 CL 7.5 2.0 8.4 1.9 11.0 10.1 8.9
17 40.000 R 97 94 85 69 Non Plastic ML 9.6 2.0 12.1 1.9 12.6 NIL 9.1
18 43.500 R 100 100 93 78 30 19 11 CL 8.0 2.0 8.3 1.9 10.0 9.9 10.2
19 45.000 L 90 75 35 16 Non Plastic SM 8.8 2.0 14.3 2.0 10.2 NIL 7.2
20 48.500 L 100 100 95 77 32 22 10 ML 8.0 1.9 9.3 1.8 10.0 7.0 9.0
21 50.000 R 96 91 78 62 Non Plastic ML 10.4 2.1 9.7 2.0 12.0 10.0 4.5
22 53.500 R 100 100 97 90 39 23 16 CI 7.0 2.0 5.9 1.9 18.0 18.3 13.4

Page 6-16| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Chainage/ Sieve Analysis Passing Atterberg MDD

Side Proctor Test Field
No. Percentage By Weight Limits Average 97 % Saturation Differential
S. IS Moisture
CBR Moisture Free Swell
No 4.75 2.00 0.425 0.075 PL PI Group OMC MDD Content
Km LHS/RHS LL % Value gm/cc % Index %
mm mm mm mm %
% % % gm/cc
23 55.000 L 98 93 70 52 Non Plastic ML 10.0 2.1 10.6 2.0 11.8 NIL 3.8
24 58.500 L 100 100 84 28 Non Plastic SM 7.5 1.7 9.7 1.7 10.0 6.0 12.0
25 59.000 R 98 97 87 63 Non Plastic ML 10.6 2.1 12.1 2.0 11.9 15.0 4.7
26 63.500 R 100 100 95 88 32 17 15 CL 8.0 2.0 8.7 1.9 11.0 10.9 5.2
27 64.000 L 95 93 88 77 26 22 4 ML 11.3 2.1 8.7 2.0 12.4 20.0 8.8
28 67.500 R 100 100 97 93 36 21 15 CI 7.0 2.0 6.5 2.0 16.0 16.7 12.1
29 69.000 L 97 85 49 28 Non Plastic SM 8.9 2.0 14.7 1.9 10.6 NIL 7.1
30 72.500 L 100 100 96 89 35 21 14 CI 7.0 2.0 6.7 1.9 17.0 16.7 8.5
31 74.000 L 95 88 68 52 Non Plastic ML 9.7 2.0 10.6 2.0 11.2 NIL 10.9
32 75.500 R 100 100 97 81 33 22 11 CL 8.0 1.9 7.2 1.8 15.0 11.7 13.0

Page 6-17| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 6.15: Field Test Results of Existing Sub-grade Soil

Chainage (Km) Side Moisture Content (%) FDD (gm/cc)
4+500 RHS 3.71 1.64
8+500 LHS 4.59 1.86
13+500 RHS 3.33 1.72
18+500 LHS 3.55 1.83
23+500 RHS 4.95 1.89
26+500 LHS 10.22 1.81
31+500 RHS 10.89 1.80
36+500 LHS 8.92 1.78
43+500 RHS 10.22 1.80
48+500 LHS 9.00 1.78
53+500 RHS 13.40 1.85
58+500 LHS 12.00 1.67
63+500 RHS 5.18 1.80
67+500 RHS 12.10 1.74
72+500 LHS 8.50 1.80
75+500 RHS 13.00 1.73

Page 6-18| Rev: R4

 APPENDIX – 6.1

Design of Rigid Pavement

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 6.1

IRC:58-2015 Guidelines for Design of

Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements for Highways
Design of Slab Thickness for Pavement
(with and without doweled transverse joints. Beta value will be 0.66 for doweled joint and 0.90 for without dowels case)
Type of pavement considered Pavement Structural Details
Carriageway 2-lane undivided Modulus of subgrade reaction of subgrade, MPa/m 50.3
Thickness of Granular Subbase, mm 150
Shoulders :- Tied concrete shoulders ? (yes/no) yes Thickness of Dry Lean Concrete subbase, mm 150
Effective modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation,
Transverse joint spacing (m) 4.5 142.5
MPa/m
Lane width (m) 3.5 Unit weight of Concrete, kN/m 3 24
Transverse Joints have dowel bars? (yes/no) yes 28-day Flexural strength of cement concrete, MPa 4.5
0
Design Traffic Estimation Max. day-time Temperature Differential in slab, C (for 15.8
bottom-up cracking)
Design Period (years) 30 Night-time Temperature Differential in slab, 0C (for top- 12.9
down cracking) = day-time diff/2 + 5
Total Two-way Commercial Traffic (cvpd) in the year of
630 Trial Thickness of Concrete Slab, m 0.29
completion of construction
Av. Annual rate of growth of commercial traffic (expressed as Load Transfer Efficiency Factor for TDC analysis, Beta =
0.075 0.66
decimal) 0.66 for dowel Joints, 0.90 for joints without dowels
Cumulative No of Commercial vehicles during design period
23,776,693 Elastic Modulus of Concrete, Ec (MPa) 30,000
(two-way), A
Average No of axles per commercial vehicle, B 2.167 Poisson's Ratio of Concrete, Mu 0.15
Cumulative No of Commercial Axles during design period
51,524,093 Radius of relative stiffness, m 0.813
(two-way), C = A*B
Proportion of traffic in predominant direction (For 2-lane 2-
1.0 Design Axle Load Repetitions for Fatigue Analysis
way highways use a value of 1.0), D
Lateral Placement factor (0.25 for 2-lane 2-way. For multilane
0.25 For Bottom-up Cracking Analysis
highways the value is 0.25 X D), E
Factor for selection of traffic for BUC analysis (for six-hour
0.25 Front single (steering) Axles = H * K1 1,487,758
period during day), F

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 7

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 6.1

Factor for selection of traffic for TDC analysis (for six-hour

0.25 Rear single Axles = H * K2 743,879
period during day), G
Design axle repetitions for BUC analysis (for 6 hour day time
3,220,256 Tandem Axles = H * K3 940,315
traffic), H = B*E*F

Proportion of vehicles with spacing between front and the first

1.00 Tridem Axles = H * K4 48,304
rear axle less than the spacing of transverse joints, I
Design axle repetitions for TDC analysis (for 6-hour night
3,220,256 For Top-Down Cracking Analysis
time traffic), J = B*E*G*I
Proportion of Front single (steering) Axles, K1 0.462 Front single (steering) Axles = J * K1 1,487,758
Proportion of Rear single Axles,K2 0.231 Rear single Axles = J * K2 743,879
Proportion of tandem Axles, K3 0.292 Tandem Axles = J * K3 940,315
Proportion of Tridem Axles, K4 = (1-K1-K2-K3) 0.015 Tridem Axles = J * K4 48,304

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 7

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 6.1

Axle Load Spectrum Data

Rear Single Axle Rear Tandem Axle Rear Tridem Axle

Mid-
Point of Mid-Point Mid-Point
Load Group Frequenc Load Group Frequenc Load Frequenc
Load of Load of Load
(kN) y (%) (kN) y (%) Group (kN) y (%)
Group Group (kN) Group (kN)
(kN)
245-255 250 0.00 500-520 510 0.00 710-740 725 0.00
235-245 240 2.63 480-500 490 0.00 680-710 695 0.00
225-235 230 0.00 460-480 470 2.63 650-680 665 0.00
215-225 220 0.00 440-460 450 2.63 620-650 635 0.00
205-215 210 0.00 420-440 430 23.68 590-620 605 0.00
195-205 200 0.00 400-420 410 5.26 560-590 575 0.00
185-195 190 7.89 380 - 400 390 2.63 530-560 545 0.00
175-185 180 2.63 360 - 380 370 0.00 500-530 515 0.00
165-175 170 2.63 340 - 360 350 2.63 470-500 485 0.00
155-165 160 5.26 320 - 340 330 2.63 440-470 455 0.00
145-155 150 2.63 300 - 320 310 0.00 410-440 425 0.00
135-145 140 2.63 280 - 300 290 0.00 380-410 395 7.14
125-135 130 0.00 260 - 280 270 13.16 350-380 365 0.00
115-125 120 0.00 240 - 260 250 0.00 320-350 335 0.00
105-115 110 0.00 220 - 240 230 10.53 290-320 305 0.00
95-105 100 0.00 200 - 220 210 2.63 260-290 275 0.00
85-95 90 0.00 180 - 200 190 2.63 230-260 245 0.00
< 85 80 73.68 < 180 170 28.95 < 230 215 92.86
Total 100 Total 100 Total 100
Front Single Axles and Rear Tridem axles not considered for bottom-up analysis

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 7

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 6.1

Fatigue Damage Analysis

Bottom-up Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Day-time (6 hour) traffic and Positive Temperature Differential

Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles

Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Stress Allowable Fatigue

Flex Stress
Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Ratio Repetitions Damage
MPa
(ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni)

- 2.948 0.596 34,998 0.000 - 2.490 0.503 660,865 0.000

19,576 2.851 0.576 60,411 0.324 - 2.409 0.487 1,564,444 0.000
- 2.754 0.556 104,278 0.000 24,745 2.328 0.470 5,059,153 0.005
- 2.656 0.537 184,608 0.000 24,745 2.247 0.454 32,144,713 0.001
- 2.559 0.517 365,272 0.000 222,706 2.166 0.438 infinite 0.000
- 2.462 0.497 866,277 0.000 49,490 2.085 0.421 infinite 0.000
58,727 2.365 0.478 2,810,962 0.021 24,745 2.005 0.405 infinite 0.000
19,576 2.268 0.458 18,014,680 0.001 - 1.924 0.389 infinite 0.000
19,576 2.171 0.439 infinite 0.000 24,745 1.843 0.372 infinite 0.000
39,152 2.073 0.419 infinite 0.000 24,745 1.762 0.356 infinite 0.000
19,576 1.976 0.399 infinite 0.000 - 1.681 0.340 infinite
19,576 1.879 0.380 infinite 0.000 - 1.600 0.323 infinite 0.000
- 1.782 0.360 infinite 0.000 123,726 1.519 0.307 infinite 0.000
- 1.685 0.340 infinite 0.000 - 1.438 0.291 infinite 0.000
- 1.588 0.321 infinite 0.000 98,980 1.357 0.274 infinite 0.000
- 1.490 0.301 infinite 0.000 24,745 1.276 0.258 infinite 0.000
- 1.393 0.281 infinite 0.000 24,745 1.196 0.242 infinite 0.000
548,121 1.296 0.262 infinite 0.000 272,196 1.115 0.225 infinite 0.000
743,879 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.346 940,315 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.006
Total Bottom-up Fatigue Damage due to single and 0.346 + 0.006 = 0.352
Sum of CFD for BUC & TDC= 0.786

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 7

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 6.1

Fatigue Damage Analysis

Top-Down Cracking Fatigue Analysis for Night-time (6 hour) traffic and Negative Temperature Differential

Rear Single Axles Rear Tandem Axles Rear Tridem Axles

Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Stress Allowable Fatigue Expected Flex Stress Allowable Fatigue
Flex Stress
Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Ratio Repetitions Damage Repetitions Stress Ratio Repetitions Damage
MPa
(ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni) (ni) MPa (SR) (Ni) (ni/Ni)

- 2.629 0.531 220,107 0.000 - 2.655 0.536 185,959 0.000 - 2.586 0.522 297,674 0.000
19,576 2.578 0.521 317,308 0.062 - 2.604 0.526 262,928 0.000 - 2.535 0.512 445,603 0.000
- 2.526 0.510 479,042 0.000 24,745 2.552 0.516 387,356 0.064 - 2.483 0.502 706,107 0.000
- 2.474 0.500 767,557 0.000 24,745 2.500 0.505 601,248 0.041 - 2.431 0.491 1,206,828 0.000
- 2.423 0.489 1,331,811 0.000 222,706 2.448 0.495 999,396 0.223 - 2.379 0.481 2,292,103 0.000
- 2.371 0.479 2,585,152 0.000 49,490 2.397 0.484 1,824,608 0.027 - 2.328 0.470 5,095,677 0.000
58,727 2.319 0.468 5,946,638 0.010 24,745 2.345 0.474 3,818,406 0.006 - 2.276 0.460 14,703,637 0.000
19,576 2.267 0.458 18,240,912 0.001 - 2.293 0.463 9,928,681 0.000 - 2.224 0.449 infinite 0.000
19,576 2.216 0.448 infinite 0.000 24,745 2.241 0.453 38,536,570 0.001 - 2.172 0.439 infinite 0.000
39,152 2.164 0.437 infinite 0.000 24,745 2.190 0.442 infinite 0.000 - 2.121 0.428 infinite 0.000
19,576 2.112 0.427 infinite 0.000 - 2.138 0.432 infinite 0.000 - 2.069 0.418 infinite 0.000
19,576 2.060 0.416 infinite 0.000 - 2.086 0.421 infinite 0.000 3,450 2.017 0.408 infinite 0.000
- 2.009 0.406 infinite 0.000 123,726 2.035 0.411 infinite 0.000 - 1.966 0.397 infinite 0.000
- 1.957 0.395 infinite 0.000 - 1.983 0.401 infinite 0.000 - 1.914 0.387 infinite 0.000
- 1.905 0.385 infinite 0.000 98,980 1.931 0.390 infinite 0.000 - 1.862 0.376 infinite 0.000
- 1.853 0.374 infinite 0.000 24,745 1.879 0.380 infinite 0.000 - 1.810 0.366 infinite 0.000
- 1.802 0.364 infinite 0.000 24,745 1.828 0.369 infinite 0.000 - 1.759 0.355 infinite 0.000
548,121 1.750 0.354 infinite 0.000 272,196 1.776 0.359 infinite 0.000 44,854 1.707 0.345 infinite 0.000
665,576 Fat Dam from Sing. Axles = 0.073 593,883 Fat Dam from Tand Axles = 0.362 48,304 Fat Dam from Tridem Axles = 0.000
Total Top-Down Fatigue Damage = 0.073 + 0.362 + 0.000 = 0.435
DESIGN IS SAFE SINCE SUM OF CFD FOR BUC AND TDC< OR EQ.1

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 7

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 6.1
DESIGN OF DOWEL BARS
Design Parameters: 28

Slab thickness (h)……………………………………….. 290 mm

Joint width (z)…………………………………………….. 20 mm
Radius of relative stiffness (l)……………………. 683.98 mm
E of dowel bar…………………………………………….. 200,000 MPa
Modulus of dowel support, Kmds………………… 415,000
Maximum Single Axle Load……………………………………… 238.9 kN
Maximum Single Wheel Load……………………………………… 119.45 kN 83.615 Assume a load transfer of 30% at terminal stage to the tied concrete shoulders

Characteristic compressive strength of concrete (fck) 40 MPa

Percentage of load transfer……………………….. 40%

Diameter of dowel bar (bd)…………………………. 38 mm
Assumed length of dowel bar……………………. 500 mm

Permissible bearing stress in concrete

101 . 6 bd f
Fb = 26.709 Mpack
95 . 25
Assumed spacing between dowel bars 180 mm
First dowel bar is placed at a distance 150 mm from pavement edge

Dowel bars up to a distance of 1.0 x radius of relative stiffness (l), from the point of load application are effective in load transfer
Number of dowel bars participating in load transfer when the wheel load is just over the dowel bar close to the edge of the slab = 4 Nos.

Assuming that the load transferred by the first dowel is Pt and that load on dowel bar at a distance of 1 from the first dowel is zero
The total load transferred by dowel bar system………… 2.421 Pt

Load carried by the outer Dowel bar (Pt)…………………… 19.74 kN

Check for the Bearing Stress

bd4
Moment of Inertia of Dowel 64 = 102354.113 sq. mm

Relative Stiffness of Dowel bar embedded in concrete= 4 kbd / 4 El = 0.021

3
Bearing Stress in Dowel bar Pt K 2 z /4 El = 26.318 kg/sq.cm < 26.709 kg/sq.cm

Hence, the dowel bar spacing and diameter assumed are safe

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 7

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 6.1
DESIGN OF TIE BARS

Design Parameters:

Slab thickness……………………………………………………………… 0.29 m

Lane width, (b)……………………………………………………………. 3.5 m
Coefficient of friction, (f)…………………………………………… 1.5
Density of concrete, (kN/m3)………………………………………. 24
Allowable tensile stress in deformed bars, Sst (MPa)…… 200 (As per IRC: 15-2011)
Allowable bond stress in deformed tie bars B*(MPa)… 2.46
Diameter of Tie bar (dt)……………………………………………….. 12 mm
2
Area of Tie bar (A)…………………………………………………….. d t 113.1 sq. mm.
4
Spacing and Length of the Deformed bar 37.68

Area of deformed Steel bar required per meter width of joint to resist the frictional b f W 182.7 sq.mm/m
A s
S
force at slab bottom, As st

Spacing of Tie bars = A/As 619.03 mm Say Spacing (mm) 600

Provide at a spacing of 610 mm c/c

2 S st A
Length of tie bar, (L)………………… L 487.80 cm
B* Pptb

Increase length by 100 mm for loss of bond due to painting and another 50 mm for tolerance in placement………. 487.8 + 100 + 50 = 637.80 Say length (mm) 640

Provide at a Length of 640 mm Tie bars

DESIGN CONCLUSIONS:

I) Provide pavement thickness of 300mm Pavement Quality Concrete ( PQC ) having 28-days Flexural and Compressive Strengths 4.5 MPa and 40 MPa respectively over 150 mm Dry Lean
Concrete Subbase with a minimum 7-Day Compressive Strength of 7 MPa with 38 mm diameter Dowel bars of length 500 mm at a spacing of 180 mm and deformed Tiebars of 12 mm
diameter, 640 mm length at a spacing of 600 mm (c/c).
II) Provide a drainage layer (GSB) of 150 mm thickness with a drainage coefficient of min. 350 m per day.

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 7

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

7 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

7.1 Introduction

To carry out the geotechnical investigation at proposed bridges (widening/new), EGIS appointed
M/s. CE Testing Company Pvt. Ltd. This report contains the following information;

Planning of geotechnical investigation programme

Methodology of Investigation
Subsurface Conditions / Geotechnical Assessment
Foundation support & Foundation Recommendations

7.2 Planning Of Geotechnical Investigation Programme

For the given road, we have carried out soil exploration at 4 bridge locations in order to:

obtain soil samples, both representative and undisturbed (wherever necessary) for
classification tests and other laboratory tests for determining its engineering properties &
studying various foundation options;
obtain soundings of penetration resistance by Standard Penetration test in the soils;

7.3 Scope of Work

To investigate the subsurface conditions, boreholes were done at abutment/pier locations.

Disturbed and undisturbed samples were collected from all boreholes to assess the soil
characteristics in laboratory. The summary of the fieldwork is given below:

Existing Proposed Borehole Termination

Type of Structure Chainage, Chainage, Span Arrangement BH No Reduce Depth of
km km Level, m Borehole
BH-A1 124.877 15.0
Minor Bridge 25+900 25+655 5x2.4m
BH-A2 124.702 15.0
47+900
Minor Bridge 47+828 2X3.2M BH-A1 136.600 15.0
47+900
Minor Bridge 69+950 68+695 3X2.6m BH-A1 149.000 15.0
72+550
Minor Bridge 71+433 3X3.0m BH-A1 149.955 25.0
72+550

The borehole location plans are presented in Appendix-7.1

Summary of proposed laboratory testing program is given below:

Name of Test IS Code No.

Bulk & Dry Density By calculations
Natural moisture content IS : 2720 (Part-2)-1973
Grain size analysis IS : 2720 (Part-4)-1985
Specific gravity IS : 2720 (Part-3)-1980
Liquid and plastic limits IS : 2720 (Part-5)-1985

Page 7-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Name of Test IS Code No.

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial shear test IS : 2720 (Part-11)-1993
Consolidation Test IS : 2720 (Part-15)-1986
Chemical pH value IS : 2720 (Part 26)-1987
analysis of Total soluble sulphates IS : 2720 (Part-27)-1977
soil Total soluble chlorides IS : 3025 (Part-32)-1988
Chemical pH value IS : 3025 (Part-11)-1983
analysis of Total soluble sulphates IS : 3025 (Part-24)-1986
water Total soluble chlorides IS : 3025 (Part-32)-1988

The summary of field data and laboratory test results is presented in Appendix-7.2.

7.4 Methodology of Investigation

The investigation was planned to obtain the subsurface stratification in the proposed project site
and collect soil samples 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.

7.4.1 Drilling of Boreholes

The boreholes of 150 mm diameter were progressed using rotary rig to the specified depth.
Where caving of the borehole occurred, casing was used to keep the borehole stable. The work
was performed in general accordance with IS: 1892-1979.

7.4.2 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted as per IS specifications. SPT split spoon
sampler of standard dimensions is driven into the soil from the borehole bottom using 63.5 kg
Hammer falling from 75 cm height. The SPT weight is mechanically lifted to the specified height
and allowed to fall freely on the anvil with the use of cat-head winch with one to one and half
turn of the drum. Blow counts for the penetration of every 15 cm are recorded and the N is
reported as the blow counts for 30 cm penetration of the sampler leaving the first 15 cm
penetration as seating drive.

When the number of blows exceeded 50 to penetrate the first or second 15 cms length of the
sampler, the SPT N is regarded as more than 100. The test is terminated in such case and a
record of penetration of the sampler under 50 blows or more is made. SPT refusal is recorded
when there is no penetration of the sampler at any stage and also when a rebound of the
sounding system is recorded.SPT ‘N’ values are correlated with relative density of non-cohesive
stratum and with consistency of cohesive stratum.

Correlation for Clay/Plastic Silt Correlation for Sand/Non-Plastic Silt

Penetration Value Penetration Value
Consistency Relative Density
(Blows/300 mm) (Blows/300 mm)
Very Soft 0 to 2 Blows Very loose 0 to 4 Blows
Soft 3 to 4 Blows Loose 5 to 10 Blows
Medium Stiff 5 to 8 Blows Medium 11 to 30 Blows
Stiff 9 to 16 Blows Dense 31 to 50 Blows
Very Stiff 17 to 32 Blows Very Dense Above 50
Hard Above 32

Page 7-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

7.4.3 Disturbed Sampling in Soil

Disturbed soil collected in the SPT sampler was preserved in polythene covers and transported to
the laboratory. One more polythene cover was provided to prevent the loss of moisture during
the transit period.

7.4.4 Undisturbed Sampling in Soil

Undisturbed samples were collected using 100mm diameter and 450mm long MS tubes provided
with sampler head with ball check arrangement. Undisturbed soil samples were collected in soft
to stiff clayey soils. Collection of undisturbed samples in refusal strata is practically not possible.

7.5 Subsurface Conditions / Geotechnical Assessment

7.5.1 Subsurface Conditions

7.5.1.1 Bridge at Km 25+900

The subsoil is characterized by a stiff to very stiff, silty clay / clayey silt layer followed by a hard,
silty clay / clayey silt layer is encountered and that continued up to the terminating depth of both
the boreholes. The layer wise descriptions are presented below.

Stratum – I :

The soil in this layer is characterized by a stiff to very stiff, brownish grey / grayish brown to
reddish brown, silty clay / clayey silt layer. Kankars & Sand mixture have been observed in this
layer. The average “N” value of this layer is 17.

Stratum – II :

The soil in this layer is characterized by hard, grayish brown to reddish brown, silty clay / clayey
silt with fine sand & mica. The average “N” value of this layer is 47.

The generalized profile is shown below.

Page 7-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

7.5.1.2 Bridge at Km 47+900

The subsoil is characterized by a top soil followed by a stiff, clayey silt layer. Underlying the
above, a very stiff to hard, silty clay / clayey silt layer is encountered and that continued up to
the terminating depth of the borehole. The layer wise descriptions are presented below.

Stratum – I :
The soil in this layer is characterized by a stiff, greyish brown, clayey silt layer. Light grey patches
& mica have been observed in this layer. The “N” value of this layer is 10.

Stratum – II :
The soil in this layer is characterized by a hard, greyish brown, silty clay / clayey silt layer. Light
grey spots have been observed in this layer. The average “N” value of this layer is 44.

The generalized profile is shown below.

Page 7-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

7.5.1.3 Bridge at Km 69+950

The subsoil is characterized by a stiff to very stiff, silty clay / clayey silt layer followed by a
medium dense, silty sand layer is observed. Underlying the above, a hard, silty clay / clayey silt
layer is encountered and that continued up to the terminating depth of the borehole.

The layer wise descriptions are presented below.

Stratum – I :

The soil in this layer is characterized by a stiff to very stiff, grayish brown, clayey silt / silty clay
layer. Light grey patches & Sand mixture have been observed in this layer. The average “N” value
of this layer is 14.

Stratum – II :

The soil in this layer is characterized by a medium dense, grayish brown, silty sand. Clay binder
have been observed in this layer. The corrected “N” value of this layer is 18.

Page 7-5| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Stratum – III :

The soil in this layer is characterized by a hard, grayish brown, silty clay / clayey silt layer. Sand
mixture have been observed in this layer. The “N” value of this layer is 40.

The generalized profile is shown below.

7.5.1.4 Bridge at Km 72+550

The subsoil is characterized by a stiff to very stiff, silty clay / clayey silt layer. A medium dense,
silty sand layer follows the above. After that, a very dense, silty sand layer is encountered and
that continued up to the terminating depth of the borehole.

The layer wise descriptions are presented below.

Stratum – I:

The soil in this layer is characterized by a stiff to very stiff, brownish grey to greyish brown, silty
clay / clayey silt with sand mixture. Gravels have been observed in this layer. The average “N”
value of this layer is 20.

Page 7-6| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Stratum – II:

The soil in this layer is characterized by medium dense, brownish grey, silty sand. Mica and clay
binder have been observed in this layer. The average corrected “N” value of this layer is 15.

Stratum – III:

The soil in this layer is characterized by very dense, brownish grey, silty sand. Mica and clay
binder have been observed in this layer also. The average corrected “N” value of this layer is 46.

The generalized profile is shown below:-

Page 7-7| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

7.5.2 Groundwater

The following table summarizes the measured groundwater depths in the completed boreholes:

S. No. Bridge Chainage, km BH No. Measured Depth of Ground Water, m

1. 25+900 BH-A1 2.5 m, Oct'14
BH-A2 2.75m, Oct’14
2. 47+900 BH-A1 8.7 m, Oct'14
3. 69+950 BH-A1 4.80 m, Oct'14
4. 72+550 BH-A1 6.90 m, Oct'14

7.6 Liquefaction Assessment

There are no Sub-soils that consist of loose fine sand / silty sand under shallow ground water
table. Hence site may be classified as “Liquefaction unlikely” in earthquake event.

7.7 Foundation Support

For satisfactory performance of a foundation, the following criteria must be satisfied;

I. The foundation must not fail in shear.

II. The foundation must not settle by an amount more than the permissible settlement.
The smaller of the bearing pressure values obtained according to (I) and (II) above, is adopted
as the allowable bearing capacity.

7.7.1 Foundation Type

Shallow foundations bearing on the natural / untreated soils are a feasible foundation option.

7.7.2 Concepts for Analysis

7.7.2.1 Bearing Capacity Analysis

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
= 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

Page 7-8| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

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.

7.7.2.2 Silt Factors & Scour Data

The soils at the project site are predominantly clayey soils. As per IRC 78-2014, clause 703.2.2.2,
the silt factors at various borehole locations are calculated based on the Appendix-1 guidelines
and are presented below:-

Cohesion Calculate
Chainage BH
Layer Depth (M) (Kg/sq d Silt
(Km) No.
cm) Factor
I (Stiff to Very stiff, silty clay) 0.00-9.50 0.41 3.28
A1
II (Hard, silty clay) 9.50-15.0 1.10 4.09
25.900
I (Stiff to Very stiff, silty clay) 0.00-9.00 0.85 3.84
A2
II (Hard, silty clay) 9.50- 15.0 1.31 4.28
Top Soil 0.00-1.30 -- --
47+900 A1 I (Stiff , clayey silt) 1.30-3.55 1.52 3.90
II (Very Stiff to hard , silty clay / clayey silt) 3.55-15.00 1.09 4.08
69+950 A1 I (Stiff to Very stiff, silty clay/clayey Silt) 0.00-15.00 0.79 3.77
I (Stiff to Very stiff, silty clay / clayey silt) 0.00-10.30 1.12 3.60
II (Medium dense to dense, clayey silty sand / silty 10.30-
72+550 -- 0.951
sand) 14.50
14.50-
III (Very dense, silty sand) -- 0.909
15.00

The silt factor is considered as maximum 2.4 for the purpose of scour calculations. The scour
depth calculations were done by our hydrologist and the scour data has been provided as below:

Page 7-9| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Existing Design Span Scour Level, m

S.
Chainage, Chainage, arrangement Silt Factor
No. Abutment Pier LBL, m
km km (m)
1 25+900 25+655 5 x 2.4 2.4 122.37 121.36 122.56
2 47+900 47+828 2x3.2 2.4 136.551 135.882 136.759
3 69+950 68+695 3 x 2.6 2.4 149.331 148.63 148.774
4 72+550 71+433 3 x 3.0 2.4 149.945 148.889 149.72

7.7.2.3 Foundation Recommendations

Based on the subsurface conditions, the various foundation options for different structures are
summarized below:

Page 7-10| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Scour Level, m Geotech Recommendations

Existing Design Span
S. Safe Net
Chainage, Chainage, arrangement Expected
No. BH BH RL, Foundation Minimum Bearing Foundation
km km (m) Abutment Pier Foundation
No m Depth, m Foundation RL, m Capacity, Soil
type
t/m2
A1, 2m below
1 25+900 25+655 5 x 2.4 122.37 121.36 124.877 Open Spread 120.370 119.360 16 Clayey Soil
A2 scour level
3.6m below
2 47+900 47+828 2x3.2 136.551 135.882 A1 136.600 Open Spread existing BH 133.000 133.000 18 Clayey Soil
level
2m below
3 69+950 68+695 3 x 2.6 149.331 148.63 A1 149.000 Open Spread 147.331 146.63 17 Clayey Soil
scour level
2m below
4 72+550 71+433 3 x 3.0 149.945 148.889 A1 149.955 Open Spread 147.945 146.889 18 Clayey Soil
scour level

Typical Calculations for shallow foundations are presented in Appendix-7.3.

Page 7-11| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

7.8 Chemical Test Results

Chemical tests were performed on few soil and water samples for determining the pH value,
Sulphate, Chloride etc. The results are given below:

a) Bridge at Km 25+900

Chemical Test Results on Soil Samples:

BH / Sample Depth Sulphate as Chloride as

pH value
No. (M) SO3 % Cl %
A1 / UDS-01 3.00 7.38 0.050 0.0171
A2 / UDS-01 3.00 7.59 B.D.L.* 0.0128

Chemical Test Results on Water Samples:

Sulphate as
BH No. Depth (M) pH value Chloride as (mg/litre)
(mg/litre)
A1 2.75 7.32 60 21.3375
A2 2.50 7.28 60 25.6049

*BDL = Below Detection Limit (i.e. <0.05%)

It is seen that the values are on a safe side and so no precaution will be required for foundation
concrete. Either Ordinary Portland Cement or Portland slag Cement or Portland
Pozzolana cement can be used for concreting.

b) Bridge At Km 47+900

Chemical Test Results on Water Sample:

BH No. Depth (M) pH value Sulphate as (mg/litre) Chloride as (mg/litre)

A1 8.70 8.45 120 167.8549

It is seen that the values are on a safe side and so no precaution will be required for foundation
concrete. Either Ordinary Portland Cement or Portland slag Cement or Portland
Pozzolana cement can be used for concreting.

c) Bridge At Km 69+950

Chemical Test Results on Soil Sample:

BH / Sample Depth pH value Sulphate as Chloride as

No. (M) SO3 % Cl %
A1 / UDS-01 3.00 7.92 0.050 0.0128

Chemical Test Results on Water Sample:

Sulphate as
BH No. Depth (M) pH value Chloride as (mg/litre)
(mg/litre)
A1 4.80 7.77 60 25.6049

Page 7-12| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

It is seen that the values are on a safe side and so no precaution will be required for foundation
concrete. Either Ordinary Portland Cement or Portland slag Cement or Portland
Pozzolana cement can be used for concreting.

d) Bridge at Km 72+550

Chemical Test Results on Soil Sample:

BH / Sample Depth Sulphate as Chloride as

pH value
No. (M) SO3 % Cl %
A1 / UDS-01 1.50 7.84 0.050 0.0156

Chemical Test Results on Water Sample:

Sulphate as
BH No. Depth (M) pH value Chloride as (mg/litre)
(mg/litre)
A1 6.90 7.67 180 105.2649

It is seen that the values are on a safe side and so no precaution will be required for foundation
concrete. Either Ordinary Portland Cement or Portland slag Cement or Portland
Pozzolana cement can be used for concreting.

Page 7-13| Rev: R4

 APPENDIX – 7.1

Borehole Location Plan

 RATH
2.10M
BH-A2
( Road Level )

6.30M
CH. =25.900KM

( LOCATION / VILLAGE
=> CHHARI )
M
6.80

2.10M
BH-A1
( Road Level ) ELECTRICAL POLE
10.30M
LEGEND:-
BORE HOLE

BORE HOLE NO. R.L(M)

BH-A1 124.877
BH-A2 124.702

HAMIRPUR

FIG. 1 : BORE HOLE LOCATION MA AT 25+900KM

Page 1 of 4
 Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

RATH

A2

P3

P2

P1

M
70
3.

BH-A1
( Below Road Level-2.30m )
A1
3.10M

LEGEND:-
BORE HOLE --

BORE HOLE NO. R.L(M)

BH-A1 136.600

HAMIRPUR

FIG. 2 : BORE HOLE LOCATION MAP AT 47+900KM

Page 2 of 4
 RATH

A2

P2
0M
4.3

3.00M
P1
BH-A1
( Below Road Level= 3.30m )

A1

LEGEND:-
HAMIRPUR
BORE HOLE --

BORE HOLE NO. R.L(M)

BH-A1 149.000

FIG. 3 : BORE HOLE LOCATION MAP AT 69+950KM

Page 3 of 4
 RATH

A2

3.30M
BH-A1

6 0M
3.
P2

P1

A1

HAMIRPUR LEGEND:-
BORE HOLE ---

BORE HOLE NO. R.L(M)

BH-A1 149.955

FIG. 4 : BORE HOLE LOCATION MAP AT 72+550KM

Page 4 of 4
 APPENDIX – 7.2

Field and Laboratory Test Results

 BRIDGE AT 25+900KM
FIELD & LAB TEST RESULTS
 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur to Rath section on SH-42, UP. Commencement Date : 02/10/2014 Level of Ground : 124.877 M Job No : 3367-01
Bore Hole No. : A1 Location : Ch.KM. 25.900 Completion Date : 03/10/2014 Standing Water Level : 2.50 m Sheet No :
Depth in Mete

Strength of Rock (Kg/cm 2)

Level of Water table/L.W.L.
S.P.T. blows Shearing Strength

Percent Core Recovery

Unconfined Compressive
Dry Density in gms/cm 3
Symbolic representation
below
Depth of Sample below

Type of test conducted

per 30cm Characteristics

% Silt 0.06-0.002mm

Shrinkage Limit (%)

%Sand 2.0-0.06mm
Elevation in Metre

Size of Hole (mm)

% Clay<0.002mm
reference

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Natural Moisture
%Gravel>72mm
Sample Ref. No.

Specific Gravity
Percent RQD
reference level

at Laboratory

Content (%)
Void Ratio

Resistance in Deg.

Remarks
Angle of Shearing

SO 4 (%)
Depth in Metre

Cl (%)
pH
Cohesion C
Visual Description of Soil

(kg/cm )
2
Value
From

To

124.8770 150 0.00m

124.3770 0.50 0.50 DS-01
123.8770 1.00 1.00 DS-02
123.3770 1.50 1.95 1.50 SPT-01 1.50 10
122.3770 2.50 2.50 DS-03 Stiff, brownish grey, silty clay. Obs.
122.3770 2.50 2.50 WS-01 kankars. 7.32 21.3375 60
121.8770 3.00 3.45 3.00 UDS-01 UU 4 70 26 1.55 2.69 0.692 26 44 16 12 0.53 0 7.38 0.0171 0.050
121.4270 3.45 3.90 3.45 SPT-02 3.45 13
120.4770 4.40 4.40 DS-04
CI
4.40m
119.8770 5.00 5.45 5.00 SPT-03 5.00 22
118.8770 6.00 6.00 DS-05
118.3770 6.50 6.95 6.50 UDS-02 Very stiff, greyish brown to reddish UU 6 66 28 1.52 2.70 24 46 13 0.28 9
117.9270 6.95 7.40 6.95 SPT-04 6.95 20 brown, clayey silt. Obs. calcareous
nodules,mica sand mixture.
116.8770 8.00 8.00 DS-06
116.3770 8.50 8.95 8.50 SPT-05 8.50 25
115.3770 9.50 9.50 DS-07
9.50m
114.8770 10.00 10.40 10.00 UDS-03 UU 4 78 18 1.73 2.70 0.541 19 41 14 12 1.10 0
114.4770 10.40 10.85 10.40 SPT-06 10.40 31
113.4770 11.40 11.40 DS-08
Hard, greyish brown to reddish brown,
112.8770 12.00 12.45 12.00 SPT-07 12.00 58
clayey silt with fine sand. Obs.
CI

111.8770 13.00 13.15 13.00 *UDS-04 calcareous nodules & mica.

111.6270 13.25 13.70 13.25 SPT-08 13.25 60 6 66 28 2.74 37 16
110.6770 14.20 14.20 DS-09
109.8770 15.00 15.45 15.00 SPT-09 15.00 61 8 77 15 2.71 30 19
15.45m.
Undisturbed (UDS) Penetrometer (SPT) Disturbed (DS) Water Sample (WS) R = Refusal
* means sample could not be recovered Note: Chemical Test results for Water Samples for Chloride & Sulphate is given as mg/Litr &
for soil samples SO4 content is expressed as SO3.
 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur to Rath section on SH-42, UP. Commencement Date : 29/09/2014 Level of Ground : 124.702 M Job No : 3367-01
Bore Hole No. : A2 Location : Ch.KM. 25.900 Completion Date : 02/10/2014 Standing Water Level : 2.75 m Sheet No :
Depth in Mete

Strength of Rock (Kg/cm 2)

Level of Water table/L.W.L.
S.P.T. blows Shearing Strength

Percent Core Recovery

Unconfined Compressive
Dry Density in gms/cm 3
Symbolic representation
below
Depth of Sample below

Type of test conducted

per 30cm Characteristics

% Silt 0.06-0.002mm

Shrinkage Limit (%)

%Sand 2.0-0.06mm
Elevation in Metre

Size of Hole (mm)

% Clay<0.002mm
reference

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Natural Moisture
%Gravel>72mm
Sample Ref. No.

Specific Gravity
Percent RQD
reference level

at Laboratory

Content (%)
Void Ratio

Resistance in Deg.

Remarks
Angle of Shearing

SO 4 (%)
Depth in Metre

Cl (%)
pH
Cohesion C
Visual Description of Soil

(kg/cm )
2
Value
From

To

124.702 150 0.00m

124.202 0.50 0.50 DS-01
123.702 1.00 1.00 DS-02
123.202 1.50 1.95 1.50 SPT-01 1.50 13
122.202 2.50 2.50 DS-03
121.952 2.75 2.75 WS-01 7.28 25.6049 60
121.702 3.00 3.40 3.00 UDS-01 UU 6 74 20 1.87 2.69 15 45 14 0.71 0 7.59 0.0128 BDL
Stiff to very stiff, brownish grey, silty
121.302 3.40 3.85 3.40 SPT-02 3.40 14
clay. Obs. Kankars & sand mixture.
120.502 4.20 4.20 DS-04
120.202 4.50 4.95 4.50 SPT-03 4.50 16
CI

119.202 5.50 5.50 DS-05

118.702 6.00 6.45 6.00 UDS-02 UU 4 79 17 1.69 2.69 0.542 19 40 17 1.00 10
118.252 6.45 6.90 6.45 SPT-04 6.45 17
117.202 7.50 7.50 DS-06
7.80m.

116.702 8.00 8.45 8.00 SPT-05 8.00 20 Very stiff, greyish brown to reddish
brown, clayey silt. Obs. Sand mixture.

115.702 9.00 9.45 9.00 UDS-03 UU 6 69 25 1.65 2.68 0.585 20 38 17 1.31 0

9.00m.
115.252 9.45 9.90 9.45 SPT-06 9.45 38
114.202 10.50 10.50 DS-07
113.702 11.00 11.45 11.00 SPT-07 11.00 45
112.702 12.00 12.00 DS-08 Hard, greyish brown to reddish brown,
silty clay / clayey silt with fine sand &
CI

112.202 12.50 12.65 12.50 *UDS-04

mica.
111.952 12.75 13.20 12.75 SPT-08 12.75 43 34 59 7 2.64
111.102 13.60 13.60 DS-09
110.702 14.00 14.45 14.00 SPT-09 14.00 44 32 13
109.702 15.00 15.45 15.00 SPT-10 15.00 47 6 73 21 2.73 37 16
15.45m.
Undisturbed (UDS) Penetrometer (SPT) Disturbed (DS) Water Sample (WS) R = Refusal
* means sample could not be recovered Note: Chemical Test results for Water Samples for Chloride & Sulphate is given as mg/Litr &
B.D.L=Below Detection Limit for soil samples SO4 content is expressed as SO3.
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,UDS-01, 3.00M BH-A1,UDS-02, 6.50M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,UDS-01, 3.00M 25.6 70.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0
BH-A1,UDS-02, 6.50M 27.9 66.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2

4.75
0.002

0.075

0.425

Grain Size(mm)

BH-A1,UDS-03, 10.00M BH-A2,UDS-01, 3.00M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,UDS-03, 10.00M 18.2 77.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0
BH-A2,UDS-01, 3.00M 19.9 74.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 25+900km
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A2,UDS-02, 6.00M BH-A2,UDS-03, 9.00M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A2,UDS-02, 6.00M 16.6 79.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0
BH-A2,UDS-03, 9.00M 24.6 69.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 25+900km
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,SPT-08, 13.25M BH-A1,SPT-09, 15.00M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,SPT-08, 13.25M 27.7 66.3 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0
BH-A1,SPT-09, 15.00M 15.1 76.9 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0

100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2

4.75
0.002

0.075

0.425

Grain Size(mm)

BH-A2,SPT-08, 12.79M BH-A2,SPT-10, 15.00M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A2,SPT-08, 12.79M 7.4 58.6 32.0 2.0 0.0 34.0 0.0
BH-A2,SPT-10, 15.00M 21.4 72.6 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 25+900km
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

Bridge : 25+900Km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A1/UDS-01 Depth :3.00-3.45 meters

Description :Brownish grey clayey silt / silty clay with traces of sand
mixtures.
Water content:Initial=24.9% Final =20.4% Initial Void Ratio =0.692

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 11 0.690

0.10 - 0.25 47 0.682 44.68 0.0181 214.3 3.595
0.25 - 0.50 111 0.662 24.32 0.0352 298.4 2.497
0.50 - 1.00 224 0.623 38.84 0.0291 188.2 3.681
1.00 - 2.00 265 0.576 27.17 0.0210 250.9 2.470
2.00 - 4.00 396 0.506 29.55 0.0156 186.3 2.832
4.00 - 8.00 464 0.425 18.32 0.0111 391.6 1.070
8.00 - 0.25 295 0.477

e-logp Curve

0.700
0.690 BORE HOLE : A1
UDS NO : 01
0.680
DEPTH (M) : 3.00
0.670 e0 : 0.692
0.660
0.650
0.640
0.630
0.620
0.610
0.600
0.590
0.580
VOID RATIO

0.570
0.560
0.550
0.540
0.530
0.520
0.510
0.500
0.490
0.480
0.470
0.460
0.450
0.440
0.430
0.420
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

Bridge : 25+900Km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A1/UDS-03 Depth :10.00-10.45 meters

Description :Brownish grey clayey silt with traces of sand mixture.
Water content:Initial=19.4% Final =17% Initial Void Ratio =0.541

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 3 0.538

0.10 - 0.25 4 0.535 33.33 0.0093 212.3 3.605
0.25 - 0.50 10 0.527 20.00 0.0168 216.6 3.481
0.50 - 1.00 30 0.503 33.33 0.0211 200.9 3.595
1.00 - 2.00 40 0.471 27.50 0.0156 267.1 2.503
2.00 - 4.00 67 0.417 29.85 0.0129 188.0 3.142
4.00 - 8.00 79 0.353 26.58 0.0083 247.7 1.985
8.00 - 0.25 45 0.389

e-logp Curve

0.540
BORE HOLE : A1
0.530 UDS NO : 03
DEPTH (M) : 10.00
0.520
e0 : 0.541
0.510
0.500
0.490
0.480
0.470
0.460
VOID RATIO

0.450
0.440
0.430
0.420
0.410
0.400
0.390
0.380
0.370
0.360
0.350
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

Bridge : 25+900Km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A2/UDS-02 Depth :6.00-6.45 meters

Description :Brownish grey clayey silt with traces of sand mixture.
Water content:Initial=18.1% Final =16.5% Initial Void Ratio =0.542

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 4 0.538

0.10 - 0.25 7 0.533 14.29 0.0208 90.8 8.565
0.25 - 0.50 17 0.519 23.53 0.0271 171.4 4.424
0.50 - 1.00 39 0.488 53.85 0.0189 129.7 5.506
1.00 - 2.00 40 0.456 30.00 0.0150 188.0 3.478
2.00 - 4.00 61 0.407 39.34 0.0101 133.2 4.359
4.00 - 8.00 73 0.349 32.88 0.0070 235.2 2.085
8.00 - 0.25 52 0.391

e-logp Curve

0.540
BORE HOLE : A2
0.530 UDS NO : 02
0.520 DEPTH (M) : 6.00
e0 : 0.542
0.510
0.500
0.490
0.480
0.470
0.460
VOID RATIO

0.450
0.440
0.430
0.420
0.410
0.400
0.390
0.380
0.370
0.360
0.350
0.340
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

Bridge : 25+900Km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A2/UDS-03 Depth :9.00-9.45 meters

Description :Brownish grey clayey silt with traces of kankars.
Water content:Initial=20.3% Final =16.5% Initial Void Ratio =0.585

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 8 0.584

0.10 - 0.25 61 0.574 31.15 0.0289 79.4 9.896
0.25 - 0.50 109 0.556 17.43 0.0374 242.4 3.126
0.50 - 1.00 198 0.524 31.31 0.0286 295.4 2.401
1.00 - 2.00 223 0.488 29.60 0.0168 218.9 2.949
2.00 - 4.00 329 0.434 15.81 0.0152 235.2 2.408
4.00 - 8.00 407 0.367 17.44 0.0096 163.4 2.871
8.00 - 0.25 209 0.401

e-logp Curve

0.590
BORE HOLE : A2
0.580 UDS NO : 03
0.570 DEPTH (M) : 9.00
0.560 e0 : 0.585
0.550
0.540
0.530
0.520
0.510
0.500
VOID RATIO

0.490
0.480
0.470
0.460
0.450
0.440
0.430
0.420
0.410
0.400
0.390
0.380
0.370
0.360
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
 BRIDGE AT 47+900KM
FIELD & LAB TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP. Commencement Date : 18/10/2014 Level of Ground : 136.600 M Job No : 3367-32
Bore Hole No. : A1 Location : Ch.KM.47.900 Completion Date : 21/10/2014 Standing Water Level : 8.70 m Sheet No :
Depth in Mete

Strength of Rock (Kg/cm 2)

Level of Water table/L.W.L.
S.P.T. blows Shearing Strength

Percent Core Recovery

Unconfined Compressive
Dry Density in gms/cm 3
Symbolic representation
below
Depth of Sample below

Type of test conducted

per 30cm Characteristics

% Silt 0.06-0.002mm

Shrinkage Limit (%)

%Sand 2.0-0.06mm
Elevation in Metre

Size of Hole (mm)

% Clay<0.002mm
reference

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Natural Moisture
%Gravel>72mm
Sample Ref. No.

Specific Gravity
Percent RQD
reference level

at Laboratory

Content (%)
Void Ratio

Resistance in Deg.

Remarks
Angle of Shearing

SO 4 (%)
Depth in Metre

Cl (%)
pH
Cohesion C
Visual Description of Soil

(kg/cm )
2
Value
From

To

136.600 127.900 150 0.00m

136.100 0.50 0.50 DS-01 Top soil consists of brownish grey,

Top Soil
135.600 1.00 1.00 DS-02 silty clay with decompsed roots &
boulder.
135.100 1.50 1.95 1.50 SPT-01 1.50 10 11 77 12 2.73 37 21
1.30m
134.100 2.50 2.50 DS-03
Stiff, greyish brown, clayey silt. Obs.

CI
133.600 3.00 3.40 3.00 *UDS-01 mica & light grey spots.
133.050 3.55 3.95 3.55 UDS-02 3.55m UU 14 78 8 1.85 2.74 16 34 18 15 1.52 8

132.650 3.95 4.40 3.95 SPT-02 3.95 64

131.900 4.70 4.70 DS-04

131.600 5.00 5.45 5.00 SPT-03 5.00 67

130.600 6.00 6.00 DS-05

130.100 6.50 6.63 6.50 *UDS-03 Hard, greyish brown, silty clay with
gravels. Obs. light grey spots.
129.800 6.80 7.25 6.80 SPT-04 6.80 68 43 19

129.000 7.60 7.60 DS-06

128.600 8.00 8.45 8.00 SPT-05 8.00 40

127.900 8.70 8.70 WS-01 8.45 167.8549 120

127.600 9.00 9.00 DS-07 9.00m

CI

127.100 9.50 9.90 9.50 UDS-04 UU 15 74 11 1.56 2.73 0.518 25 33 16 18 1.27 0

126.700 9.90 10.35 9.90 SPT-06 9.90 34

125.900 10.70 10.70 DS-08

125.600 11.00 11.45 11.00 SPT-07 11.00 28

124.600 12.00 12.00 DS-09 Very stiff to hard, greyish brown, silty
clay / clayey silt. Obs. light grey spots.
124.100 12.50 12.95 12.50 UDS-05 UU 10 83 7 1.57 2.73 25 33 19 0.91 0

123.650 12.95 13.40 12.95 SPT-08 12.95 25

122.900 13.70 13.70 DS-10

122.600 14.00 14.45 14.00 SPT-09 14.00 32

121.600 15.00 15.45 15.00 SPT-10 15.00 40 15.45m. 11 23 57 9 2.65

Undisturbed (UDS) Penetrometer (SPT) Disturbed (DS) Water Sample (WS) R = Refusal
* means sample could not be recovered Note: Chemical Test results for Water Samples for Chloride & Sulphate is given as mg/Litr &
for soil samples SO4 content is expressed as SO3.
B.D.L=Below Detection Limit
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,UDS-02, 3.55M BH-A1,UDS-04, 9.50M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,UDS-02, 3.55M 7.9 78.1 14.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0
BH-A1,UDS-04, 9.50M 10.9 74.1 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0

100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2

4.75
0.002

0.075

0.425

Grain Size(mm)

BH-A1,UDS-05, 12.50M BH-A1,SPT-01, 1.50M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,UDS-05, 12.50M 6.8 83.2 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
BH-A1,SPT-01, 1.50M 11.4 77.2 11.4 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 47+900km
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,SPT-10, 15.00M #N/A

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,SPT-10, 15.00M 9.0 56.7 16.5 3.8 2.5 22.8 11.5

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 47+900km
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP

Bridge at 47+900km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A1/UDS-04 Depth :9.5-9.95 meters

Description :Greyish brown, clayey silt .
Water content:Initial=24.9% Final =22.8% Initial Void Ratio =0.518

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 8 0.517

0.10 - 0.25 25 0.513 66.67 0.0058 124.6 6.219
0.25 - 0.50 35 0.507 48.00 0.0076 129.7 5.902
0.50 - 1.00 66 0.497 50.00 0.0069 105.2 7.120
1.00 - 2.00 146 0.474 65.96 0.0053 128.2 5.582
2.00 - 4.00 171 0.446 74.27 0.0024 144.2 4.627
4.00 - 8.00 245 0.408 72.65 0.0018 112.6 5.381
8.00 - 0.25 143 0.430

e-logp Curve

0.520
BORE HOLE : A1
UDS NO : 04
0.510 DEPTH (M) : 9.50
e0 : 0.518
0.500

0.490

0.480

0.470
VOID RATIO

0.460

0.450

0.440

0.430

0.420

0.410

0.400
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
 BRIDGE AT 69+950KM
FIELD & LAB TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP. Commencement Date : 10/10/2014 Level of Ground : 149.000 M Job No : 3367-02
Bore Hole No. : A1 Location : Ch.KM. 69.950 Completion Date : 10/10/2014 Standing Water Level : 4.80 m Sheet No :
Depth in Mete

Strength of Rock (Kg/cm 2)

Level of Water table/L.W.L.
S.P.T. blows Shearing Strength

Percent Core Recovery

Unconfined Compressive
Dry Density in gms/cm 3
Symbolic representation
below
Depth of Sample below

Type of test conducted

per 30cm Characteristics

% Silt 0.06-0.002mm

Shrinkage Limit (%)

%Sand 2.0-0.06mm
Elevation in Metre

Size of Hole (mm)

% Clay<0.002mm
reference

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Natural Moisture
%Gravel>72mm
Sample Ref. No.

Specific Gravity
Percent RQD
reference level

at Laboratory

Content (%)
Void Ratio

Resistance in Deg.

Remarks
Angle of Shearing

SO 4 (%)
Depth in Metre

Cl (%)
pH
Cohesion C
Visual Description of Soil

(kg/cm )
2
Value
From

To

149.000 144.200 0.00m

148.500 0.50 0.50 DS-01
148.000 1.00 1.00 DS-02
147.500 1.50 1.95 1.50 SPT-01 1.50 11
146.500 2.50 2.50 DS-03 Stiff, brownish grey, silty clay. Obs.
kankars, gravels, light grey patches &
146.000 3.00 3.40 3.00 UDS-01 sand mixture. UU 12 77 11 1.88 2.71 0.484 14 38 18 19 1.08 9 7.92 0.0128 0.050
145.600 3.40 3.85 3.40 SPT-02 3.40 13
144.800 4.20 4.20 DS-04
144.500 4.50 4.95 4.50 SPT-03 4.50 11
4.50m
144.200 4.80 4.80 WS-01 7.77 25.605 60
143.500 5.50 5.50 DS-05
143.000 6.00 6.45 6.00 UDS-02 UU 4 85 11 1.63 2.73 0.645 23 35 19 0.58 5
CI

142.550 6.45 6.90 6.45 SPT-04 6.45 13

141.800 7.20 7.20 DS-06
141.500 7.50 7.95 7.50 SPT-05 7.50 14
140.500 8.50 8.50 DS-07 Stiff to very stiff, greyish brown,
clayey silt. Obs. light grey patches.
140.000 9.00 9.45 9.00 UDS-03 UU 6 77 17 1.61 2.72 25 31 17 16 0.63 0
139.550 9.45 9.90 9.45 SPT-06 9.45 20 6 94#
138.800 10.20 10.20 DS-08
138.500 10.50 10.95 10.50 SPT-07 10.50 15
137.500 11.50 11.50 DS-09
137.000 12.00 12.45 12.00 UDS-04 UU 13 77 10 1.58 2.71 26 34 19 17 0.86 0
136.550 12.45 12.90 12.45 SPT-08 12.45 14
13.00m
135.800 13.20 13.20 DS-10
Medium dense, greyish brown, silty
SM

135.500 13.50 13.95 13.50 SPT-09 13.50 25 sand. 87 13#

134.500 14.50 14.50 DS-11
14.50m
Hard, greyish brown, clayey silt / silty
CL

clay. Obs. Sand mixture.

134.000 15.00 15.45 15.00 SPT-10 15.00 40 5 95# 29 19
15.45m.

Undisturbed (UDS) Penetrometer (SPT) Disturbed (DS) Water Sample (WS) R = Refusal
Note: Chemical Test results for Water Samples for Chloride & Sulphate is given as mg/Litr &
# means(Silt + clay) % for soil samples SO4 content is expressed as SO3.
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,UDS-01, 3.00M BH-A1,UDS-02, 6.00M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,UDS-01, 3.00M 11.5 76.8 11.7 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0
BH-A1,UDS-02, 6.00M 10.5 85.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2

4.75
0.002

0.075

0.425

Grain Size(mm)

BH-A1,UDS-03, 9.00M BH-A1,UDS-04, 12.00M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,UDS-03, 9.00M 17.3 76.7 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0
BH-A1,UDS-04, 12.00M 10.2 76.5 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 69+950km
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,SPT-06, 9.00M BH-A1,SPT-09, 13.50M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,SPT-06, 9.00M 0.0 94.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0
BH-A1,SPT-09, 13.50M 0.0 12.5 74.5 13.0 0.0 87.5 0.284 0.0

100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2

4.75
0.002

0.075

0.425

Grain Size(mm)

BH-A1,SPT-10, 15.00M #N/A

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,SPT-10, 15.00M 0.0 94.6 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 69+950km
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

Bridge at 69+950km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A1/UDS-01 Depth :3.00-3.45 meters

Description :Brownish grey clayey silt with traces of kankars and
calcareous nodules.
Water content:Initial=13.3% Final =15.2% Initial Void Ratio =0.484

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 1 0.483

0.10 - 0.25 13 0.481 53.85 0.0040 188.3 4.490
0.25 - 0.50 38 0.476 39.47 0.0092 399.4 2.095
0.50 - 1.00 106 0.460 76.92 0.0049 179.6 4.526
1.00 - 2.00 117 0.443 50.94 0.0058 169.3 4.583
2.00 - 4.00 183 0.416 66.12 0.0032 209.8 3.471
4.00 - 8.00 252 0.378 59.52 0.0027 171.4 3.860
8.00 - 0.25 236 0.413

e-logp Curve

0.490
BORE HOLE : A1
UDS NO : 01
0.480 DEPTH (M) : 3.00
e0 : 0.484
0.470

0.460

0.450

0.440
VOID RATIO

0.430

0.420

0.410

0.400

0.390

0.380

0.370
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

Bridge at 69+950km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A1/UDS-02 Depth :6.00-6.45 meters

Description :Brownish grey clayey silt with traces of sand mixture.
Water content:Initial=21.7% Final =19.7% Initial Void Ratio =0.645

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 14 0.642

0.10 - 0.25 37 0.636 45.95 0.0137 103.0 7.725
0.25 - 0.50 63 0.626 44.44 0.0144 109.4 7.125
0.50 - 1.00 108 0.607 41.67 0.0131 114.3 6.577
1.00 - 2.00 140 0.584 47.14 0.0078 111.0 6.420
2.00 - 4.00 204 0.549 52.45 0.0052 111.0 5.947
4.00 - 8.00 306 0.498 47.71 0.0044 106.1 5.520
8.00 - 0.25 188 0.529

e-logp Curve

0.650
BORE HOLE : A1
0.640 UDS NO : 02
DEPTH (M) : 6.00
0.630 e0 : 0.645

0.620

0.610

0.600

0.590
VOID RATIO

0.580

0.570

0.560

0.550

0.540

0.530

0.520

0.510

0.500

0.490
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
 BRIDGE AT 69+950KM
FIELD & LAB TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur to Rath section on SH-42, UP. Commencement Date : 11/10/2014 Level of Ground : 149.955 M Job No : 3367-03
Bore Hole No. : A1 Location : Ch.KM.72.550 Completion Date : 12/10/2014 Standing Water Level : 6.90 m Sheet No :
Depth in Mete

Strength of Rock (Kg/cm 2)

Level of Water table/L.W.L.
S.P.T. blows Shearing Strength

Percent Core Recovery

Unconfined Compressive
Dry Density in gms/cm 3
Symbolic representation
below
Depth of Sample below

Type of test conducted

per 30cm Characteristics

% Silt 0.06-0.002mm

Shrinkage Limit (%)

%Sand 2.0-0.06mm
Elevation in Metre

Size of Hole (mm)

% Clay<0.002mm
reference

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Natural Moisture
%Gravel>72mm
Sample Ref. No.

Specific Gravity
Percent RQD
reference level

at Laboratory

Content (%)
Void Ratio

Resistance in Deg.

Remarks
Angle of Shearing

SO 4 (%)
Depth in Metre

Cl (%)
pH
Cohesion C
Visual Description of Soil

(kg/cm )
2
Value
From

To

149.955 143.055
0.00m
149.455 0.50 0.50 DS-01
148.955 1.00 1.00 DS-02
148.455 1.50 1.95 1.50 UDS-01 UU 19 55 22 4 1.66 2.74 0.403 10 1.12 7 7.84 0.0156 0.050
Stiff to very stiff, brownish grey, silty
148.005 1.95 2.40 1.95 SPT-01 1.95 12 clay / clayey silt with sand mixture.
Obs. gravels.
147.255 2.70 2.70 DS-03
146.955 3.00 3.45 3.00 SPT-02 3.00 19
145.955 4.00 4.00 DS-04
4.00m
145.455 4.50 4.95 4.50 SPT-03 4.50 16 20 71 9 2.73 36 18 17
CL

144.455 5.50 5.50 DS-05

143.955 6.00 6.45 6.00 SPT-04 6.00 21
143.055 6.90 6.90 WS-01 7.67 105.2649 180
Very stiff, greyish brown, silty clay
142.955 7.00 7.00 DS-06 with gravels.
142.455 7.50 7.95 7.50 SPT-05 7.50 24
141.455 8.50 8.50 DS-07
140.955 9.00 9.45 9.00 SPT-06 9.00 27 6 94# 31 18
139.955 10.00 10.00 DS-08
10.30m
139.455 10.50 10.95 10.50 SPT-07 10.50 18 91 09#
138.455 11.50 11.50 DS-09
SM-SP

137.955 12.00 12.45 12.00 SPT-08 12.00 13 Medium dense, brownish grey, silty
sand. Obs. mica & clay binder.
136.955 13.00 13.00 DS-10
136.455 13.50 13.95 13.50 SPT-09 13.50 28 87 13#
135.455 14.50 14.50 DS-11
14.50m

Very dense, brownish grey, silty sand.

SM

Obs. mica & clay binder.

134.955 15.00 15.45 15.00 SPT-10 15.00 >100 85 15#
15.45m.

Undisturbed (UDS) Penetrometer (SPT) Disturbed (DS) Water Sample (WS)

* means sample could not be recovered Note: Chemical Test results for Water Samples for Chloride & Sulphate is given as mg/Litr &
# means(Silt + clay) % for soil samples SO4 content is expressed as SO3.
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,UDS-01, 1.50M BH-A1,SPT-03, 4.50M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,UDS-01, 1.50M 4.4 21.4 18.6 20.2 16.1 54.9 1.727 19.3
BH-A1,SPT-03, 4.50M 9.4 70.6 16.7 3.3 0.0 20.0 0.0

100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
2

4.75
0.002

0.075

0.425

Grain Size(mm)

BH-A1,SPT-06, 9.00M BH-A1,SPT-07, 10.50M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,SPT-06, 9.00M 0.0 94.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0
BH-A1,SPT-07, 10.50M 0.0 9.0 75.5 15.5 0.0 91.0 0.301 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 72+550km
 Sheet No.:
C. E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Hydrometer Sieve
100

80
Percentage finer

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.002

0.075

0.425

4.75
Grain size (mm)

BH-A1,SPT-09, 13.50M BH-A1,SPT-10, 15.00M

0.002- 0.075- 0.425- 2.0-

Grain size (mm) <0.002 >4.75
0.075 0.425 2.00 4.75 Weighted
Total
Fine Coarse mean dia
Clay Silt Medium sand Gravel
Sample No. sand sand (mm)
(%) (%) sand (%) (%)
(%) (%)
BH-A1,SPT-09, 13.50M 0.0 12.5 74.5 13.0 0.0 87.5 0.284 0.0
BH-A1,SPT-10, 15.00M 0.0 15.5 73.5 11.0 0.0 84.5 0.267 0.0

Project:- Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, Bridge at
UP. 72+550km
Project : Geotech. Inv. for Prop. Structure from Hamirpur-Rath section on SH-42, UP.

Bridge at 72+550km Sheet No.

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Sample Number:BH-A1/UDS-01 Depth :1.5-1.95 meters

Description :Brownish grey clayey silt with morrum.
Water content:Initial=10% Final =11.4% Initial Void Ratio =0.403

P1-P2 Dial Void Mvc T90 1000.Cv

Comprn %
Kg/Sqcm Change Ratio sqcm/kg Sec sqcm/sec

0.00 - 0.10 2 0.402

0.10 - 0.25 10 0.395 30.00 0.0242 86.3 9.018
0.25 - 0.50 11 0.387 27.27 0.0167 172.0 4.426
0.50 - 1.00 12 0.378 66.67 0.0042 93.8 7.925
1.00 - 2.00 18 0.365 33.33 0.0063 182.3 3.946
2.00 - 4.00 27 0.345 66.67 0.0024 192.8 3.551
4.00 - 8.00 44 0.313 68.18 0.0019 135.0 4.678
8.00 - 0.25 25 0.331

e-logp Curve

0.410
BORE HOLE : A1
UDS NO : 01
0.400 DEPTH (M) : 1.50
e0 : 0.403

0.390

0.380

0.370
VOID RATIO

0.360

0.350

0.340

0.330

0.320

0.310
0.10 1.00 10.00
PRESSURE RANGE KG / SQCM
 APPENDIX – 7.3

Bearing Capacity Calculations

 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Analysis as per IS 6403-1981

Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project

Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42
Bridge at Chainage 25+900km, Borehole - A2

The bearing capacity equation is as follows :

qnet safe = (1/FS){cNcζcdc+q(Nq-1)ζqdq+0.5BγNγζγdγRw}
where:
qnet safe = safe net bearing capacity c = cohesion intercept
q = overburden pressure B = Foundation width
γ = Bulk density of soil below founding level
Rw = Water table correction factor FS = Factor of safety
Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing capacity factors, which are a function of φ
dc, dq, dγ = Depth factors
ζc, ζq, ζγ = Shape factors
Soil parameters : Bulk Density
c= 7.10 T/m2 φ = 0.0 degrees GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE Profile
c' = 4.73 T/m2 φ'= 0.0 degrees LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE Depth, m γ
General Shear Failure : Nc = 5.14 Nq = 1.00 Nγ = 0.00 From To T/m3
'
Local Shear Failure : Nc = 5.14 Nq' = 1.00 '
Nγ = 0.00 0.0 15.0 2.00

Factor of safety = 2.5 as per IS 1904-1986

Design Water Table depth = 0.0 m

Rw factor: Constant value(V) for worst condition
Rw = 0.50
or calculate(C) based on WT Depth ? : V
Depth factor to be considered ? Y
For computation of Depth Factor, depth below GL to be ignored to account for loose
soils,poorly compacted backfill above foundation, scour etc. = 0.0 m
FAILURE CRITERIA : General SHEAR FAILURE

Safe Net
Depth,m

Foundation FOUN- Depth factors Depth factors qnet safe ,

Shape Factors
Dimensions DATION (GSF) (LSF) 2 Bearing
Rw T/m
Capacity
B, m L, m SHAPE ζc ζq ζγ dc dq dγ dc '
dq' dγ '
GSF LSF
T/m2
5.0 10.0 rectangle 2.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.08 1.00 1.00 17.3 17.3
5.0 10.0 rectangle 4.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.16 1.00 1.00 18.6 18.6

Page 1 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 25+900km, BH-A2
Total settlement, S = Si + Sc where Si = immediate settlement
Sc = consolidation settlement
ELASTIC / IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
q B' (1 - µ ) I
2
Si = df dr
E
Reference : Foundation Analysis & Design by J.E.Bowles, fifth edition (1996)
where B= Foundation width B' =B/2 µ = Poisson's Ratio
q = Applied Bearing Pressure E = Modulus of Elasticity
df = Depth factor dr = Rigidity factor
I = Influence factor at corner of rectangular loaded area(B' x L'),
computed from theory of elasticity using Steinbrenner's factors
Settlement at centre of footing of size B x L = 4 x Settlement at corner of area B' x L'
2
Applied Bearing Pressure q : 16.0 T/m Poisson's Ratio = 0.40
Depth of Foundation D: 4.3 m
Foundation Shape : Rectangle
Foundation Width B : 5.0 m B' = B/2 : 2.50 m
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m L' = L/2 : 4.00 m
M = B'/L' = 1.6 N =H/B' = 10.0 H = Thickness of compressible strata
Is Rigid Layer met? N
I1 = 0.597 I2 = 0.025 Influence factor, I = 0.606
Design Water Table Depth : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor to be considered ? Y
Depth to be ignored in Depth Factor Computation for
loose soils, poorly compacted backfill, etc. : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor, df = 0.79 Rigidity Factor, dr = 0.80
Consolidation Settlement calculations based on Cc or mv ?: Cc
Precons. Press
3

Cc2 (p>=pc)
Density T/m

Elasticity, T/m

Cc1 (p<pc)
Depth , m
Modulus of
SoilType*

Initial Void
(pc), T/m2
C,G or H

Layer
Ratio

Soil Classification
No.
From To

1 0.0 9.0 Silty Clay C 2.00 660 20 0.54 0.022 0.162

2 9.0 16.0 Silty Clay/Clayey Silt C 1.80 1500 20 0.59 0.018 0.179

* For "Soil Type", Enter : C (Cohesive soil), G (Granular soil) or H (Hard soils/Rock - no consolidation)
2
E (Weighted Average),T/m2 : 1163 T/m
Elastic Settlement = 44.3 mm

Page 2 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 25+900km, BH-A2

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
As per Terzaghi's theory of one dimensional consolidation :
cc H
Sc = {log(p+∆p)/p} λoed df dr
1+e0
= mv ∆p H λoed df dr e0 = Initial void ratio
where: cc = compression index cc1 = cc for stress range < pre-
p = overburden pressure consolidation pressure
∆p = incremental pressure computed using stress cc2 = cc for stress range >= pre-
distribution theory (Boussenesq or
consolidation pressure
Westergaard)
mv = coeff. of volume change, to be selected
λoed = oedometer correction factor
depending on the pressure in layer
2
Applied Bearing Pressure : 16.0 T/m
Foundation Depth, (D) : 4.3 m Stress Distribution Theory : Enter B for
W
Foundation Width (B) : 5.0 m Boussenesq or W for Westergaard :
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m
Oedometer Correction Factor, λ : 0.70
2
Overburden Pressure @ Fndn Lvl : 4.30 T/m

dp)/p] /(1+e0)
AT CENTRE OF LAYER
Thickness, m

Cc H log[(p+
below GL.

Soil
Layer

(Z) Below

LAYER ∆p
Depth,m

Depth, m

p Influence Cc
Fndn.

No. Type m=L'/Z n=B'/Z

2 2
T/m Factor* T/m

1 3.0 C 1.50 5.80 5.800 2.67 1.67 0.698 11.17 0.0220 0.0200
1 1.5 C 3.75 8.05 8.050 1.07 0.67 0.387 6.20 0.0220 0.0053
2 3.0 C 6.00 10.30 10.000 0.67 0.42 0.226 3.62 0.0180 0.0046
2 3.0 C 9.00 13.30 12.400 0.44 0.28 0.125 1.99 0.0180 0.0022
2 1.0 C 11.00 15.30 14.000 0.36 0.23 0.089 1.43 0.0180 0.0005

ΣH= 11.5 m * WESTERGAARD INFLUENCE FACTORS Σ Soed (m) = 0.0325

Consolidation Settlement = ΣSoed*df*dr*λ = 14.4 mm

Total Settlement = Elastic Settlement + Consolidation Settlement

= 44.3 + 14.4
= 58.7 mm <75mm, hence ok

Page 3 of 12
 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Analysis as per IS 6403-1981

Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project

Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42
Bridge at Chainage 47+900km, Borehole - A1

The bearing capacity equation is as follows :

qnet safe = (1/FS){cNcζcdc+q(Nq-1)ζqdq+0.5BγNγζγdγRw}
where:
qnet safe = safe net bearing capacity c = cohesion intercept
q = overburden pressure B = Foundation width
γ = Bulk density of soil below founding level
Rw = Water table correction factor FS = Factor of safety
Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing capacity factors, which are a function of φ
dc, dq, dγ = Depth factors
ζc, ζq, ζγ = Shape factors
Soil parameters : Bulk Density
c = 15.20 T/m2 φ = 8.0 degrees GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE Profile
c' = 10.13 T/m2 φ'= 5.4 degrees LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE Depth, m γ
General Shear Failure : Nc = 7.53 Nq = 2.06 Nγ = 0.86 From To T/m3
' '
Local Shear Failure : Nc = 6.60 Nq' = 1.62 Nγ = 0.49 0.0 15.0 2.00

Factor of safety = 2.5 as per IS 1904-1986

Design Water Table depth = 0.0 m

Rw factor: Constant value(V) for worst condition
Rw = 0.50
or calculate(C) based on WT Depth ? : V
Depth factor to be considered ? Y
For computation of Depth Factor, depth below GL to be ignored to account for loose
soils,poorly compacted backfill above foundation, scour etc. = 0.0 m
FAILURE CRITERIA : General SHEAR FAILURE

Safe Net
Depth,m

Foundation FOUN- Depth factors Depth factors qnet safe ,

Shape Factors
Dimensions DATION (GSF) (LSF) 2 Bearing
Rw T/m
' ' Capacity
B, m L, m SHAPE ζc ζq ζγ dc dq dγ dc dq' dγ GSF LSF
T/m2
5.0 10.0 rectangle 2.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.09 1.00 1.00 56.6 56.6
5.0 10.0 rectangle 4.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.18 1.00 1.00 62.2 62.2

Page 4 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 47+900km, BH-A1
Total settlement, S = Si + Sc where Si = immediate settlement
Sc = consolidation settlement
ELASTIC / IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
q B' (1 - µ ) I
2
Si = df dr
E
Reference : Foundation Analysis & Design by J.E.Bowles, fifth edition (1996)
where B= Foundation width B' =B/2 µ = Poisson's Ratio
q = Applied Bearing Pressure E = Modulus of Elasticity
df = Depth factor dr = Rigidity factor
I = Influence factor at corner of rectangular loaded area(B' x L'),
computed from theory of elasticity using Steinbrenner's factors
Settlement at centre of footing of size B x L = 4 x Settlement at corner of area B' x L'
2
Applied Bearing Pressure q : 18.0 T/m Poisson's Ratio = 0.40
Depth of Foundation D: 3.6 m
Foundation Shape : Rectangle
Foundation Width B : 5.0 m B' = B/2 : 2.50 m
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m L' = L/2 : 4.00 m
M = B'/L' = 1.6 N =H/B' = 10.0 H = Thickness of compressible strata
Is Rigid Layer met? N
I1 = 0.597 I2 = 0.025 Influence factor, I = 0.606
Design Water Table Depth : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor to be considered ? Y
Depth to be ignored in Depth Factor Computation for
loose soils, poorly compacted backfill, etc. : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor, df = 0.82 Rigidity Factor, dr = 0.80
Consolidation Settlement calculations based on Cc or mv ?: Cc
Precons. Press
3

Cc2 (p>=pc)
Density T/m

Elasticity, T/m

Cc1 (p<pc)
Depth , m
Modulus of
SoilType*

Initial Void
(pc), T/m2
C,G or H

Ratio

Layer
Soil Classification
No.
From To

1 0.0 3.5 Clayey Silt C 2.00 500 20 0.54 0.030 0.300

2 3.5 9.0 Silty Clay C 2.00 2000 20 0.59 0.012 0.129
3 9.0 15.0 Clayey Silt C 1.96 1134 20 0.59 0.012 0.129

* For "Soil Type", Enter : C (Cohesive soil), G (Granular soil) or H (Hard soils/Rock - no consolidation)
2
E (Weighted Average),T/m2 : 1544 T/m
Elastic Settlement = 38.9 mm

Page 5 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 47+900km, BH-A1
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
As per Terzaghi's theory of one dimensional consolidation :
cc H
Sc = {log(p+∆p)/p} λoed df dr
1+e0
= mv ∆p H λoed df dr e0 = Initial void ratio
where: cc = compression index cc1 = cc for stress range < pre-
p = overburden pressure consolidation pressure
∆p = incremental pressure computed using stress cc2 = cc for stress range >= pre-
distribution theory (Boussenesq or
consolidation pressure
Westergaard)
mv = coeff. of volume change, to be selected
λoed = oedometer correction factor
depending on the pressure in layer
2
Applied Bearing Pressure : 18.0 T/m
Foundation Depth, (D) : 3.6 m Stress Distribution Theory : Enter B for
W
Foundation Width (B) : 5.0 m Boussenesq or W for Westergaard :
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m
Oedometer Correction Factor, λ : 0.70
2
Overburden Pressure @ Fndn Lvl : 3.60 T/m

dp)/p] /(1+e0)
AT CENTRE OF LAYER
Thickness, m

Cc H log[(p+
below GL.
Layer

(Z) Below

Soil ∆p
Depth,m

Depth, m

LAYER p Influence Cc
Fndn.

No. Type m=L'/Z n=B'/Z

2 2
T/m Factor* T/m

2 3.0 C 1.50 5.10 5.100 2.67 1.67 0.698 12.57 0.0120 0.0123
2 2.0 C 4.00 7.60 7.600 1.00 0.63 0.364 6.55 0.0120 0.0041
3 3.0 C 6.50 10.10 10.040 0.62 0.38 0.203 3.66 0.0120 0.0031
3 3.0 C 9.50 13.10 12.920 0.42 0.26 0.114 2.06 0.0120 0.0015

ΣH= 11.0 m * WESTERGAARD INFLUENCE FACTORS Σ Soed (m) = 0.0208

Consolidation Settlement = ΣSoed*df*dr*λ = 9.6 mm

Total Settlement = Elastic Settlement + Consolidation Settlement

= 38.9 + 9.6
= 48.5 mm <75mm, hence ok

Page 6 of 12
 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Analysis as per IS 6403-1981

Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project

Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42
Bridge at Chainage 69+950km, Borehole - A1

The bearing capacity equation is as follows :

qnet safe = (1/FS){cNcζcdc+q(Nq-1)ζqdq+0.5BγNγζγdγRw}
where:
qnet safe = safe net bearing capacity c = cohesion intercept
q = overburden pressure B = Foundation width
γ = Bulk density of soil below founding level
Rw = Water table correction factor FS = Factor of safety
Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing capacity factors, which are a function of φ
dc, dq, dγ = Depth factors
ζc, ζq, ζγ = Shape factors
Soil parameters : Bulk Density
c = 10.80 T/m2 φ = 9.0 degrees GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE Profile
c' = 7.20 T/m2 φ'= 6.0 degrees LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE Depth, m γ
General Shear Failure : Nc = 7.92 Nq = 2.25 Nγ = 1.03 From To T/m3
' '
Local Shear Failure : Nc = 6.82 Nq' = 1.72 Nγ = 0.57 0.0 15.0 2.00

Factor of safety = 2.5 as per IS 1904-1986

Design Water Table depth = 0.0 m

Rw factor: Constant value(V) for worst condition
Rw = 0.50
or calculate(C) based on WT Depth ? : V
Depth factor to be considered ? Y
For computation of Depth Factor, depth below GL to be ignored to account for loose
soils,poorly compacted backfill above foundation, scour etc. = 0.0 m
FAILURE CRITERIA : General SHEAR FAILURE

Safe Net
Depth,m

Foundation FOUN- Depth factors Depth factors qnet safe ,

Shape Factors
Dimensions DATION (GSF) (LSF) 2 Bearing
Rw T/m
' ' Capacity
B, m L, m SHAPE ζc ζq ζγ dc dq dγ dc dq' dγ GSF LSF
T/m2
5.0 10.0 rectangle 2.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.09 1.00 1.00 43.1 43.1
5.0 10.0 rectangle 4.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.19 1.00 1.00 47.7 47.7

Page 7 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 69+950km, BH-A1
Total settlement, S = Si + Sc where Si = immediate settlement
Sc = consolidation settlement
ELASTIC / IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
q B' (1 - µ ) I
2
Si = df dr
E
Reference : Foundation Analysis & Design by J.E.Bowles, fifth edition (1996)
where B= Foundation width B' =B/2 µ = Poisson's Ratio
q = Applied Bearing Pressure E = Modulus of Elasticity
df = Depth factor dr = Rigidity factor
I = Influence factor at corner of rectangular loaded area(B' x L'),
computed from theory of elasticity using Steinbrenner's factors
Settlement at centre of footing of size B x L = 4 x Settlement at corner of area B' x L'
2
Applied Bearing Pressure q : 17.0 T/m Poisson's Ratio = 0.40
Depth of Foundation D: 3.0 m
Foundation Shape : Rectangle
Foundation Width B : 5.0 m B' = B/2 : 2.50 m
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m L' = L/2 : 4.00 m
M = B'/L' = 1.6 N =H/B' = 10.0 H = Thickness of compressible strata
Is Rigid Layer met? N
I1 = 0.597 I2 = 0.025 Influence factor, I = 0.606
Design Water Table Depth : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor to be considered ? Y
Depth to be ignored in Depth Factor Computation for
loose soils, poorly compacted backfill, etc. : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor, df = 0.85 Rigidity Factor, dr = 0.80
Consolidation Settlement calculations based on Cc or mv ?: Cc
Precons. Press
3

Cc2 (p>=pc)
Density T/m

Elasticity, T/m

Cc1 (p<pc)
Depth , m
Modulus of
SoilType*

Initial Void
(pc), T/m2
C,G or H

Layer
Ratio

Soil Classification
No.
From To

1 0.0 4.5 Silty Clay C 2.00 550 20 0.48 0.018 0.100

2 4.5 14.5 Clayey Silt C 2.00 700 20 0.65 0.016 0.114
3 14.5 20.0 Clayey Silt C 2.00 1700 20 0.65 0.016 0.114

* For "Soil Type", Enter : C (Cohesive soil), G (Granular soil) or H (Hard soils/Rock - no consolidation)
2
E (Weighted Average),T/m2 : 1010 T/m
Elastic Settlement = 58.2 mm

Page 8 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 69+950km, BH-A1
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
As per Terzaghi's theory of one dimensional consolidation :
cc H
Sc = {log(p+∆p)/p} λoed df dr
1+e0
= mv ∆p H λoed df dr e0 = Initial void ratio
where: cc = compression index cc1 = cc for stress range < pre-
p = overburden pressure consolidation pressure
∆p = incremental pressure computed using stress cc2 = cc for stress range >= pre-
distribution theory (Boussenesq or
consolidation pressure
Westergaard)
mv = coeff. of volume change, to be selected
λoed = oedometer correction factor
depending on the pressure in layer
2
Applied Bearing Pressure : 17.0 T/m
Foundation Depth, (D) : 3.0 m Stress Distribution Theory : Enter B for
W
Foundation Width (B) : 5.0 m Boussenesq or W for Westergaard :
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m
Oedometer Correction Factor, λ : 0.70
2
Overburden Pressure @ Fndn Lvl : 3.00 T/m

dp)/p] /(1+e0)
AT CENTRE OF LAYER
Thickness, m

Cc H log[(p+
below GL.

Soil
Layer

(Z) Below

LAYER ∆p
Depth,m

Depth, m

p Influence Cc
Fndn.

No. Type m=L'/Z n=B'/Z

2 2
T/m Factor* T/m

1 1.5 C 0.75 3.75 3.750 5.33 3.33 0.843 14.33 0.0180 0.0125
2 3.0 C 3.00 6.00 6.000 1.33 0.83 0.471 8.00 0.0160 0.0107
2 3.0 C 6.00 9.00 9.000 0.67 0.42 0.226 3.85 0.0160 0.0045
2 3.0 C 9.00 12.00 12.000 0.44 0.28 0.125 2.12 0.0160 0.0021
2 1.0 C 11.00 14.00 14.000 0.36 0.23 0.089 1.52 0.0160 0.0004
3 3.0 C 13.00 16.00 16.000 0.31 0.19 0.067 1.14 0.0160 0.0009
3 2.5 C 15.75 18.75 18.750 0.25 0.16 0.047 0.80 0.0160 0.0004

ΣH= 17.0 m * WESTERGAARD INFLUENCE FACTORS Σ Soed (m) = 0.0315

Consolidation Settlement = ΣSoed*df*dr*λ = 15.0 mm

Total Settlement = Elastic Settlement + Consolidation Settlement

= 58.2 + 15.0
= 73.2 mm <75mm, hence ok

Page 9 of 12
 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Analysis as per IS 6403-1981

Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project

Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42
Bridge at Chainage 72+550km, Borehole - A1

The bearing capacity equation is as follows :

qnet safe = (1/FS){cNcζcdc+q(Nq-1)ζqdq+0.5BγNγζγdγRw}
where:
qnet safe = safe net bearing capacity c = cohesion intercept
q = overburden pressure B = Foundation width
γ = Bulk density of soil below founding level
Rw = Water table correction factor FS = Factor of safety
Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing capacity factors, which are a function of φ
dc, dq, dγ = Depth factors
ζc, ζq, ζγ = Shape factors
Soil parameters : Bulk Density
c = 11.20 T/m2 φ = 7.0 degrees GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE Profile
c' = 7.47 T/m2 φ'= 4.7 degrees LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE Depth, m γ
General Shear Failure : Nc = 7.16 Nq = 1.88 Nγ = 0.71 From To T/m3
' '
Local Shear Failure : Nc = 6.39 Nq' = 1.52 Nγ = 0.41 0.0 15.0 1.83

Factor of safety = 2.5 as per IS 1904-1986

Design Water Table depth = 0.0 m

Rw factor: Constant value(V) for worst condition
Rw = 0.50
or calculate(C) based on WT Depth ? : V
Depth factor to be considered ? Y
For computation of Depth Factor, depth below GL to be ignored to account for loose
soils,poorly compacted backfill above foundation, scour etc. = 0.0 m
FAILURE CRITERIA : General SHEAR FAILURE

Safe Net
Depth,m

Foundation FOUN- Depth factors Depth factors qnet safe ,

Shape Factors
Dimensions DATION (GSF) (LSF) 2 Bearing
Rw T/m
' ' Capacity
B, m L, m SHAPE ζc ζq ζγ dc dq dγ dc dq' dγ GSF LSF
T/m2
5.0 10.0 rectangle 2.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.09 1.00 1.00 39.6 39.6
5.0 10.0 rectangle 4.0 0.50 1.10 1.10 0.80 1.18 1.00 1.00 43.5 43.5

Page 10 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 72+550km, BH-A1
Total settlement, S = Si + Sc where Si = immediate settlement
Sc = consolidation settlement
ELASTIC / IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
q B' (1 - µ ) I
2
Si = df dr
E
Reference : Foundation Analysis & Design by J.E.Bowles, fifth edition (1996)
where B= Foundation width B' =B/2 µ = Poisson's Ratio
q = Applied Bearing Pressure E = Modulus of Elasticity
df = Depth factor dr = Rigidity factor
I = Influence factor at corner of rectangular loaded area(B' x L'),
computed from theory of elasticity using Steinbrenner's factors
Settlement at centre of footing of size B x L = 4 x Settlement at corner of area B' x L'
2
Applied Bearing Pressure q : 18.0 T/m Poisson's Ratio = 0.40
Depth of Foundation D: 2.0 m
Foundation Shape : Rectangle
Foundation Width B : 5.0 m B' = B/2 : 2.50 m
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m L' = L/2 : 4.00 m
M = B'/L' = 1.6 N =H/B' = 10.0 H = Thickness of compressible strata
Is Rigid Layer met? N
I1 = 0.597 I2 = 0.025 Influence factor, I = 0.606
Design Water Table Depth : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor to be considered ? Y
Depth to be ignored in Depth Factor Computation for
loose soils, poorly compacted backfill, etc. : 0.0 m
Fox's Depth Factor, df = 0.90 Rigidity Factor, dr = 0.80
Consolidation Settlement calculations based on Cc or mv ?: Cc
Precons. Press
3

Cc2 (p>=pc)
Density T/m

Elasticity, T/m

Cc1 (p<pc)
Depth , m
Modulus of
SoilType*

Initial Void
(pc), T/m2
C,G or H

Layer
Ratio

Soil Classification
No.
From To

1 0.0 5.0 Silty Clay C 1.83 660 20 0.48 0.010 0.100

2 5.0 14.5 Silty Clay C 2.00 850 20 0.65 0.010 0.100
3 14.5 20.0 Silty Sand G 2.00 2900

* For "Soil Type", Enter : C (Cohesive soil), G (Granular soil) or H (Hard soils/Rock - no consolidation)
2
E (Weighted Average),T/m2 : 1445 T/m
Elastic Settlement = 45.6 mm

Page 11 of 12
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT COMPUTED FROM THEORY OF ELASTICITY

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT COMPUTED BY THEORY OF 1-D CONSOLIDATION
Analysis as per IS : 8009 Part 1 - 1976, Clause 9.2
Project : Uttar Pardesh Core Road Network Project
Hamirpur to Rath Section of SH-42, Bridge at 72+550km, BH-A1
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
As per Terzaghi's theory of one dimensional consolidation :
cc H
Sc = {log(p+∆p)/p} λoed df dr
1+e0
= mv ∆p H λoed df dr e0 = Initial void ratio
where: cc = compression index cc1 = cc for stress range < pre-
p = overburden pressure consolidation pressure
∆p = incremental pressure computed using stress cc2 = cc for stress range >= pre-
distribution theory (Boussenesq or
consolidation pressure
Westergaard)
mv = coeff. of volume change, to be selected
λoed = oedometer correction factor
depending on the pressure in layer
2
Applied Bearing Pressure : 18.0 T/m
Foundation Depth, (D) : 2.0 m Stress Distribution Theory : Enter B for
W
Foundation Width (B) : 5.0 m Boussenesq or W for Westergaard :
Foundation Length L : 8.0 m
Oedometer Correction Factor, λ : 0.70
2
Overburden Pressure @ Fndn Lvl : 1.66 T/m

dp)/p] /(1+e0)
AT CENTRE OF LAYER
Thickness, m

Cc H log[(p+
below GL.

Soil
Layer

(Z) Below

LAYER ∆p
Depth,m

Depth, m

p Influence Cc
Fndn.

No. Type m=L'/Z n=B'/Z

2 2
T/m Factor* T/m

1 3.0 C 1.50 3.50 2.905 2.67 1.67 0.698 12.57 0.0100 0.0147
2 3.0 C 4.50 6.50 5.650 0.89 0.56 0.321 5.78 0.0100 0.0056
2 3.0 C 7.50 9.50 8.650 0.53 0.33 0.165 2.98 0.0100 0.0023
2 3.0 C 10.50 12.50 11.650 0.38 0.24 0.097 1.74 0.0100 0.0011
2 0.5 C 12.25 14.25 13.400 0.33 0.20 0.074 1.34 0.0100 0.0001
3 3.0 G 14.00 16.00 15.150 0.29 0.18 0.058 1.05
3 2.5 G 16.75 18.75 17.900 0.24 0.15 0.042 0.76

ΣH= 18.0 m * WESTERGAARD INFLUENCE FACTORS Σ Soed (m) = 0.0239

Consolidation Settlement = ΣSoed*df*dr*λ = 12.0 mm

Total Settlement = Elastic Settlement + Consolidation Settlement

= 45.6 + 12.0
= 57.6 mm <75mm, hence ok

Page 12 of 12
 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

8 CROSS-DRAINAGE STRUCTURES – MAJOR AND MINOR BRIDGES

8.1 Design Standards for Bridges/Structures

The design standards and loading considered for culverts, and bridges, are those laid down in the
latest IRC codes and/or IS codes. Where the said codes are silent other codes at national or
international level shall be followed in consultation with the client.

The Indian Road Congress (IRC) codes will be the basis of bridge designs, underpasses
and flyover/ROB’s. For items not covered by latter, provisions of Special Publications and
Specification for Roads and Bridges published by IRC shall be followed.
Since number of new bridges in the project roads is less and majority of existing
structures will be widened, it is proposed to design structures with working stress method
based on IRC: 112.
Grades of Concrete for superstructures will be as per MOST Specifications and IRC
Standards. The Minimum grade shall be M40 for PSC and M25 for RCC respectively.
For substructures and foundations, the concrete grade will not be lower than M25. For
PCC substructures minimum grade of M20 will be adopted.
The deck will have 2.5% bi-directional camber/cross fall and the wearing course will be of
uniform thickness of 40mm BC overlaid with 25mm thick Mastic asphalt on all bridge
decks.
In general it has been observed during the preliminary study that the open type
foundations for the existing bridges have not suffered any distress.
Pile / well foundations will be adopted for some of the r bridges wherever open
foundation is not feasible, depending on the properties of the foundation strata based on
sub-soil investigation reports.

8.2 Design of Structures

Type of Structures

The structures are classified based on their functional use. The structures for the project road are
classified as given below:

i Drainage Structures

Major Bridges
Minor Bridges
Culverts

ii Viaducts

iii Grade Separators

Overpasses
Road/Rail over Bridges
Underpasses

Page 8-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

The Bridges having an overall length varying from 6 m to 60 m are termed as minor bridges and
those having an overall length more than 60 m are termed as major bridges.

The structures carrying the project road over land and spanning across the valleys are termed as
viaducts. The structures carrying the cross roads above the project road are termed as
overpasses and the structures carrying the cross roads below the project road are called
underpasses. Box type structures are generally proposed at important village road crossings.

Design Loading

The bridges have been designed to sustain safely the most critical combination of various loads,
forces and stresses that can co-exist as per the provisions of IRC: 6-2014. The allowable stresses
and the permissible increase in stresses for various load combinations have been adopted as per
the relevant IRC codes.

Carriageway Live Load

Structures carrying the proposed project road with carriageway width of 11.0 m are proposed to
be designed for 3 lanes of Class-A loading or one lane of 70-R wheeled/tracked loading plus 1
lane of Class – A loading, whichever produces the most severe effect.

Structures carrying the proposed project road with carriageway width of 7.5 m shall also be
designed for 3 lanes of Class-A loading or one lane of 70-R wheeled/tracked loading plus 1 lane
of Class – A loading, whichever produces the most severe effect.

Tractive and Braking Force

The tractive and braking forces shall be considered as per the provisions of clause no. 211 of IRC:
6-2014.

Footpath Live Load

The footpath live load shall be considered as per the provisions of clause no. 206 of the IRC: 6-
2014. The intensity of the footpath loading has been considered as 500 Kg/sqm as per clause no.
206 of IRC: 6-2014.

Wind Forces

The effect of wind as per clause no. 209 of IRC: 6-2014 shall be considered for the design of the
various components of the bridge.

Seismic Forces

Project roads pass through seismic zone II, III and IV. Seismic forces shall be calculated in
accordance with clause number 219 of IRC: 6-2014.

Buoyancy Effects

The following buoyancy effects shall be considered wherever applicable for the design of various
components of the bridge:

For Foundations 100 %

For Substructure below water level 15 %

Page 8-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Deck Levels of Structures

The deck levels of the structures carrying the project road have been adopted based on the
following parameters:

Vertical clearance required above the cross roads;

Vertical profile of the proposed project road;
Vertical clearance required above the high flood level

8.3 Hydrology

8.3.1 Scope

This section contains the following information:

Hydrological analysis
Hydraulic Investigation
Methodology of hydraulic computation
Evaluation of Waterways of new structure/Check of hydraulic Adequacy of existing
structure
Results of hydraulic Assessment

8.3.2 Study Objective

These investigations are primarily intended for evaluating the adequacy of waterways of the
existing/proposed bridges for the design flood flow. The hydrological study has been done based
on the field investigations and survey data. This report describes the method of evaluation of
performance of existing bridges on the existing highways for widening proposals, and design
discharges, waterway required, scour depth and afflux etc for the new/existing bridges.

8.3.3 Hydraulic and Hydrological Investigations and Methodology

The project roads pass through areas of heavy to average rainfall intensity . Detail hydrological
investigations have been carried out to confirm the adequacy of existing structures and
requirement of additional culverts.

i) Collection of Data and Design Assumptions

The hydraulic condition of each structure was assessed thoroughly by visual observations. These
observations were supplemented with local inquiries.

ii) Return Period and Rainfall

As per IRC: 5 – 1998 (Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section – 1,
General Features of Design) the bridges are designed for a return 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 zone under consideration varies from 240 mm. (Ref:
“Estimation of Design Flood Peak, Betwa sub-zone – 1 (c), published by CWC.

Page 8-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

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

iii) Cross-Sections and Longitudinal Section at Bridges

For the calculation of discharge of the stream by Area-Velocity method, topographical survey
including levelling surveys have been carried out across and along the watercourses to determine
the cross-section and the longitudinal section of stream. A number of cross-sections have been
taken at regular intervals on both upstream and downstream side of the structure, including one
at the proposed location of the structure in accordance with IRC specifications.

The following assumptions shall be made during peak discharge calculation:

For bridges where the cross section is not defined, the cross-sections shall be extended up to the
HFL, in order to calculate the effective cross-section of flow.

The longitudinal section to determine the bed slope shall be taken at an approximate regular
interval following the channel course extending on both the upstream and the downstream sides
of the structure. Caution shall be exercised by following the curved flow line for longitudinal
gradient, rather than a straight line.

8.3.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics of the Cross Drainage Structures

Assessment of Peak Discharge

The peak discharge and the HFL shall be calculated by following methods

Page 8-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Empirical Method
Rational Method
Area Velocity Method
SUH Method

Empirical Method

Dickens Formula which is as under as per IRC SP-13.

Q = C M3/4

Where

Q = Peak run-off (cumec)

M = Catchment area (sq km)

C = Coefficient of run-off, depends upon annual rainfall

The catchment area M is determined from toposheets, Coefficient of run-off C is determined from
IRC SP-13 depending upon the intensity of rainfall. This formula gives a simplified approach and
results are approximate. Comparison is made with alternative methods for important structures.

Ryve's formula which is as under as per IRC SP-13.

Q = CM2/3

Where

Q = Peak run-off (cumec)

M = Catchment area (sq km)

C = Coefficient of run-off, depends upon annual rainfall

The catchment area M is determined from the toposheets, Coefficient of run-off C is determined
from IRC SP-13 depending upon the intensity of rainfall. This formula gives a simplified approach
and results are approximate. Comparison is made with alternative methods for important
structures.

Rational Method

Rational Formula:

Where:
Q = Maximum runoff in cumecs
A = Catchment area in hectares
Ic = Critical intensity of rainfall in cm/ hr.

P = Coefficient of run off for the given catchment characteristics.

F = Spread factor for converting point rainfall into area mean rainfall.

Page 8-5| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Ic = (F/T)*(T+1) / (Tc+1)

F= Total Rainfall of T hours duration (24 hrs.) in cm corresponding to 50 yrs return period.

T = Duration of total rainfall (F) in hours= 24 hrs.

Tc= Time of concentration in hour.

Ic values found from Inglis formula (as per IRC: SP-13) give extremely high intensity of rainfall
when 24 hrs rainfall is considered. Design rainfall intensity Ic is, therefore computed from
rainfall distribution given in CWC’s flood estimation reports for sub zone 1(c), corresponding to 50
years return period for bridges for storms of duration equal to time of concentration. Tc is found
for every catchment for the given stream from respective toposheets assuming a tortuisity factor
of 1.25 and also from Dickens’s and Time of Travel formulas as given above. Average of the two
values is taken for finding Tc and corresponding Ic. Total rainfall in 24 hrs is adjusted
corresponding to Tc for finding critical rainfall intensity Ic from the rainfall distribution curve
(Duration vs. conversion ratio) of CWC report.

Area – Velocity Method (Manning’s Formula)

In this method, discharge is calculated using the formula given below

Q = AxV

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

Where,

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

Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method

This method is based on unit hydrograph principle, used when catchment area is greater than 10
sq miles. CWC has published Flood Estimation Reports for different zones for India.
Comprehensive hydraulic analysis of various CD structures shall be carried out based on detailed
topographical survey.

A detailed approach and equations of unit hydrograph has been given in the report “Estimation of
Design Flood Peak,Betwa sub-zone – 1 (c)”, published by CWC. In this method the design flood
discharge has been calculated as per guidelines given in the report.

Design discharge has been taken as the maximum of the peak flood discharge by different
methods provided it does not exceed the next highest discharge more than 50%. If it exceeds, it
is restricted to that limit (As per Article 6.2.1 of IRC: SP: 13-2004).

Page 8-6| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Hydraulic Analysis for Design HFL

As the highest flood level should be ascertained by intelligent local observation, bridge inventory
supplemented by local enquiry, and marked on the cross-sections. The design engineer has to
determine the design HFL corresponding to adopted design flood for the bridges and cross
drainage structures under natural and constricted conditions. This elevation is very important in
the analysis for foundations, scour free board, formation levels etc.

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

V2
h 0.01524 ( A / a)2 1
17 .88
be calculated using Molesworth formula as given below:

Where

h = afflux (meters)
V = average velocity of water in the river prior to construction (m/sec)
A = Unobstructed sectional area of the river at proposed site (sq.m)
a = Constricted area of the river at the bridge (sq.m)

8.3.5 Scour Depth

Lacey’s equation is adopted for estimating normal scour depth as per IRC: 5

R = 1.34 (q2/f) 1/3

Where R is the Lacey’s regime scour depth, measured below HFL, q is the design discharge
intensity under bridge in cumecs per meter and f is silt factor given by the equation

f= 1.76 (d50)1/2

Where d50 is the mean sediment size in mm. Normal scour depth based on Lacey’s equation and
the actual observed depth (equal to the difference between HFL and LBL)/1.27 are compared as
per code. Higher of the two values is adopted for design. Silt factor ‘f’ is found from Lacey’s
equation corresponding to d50 size of bed materials. Maximum scour level for pier and abutment
are calculated using a factor of safety of 2 and 1.27 respectively as per IRC: Code-5. For
computing scour depth, design discharge is enhanced by 30% to provide for adequate margin of
safety as per provision of IRC: 78 - 2000.

8.3.6 Determination of Waterway for a New Bridge

When a new bridge is to be constructed, a designer has all the freedom to provide waterway as
required. As per IRC-5:1998 clause 104, waterway (W) should be equal to Lacey’s regime
waterway (P) given by the equation:

P =W= C (Q1/2)

Page 8-7| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Where,

Q = design flood discharge in m 3/s

P = Wetted perimeter in metres

W = Linear waterway in metres (for wide river W is almost equal to P)

C = a constant usually taken as 4.8 for regime channels but it may vary from 4.5 to 6.3
according to local conditions.

The code also stipulates that the waterway so found should also be compared with linear
waterway at HFL corresponding to design flood discharge and the minimum of the two should be
adopted as the clear waterway under the bridge.

8.3.7 Results of Hydrological Study

The detailed hydrological calculations have been carried out for all new/reconstruction
Bridges. The summary of these calculations has presented in Appendix-8.1.

8.4 Design Methodology

General - the following aspects shall be considered while planning for the new bridges and
structures:

Proper sitting of bridge and geometrics of approaches;

Linear waterways and minimum vertical clearances;
Satisfactory geological conditions;
Minimum distance from the existing structure consistent with construction requirements
and hydraulic consideration;
Modular approach in design for both superstructure and substructures;
Minimum vertical clearance above design HFL
New Minor Bridges

Deck Width – it is proposed to provide ooverall deck width of 12.00 m consisting of 11.00 m
carriageway and 0.50 m wide concrete crash barriers on either side of carriageway for new minor
bridges.

Proposals - The proposals for minor bridges are based on the following considerations:

Total deck width of the new minor bridges shall be 12.0 m with crash barrier on both
sides.
The new bridges are proposed to be designed for 3 - lanes of traffic.
In order to reduce the number of expansion joints for improving the riding quality and for
providing unobstructed flow under the bridges, the small multiple spans are proposed to
be replaced with equivalent single spans wherever possible, matching with the existing
opening.
The new 3-lane bridges will be parallel to the existing ones.

Page 8-8| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Piers and abutments of the new bridge will be in line with those of old structure. In case
larger span lengths are adopted, the foundations shall be in line with that of old bridge
with alternate foundations being omitted.
For bridges with RCC solid slab superstructures, tar paper bearings will be proposed and
for bridges with PSC / RCC T-Beam and slab superstructures Pot cum PTFE / elastomeric
bearings will be proposed based on design requirements.
Strip seal expansion joints will be proposed for bridges with RCC T-beam and slab
superstructure. For bridges with RCC solid slab superstructure filler type expansion joints
are proposed.
Foundations for the proposed structures will be same as those of existing bridges.
Bed protection works will be provided for bridges with box cell structures.
Splayed wing walls shall be provided for new / widened side of minor bridges.

Typical cross section for Minor bridges is shown in Figure 8.1.

X - SECTION FOR NEW TWO LANE

MINOR BRIDGE

Figure 8.1: Typical Cross-sections for New Two Lane Minor Bridge
Existing Minor Bridges

Deck Width - The existing two lanes minor and major bridges in good condition having deck
width > 10 m are proposed to be retained with repairs and will not be widened under this
project. For structures having deck width less than 10 m, the improvement proposals will be as
under:

a. Slab Bridges with open foundations:

Existing slab bridges in good condition are proposed to be widened to 12.0 m deck width
by integrating existing and widened part. Symmetrical widening shall be proposed in
general.
b. Arch Bridges with open foundations:

Existing arch bridges in good condition are proposed to be widened to 12.0 m deck width
by adding a new structure along existing arch bridge [Asymmetrical widening] to get 12
m deck width.

Page 8-9| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Foundation details of arch bridges are not known except of few cases where well
foundations are visible.

In case, arch bridge is found to be supported on well foundations during construction

stage, widening proposal will require to be changed to new 2 Lane Bridge.

c. RCC/PSC/ Steel composite Bridges with open foundations:

i. Existing structures in good condition having carriageway width ≥ 7.5 m are

proposed to be retained with repairs.
ii. Existing structures having carriageway width significantly less than 7.5 m are
proposed to be replaced with new 2 Lane Bridge.
iii. Decision for existing structures in good condition having carriageway width
marginally less than 7.5 m regarding retaining them with repairs / replaced with
new 2 Lane Bridge will be taken on case to case basis in consultation with Client.
d. RCC/PSC/ Steel composite/Arch Bridges with well foundations:

i. Existing structures in good condition having carriageway width ≥ 7.5 m are

proposed to be retained with repairs.
ii. Existing structures having carriageway width significantly less than 7.5 m are
proposed to be replaced with new 2 Lane Bridge.

iii. Decision for existing structures in good condition having carriageway width
marginally less than 7.5 m regarding retaining them with repairs / replaced with
new 2 Lane Bridge will be taken on case to case basis in consultation with Client.
e. Existing bridges having poor structural condition, hydraulic deficiency [Overtopping,
excessive scouring] or falling under realignment of road geometry are proposed to be
replaced by new 2-lane bridge having 12 m deck width.

Repair and Rehabilitation - The following measures are proposed for repair and rehabilitation
of existing bridges:

General

Most of the bridges have many common deficiencies/defects, which are proposed for repaired as
follows:

1) Railings / handrails are proposed be replaced with crash barriers to bring common bridge
furniture across the project road. Keying of concrete crash barrier with brick work walls
shall be done in addition to anchoring crash barrier reinforcement into brickwork by
drilling holes and grouting with cement mortar.
2) Drainage spouts provided in the railing kerb, ending at face of soffit of slab are proposed
be replaced with new drainage spouts having adequate length to prevent the water from
falling / splashing on the superstructure.
3) Damaged faces of RCC pier caps/abutment caps over brick masonry (BM) / coursed
rubble masonry (CRM) substructure shall be repaired by guniting after removing the
affected portions.
4) Damaged pointing in the BM / CRM to be removed and cleaned before applying fresh
pointing.

Page 8-10| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

5) Cracks in BM /CRM abutments/wing walls/piers shall be pressure grouted with cement

grout through holes drilled in the masonry around the cracks.
6) Most of the existing bridges do not have approach slabs. Provision of approach slab is
proposed to be made by reconstructing dirt wall with bracket to support approach slab
for structures with RCC dirt walls. For structures PCC dirt walls, approach slab will not be
provided in existing and widened part.
7) Stone pitching on earth fill around abutment has not been provided, except in 2-3 cases,
resulting in settlement of earth fill exposing cantilever return walls, erosion of soil around
return walls and in front of the spill through abutments. This can cause settlement of
approach road behind abutments any time and block movement of traffic. This can cause
traffic accidents also as parts of embankment can settle during rains.
8) Concrete wearing coat provided in number of bridges has suffered cracks and distress at
number of locations. Reinforcement has come out is many distressed locations. Concrete
wearing coat shall be replaced with bituminous wearing coat.
Solid Slab Superstructure

1) Edges of solid slab which show spalling of concrete over a smaller width or only small
patches of the underside of slab which are distressed, are proposed be repaired by
guniting. The reinforcement, which has corroded, shall be sand ballasted and additional
reinforcement, if required, shall be welded to the existing reinforcement before guniting.
2) RCC solid slabs, which show honeycombing, shall be strengthened by pressure grouting
with cement grout from the underside of the slab.
T-Beam and Slab Superstructure

1) Distressed surfaces of slab/girder shall be repaired by guniting.

2) Asphaltic Wearing coat: It is proposed to remove existing wearing coat and replace with
new wearing coat of 62mm thick asphaltic concrete.
3) Damaged expansion joints shall be replaced.
4) The RCC T-Beam and slab superstructure are supported generally on elastomeric
bearings. Each bearing shall be critically inspected and the defective ones shall be
replaced.
5) Metallic bearings have been provided at few locations. These bearings shall be checked
for dislocation of rollers, missing stopper & spacer plates etc.

8.5 Improvement Proposal for Bridges

The summary of existing and improvement proposals is as follows:

Table 8.1: Summary of Bridges

Type of Structure
Particulars Minor Major
ROB RUB VUP PUP Flyover Total
Bridge Bridge
Existing Structures 9 1 - - - - - 10
Improvement proposal
To be retained with repairs 5 1 - - - - - 6
To be retained with widening 3 - - - - - - 3
To be Replaced with Box type
1 - - - - - - 1
bridge
Additional construction - - - - - - - 0
Total 9 1 - - - - - 10

Page 8-11| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Details of improvement proposals for bridges on Hamirpur-Rath section of SH-42 are as follows:

Table 8.2: Details of New Minor Bridges, Rehabilitation/ Repair/ Widening

Scheme for Existing Minor Bridges
Details of Existing Bridge Improvement Proposal
Design Carriage-
S. Chainage Total Deck Proposed Proposed Proposed
way
No. (Km) Type of Length Width Bridge Bridge Width
Span** Width Proposal
Superstructure (m) (m) Type Span (m) (m)
(m)
Widen by
adding new
structure
1 25+656 Brick Arch 5 x 2.4 14.4 5.4 6.2
adjacent to RCC Box 5x2.7 12
existing arch
bridge
Retain with
2 41+128 RCC Slab 2 x 3.45 (sk) 7.7 (sk) 5.5 10.6
repairs - - -
12.3 Retain with
3 43+363 RCC Slab 2 x 5.5 (sk) 7.0 10.6
(sk) repairs - - -
16.8 Retain with
4 45+906 RCC Slab 1x4.6+1x4.6+1x4.8 (sk) 7.0 10.8
(sk) repairs - - -
5 47+829 Brick Arch 4x1.35 7.4 5.4 6.4 Reconstruction RCC Box 1 x 7.4 12
1 x 4.30 + Retain with
6 RCC Slab 6.6 7.0 10.0
48+187 1 x 2.30 repairs - - -
Retain with
7 57+930 RCC Slab 1x3.825+1x3.85+1x3.825 13.8 7.0 10.0
repairs - - -
Widen by
adding new
structure
8 68+695 Brick Arch 3 x 2.4 8.4 5.35 6.35 RCC Box
adjacent to 3x2.7 12
existing arch
bridge
Widen by
adding new
structure
9 71+443 Brick Arch 3 x 2.4 8.4 5.22 6.22 RCC Box
adjacent to 3x2.7 12
existing arch
bridge
** Clear Span, Sk – Skew

Table 8.3: Details of New Major Bridges, Rehabilitation/ Repair/ Widening Scheme for
Existing Major Bridges
Details of Existing Bridge Improvement Proposal
Design Carriage-
S. No Chainage (Km) Total Proposed Proposed Proposed
Type of way Deck Existing
Span Length Bridge Bridge Width
Superstructure Width Width Bridge
(m) Type Span (m) (m)
(m) (m)
PSC T beam with Retain with
1 59+731 8 x 30.0 240.0 7.5 8.5 - - -
slab repairs
Legend:

CRM : Coursed rubble masonry

RR : Random rubble masonry

8.5.1 Bridges in Hamirpur – Rath Section of SH42

There is 1 major bridge and 9 minor bridges in this section. Description of existing bridges and their
improvement proposal is given below:

Page 8-12| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

1. Minor Bridge at km 25+656

The existing brick arch minor bridge has 5 spans of 2.4 m clear span and total length 14.4 m
between outer edges of end spans. Type of foundations could not be ascertained in absence of
as built drawings. The existing bridge has 6.2 m deck width comprising of 5.4 m wide
carriageway and 0.4 m wide brick parapets on either side of the carriageway. It has brick
masonry straight return walls.

Wearing coat is damaged. There is vegetation growth on pier and parapet. Parapet is
damaged on both sides. One vent is blocked due to debris. Straight return walls are partially
damaged.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be widened to 12 m deck width by adding a new 5.8 m
wide box cell structure adjacent to existing bridge in present condition with repairs.

Repair vegetation growth on pier and parapet.

Repair damaged return walls.
Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.
Replace damaged wearing coat.

General View of Bridge Showing Vegetation growth in Parapet and Pier

Damaged Parapet Damaged Wearing coat

Page 8-13| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

2. Minor Bridge at Km 41+128

The 2 lane existing minor bridge across Irrigation Canal has 2 spans of 3.45 m [sk] clear span
and total length 7.7m [sk] between inner faces of dirt walls. It has 48.5 degree skew. It has
RCC solid slab superstructure supported on brick masonry piers and abutments resting on open
foundations. The existing bridge has 10.6 m deck width comprising of 5.5 m wide carriageway,
earthen shoulders and parapets. It has RCC parapets. It has brick masonry straight returns
and small wing walls along the flow direction. It has brick work bed protection works.

The water flow runs for full vertical depth of structure during FSL discharge flows at this
location. This bridge has been retained with repairs after discussion with client as canal is
manmade with regulated defined discharge and FSL. Because of regulated / controlled flow,
overtopping and obstruction due to debris is not anticipated.

There is vegetation growth in vent way and on pier. Parapet is damaged on both sides. There
are horizontal cracks in abutments walls. Wing walls are partially damaged. Approach slab
has not been provided. Wearing coat is damaged. Bed protection works are partially
damaged, drainage spouts have not been provided.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be retained with repairs.

Repair vegetation growth on pier and parapet.

Repair damaged return walls.
Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.
Replace damaged wearing coat.
Provide damaged bed protection work.
Repair deck slab and abutment.

General View of Bridge Showing Vegetation growth around Pier

3. Minor Bridge at Km 43+363

The existing minor bridge has 2 spans of clear span 5.5 m [sk] and total length 12.3 m [sk]
between inner faces of dirt walls. It has 69 degree skew. It has RCC solid slab superstructure
supported on brick masonry piers and abutments resting on open foundations. The existing
bridge has 10.6 m deck width comprising of 7.0 m wide carriageway, earthen shoulders and

Page 8-14| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

parapets. It has RCC parapets. It has brick masonry straight returns. It has brick work bed
protection works.

There is vegetation growth in vent way, wing walls and on pier. Parapet is damaged on both
sides. There is minor damage in brick masonry in piers. Pointing of abutment and piers is
damaged. Approach slab has not been provided. Wearing coat is damaged. Cracks observed in
abutment wall. Drainage spouts have not been provided.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be retained with repairs.

Repair vegetation growth on pier and vent way.

Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.
Replace damaged wearing coat.
Provide drainage spouts.
Provide bed protection works.
Provide ruled pointing on brick masonry.

General View of Bridge Showing Vegetation growth in vent way and Pier

Damaged Parapet Damaged Wearing coat

4. Minor Bridge at Km 45+906

The existing minor bridge has 3 spans [1x4.6+1x4.6+1x4.8 (sk)] and total length 16.8 m [sk]
between inner faces of dirt walls. It has 33 degree skew. It has RCC solid slab superstructure
supported on CRM piers and abutments resting on open foundations. The existing bridge has
10.8 m deck width comprising of 7.0 m wide carriageway, earthen shoulders and brick

Page 8-15| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

parapets. It has RCC parapets. It has CRM straight returns. It has brick work parapet and bed
protection works.

Parapet is damaged on both sides. There is minor damage in brick masonry in piers.
Approach slab has not been provided. Wearing coat is damaged. Drainage spouts have not
been provided. Deck slab is damaged near expansion gap at pier location, small areas of
honey combing in soffit of deck slab. Drainage holes are provided in parapet. Exposed
reinforcement is corroded. Scouring is noticed near abutment. CRM is damaged in pier
footing.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be retained with repairs.

Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.

Replace damaged wearing coat.
Provide drainage spouts.
Provide bed protection works.
Repair damage in deck slab

General View of Bridge Showing damaged deck slab

Damaged Parapet Damaged Wearing coat

5. Minor Bridge at Km 47+829

The existing brick arch minor bridge has 4 spans of 1.35 m clear span and total length 7.4 m
between outer edges of end spans. Type of foundations could not be ascertained in absence of

Page 8-16| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

as built drawings. The existing bridge has 6.4 m deck width comprising of 5.4 m wide
carriageway and 0.5 m brick parapets on either side of the carriageway. It has brick masonry
straight return walls.

The vertical profile of the road has been raised at this location and existing bridge has been
proposed to be replaced with new 2 – Lane bridge. single cell box structure of 7.4 m span.
Bed protection works and splayed wing walls have been proposed for new bridge.

`
General View of Bridge Showing vent way with debris

6. Minor Bridge at Km 48+187

The existing minor bridge has 2 spans [1X3.85 +1X1.85] and total length 6.6 m between inner
faces of dirt walls. It has RCC solid slab superstructure supported on CRM piers and abutments
resting on open foundations. The existing bridge has 10.0 m deck width comprising of 7.0 m
wide carriageway, earthen shoulders and parapets. It has RCC parapets. It has CRM Splayed
wing walls. It has CRM parapet.

There is vegetation growth in vent way. Cut waters of CRM piers are repaired and shall be
reconstructed with PCC. Approach slab has not been provided. Wearing coat is damaged.
Drainage spouts have not been provided. Deck slab is damaged near edges, there are small
areas of honey combing in soffit of deck slab. Drainage holes are provided in parapet.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be retained with repairs.

Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.

Replace damaged wearing coat.
Provide drainage spouts.
Repair damage in deck slab

Page 8-17| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

General View of Bridge

7. Minor Bridge at Km 57+930

The existing minor bridge across Irrigation Canal has 3 spans [1x3.825+1x3.85+1x3.825m] and
total length 13.80 m between inner faces of dirt walls. It has RCC solid slab superstructure
supported on CRM piers and abutments resting on open foundations. The existing bridge has
10.0 m deck width comprising of 7.0 m wide carriageway, earthen shoulders and parapets. It
has RCC parapets. It has CRM straight return walls and BM parapets.

Approach slab has not been provided. Wearing coat is damaged. Drainage spouts have not
been provided. Deck slab is damaged near edges, there is honey combing in soffit of deck slab
at some locations. Reinforcement is exposed at slab edges. Drainage holes are provided in
parapet. Parapet and straight return walls are damaged. CRM pier foundation top is damaged.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be retained with repairs.

Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.

Replace damaged wearing coat.
Provide drainage spouts.
Repair damage in deck slab
Repair damaged CRM pier footing.

General View of Bridge Showing damaged CRM foundation of pier

Page 8-18| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Damaged Parapet Damaged Wearing coat

8. Major bridge at km 59+731

The existing major bridge across has 8 spans of 30m and total length 240 m between inner
faces of dirt walls. It has PSC T Beam and slab superstructure supported on RCC circular piers
and RCC spill through abutments. Piers are resting on well foundations, abutment foundations
are not visible. The existing bridge has 8.5 m deck width comprising of 7.5 m wide carriageway.
It has steel railing. It has RCC cantilever return walls. It has roller – rocker bearings and angle
& plate type expansion joints.

Approach slab is settled. Wearing coat is damaged near expansion joints. Drainage spouts
grating is missing. Down take pipes are small and not of proper shape. Steel railing partially
damaged. There is settlement of earth fill around abutments. Bottom of cantilever returns are
exposed. Expansion joints are not extending in the railing part. There is gap between top plate
of bearings and soffit of girder at Rath side abutment location

The bridge is in fair condition and can be retained with repairs.

Replace existing steel railing with RCC crash barrier.

Repair concrete wearing coat
Replace expansion joints with strip seal expansion joints – to be fixed after repair of
concrete wearing coat.
Replace drainage spouts.
Raise earthfill around abutments and provide dry stone pitching
Fill gap between top plate of bearings and soffit of girders by epoxy grouting.

Page 8-19| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

General View of Bridge Damaged Steel Railing

Settlement of earth fill in approaches View showing the settlement of approach

View showing gap between top plate of bearings

Expansion Joint not extended in railing part
and soffit of girder

Page 8-20| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Grating missing in drainage pipe View showing insufficient length of Drainage Pipe

9. Minor Bridge at Km 68+695

The existing brick arch minor bridge has 3 spans of 2.4 m clear span and total length 8.4 m
between outer edges of end spans. Type of foundations could not be ascertained in absence of
as built drawings. The existing bridge has 6.35 m deck width comprising of 5.35 m wide
carriageway and 0.5 m brick parapets on either side of the carriageway. It has brick masonry
splayed wing walls.

Wearing coat is damaged. There is vegetation growth on pier. Parapet is damaged on both
sides. Loosening of bricks in arch spandrel is noticed. Pointing of BM damaged in substructure
and arch.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be widened to 12 m deck width by adding a new 5.5 m
wide box cell structure adjacent to existing bridge in the present condition with repairs.

Remove vegetation growth on pier.

Repair damaged pointing in substructure and spandrel after adding missing bricks.
Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.
Replace damaged wearing coat.

General View of Bridge View showing missing bricks in spandrel

Page 8-21| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Damaged Parapet Damaged Wearing coat

10. Minor Bridge at Km 71+443

The existing brick arch minor bridge has 3 spans of 2.4 m clear span and total length 8.4 m
between outer edges of end spans. Type of foundations could not be ascertained in absence of
as built drawings. The existing bridge has 6.22 m deck width comprising of 5.22 m wide
carriageway and 0.5 m brick parapets on either side of the carriageway. It has brick masonry
splayed wing walls.

Wearing coat is damaged. There is vegetation growth on pier. Parapet is damaged partially
of LHS and no parapet on RHS.

The bridge is in fair condition and can be widened to 12 m deck width by adding a new 5.5 m
wide box cell structure adjacent to existing bridge in the present condition with repairs.

Remove vegetation growth on pier.

Repair damaged pointing in substructure.
Replace existing parapet with RCC crash barrier.
Replace damaged wearing coat.

General View of Bridge Showing vegetation growth in vent way

Page 8-22| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Damaged Parapet on LHS Damaged Wearing coat and missing parapet on RHS

Page 8-23| Rev: R4

 APPENDIX – 8.1

Results of Hydrological
Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - SUMMARY OF MINOR BRIDGES (Hamirpur-Rath)

Scour data (m)
Vertical Proposed Proposed
Design Affluxed Existing Silt
Existing Velocity Clearance Soffit LBL Span
S.no Discharge HFL Span Factor Abutment Pier
Chainage (m/sec) Required Level (m) arrangem
(cumecs) (m) arrangement (f)
(m) (m) ent

1 25600 14.838 124.447 1.012 0.60 5x2.6 125.047 122.560 5x2.7 2.4 122.365 121.363
2 47900 4.044 137.759 0.813 0.60 2x3.6 138.359 136.759 1x6.4 2.4 136.551 135.882
3 69900 7.222 150.559 0.636 0.60 3x2.6 151.159 148.774 3x2.9 2.4 149.145 148.331
4 72550 10.705 151.832 1.837 0.60 3x3.6 152.432 149.720 3x3.3 2.4 149.756 148.563

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Annexure 1

BRIDGE NO. 26/2 CHAINAGE.25Km

A) Empirical Formula

Description Dicken's Ryve's

Value of C adopted in the
present case 11.000 8.500 (From Article-4 of IRC:SP:13-2004)

Catchment area (M) (Sq Km) 28.200 28.200

Discharge, Q (Cumecs) 134.611 78.750

B) (Discharge Calculation By Rational Method )

Discharge,Qmax = 0.277*C*I*A

Where, Qmax = Design Flood in cumec

C = Runoff co-efficient between 0 to 1.0
A = Area of catchment (sqkm)
I = mean intensity of rainfall in mm/h during the time of
concentration (the time required for the most distant part of
the catchment to Contribute to the outflow at bridge site)
Further, I = Io*2/(Tc+1) (Refer P-24 of IRC - SP - 13)
Io= 50-yr , 1-hr rainfall (cm)
Io= 0.32*F [Refer Fig - 10 of Flood Estimation Report for
Betwa Subzone - 1( c )]
F = 50-yr, 24-hr rainfall (cm)
Tc = Concentration time (hr)
Tc = 0.615 L/(A0.1*S0.2)
L = Main stream length (Km)
S = Mean slope of main stream (%)

Computation of Equivalent Stream Slope (S)

(Table A-1 of the Report)
Reduced Li(Di-
Sl. No. Reduced levels Li Di Di-1+Di
distance 1+Di)
(kms) (m) (kms) (m) (m) (m x km)

1 0 120.00 0 0 - -
2 5.00 125.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 25.00
3 7.00 130.00 2.00 10.00 15.00 30.00

55.00
Slope (S) = Li(Di-1+Di) = 1.12 m/km 0.00112
L2 = 0.11 %

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

The value of runoff coefficient (C) may be taken from the following Table

Average slope
Soil and
Mild Mdium Steep
land use
(0-4 %) (4-10%) (10 % +)
Rocky, heavy clay 0.6 0.75 0.85
Intense cultivation,
0.5 0.6 0.7
loamy/clay soils
Grass cover, medium soils 0.4 0.5 0.6
Dense vegetation, forest 0.05 0.15 0.25

For Bridge no.26/2,

C= 0.5 (Refer above table)

A= 28.2 sqkm (Measured in Survey of India toposheet No.G44N13)
L= 7 km
S= 0.11 %
F= 280 mm, (Refer Plate - 10 of the Flood Estimation Report )
Hence,
Tc = 4.774 hr
I= 31.034 mm/hr
and Qmax = 121 cumec

So, 50-yr design discharge for Bridge no. = 121 cumec

C) UP Irrigation's formula
1.6.1 Catchment Area less than 77 sq km: (A)
Design discharge Q shall be computed from the equation

Where C is the coeff of runoff = 0.4

I is the intensity of rainfall in mm = 400.000
A is the catchment area is Sq km = 28.2
S is the period of submergence (7 days for paddy crop). = 1
Discharge shall be proportionately changed if the period of submergence is taken
as 3 days or so.

Q = 52.222

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Discharge by Slope-Area Method

L-Sec
Chainage Bed Level H.F.L. from Local Enquiry (m) = 124.110

0 122.5
20 122.44 Rugosity co-efficient 'n' = 0.05
40 122.51

Average bed slope along the stream = 0.0011

or, 1 V in H = 892.8571

Long Section
125

124.5

124
Arbit.R.L(m)

123.5
Br.C/L
123

122.5

122

121.5

121
0 10 20 30 40 50

L to R(m) Series1

L sec

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

CROSS SECTION AT C/L OF EXISTING BRIDGE SITE

Chainage Bed LVL HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter
2
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m ) (m)

-20 124.75 124.750 124.123 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-10 124.65 124.650 124.123 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 122.56 122.560 124.123 10.000 1.563 0.782 1.563 7.817 10.121
10 123.72 123.720 124.123 10.000 0.403 0.983 1.160 9.834 10.067
20 124.64 124.640 124.123 10.000 0.000 0.202 0.403 2.017 10.008
30 124.64 124.640 124.123 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Cross-section at C/L of Bridge

125.0

124.0
R.L. (m)

123.0

122.0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Chainage (m)

LBL= 122.560
depth= 1.563

Sum = 19.669 30.197

R 0.651
n 0.05
K 295.6
9.89 cumecs

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Determination of Flow Depth and HFL at Proposed Bridge Site

2/3 1/2
AR = K*n = Q*n/S
Q = 14.84 Cumecs
n = 0.05
S = 0.0011
2/3
AR = 22.17 22.59
water depth= 1.850
Chainage(m) HFL (m) HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter
1.850 124.410
-20 124.75 124.410 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-10 124.65 124.410 0.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0 122.56 124.410 0.000 10.000 1.850 0.925 1.850 9.250 10.170
10 123.72 124.410 0.000 10.000 0.690 1.270 1.160 12.700 10.067
20 124.64 124.410 124.410 0.000 10.000 0.000 0.345 0.690 3.450 10.024
30 124.64 124.410 1.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cross Sectional Area, A = 25.400 Sum 25.400 30.261
Wetted Perimeter, P = 30.261 m HFL = 124.410
Hydraulic Radius, R = 0.839 m When 22.59
AR2/3 = 22.59

125

HFL=124.410m
124

123

122
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Scour Depth Calculation

The mean scour depth,Dsm below HFL is computed vide IRC 78 2000 clause 703.2.

dsm= 1.34[Db^2/Ksf]1/3
dsm= mean scour depth below HFL
Db= discharge in cumecs per m width
Ksf= Silt factor 2.40
Discharge,Q= 14.84 cumecs
Discharge for foundation= 19.29 cumecs

Effective Linear waterway= 12.00 m

Db= 1.61 m
Hence, dsm= 1.37 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Pier

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 2xdsm
= 2.75 m
MSL for Pier = 121.36 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Abutment

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 1.27xdsm
= 1.74 m
MSL for Abutment = 122.37 m

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

BRIDGE AT KM 25+ 600

Discharges by Different Methods

1 Emperical Formula

Q(Dicken's formula) = 135 Cumecs

Q (Ryve's formula) = 79 Cumecs

2 Run off Formula

Q = 121 Cumecs

3 Manning's Formula

Q = 9.89 Cumecs

4 UP Irrigation's Formula

Q = 52.22 Cumecs

Qd = 14.84 Cumecs

HFL Observed = 124.11

Designed HFL = 124.41 m
Afflux = 0.037 m
Affluxed HFL 124.447 m
=

Existing Waterway = 5x2.6

Depth (Bed Level to Soffit of the Deck
Slab) = 2.15 m

Minimum Soffit Level Proposed = 124.71

Min required span = 12.39 m

Minimum Vent Height = 1.850 (design depth)+ min required clearance (0.9m)+0.037 (afflux)
= 2.79
Say 2.79 m
RECCOMENDATIONS: Require bridge with a minimum span of 12.5m and minimum vent of 3.0 m. Provide same span.

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Annexure 2

BRIDGE NO. 26/2 CHAINAGE.25Km

A) Empirical Formula

Description Dicken's Ryve's

Value of C adopted in the
present case 11.000 8.500 (From Article-4 of IRC:SP:13-2004)

Catchment area (M) (Sq Km) 3.400 3.400

Discharge, Q (Cumecs) 27.542 19.219

B) (Discharge Calculation By Rational Method )

Discharge,Qmax = 0.277*C*I*A

Where, Qmax = Design Flood in cumec

C = Runoff co-efficient between 0 to 1.0
A = Area of catchment (sqkm)
I = mean intensity of rainfall in mm/h during the time of
concentration (the time required for the most distant part of
the catchment to Contribute to the outflow at bridge site)
Further, I = Io*2/(Tc+1) (Refer P-24 of IRC - SP - 13)
Io= 50-yr , 1-hr rainfall (cm)
Io= 0.32*F [Refer Fig - 10 of Flood Estimation Report for
Betwa Subzone - 1( c )]
F = 50-yr, 24-hr rainfall (cm)
Tc = Concentration time (hr)
Tc = 0.615 L/(A0.1*S0.2)
L = Main stream length (Km)
S = Mean slope of main stream (%)

Computation of Equivalent Stream Slope (S)

(Table A-1 of the Report)
Reduced Li(Di-
Sl. No. Reduced levels Li Di Di-1+Di
distance 1+Di)
(kms) (m) (kms) (m) (m) (m x km)

1 0 135.00 0 0 - -
2 3.00 140.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 15.00

15.00
Slope (S) = Li(Di-1+Di) = 1.67 m/km
L2 = 0.17 %

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

The value of runoff coefficient (C) may be taken from the following Table

Average slope
Soil and
Mild Mdium Steep
land use
(0-4 %) (4-10%) (10 % +)
Rocky, heavy clay 0.6 0.75 0.85
Intense cultivation,
0.5 0.6 0.7
loamy/clay soils
Grass cover, medium soils 0.4 0.5 0.6
Dense vegetation, forest 0.05 0.15 0.25

For Bridge no.48/1,

C= 0.5 (Refer above table)

A= 3.4 sqkm (Measured in Survey of India toposheet No.G44N13)
L= 3 km
S= 0.17 %
F= 280 mm, (Refer Plate - 10 of the Flood Estimation Report )
Hence,
Tc = 2.336 hr
I= 53.717 mm/hr
and Qmax = 25 cumec

So, 50-yr design discharge for Bridge no. = 25 cumec

C) UP Irrigation's formula
1.6.1 Catchment Area less than 77 sq km: (A)
Design discharge Q shall be computed from the equation

Where C is the coeff of runoff = 0.4

I is the intensity of rainfall in mm = 400.000
A is the catchment area is Sq km = 3.4
S is the period of submergence (7 days for paddy crop). = 1
Discharge shall be proportionately changed if the period of submergence is taken
as 3 days or so.

Q = 6.296

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Discharge by Slope-Area Method

L-Sec
Chainage Bed Level H.F.L. from Local Enquiry (m) = 137.509

0 136.504
7.85 136.442 Rugosity co-efficient 'n' = 0.05
12.121 136.616
16.362 136.664
20 136.395
30 136.006
40 136.729
50 136.771
60 136.9
70 136.471
80 136.885 Average bed slope along the stream = 0.0017
90 137.531 or, 1 V in H = 588.2353
100 137.459 (frm contour)

Long Section
140
139.5
139
Br.C/L
138.5
138
Arbit.R.L(m)

137.5
137
136.5
136
135.5
135
134.5
134
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

L to R(m) Series1
L sec

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

CROSS SECTION AT C/L OF EXISTING BRIDGE SITE

Chainage Bed LVL HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m)

-6.661 139.286 139.286 137.529 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-6.407 139.297 139.297 137.529 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-5.591 139.282 139.282 137.529 0.816 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-5.263 138.943 138.943 137.529 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-4.161 137.634 137.634 137.529 1.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-3.139 137.03 137.030 137.529 1.022 0.499 0.250 0.499 0.255 1.137
-2.763 136.772 136.772 137.529 0.376 0.757 0.628 0.258 0.236 0.456
-1.031 136.789 136.789 137.529 1.732 0.740 0.749 0.017 1.297 1.732
0.668 136.76 136.760 137.529 1.699 0.769 0.755 0.029 1.283 1.699
1.223 136.759 136.759 137.529 0.555 0.770 0.770 0.001 0.427 0.555
2.154 136.921 136.921 137.529 0.931 0.608 0.689 0.162 0.642 0.945
4.889 138.739 138.739 137.529 2.735 0.000 0.304 0.608 0.832 2.802

Cross-section at C/L of Bridge

139.0

138.0
R.L. (m)

137.0

136.0
-7 -2 3
Chainage (m)

Sum = 4.972 9.327

R 0.533
LBL= 136.759 n 0.05
depth= 0.770 K 65.4
2.70 cumecs

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Determination of Flow Depth and HFL at Proposed Bridge Site

AR2/3 = K*n = Q*n/S1/2

Q = 4.04 Cumecs
n = 0.05
S = 0.0017
2/3
AR = 4.90 5.01
water depth= 1.000
Chainage(m) HFL (m) HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter
1.000 137.759
-6.661 139.286 137.759 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-6.407 139.297 137.759 0.000 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-5.591 139.282 137.759 0.000 0.816 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-5.263 138.943 137.759 0.000 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-4.161 137.634 137.759 137.759 0.000 1.102 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.069 1.109
-3.139 137.03 137.759 0.000 1.022 0.729 0.427 0.604 0.436 1.187
-2.763 136.772 137.759 0.000 0.376 0.987 0.858 0.258 0.323 0.456
-1.031 136.789 137.759 0.000 1.732 0.970 0.978 0.017 1.695 1.732
0.668 136.76 137.759 0.000 1.699 0.999 0.984 0.029 1.673 1.699
1.223 136.759 137.759 0.000 0.555 1.000 0.999 0.001 0.555 0.555
2.154 136.921 137.759 0.000 0.931 0.838 0.919 0.162 0.856 0.945
4.889 138.739 137.759 0.000 2.735 0.000 0.419 0.838 1.146 2.861

Cross Sectional Area, A = 6.752 Sum 6.752 10.544

Wetted Perimeter, P = 10.544 m HFL = 137.759
Hydraulic Radius, R = 0.640 m When 5.01
AR2/3 = 5.01

140

139

HFL=137.7590m
138

137

136
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Scour Depth Calculation

The mean scour depth,Dsm below HFL is computed vide IRC 78 2000 clause 703.2.

dsm= 1.34[Db^2/Ksf]1/3
dsm= mean scour depth below HFL
Db= discharge in cumecs per m width
Ksf= Silt factor 2.40
Discharge,Q= 4.04 cumecs
Discharge for foundation= 5.26 cumecs

Linear waterway= 6.00 m

Db= 0.88 m
Hence, dsm= 0.92 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Pier

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 2xdsm
= 1.83 m
MSL for Pier = 135.88 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Abutment

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 1.27xdsm
= 1.16 m
MSL for Abutment = 136.55 m

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

BRIDGE AT KM 47+900

Discharges by Different Methods

1 Emperical Formula

Q(Dicken's formula) = 28 Cumecs

Q (Ryve's formula) = 19 Cumecs

2 Run off Formula

Q = 25 Cumecs

3 Manning's Formula

Q = 2.70 Cumecs

4 UP Irrigation's Formula

Q = 6.30 Cumecs

Qd = 4.04 Cumecs

HFL Observed = 137.51

Designed HFL = 137.76 m
Afflux = 0.000 m
Affluxed HFL 137.76 m
=

Existing Waterway = 2x3.2

Depth (Bed Level to Soffit of the Deck
Slab) = 1.56 m

Minimum Soffit Level Proposed = 138.32

Min required span = 6.5 m

Minimum Vent Height = 1.000 (design depth)+ min required clearance (0.6m)+0.00(afflux)
= 1.60
Say 1.60 m
RECCOMENDATIONS: Require bridge with minm span of 6.5m and minimum vent of 2 m. Provide same span.

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Annexure 3

BRIDGE NO. 69/2 CHAINAGE.69Km

A) Empirical Formula

Description Dicken's Ryve's

Value of C adopted in the
present case 11.000 8.500 (From Article-4 of IRC:SP:13-2004)

Catchment area (M) (Sq Km) 3.900 3.900

Discharge, Q (Cumecs) 30.527 21.060

B) (Discharge Calculation By Rational Method )

Discharge,Qmax = 0.277*C*I*A

Where, Qmax = Design Flood in cumec

C = Runoff co-efficient between 0 to 1.0
A = Area of catchment (sqkm)
I = mean intensity of rainfall in mm/h during the time of
concentration (the time required for the most distant part of
the catchment to Contribute to the outflow at bridge site)
Further, I = Io*2/(Tc+1) (Refer P-24 of IRC - SP - 13)
Io= 50-yr , 1-hr rainfall (cm)
Io= 0.32*F [Refer Fig - 10 of Flood Estimation Report for
Betwa Subzone - 1( c )]
F = 50-yr, 24-hr rainfall (cm)
Tc = Concentration time (hr)
Tc = 0.615 L/(A0.1*S0.2)
L = Main stream length (Km)
S = Mean slope of main stream (%)

Computation of Equivalent Stream Slope (S)

(Table A-1 of the Report)
Reduced Li(Di-
Sl. No. Reduced levels Li Di Di-1+Di
distance 1+Di)
(kms) (m) (kms) (m) (m) (m x km)

1 0 145.00 0 0 - -
2 3.00 160.00 3.00 15.00 15.00 45.00

45.00
Slope (S) = Li(Di-1+Di) = 5.00 m/km
2
L = 0.50 %

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

The value of runoff coefficient (C) may be taken from the following Table

Average slope
Soil and
Mild Mdium Steep
land use
(0-4 %) (4-10%) (10 % +)
Rocky, heavy clay 0.6 0.75 0.85
Intense cultivation,
0.5 0.6 0.7
loamy/clay soils
Grass cover, medium soils 0.4 0.5 0.6
Dense vegetation, forest 0.05 0.15 0.25

For Bridge no. 69/2

C= 0.5 (Refer above table)

A= 3.9 sqkm (Measured in Survey of India toposheet No.G44N10)
L= 3 km
S= 0.50 %
F= 280 mm, (Refer Plate - 10 of the Flood Estimation Report )
Hence,
Tc = 1.850 hr
I= 62.884 mm/hr
and Qmax = 34 cumec

So, 50-yr design discharge for Bridge no. = 34 cumec

C) UP Irrigation's formula
Design discharge Q shall be computed from the equation

Where C is the coeff of runoff = 0.4

I is the intensity of rainfall in mm = 400.000
A is the catchment area is Sq km = 3.9
S is the period of submergence (7 days for paddy crop). = 1
Discharge shall be proportionately changed if the period of submergence is taken
as 3 days or so.

Q = 7.222

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 33

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Discharge by Slope-Area Method

L-Sec
1.5 to 2.0m from frm bridge
Chainage Bed Level H.F.L. from Local Enquiry (m) = 150.374 LBL inventory

0 148.417
10 148.676 Rugosity co-efficient 'n' = 0.05
20 148.94
30 149.007
40 148.83
50 148.515
60 148.764
70 148.848
80 148.872
90 148.906
100 148.876 Average bed slope along the stream = 0.0013
110 148.651 or, 1 V in H = 798.3193
120 148.736
130 148.525
140 148.904 C/L of brg. at ch.140
150 148.778
160 147.486
170 147.488
180 147.684
190 148.179
200 147.695
210 147.92
220 148.326

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Long Section
150

149.5
Br.C/L
149
Arbit.R.L(m)

148.5

148

147.5

147
0 50 100 150 200

L to R(m) Series1
L sec
lsec

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

CROSS SECTION AT C/L OF EXISTING BRIDGE SITE

Chainage Bed LVL HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m)

-8.932 150.312 150.312 150.361 0 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-6.421 150.049 150.049 150.361 2.511 0.312 0.181 0.263 0.454 2.525
-5.169 150.057 150.057 150.361 1.252 0.304 0.308 0.008 0.386 1.252
-3.793 149.752 149.752 150.361 1.376 0.609 0.457 0.305 0.629 1.409
-2.559 149.337 149.337 150.361 1.234 1.024 0.817 0.415 1.008 1.302
-0.085 148.774 148.774 150.361 2.474 1.587 1.306 0.563 3.231 2.537
2.494 148.877 148.877 150.361 2.579 1.484 1.536 0.103 3.961 2.581
2.694 148.961 148.961 150.361 0.200 1.400 1.442 0.084 0.288 0.217
4.653 149.839 149.839 150.361 1.959 0.522 0.961 0.878 1.884 2.147
6.733 149.917 149.917 150.361 2.080 0.444 0.483 0.078 1.006 2.081
7.907 149.987 149.987 150.361 1.174 0.374 0.409 0.070 0.481 1.176
8.407 150.066 150.066 150.361 0.500 0.295 0.335 0.079 0.167 0.506
8.806 150.182 150.182 150.361 0.399 0.179 0.237 0.116 0.095 0.416
9.948 150.267 150.267 150.361 1.142 0.094 0.137 0.085 0.156 1.145
12.966 150.437 150.437 150.361 3.018 0.000 0.047 0.094 0.143 3.019

Cross-section at C/L of Bridge

151.0

150.0
R.L. (m)

149.0

148.0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
Chainage (m)

Sum = 13.889 22.314

R 0.622
n 0.05
K 202.5
LBL= 148.774 7.17 cumecs
depth= 1.587 QD = 7 (Say)

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

BRIDGE AT KM 69+ 950

Discharges by Different Methods

1 Emperical Formula

Q(Dicken's formula) = 31 Cumecs

Q (Ryve's formula) = 21 Cumecs

2 Run off Formula

Q= 34 Cumecs

3 UP Irrigation's Formula

Q= 7.22 Cumecs

4 Manning's Formula

Q= 7.17 Cumecs

Note: Adopt Design

Qd = 7.22 Cumecs

Note:
The discharge is calculated by various methods as computed above and design discharge recommended based on provision of IRC: SP-13
and IRC 5-1998 is as :When the variation between the two values of the discharges computed by different methods is more than 50%, design
discharge has been taken as 1.5 times the lower of two values.So here design discharge computed is 1.5times of the lowest value i.e,
discharge from slope area method.But from this computed discharge ,clear waterway found will be increased i.e,existing span will be changed.
If the all discharge will be ignored and only lowest value i.e, discharge from slope area method will be taken into consideration,span will be
same as existing one.

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Observed HFL = 150.374

Designed HFL = 150.54 m
Afflux = 0.015 m
Affluxed HFL 150.559 m
=
Existing Waterway = 3x2.6
Depth (Bed Level to Soffit of the Deck
Slab) = 2.38 m

Minimum Soffit Level Proposed = 151.16

Min required span = 8.64 m

Minimum Vent Height = 1.770 (design depth)+ min required clearance (0.6m)+0.01 (afflux)
= 2.39
Say 2.39 m
RECCOMENDATIONS:

Require bridge with a minimum span of 10m and minimum vent of 2.5m. Provide 1 x 10m.

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Scour Depth Calculation

The mean scour depth,Dsm below HFL is computed vide IRC 78 2000 clause 703.2.

dsm= 1.34[Db^2/Ksf]1/3
dsm= mean scour depth below HFL
Db= discharge in cumecs per m width
Ksf= Silt factor 2.40
Discharge,Q= 7.22 cumecs
Discharge for foundation= 9.39 cumecs

Linear waterway= 8.00 m

Db= 1.17 m
Hence, dsm= 1.11 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Pier

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 2xdsm
= 2.23 m
MSL for Pier = 148.33 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Abutment

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 1.27xdsm
= 1.41 m
MSL for Abutment = 149.14 m

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Determination of Flow Depth and HFL at Proposed Bridge Site

AR2/3 =
1/2
K*n = Q*n/S
Q = 7.22 Cumecs
n = 0.05
S = 0.0013
2/3
AR = 10.20 15.26
water depth= 1.770

Chainage(m) HFL (m) HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter

1.770 150.544
-8.932 150.312 150.544 0.000 0 0.232 0.116 0.232 0.000 0.000
-6.421 150.049 150.544 0.000 2.511 0.495 0.364 0.263 0.913 2.525
-5.169 150.057 150.544 0.000 1.252 0.487 0.491 0.008 0.615 1.252
-3.793 149.752 150.544 0.000 1.376 0.792 0.640 0.305 0.880 1.409
-2.559 149.337 150.544 150.544 0.000 1.234 1.207 1.000 0.415 1.233 1.302
-0.085 148.774 150.544 1.000 2.474 1.770 1.489 0.563 3.683 2.537
2.494 148.877 150.544 2.000 2.579 1.667 1.719 0.103 4.432 2.581
2.694 148.961 150.544 3.000 0.200 1.583 1.625 0.084 0.325 0.217
4.653 149.839 150.544 4.000 1.959 0.705 1.144 0.878 2.241 2.147
6.733 149.917 150.544 5.000 2.080 0.627 0.666 0.078 1.385 2.081
7.907 149.987 150.544 6.000 1.174 0.557 0.592 0.070 0.695 1.176
8.407 150.066 150.544 7.000 0.500 0.478 0.518 0.079 0.259 0.506
8.806 150.182 150.544 8.000 0.399 0.362 0.420 0.116 0.168 0.416
9.948 150.267 150.544 9.000 1.142 0.277 0.320 0.085 0.365 1.145
12.966 150.437 150.544 10.000 3.018 0.107 0.192 0.170 0.579 3.023

Cross Sectional Area, A = 17.772 Sum 17.772 22.317

Wetted Perimeter, P = 22.317 m HFL = 150.544
Hydraulic Radius, R = 0.796 m When 15.26
AR2/3 = 15.26
152

151

150 HFL=150.544m

149

148
-10 -5 0 5 10

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Annexure 4

BRIDGE NO. CHAINAGE.72Km

A) Empirical Formula

Description Dicken's Ryve's

Value of C adopted in the
present case 11.000 8.500 (From Article-4 of IRC:SP:13-2004)

Catchment area (M) (Sq Km) 14.000 14.000

Discharge, Q (Cumecs) 79.614 49.375

B) (Discharge Calculation By Rational Method )

Discharge,Qmax = 0.277*C*I*A

Where, Qmax = Design Flood in cumec

C = Runoff co-efficient between 0 to 1.0
A = Area of catchment (sqkm)
I = mean intensity of rainfall in mm/h during the time of
concentration (the time required for the most distant part of
the catchment to Contribute to the outflow at bridge site)
Further, I = Io*2/(Tc+1) (Refer P-24 of IRC - SP - 13)
Io= 50-yr , 1-hr rainfall (cm)
Io= 0.32*F [Refer Fig - 10 of Flood Estimation Report for
Betwa Subzone - 1( c )]
F = 50-yr, 24-hr rainfall (cm)
Tc = Concentration time (hr)
Tc = 0.615 L/(A0.1*S0.2)
L = Main stream length (Km)
S = Mean slope of main stream (%)

Computation of Equivalent Stream Slope (S)

(Table A-1 of the Report)
Reduced Li(Di-
Sl. No. Reduced levels Li Di Di-1+Di
distance 1+Di)
(kms) (m) (kms) (m) (m) (m x km)

1 0 147.00 0 0 - -
2 9.00 165.00 9.00 18.00 18.00 162.00

162.00
Slope (S) = Li(Di-1+Di) = 2.00 m/km
L2 = 0.20 %

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

The value of runoff coefficient (C) may be taken from the following Table

Average slope
Soil and
Mild Mdium Steep
land use
(0-4 %) (4-10%) (10 % +)
Rocky, heavy clay 0.6 0.75 0.85
Intense cultivation,
0.5 0.6 0.7
loamy/clay soils
Grass cover, medium soils 0.4 0.5 0.6
Dense vegetation, forest 0.05 0.15 0.25

For Bridge 72550

C= 0.5 (Refer above table)

A= 14 sqkm (Measured in Survey of India toposheet No.G44N10)
L= 9 km
S= 0.20 %
F= 280 mm, (Refer Plate - 10 of the Flood Estimation Report )
Hence,
Tc = 5.865 hr
I= 26.102 mm/hr
and Qmax = 51 cumec

So, 50-yr design discharge for Bridge no. = 51 cumec

C) UP Irrigation's formula
1.6.1 Catchment Area less than 77 sq km: (A)

Design discharge Q shall be computed from the equation

Where C is the coeff of runoff = 0.4

I is the intensity of rainfall in mm = 400.000
A is the catchment area is Sq km = 14
S is the period of submergence (7 days for paddy crop). = 1
Discharge shall be proportionately changed if the period of submergence is taken
as 3 days or so.

Q = 25.92576

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Discharge by Slope-Area Method

L-Sec
1.5 to 2m frm bridge
Chainage Bed Level H.F.L. from Local Enquiry (m) = 151.220 from LBL inventory

0 150.489
20 150.898 Rugosity co-efficient 'n' = 0.05
40 150.839
60 151.673
80 151.596
100 150.678
120 151.01
140 150.753
160 151.482
180 151.374 C/L of brg. at ch.200
200 151.669 Average bed slope along the stream = 0.0035
220 151.716 or, 1 V in H = 287.4251
240 150.769
260 150.063
280 152.143
300 150.624
320 150.865
340 151.863
344 152.331

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Long Section
155
154.5
154
153.5
153
Arbit.R.L(m)

152.5 Br.C/L
152
151.5
151
150.5
150
149.5
149
148.5
148
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

L to R(m) Series1
L sec

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

CROSS SECTION AT C/L OF EXISTING BRIDGE SITE

Chainage Bed LVL HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m)

-11.839 153.605 153.605 151.220 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

-8.566 153.59 153.590 151.220 3.273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-8.325 152.805 152.805 151.220 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-7.924 152.815 152.815 151.220 0.401 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-6.911 152.018 152.018 151.220 1.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-5.139 151.49 151.490 151.220 1.772 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-4.915 151.548 151.548 151.220 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-4.518 151.538 151.538 151.220 0.397 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1.993 149.72 149.720 151.220 6.511 1.500 0.750 1.500 4.883 6.682
10.338 151.435 151.435 151.220 8.345 0.000 0.750 1.500 6.259 8.479
28.781 152.246 152.246 151.220 18.443 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Cross-section at C/L of Bridge

153.0

152.0
R.L. (m)

151.0

150.0

149.0
-8 -3 2 7 12
Chainage (m)

Sum = 11.142 15.160

R 0.735
n 0.05
LBL= 149.720 K 181.5
depth= 1.500 10.70 cumecs
QD = 11 (Say)

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

BRIDGE AT KM 72+550

Discharges by Different Methods

1 Emperical Formula

Q(Dicken's formula) = 80 Cumecs neglect

Q (Ryve's formula) = 49 Cumecs

2 Run off Formula

Q= 51 Cumecs

3 UP Irrigation's Formula

Q= 25.93 Cumecs

4 Manning's Formula

Q= 11 Cumecs

Qd = 10.70 Cumecs

Note: The discharge is calculated by various methods as computed above and design discharge recommended based on provision of IRC: SP-13 and
IRC 5-1998 is as :When the variation between the two values of the discharges computed by different methods is more than 50%, design
discharge has been taken as 1.5 times the lower of two values.So here design discharge computed is 1.5times of the lowest value i.e, discharge
from slope area method.But from this computed discharge ,clear waterway found will be increased i.e,existing span will be changed.
If the all discharge will be ignored and only lowest value i.e, discharge from slope area method will be taken into consideration,span will be same
as existing one.

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

HFL Observed = 151.220

Designed HFL = 151.750 m
Afflux = 0.082 m
Affluxed HFL = 151.832 m

Existing Waterway = 3x3.6

Depth (Bed Level to Soffit of the Deck
Slab) = 2.71 m

Minimum Soffit Level Proposed = 152.43

Min required span = 10.52 m

Minimum Vent Height = 2.030 (design depth)+ min required clearance (0.6m)+0.034(afflux)
= 2.66
Say 2.7 m
RECCOMENDATIONS:

Require bridge with a minimum span of 10m and minimum vent of 3.0 m.

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Scour Depth Calculation

The mean scour depth,Dsm below HFL is computed vide IRC 78 2000 clause 703.2.

dsm= 1.34[Db^2/Ksf]1/3
dsm= mean scour depth below HFL
Db= discharge in cumecs per m width
Ksf= Silt factor 2.40
Discharge,Q= 16.06 cumecs
Discharge for foundation= 20.87 cumecs

Linear waterway= 10.00 m

Db= 2.09 m
Hence, dsm= 1.63 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Pier

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 2xdsm
= 3.27 m
MSL for Pier = 148.56 m

Maximum scour and foundation Depth for Abutment

Maximum depth of scour as per IRC-78,2000

= 1.27xdsm
= 2.08 m
MSL for Abutment = 149.76 m

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 32 of 33

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 8.1

Determination of Flow Depth and HFL at Proposed Bridge Site

AR2/3 =
1/2
K*n = Q*n/S
Q = 10.70 Cumecs
n = 0.05
S = 0.0035
AR2/3 = 9.07 13.85
water depth= 2.030
Chainage(m) HFL (m) HFL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter
2.030 151.750
-11.839 153.605 151.750 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-8.566 153.59 151.750 0.000 3.273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-8.325 152.805 151.750 0.000 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-7.924 152.815 151.750 0.000 0.401 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-6.911 152.018 151.750 151.750 0.000 1.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
-5.139 151.49 151.750 1.000 1.772 0.260 0.130 0.260 0.230 1.791
-4.915 151.548 151.750 2.000 0.224 0.202 0.231 0.058 0.052 0.231
-4.518 151.538 151.750 3.000 0.397 0.212 0.207 0.010 0.082 0.397
1.993 149.72 151.750 4.000 6.511 2.030 1.121 1.818 7.299 6.760
10.338 151.435 151.750 5.000 8.345 0.315 1.173 1.715 9.785 8.519
28.781 152.246 151.750 6.000 18.443 0.000 0.157 0.315 2.905 18.446

Cross Sectional Area, A = 20.352 Sum 20.352 36.145

Wetted Perimeter, P = 36.145 m HFL = 151.750
Hydraulic Radius, R = 0.563 m When 13.85
AR2/3 = 13.85

154

153

152
HFL=151.75mm
151

150

149
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 33 of 33

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

9 CROSS-DRAINAGE STRUCTURES – CULVERTS

9.1 Hydrological and Hydraulic Investigation

As we know, Drainage of road is one of the many components of a road project. The objective of
road drainage is to remove the storm water as rapidly as possible so that traffic may move safely
and efficiently without any loss of time. Speedy disposal of the storm water runoff likely to be
accumulated due to construction of the road embankment is very important for the success of a
road project from technical and environmental points of view. Inadequate drainage invariably
results in reduction of life span of a road, increase in maintenance cost and drainage congestion
in the countryside leading to submergence of land and consequent loss of agricultural and other
properties.

Provision of culverts of adequate size and numbers in a road drainage scheme - whether the road
is a new one or an up-gradation of an existing one - is intimately related to the health and safety
of the road.

In a very flat terrain, most of the streams are shallow and the banks are spilled with flood water
moving in wide flood plains. In the absence of road, the spill flow moving over the land surface
constitutes a substantial amount of peak flood. When a road is built in such a terrain with wide
flood plains, the entire flood water has to move across the road through the bridge opening of
limited span, resulting in very high afflux and other problems. Usually, the spill water is found to
move along the toe of the road causing scouring and damage to road embankment. Provision of
relief culverts/bridges on either side of the bridges in such flood plains are very helpful in the
quick disposal of spill flood across the road which results in less afflux and ensures safety of the
road embankment

During the road side drainage hydrological survey, the following information has been collected to
propose new structures.

Type of terrain
Direction of cross slope of terrain
Adjacent land use
Size and type of existing drains and their hydraulic condition
Existing structures along the highway

9.2 Requirement of Structures

The Project Road should have adequate cross drainage facility if large number of culverts and
natural drains/outfalls are present in our road. It should be based on that no overtopping of the
road has been observed on the project area. Also no significant scoring was observed in any of
the structures/roadside. Therefore, it is concluded that all the existing structures are hydraulically
sound and road has sufficient cross drainage structures.

Cross drainage structures are proposed at locations are outlined below :

• The country slope is towards road or the road is in cut/fill.

Page 9-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

• To balance the discharge from road catchment area and discharge passing through
new/existing cross drainage structures.
• Culverts are required to be provided under earth embankment for crossing of water
course like streams, Nallas across the embankment as road embankment cannot be
allowed to obstruct the natural water way.
• The culverts are also required to balance the flood water on both sides of earth
embankment to reduce flood level on one side of road thereby decreasing the water head
consequently reducing the flood menace.
Guidelines suggested in IRC: SP: 42, IRC: SP: 13-2004 and relevant IRC are followed for
proposed the no. of cross drainage structures.

9.3 Locations of culverts

In the plains, however, the available longitudinal slope along the proposed alignment is generally
very flat and roadside ditches are commonly aligned with available longitudinal slope for
economy. If the existing dips are long apart, the distance between an existing dip and an
adjacent ridge becomes too long entailing a bigger size of the ditch and acquisition of more land.
In such cases, intermediate culverts, also called balancing culverts, are proposed just to reduce
the length and size of the roadside ditches. In fact, most of the culverts in plains are balancing in
nature. However, all natural dips may not be used as suitable culvert locations. It depends on the
available longitudinal slope and consequently the required size of the roadside ditches that
govern the locations to be utilized as suitable culvert points. If the available longitudinal slope is
good enough to carry the roadside ditches for a longer distance with reasonable size, some
intermediate minor dips may be crossed over without having to provide a culvert structure.

9.4 Types of Culverts

Culverts can be of different shapes such as arch, slab and box. These can be constructed with
different material such as masonry (brick, stone etc) or reinforced cement concrete. Further the
size, invert level, layout etc. are decided by hydraulic considerations and site conditions. The
cushion depends on road profile at the culvert location.

Generally, for medium height of embankments, both of the options viz., box culverts with road
embankment supported on roof slab and slab culvert with roof slab directly supporting the wheel
loads, are feasible. One of the options is chosen on the basis of LTEC (Least Total Expected Cost)
method. For high embankments (for example near approach of bridges), however, box culverts
are preferred to slab culverts from both structural and economic considerations.

Proposal for cross drainage structures in this package are briefly outlined below:

a) Localized natural drains/outfalls/streams/ exist almost at every locations are found to be

in very less. Hence culverts are proposed to balance the discharge.
b) Box culverts are generally found to be suitable in new/existing alignment of road.
c) Sufficient no. of cross drainage structures of Existing Bridge excepting few is found here
in our stretch, which is functioning well and few are blocked.
d) There are 28 no. of culverts have been proposed here.
e) Adequate numbers of culverts along the new/existing alignment are provided to see the
smooth runoff of surface water.

Page 9-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

9.5 Data Collection

Data may be collected from site investigation / study of toposheets / Satellite Imagery / local
enquiry and from records maintained by Government agencies like CWC, IMD, RDSO and
Irrigation / PWDs.

Broadly, the several data required for the design of cross drainage structures(culvert) are:

• Topographic maps showing contours, nature and slope of terrain, soil and cover
conditions, physical features in the vicinity of the proposed culverts etc.
• Existing stream and canal network in the project area crossing the road indicating
direction of flow and the drainage area contributing flow to the culverts.
• Stream data e.g. L-section and cross-sections of the stream upstream and downstream of
the point of crossing, gauge-discharge data, if available, HFL from flood marks and local
enquiry.
• Soil and sub-soil data for computation of run-off from the drainage basins.
• Hydro-meteorological data like amount, intensity, duration and frequency of rainfall.
• Proposed roadway alignment , L-section and cross-sections of the road near the cross-
drainage sites
• Fish passage requirement, if any.
• Debris and sediments to be passed through the culverts.
• Points of flow accumulation and areas of prolonged submergence, if any.
• Nearest human habitation / property, places of worship, places of strategic importance
etc.
In case the proposed alignment runs parallel to any existing major road, it is very helpful
to study the drainage particulars and performance of culverts on the existing road to
have an idea about the required numbers and size of culverts for the proposed road from
the drainage efficiency of the existing road.
• Information regarding likely damage to habitats, crops etc, due to ponding upstream of
culverts.
• Maximum permissible velocity at the outlets of culvert to determine nature of protective
works to be adopted.

9.6 Observed Data

For efficient functioning of road in rainy season and proposed size and location of structures,
several data are required to be collected at site and from other dependable sources. A brief
description of the various data collected for hydraulic computations are given below:

9.6.1 Rainfall Data

IRC: SP:42 (1994), however, recommends a return period of 25 years for important roads like
National and State highways (50 years for depressed sections) and 10 years for lower category
roads. Here we assume return period of 50 yr 1hr rainfall for our road stretch i.e, coming 77mm.
Rainfall for Jhansi Hamirpur zone is noted from CWC report Betwa subzone 1(c) i.e., 240 mm
(50yr 24hr rainfall) as shown below.

Page 9-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Figure 9.1: CWC Rainfall Isopluvial Map

9.6.2 Time of Concentration (tc) and Design Rainfall Intensity (Ic)

The time taken by the run-off from the farthest point on the periphery of the catchment (called
the critical point) to reach the site of the culvert is called the "concentration time". In considering
the intensity of precipitation it was said that the shorter the duration considered the higher the
intensity will be. Thus safety would seem to lie in designing for a high intensity corresponding to
a very small interval of time. But this interval should not be shorter than the concentration time
of the catchment under consideration, as otherwise the flow from distant parts of the catchment
will not be able to reach the outfall in time to make its contribution in raising the peak discharge.
Therefore, when examining a particular catchment, only the intensity corresponding to the
duration equal to the concentration period (t) of the catchment needs to be considered.

9.6.3 Estimating the Concentration Time of a Catchment (tc)

The concentration time Depends on (1) the distance from the critical point to the structure; and
(2) the average velocity of flow. The slope, the roughness of the drainage channel and the depth
of flow govern the later. Complicated formulae exist for deriving the time of concentration from
the characteristics of the Catchment. For our purpose, however, the following simple relationship
Where

t c = (0.87* L3 /H)^0.385

Page 9-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

tc - the concentration time in hours

L - the distance from the critical point to the structure in km.
H - the fall in level from the critical point to the structure in m.
L and H can be found from the survey plans of the catchment area and tc calculated.

9.6.4 Runoff Coefficient

Mean runoff coefficient used for estimation of design discharge for the drains given in Appendix-
9.1. Runoff coefficients are taken according to the type of surface, namely paved, unpaved,
agricultural, and residential, forest and hilly areas etc. as per the recommendations made in IRC:
SP-42 and SP-13.

9.6.5 Catchment Area

For plain regions, toposheets having 20m contour interval may not be at all useful in delineating
catchment or determination of fall of the channel. However, the artificial ridge lines like roads,
canals etc can be easily traceable on the toposheet/map and these ridges can be considered as
catchment boundary for a particular culvert. For plain regions, most of the culverts are designed
as balancing ones and do not span any distinct channel. As such, area of catchment applicable for
any particular point is governed by the countryside length discharging towards the culvert and
the distance between two consecutive cross ridges (natural or artificial) on either side of it. The
countryside length may be taken as the distance between the proposed alignment and existing
artificial ridges (roads, canals etc), if any, running parallel to it. The distance between the existing
cross ridges (running perpendicular to the proposed alignment) can be measured from
toposheets or the survey data of the road corridor. However, if the distance between two
consecutive cross ridges is so large that it entails unreasonable size of the roadside ditches, the
acceptable size of the roadside ditches shall limit the spacing of the culverts. In such cases, group
of culverts at available dips may be required between two cross ridges.

The peak run-off from the area in between the catchments of identifiable streams, will have to be
evacuated through the culvert openings to be proposed at natural dips between the two
consecutive Stream outfall points where bridges are recommended.

Catchment area for whole road alignment is observed roughly from Google earth(in absence of
Toposheets) is equal to the total length along the road multiplied by the distance from the center
lines of the road to upstream side of road up to a point 4km (determined at site by visual
observation).

9.6.6 Design Discharge

Based on the above data, drainage discharge is found by using Rational method

Q = 0.028 PfIcA

Where Q= the design discharge in m3/sec, f is the spread factor, taken as 1.0 (for small
catchment), P is the mean run-off coefficient, Ic is the design rainfall intensity in cm/hr
corresponding to time of concentration (tc) in hour and A is the catchment area in hectares.

Detailed computation has been attached in Appendix-9.1.

Page 9-5| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

9.7 Conclusion

There are 28 no. of box culvert and Pipe culvert in existing road has been proposed here to
balance the discharge available on road site. Location of culverts is based on ground/road profile
as shown in Plan Profile of road. A detailed computation has been attached in Appendix-9.1 and
list of new culverts are given in Table 9.1 below:

Table 9.1: List of New Culverts

Type of Span
S. No. Chainage (m) Remarks
Structure Arrangement
1 2+520 Box 1x2x2 Overtopping stretch
2 3+180 Box 1x2x2 Overtopping stretch
3 3+560 Box 1x2x2 Overtopping stretch
4 4+160 Box 1x2x2 Overtopping stretch
5 4+580 Box 1x2x2 Overtopping stretch
6 5+420 Pipe 1X1.2 Overtopping stretch
7 11+780 Box 1x2x1.5 No structure in 1 km
8 15+560 Pipe 1X1.2 No structure in 1km
9 16+240 Box 1x2x1.5 Due to increase in drain Length
10 18+300 Pipe 1X1.2 Due to increase in drain Length
11 21+730 Box 1x2x1.5 No structure
12 23+520 Pipe 1X1.2 No structure
13 26+490 Pipe 1X1.2 Due to increase in drain Length
14 28+740 Pipe 1X1.2 No structure
15 29+760 Box 1x2x1.5 No structure
16 30+320 Pipe 1X1.2 Due to increase in drain Length
17 31+800 Pipe 1X1.2 No structure in 1 km
18 32+640 Box 1x2x1.5 No structure in 1 km
19 39+190 Box 1x2x1.5 No structure in 1 km
20 40+500 Box 1x2x1.5 No structure in 1 km
21 53+120 Pipe 1X1.2 Due to increase in drain Length
22 60+200 Pipe 1X1.2 No structure in 1 km
23 61+060 Box 1x2x2 Due to increase in drain Length
24 70+160 Pipe 1X1.2 No structure in 5km
25 72+600 Box 1x2x2 No structure in 5km
26 73+800 Box 1x2x2 No structure in 5km
27 74+020 Pipe 1X1.2 No structure in 5km
28 74+590 Box 1x2x2 No structure in 5km

9.8 Improvement Proposals for Culverts

Existing Hume pipe and arch culverts having diameter / span < 900 mm are proposed for
reconstruction in NP4 RCC Pipes in full formation width of 12 m including parapets, as per type
design requirements laid down in IRC:SP:13. These culverts have been proposed in such
stretches where required minimum cushion over the pipe is available. The bedding for pipe shall
be first class bedding, comprising of granular material for culverts with cushion above the pipe
not less than 0.6 m and not exceeding 4 m.

Page 9-6| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

The summary of existing and improvement proposals is as follows:

Table 9.2: Summary of Culverts

Type of Culverts
Particulars Pipe* Arch Stone Slab Box
Total
Culverts Culverts Culverts Culverts Culverts
Existing culverts 43 14 3 28 - 88
Improvement Proposal
To be retained with
6 - - 9 - 15
repairs
To be retained with
16 5 8 - 29
widening
To be Box - 9 3 10 - 22
Replaced HP 21 - 1 - 22
Additional construction 12 0 0 0 16 28
* All buried / blocked culverts considered as pipe culverts (4 nos.)

Culverts along with their improvement proposals (widened, reconstructed, and retained) are listed
in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3: Rehabilitation/Widening/Reconstruction of Existing Culverts

Improvement
Details of Existing Culvert
Proposal
S. Improvement Proposed
Design Superstructure Substructure Span
No code Culvert*
Chainage Arrangement Width
(Km) Type Material Type Material ** Type Span
1 2+137 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 4.1 10.1 Reconstruction Box 1 X 4.1
2 5+821 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.6 12.8 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
3 6+588 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 0.95 11.0 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
4 7+341 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.6 11.2 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
5 7+661 slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 0.75 10.9 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
6 8+311 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.6 11.6 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
Widen with
7 9+544 Pipe - - - 2x0.9 10.3 Pipe 2x0.9
Repairs
8 10+551 Slab RCC wall - 1 X 1.0 10.1 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
Widen with
9 10+936 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 2.0 6.5 Box 1 X 2.0
Repairs
10 11+194 Pipe - - 2 x 0.4 15.3 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
Widen with
11 12+286 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.9 10.3 Pipe 1 X 0.9
Repairs
Widen with
12 12+487 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 3.0 10.3 Slab 1 X 3.0
Repairs
Widen with
13 13+156 Arch Brick wall Brick 2 X 1.8 6.3 Box 1 X 4.2
Repairs
14 13+436 Pipe - - 4 x 0.4 13.9 Reconstruction Pipe 4 X 1.2
15 13+776 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.6 10.65 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
16 13+815 Slab RCC wall PCC 1 X 0.9 10.9 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
Widen with
17 14+275 Pipe - - - 2 X 1.2 10.25 Pipe 2 X 1.2
Repairs
Widen with
18 14+801 Pipe - - - 2 X 1.0 10.5 Pipe 2 X 1.0
Repairs
19 17+206 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 1.5 10.5 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
Widen with
20 17+873 Pipe - - - 1 X 1.2 10.2 Pipe 1 X 1.2
Repairs

Page 9-7| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Improvement
Details of Existing Culvert
Proposal
S. Improvement Proposed
Design Superstructure Substructure Span
No code Culvert*
Chainage Arrangement Width
(Km) Type Material Type Material ** Type Span
Widen with
21 19+776 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.9 10.25 Pipe 1 X 0.9
Repairs
Widen with
22 20+621 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.9 10.3 Pipe 1 X 0.9
Repairs
Widen with
23 20+707 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.9 10.3 Pipe 1 X 0.9
Repairs
24 22+642 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 2.6 10.8 Reconstruction Box 1 X 2.6
Retain with
25 24+103 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 3.0 12.0 - -
Repairs
Widen with
26 25+067 Arch Brick wall Brick 2 X 1.8 6.4 Box 1 X4.2
Repairs
Widen with
27 26+901 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 3.0 10.2 Slab 1 X 3.0
Repairs
Widen with
28 27+511 Pipe - - 1 x 0.9 10.65 Pipe 1 x 0.9
Repairs
Widen with
29 28+071 Pipe - - 1 x 1.0 10.25 Pipe 1 x 1.0
Repairs
Widen with
30 30+911 Arch Brick wall Brick 2 X 1.8 6.25 Box 1 X4.2
Repairs
31 31+136 Slab RCC wall PCC 1 X 1.5 10.6 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
32 33+323 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 1.5 13.25 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
Retain with
33 34+166 Pipe - - 1 X 0.9 12.7 - 2 X 1.0
Repairs
Retain with
34 34+458 Slab RCC wall PCC 1 X 1.8 10.97 - -
Repairs
Widen with
35 34+924 Pipe - - 1 X 1.0 10.32 Pipe 1 X 1.0
Repairs
Retain with
36 35+466 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 2.5 11.3 - -
Repairs
Retain with
37 36+264 Pipe - - 1 X 1.0 12.5 - -
Repairs
38 36+907 Slab RCC wall PCC 1 X 2.7 11.0 Reconstruction Box 1x2.7
Retain with
39 37+986 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 1.25 13.05 - -
Repairs
Retain with
40 41+334 Slab RCC wall PCC 1 X 0.75 11.0 - -
Repairs
Retain with
41 41+627 Slab RCC wall PCC 2 X 0.75 11.0 - -
Repairs
42 42+210 Pipe - - 1 X 0.9 9.85 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
43 43+644 Pipe - - 1 X 0.6 10.1 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
Buried
44 43+901 10.8 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2

45 44+328 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.3 11.3 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2

46 44+576 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.4 12.5 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
47 45+101 Pipe 1 X 0.4 11.5 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
48 45+375 Pipe 1 X 0.4 11.7 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
Buried
49 46+061 11.3 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
Buried
50 46+151 11.0 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
Retain with
51 46+440 Pipe - - - 2 X 1.0 12.37 - -
Repairs
Widen with
52 47+591 Slab RCC wall PCC 1 X 1.5 9.75 Slab 1 X 1.5
Repairs
Retain with
53 49+191 Pipe - - - 2 X 1.0 12.18 - -
Repairs
54 49+539 Buried 11.25 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2

Page 9-8| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Improvement
Details of Existing Culvert
Proposal
S. Improvement Proposed
Design Superstructure Substructure Span
No code Culvert*
Chainage Arrangement Width
(Km) Type Material Type Material ** Type Span
Retain with
55 49+705 Pipe - - - 1 X 1.0 12.1 - -
Repairs
Retain with
56 50+491 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 1.0 11.05 - -
Repairs
Widen with
57 51+523 Pipe - - 1 X 0.9 9.9 Pipe 1 X 0.9
Repairs
58 51+768 Slab RCC wall CRM 1 X 1.8 10.0 Reconstruction Box 1x2.0
59 51+868 Stone Slab Stone slab wall Brick 1 X 1.2 9.0 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
Widen with
60 54+136 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 1.7 9.7 Slab 1 X 1.7
Repairs
Retain with
61 54+551 Pipe - - - 1 X 1.0 12.3 - -
Repairs
62 54+927 Stone Slab Stone slab wall Brick 1 X 0.9 7.0 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
63 55+721 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.3 11.1 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
64 56+121 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.4 10.50 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
65 56+335 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.6 9.93 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
66 56+676 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.3 10.9 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
67 58+171 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 1.5 6.7 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
68 58+809 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 2.45 6.75 Reconstruction Box 1 X 2.5
69 59+051 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 1.15 6.74 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
Widen with
70 59+351 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 2.4 6.65 Box 1 X 2.5
Repairs
71 62+751 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 0.87 8.55 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
72 63+454 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 2.4 6.4 Reconstruction Box 1 X 2.5
Widen with
73 63+785 Slab RCC wall CRM 1 X 0.9 10.95 Slab 1 X 0.9
repairs
74 64+370 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 1.85 6.35 Reconstruction Box 1 X 2.0
75 64+930 Stone Slab Stone wall Brick 2 X 0.9 6.8 Reconstruction Box 1 X 2.0
76 65+605 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 3.05 6.25 Reconstruction Box 2 X 3.5
Widen with
77 65+740 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 1.2 6.9 Slab 1 X 1.2
repairs
78 66+650 Arch Brick wall Brick 1 X 0.75 8.45 Reconstruction Box 1 X 1.5
Widen with
79 67+130 Slab RCC wall CRM 1 X 1.5 10.9 Slab 1 X 1.5
repairs
80 67+160 Slab RCC wall Brick 1 X 0.9 6.74 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
81 68+080 Pipe - - - 1 X 0.4 9.75 Reconstruction Pipe 1 X 1.2
Widen with
82 68+204 Pipe - - - 2 X 1.0 10.15 Pipe 2 X 1.0
Repairs
Widen with
83 68+290 Pipe - - - 1 X 1.0 10.23 Pipe 1 X 1.0
Repairs
Retain with
84 68+657 Slab RCC wall CRM 1 X 1.5 11.4 - -
Repairs
Widen with
85 69+106 Pipe - - 1 X 1.0 10.25 Pipe 1 X 1.0
Repairs
Widen with
86 71+216 Slab RCC wall CRM 2 X 2.4 10.05 Slab 2 x 2.4
repairs
Retain with
87 71+390 Slab RCC wall CRM 1 X 1.5 10.95 - -
Repairs
Widen with
88 72+286 Pipe - - 2 X 1.0 10.2 Pipe 2x1.0
Repairs

**Span length for arch culverts shows clear span

Page 9-9| Rev: R4

 APPENDIX – 9.1

Calculation of Discharge for New Culverts

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 9.1

Calculation of Discharge as per Rational Formulae for Peak-Runoff from

Catchment for Project Road (Hamirpur-Rath) between Km 0+002 to Km
74+850 (Ref. IRC:SP:13-2004)
Discharge from rational formula,

Q = A x lo x λ
where
2
Catchment Area, A = 304.000 Km = 30400 Hectares
(Road width*Length of Road)
One hour rainfall, Lo = 8.0 cm
(Taken from cwc report sub zone 1(c))
λ = 0.056 x f xP
tc + 1
where
fraction co-efficient f = 0.9 (Taken from Fig. 4.2,Page 14, IRC:SP:13-2004)
co-efficient of run-off P = 0.40 (Taken from table 4.1,Page 13, IRC:SP:13-2004)

3
= (0.87*L /H)0.385
Time of Concentration tc
where
Length, L = Distance from critical point to structure
= 5.00 Km
Height, H = Fall in level from critical point to structure
= 10.0 m

Time of Concentration tc = 2.51 Hours

λ = 0.006

Now, Q = 1398.333 Cumecs

Discharge Capacity of New Proposed Box(2X1.5) Culverts

Operating head (h) 0.3

Length of Culvert 10.000
Depth of Opening 2.0
Size of Opening 1.5

Area A 3.00
Perimeter P 7.00
R 0.43

Friction Loss Coefficient Kf 0.103 Where, Kf = ( 0.00334*L ) / R1.33

Entry Loss Coefficient Ke 0.444 (Taken from Table 19.1, Page 76, IRC:SP:13-2004)
λ 2.41 λ = A / SQRT( 1+ Ke + Kf )

Q 5.85 Q = λ * SQRT(2*g*h)

No. of spans 1.00

Similar No of culverts 5
Total Q 29.26

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 2

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 9.1

Discharge Capacity of New Proposed Box(2X2) Culverts Discharge Capacity of New Proposed Pipe Culverts
Operating head (h) 0.3 Operating head (h) 0.3
Length of pipe 10.000 Length of pipe 10.000
Size of Box 2.0 Diameter of pipe 1.2
Depth 2.0
Area A 1.13
Area A 4.00 Perimeter P 3.77
Perimeter P 8.00 R 0.30
R 0.50
Friction Loss Coefficient Kf 0.17
Friction Loss Coefficient Kf 0.084 Entry Loss Coefficient Ke 0.1
Entry Loss Coefficient Ke 0.465 λ 1.01
λ 3.21
Q (per Pipe) 2.44
Q 7.80 No. of Pipes 1.00
No. of spans 1.00 Similar No of culverts 12
Similar No of culverts 11 Total Q 29.27
Total Q 85.78

Total no. of new structures 28

Discharge contribution from new culverts 144.31

Discharge contribution from 1no.Of Major Bridge 375 (10 to 20% of Qdesigned)
Discharge contribution from 16no. Of Arch culvert 20
Discharge contribution from 57 no. of slab culverts 281.05
Discharge contribution from 120no. of Pipe culverts 292.68
Discharge contribution from 8no.Of Minor Bridge 300.00

Total Discharge from catchment area 1398.33

Total Discharge from all structures 1268.73
Balance Discharge 129.60
Total no. of new structures(11 BOX of 2x2,5 no.2x1.5 and 12 pipe 1x1.2@) 28.00
Discharge passing through new structures 144.31 Ok as more than balance

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 2

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

10 DRAINAGE DESIGN

10.1 Introduction

Drainage, both surface and subsurface, is essential for efficient and healthy functioning of a road.
Broadly, drainage has two aspects, namely

(i) Cross-drainage works to ensure free and smooth movement of surface run-off through
bridges and culverts, so that there is no overtopping of road
(ii) Road drainage, which ensures quick and safe disposal of water from road surface and
embankments through roadside drains to their respective outfalls.
During the roadside drainage survey, the following information has been collected to design the
drainage system.

Type of terrain
Direction of cross slope of terrain
Adjacent land use
Size and type of existing drains and their hydraulic condition
Requirement of drains.

10.2 Hydrological and Hydraulic Investigation

The Project Road has adequate cross drainage facility as large number of culverts and bridges are
present. In some urban areas localized side drains are present which will be continue. The road
drainage in urban area is very few. In rural areas ditches are found at a few locations. A number
of streams, nalas cross the project road. It is reported that overtopping of the road / structures
has been observed on the project road at few location. Therefore, it is concluded that all the
existing structures excepting few are hydraulically sound and road has sufficient cross drainage.
Few new structures have been proposed in the detail study especially in overtopping area.

Roadside drain is proposed at locations are outlined below :

The country slope is towards road or the road is in cut.

If the land on both sides of the road is sloping away from the road i.e. the road runs
along ridge, no drains are provided.
Subsurface drainage has been provided by providing drainage / G.S.B. layer extended up to
embankment face so that the seepage water can escape by gravity flow.
Guidelines suggested in IRC: SP: 42 and IRC: SP: 50 is followed for designing the shape, size and
slope of road side drain.

10.3 Types of Drains

Proposal for drains in this section are briefly outlined below:

a) Localized side drains exist on few locations are found to be in good condition.

Page 10-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

b) Unlined trapezoidal drains (Type 1) are provided only at rural area, as there are chances of
blockage of these drains during flood or high rainfall.
c) Generally RCC lined drains (Type 2 and type 3) are provided in urban and semi urban area.
d) Existing drains are proposed to be maintained wherever applicable with existing size and
invert level.
e) However at some stretches of existing road where drains are missing or in poor condition, the
drains are recommended or to be reconstructed.
f) Adequate numbers of culvert along with drains are provided to see the smooth runoff of
surface water.

10.4 Site Specific

In open areas, unlined drains are proposed near the ROW limits, sufficiently away from the toe of
the embankment. Through built up areas to drain off surface run off from the road and to
intercept sullage from road side properties, lined drains are proposed in the following stretches,

RCC Drain of Hamirpur-Rath section

S. Design Chainage (Km) Length Cross-section
Remarks
No. Start End (Km) Type
1 3+380 3+680 0.3 3 Village Raising
2 5+460 5+660 0.2 4B Semi-urban, widening
Urban, coverd drain,
3 9+950 11+000 1.05 2B
widening
4 20+410 20+830 0.42 4B Semi-urban, widening
Urban, coverd drain,
5 25+400 26+500 1.1 2B
widening
Urban, coverd drain,
6 33+900 35+000 1.1 2B
widening
7 41+380 41+850 0.47 4A Semi-urban, widening
8 47+875 48+175 0.3 4A Semi-urban, widening
Urban, coverd drain,
9 50+500 52+300 1.8 2A
widening

10.5 Drainage Data

For efficient functioning and proper design of drains, several data are required to be collected at
site and from other dependable sources. A brief description of the various drainage data
collected for design of drains are given below:

10.5.1 Rainfall Data

The drains have been designed for a rainfall of 25 year return period and 1 hour rainfall per IRC:
SP-42 recommendation. 24 hour rainfall of 25 year return period taken from isopluvials map for
25 years return period as given in Flood Estimation report for sub zone 1©.

10.5.2 Time of concentration (tc) and Design Rainfall Intensity (Ic)

Time of concentration (tc) in hours and design rainfall intensity ( I c) in cm/hr, to be used in the
Rational formula . The following formula recommended by IRC-SP-42 is used.

Ic = F/T *(T+1) /(tc+1)

Page 10-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Tc = Lc/Vc +B/Vb

Where F is the total rainfall in cm in T hrs. Lc and B are the respective length and breadth of
catchment contributing flow into the drain. V c and Vb are the mean velocity along and across the
drain respectively. First equation over estimates rainfall intensity, I c when T is taken as 24 hrs
and the F value is taken from isopluvials of 25-year return period. F and Ic are found from the
rainfall distribution curves given in CWC flood estimation report for subzone1(c), where 25-year
hourly rainfall distribution are given from measured actual rainfall with recording gauge. Time of
concentration is found as equal to inflow time into the drain plus flow time through the drain upto
the cross drainage structure i.e. the outfall of the drain. Design rainfall intensity (I c) is found
corresponding to time of concentration (tc).

10.5.3 Runoff coefficient

Runoff coefficients are taken according to the type of surface, namely paved, unpaved,
agricultural, and residential, forest and hilly areas etc. as per the recommendations made in IRC:
SP-42 and SP-13.

10.5.4 Catchment Area

Average distance between consecutive cross-drainage structures was determined from bridge and
culvert inventory. Catchment area for each drain is found as equal to the average distance
between consecutive cross drainage structures along the road multiplied by the distance between
the centre lines of the road up to a point 10 to 1000 m (determined in the site by visual
observation) away from the ROW across the road.

10.5.5 Design Discharge

Based on the above data, drainage discharge is found by using Rational method

Q = 0.028 PfIcA

Where Q= the design discharge in m3/sec, f is the spread factor, taken as 1.0 (for small
catchment), P is the mean run-off coefficient, Ic is the design rainfall intensity in cm/hr
corresponding to time of concentration (tc) in hour and A is the catchment area in hectares.

10.5.6 Bed slope

Bed slope of the drain is found from longitudinal profile of ground under the drain. Ideally, top of
RCC drain should be kept at Shoulder Edge level to avoid excessive cutting and filling. Attempt
has been made to avoid high cutting or filling by changing bed slope of the drain as per the
existing ground/Road profile. Details of drains e.g. location, type, length, bed slope, invert level,
outfall points etc. are given in long profiles of drains as well as in the design abstract .

10.6 Abstract of Drain Design

Based on the methodology described above the drains are designed for reconstructed and
proposed section of road. Adequacies of existing drains are also checked. Open drains are the
intercepting drains of surface runoff and are designated as side drains, catch water drains, or
gutters depending on their location and formation. Open side drains are proposed on either side

Page 10-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

of the road embankment in order to intercept surface water runoff from the carriageway and
shoulders. The open drains are at ground level.

Type of road pavement and rainfall intensity is the main factors which influence the shape,
location and capacity of open drains. The drains should have sufficient capacity to carry natural
peak run off without water overflowing, the surface. Open drains are generally unlined and are
located near the ROW boundary, as far as possible and away from the toe of embankment.

The choice of cross section of open drains is generally limited to 3 types – triangular, trapezoidal
and rectangular. The triangular section has lesser flow capacity. Rectangular sections prove an
efficient profile. Side drains must be connected to some natural channel, drain or natural
watercourse as outfall. So trapezoidal section is suitable earthen drain.

Lined drains are proposed in built-up areas. These drains are lined with concrete (PCC M-20) and
are 150 mm thick with a bottom width of 1000 mm over a leveling course of 50 mm thick PCC M-
15. The minimum depth of the drain is 1000 mm including free board. The drain is proposed
rectangular in section. To provide access to the road side properties and side streets, the lined
drains are covered with pre cast M-20 RCC covers with perforations for ease of maintenance. A
minimum free board of 150 mm has been provided as recommended in IRC: SP- 42. The design
abstract includes the following information:

Drain Invert Level

Longitudinal slope of drain
Cumulative discharge
Drain length and type
Bed width and depth of drain
Location of outfall for the drain

Details of the design abstract will be furnished in computations/Appendix-10.1.

10.7 Drainage Drawings

Based on design abstract and layout plans of the road, long profile of drains will be prepared
showing CD works, bed slope, flow direction, invert levels, size of drain (B o), type of drain etc.
Longitudinal profile of drain is given in Drawings Volume. Standard drainage drawings have been
prepared for different types of drains and other structures as shown in Drawings Volume.

Page 10-4| Rev: R4

 APPENDIX – 10.1

Details of the Drain Design Abstract

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

10.1A- Abstract of Hamirpur-Rath Drainage Design

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure
Typical (Typical) Drain Depth
Check
Direction & IL From To From To Width (including free
board 0.15)

(Km) (Km) (Km) (m) (m) (%) (m) (m)

Left Side

Outfal in existing earthen

103.5 3.380 3.560 0.180 103.614 104.219 -0.336 Lined Drain 0.700 0.6 adequate
drain

Outfal to the culvert 3+560 103.988

3.560 3.680 0.120 104.219 105.244 -0.854 Lined Drain 0.700 0.5 adequate

Outfal in existing earthen

107.8 5.460 5.660 0.200 108.283 108.732 -0.224 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
drain

Outfal in existing earthen

113.450 9.950 10.340 0.390 113.940 118.115 -1.071 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
drain

10.340 10.550 0.210 118.115 116.768 0.641 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 10+550 116.500

10.550 10.936 0.386 116.768 121.794 -1.302 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 10+936 118.150

10.936 11.000 0.064 121.794 122.579 -1.227 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure
Typical (Typical) Drain Depth
Check
Direction & IL From To From To Width (including free
board 0.15)

Outfal in existing earthen

124.7 20.410 20.620 0.210 125.280 126.450 -0.557 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
drain

Outfal to the culvert 20+620 125.27

20.620 20.706 0.086 126.450 125.971 0.557 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 20+706 124.655

20.706 20.830 0.124 125.971 125.615 0.287 Lined Drain 0.700 0.55 adequate

25.400 25.655 0.255 124.633 123.586 0.411 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 25+655 MNBR

25.655 26.000 0.345 123.586 124.464 -0.254 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

26.000 26.220 0.220 124.464 124.554 -0.041 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 26+220 125.27

26.220 26.500 0.280 124.554 124.966 -0.147 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

33.900 34.165 0.265 130.724 130.454 0.102 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure
Typical (Typical) Drain Depth
Check
Direction & IL From To From To Width (including free
board 0.15)

Outfal to the culvert 34+165 130.012

34.165 34.457 0.292 130.454 130.707 -0.087 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 34+457 129.700

34.457 34.923 0.466 130.707 130.418 0.062 Lined Drain 0.700 0.65 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 34+923 130.280

34.923 35.000 0.077 130.418 130.870 -0.587 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal in existing earthen

133.6 41.380 41.627 0.247 134.100 134.772 -0.272 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
drain

Outfal to the culvert 41+627 134.49

41.627 41.850 0.223 134.772 134.911 -0.062 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal in existing earthen
138.1 47.875 48.000 0.125 138.583 138.597 -0.011 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
drain
48.000 48.185 0.185 138.597 138.412 0.100 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 48+185 MNBR

Outfal to the culvert 50+490 141.572

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure
Typical (Typical) Drain Depth
Check
Direction & IL From To From To Width (including free
board 0.15)

50.490 51.100 0.610 141.600 142.747 -0.188 Lined Drain 0.700 0.80 adequate

51.100 51.522 0.422 142.747 143.612 -0.205 Lined Drain 0.700 0.60 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 51+522 142.5

51.522 51.767 0.245 143.612 143.015 0.244 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 51+767 141.45

51.767 51.867 0.100 143.015 142.663 0.352 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert 51+867 142.12

51.867 52.300 0.433 142.663 143.701 -0.240 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

10.1B - Abstract of Hamirpur-Rath Drainage Design

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure Depth
Typical (Typical) Drain Check
Direction (including
From To From To Width free board
& IL
0.15)
(Km) (Km) (Km) (m) (m) (%) (m) (m)
Right Side

3.380 3.560 0.180 104.187 104.000 0.104 Lined Drain 0.700 0.5 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
103.988
3+560
3.560 3.680 0.120 104.000 104.528 -0.440 Lined Drain 0.700 0.5 adequate
Outfal in existing
107.9 5.460 5.660 0.200 108.400 108.732 -0.166 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
earthen drain
Outfal in existing
113.500 9.950 10.340 0.390 113.940 118.393 -1.142 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
earthen drain

10.340 10.550 0.210 118.393 116.949 0.688 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert

116.500
10+550

10.550 10.936 0.386 116.949 121.633 -1.213 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Outfal to the culvert

118.150
10+936

10.936 11.000 0.064 121.633 122.579 -1.478 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure Depth
Typical (Typical) Drain Check
Direction (including
From To From To Width free board
& IL
0.15)
Outfal in existing
124.7 20.410 20.620 0.210 125.280 125.869 -0.280 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
earthen drain
Outfal to the culvert
125.27
20+620
20.620 20.706 0.086 125.869 125.800 0.080 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
124.655
20+706
20.706 20.830 0.124 125.800 125.615 0.149 Lined Drain 0.700 0.65 adequate

25.400 25.655 0.255 124.633 123.586 0.411 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
MNBR
25+655
25.655 26.000 0.345 123.586 124.464 -0.254 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

26.000 26.220 0.220 124.464 124.700 -0.107 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
125.27
26+220
26.220 26.500 0.280 124.700 124.966 -0.095 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure Depth
Typical (Typical) Drain Check
Direction (including
From To From To Width free board
& IL
0.15)

33.900 34.165 0.265 130.992 130.454 0.203 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
130.012
34+165
34.165 34.457 0.292 130.454 130.707 -0.087 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
34+457
34.457 34.923 0.466 130.707 130.418 0.062 Lined Drain 0.700 0.65 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
130.280
34+923
34.923 35.000 0.077 130.418 130.870 -0.587 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal in existing
133.8 41.380 41.627 0.247 134.283 134.439 -0.063 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
earthen drain
Outfal to the culvert
134.49
41+627
41.627 41.850 0.223 134.439 134.911 -0.212 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal in existing
138.1 47.875 48.000 0.125 138.583 138.597 -0.011 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
earthen drain
48.000 48.185 0.185 138.597 138.412 0.100 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

Chainage Bed level of drain Designed

Length Av. Slope Type of
CD Structure Depth
Typical (Typical) Drain Check
Direction (including
From To From To Width free board
& IL
0.15)
Outfal to the culvert
MNBR
48+185
Outfal to the culvert
141.572
50+490
50.490 51.100 0.610 141.600 142.747 -0.188 Lined Drain 0.700 0.80 adequate

51.100 51.522 0.422 142.747 143.235 -0.116 Lined Drain 0.700 0.60 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
142.5
51+522
51.522 51.767 0.245 143.235 143.015 0.090 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
141.45
51+767
51.767 51.867 0.100 143.015 142.663 0.352 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate
Outfal to the culvert
142.12
51+867
51.867 52.300 0.433 142.663 143.931 -0.293 Lined Drain 0.700 0.50 adequate

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

10.1C - Hamirpur-Rath Road

Aprx. Road Lentgh 76.5 Km
10.1C-1 - : Computation of Rainfall Intensity

Computation of Rainfall Intensity for plain area

Average distance between Cross- (Nos. of CDs=) = 125

Depending on Drainage Structures= = 612.00 m

= 612 m say

Average distance between ridge to Cross-

Drainage Structures (L) = 306.00 m

Lateral Distance (B) up to drain(road side)= = 30 m

Time of Concentration (tc)= (L/1+B/2)/3600 = 0.09 hr

25Years 1 (T) hourly rainfall (F) in mm = 71 mm

(25 years 24 hourly rainfall taken from CWC report for Betwa sub zone-1c)

Ic = Intensity of Rainfall by SP: 13 formula,

Ic=(F/T)*((T+1)/(tc+1))= = 13.0 cm/hr

Ic = Intensity of Rainfall by CWC Report (sub-zone 1c),

Convertion ratio for tc hour rainfall = 0.10

tc hour rainfall in cm = = 0.7 cm

Ic rainfall intensity in cm/hr= = 8.0 cm/hr

Adopted Design Intensity of Rainfall = 11 cm/hr

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

10.1C-2 - Calculation of Design Discharge for Drain in Plain area

TCS2A,2B

Average distance between cross- drainage structures (L)

(from inventory of bridge and culvert) = 306.000

Av. Carriageway Width = 7

Paved Shoulder Width = 1.5

Earthen Shoulder Width = 0

Varied Width = 3

Drain width = 1

Space for Services = 0

Beyond ROW = 10

Width of contributing area (B) from typical c/s of road=

(Drain width+Space for services+varied width+ 0.5CW+SW+Rest ROW) = 19 m

Catchment area (A)=L*B= = 5814.00 sq. m

0.58 Ha

Rainfall Intensity(Ic) as per computation = 11 cm/hr

Spread factor (f) (from IRC:SP-13 = 1

Permeability Coefficient (P) from IRC: SP-42 = = 0.6

Design discharge (Qd) in Av. L ( m) = 0.0278 fPAIc

(By Rational method as per IRC:SP-42)= = 0.104 m3/sec

0.34 Cumecs

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

10.1C-3 - Calculation of Design Discharge for Drain in Plain area

TCS4A,4B

Average distance between cross- drainage structures (L)

(from inventory of bridge and culvert) = 306.000

Av. Carriageway Width = 7

Paved Shoulder Width = 2.5

Earthen Shoulder Width = 0

Varied Width = 3

Drain width = 1

Space for Services = 0

Beyond ROW = 10

Width of contributing area (B) from typical c/s of road= = 20 m

(Drain width+Space for services+varied width+ 0.5CW+SW+Rest ROW) = 6120.00 sq. m

0.61 Ha

Rainfall Intensity(Ic) as per computation = 11 cm/hr

Spread factor (f) (from IRC:SP-13 = 1

Permeability Coefficient (P) from IRC: SP-42 = = 0.7

Design discharge (Qd) in Av. L ( m) = 0.0278 fPAIc

(By Rational method as per IRC:SP-42)= = 0.116 m3/sec

0.38 Cumecs

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 12

Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program Appendix - 10.1

10.1C-4 - Calculation of Design Discharge for Drain in Plain area

TCS3

(from inventory of bridge and culvert) = 306.000

Av. Carriageway Width = 7
Paved Shoulder Width = 1.5
Earthen Shoulder Width = 1
Varied Width = 5
Drain width = 1
Beyond ROW = 20
Space for Services = 5
Width of contributing area (B) from typical c/s of road= = 37 m
Catchment area (A)=L*B= = 11322.00 sq. m
1.13 Ha

Rainfall Intensity(Ic) as per computation = 11 cm/hr

Spread factor (f) (from IRC:SP-13 = 1
Permeability Coefficient (P) from IRC: SP-42 = = 0.4

Design discharge (Qd) in Av. L ( m) = 0.0278 fPAIc

(By Rational method as per IRC:SP-42)= = 0.140 m3/sec
0.46 Cumecs

Egis India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 12

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

11 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY MEASURES

To enhance the safety of road users adequate provisions for roadway width, geometric elements
and junction improvements, have been proposed. In addition, due consideration has been given
to the provisions contained in IRC: SP 44-1994, “Highway Safety Code”. Various measures have
also been proposed to enhance traffic control.

11.1 Road Signs

Adequate road signs have been proposed for the project road in order to provide advance
information to guide, regulate / control traffic flow and ensure safe operations. Road signs will
either be ground mounted or displayed as overhead gantry signs. The signs will be of retro-
reflective sheeting of encapsulated type as per the MoRT&H specifications for Road and Bridge
Works, 2001. Detailed drawings will be prepared for major intersections showing position and
type of road sign. Road signs are to be installed at 2.0 m from the extreme edge of carriageway
to ensure a safe clear zone and bottom edge of the lowest sign is not less than 1.5 m above the
crown of the pavement. Ideally, In kerbed sections it is to be installed 60 cm away from the edge
of the kerb and bottom edge of the lowest sign is not be less than 2.0 m above the kerb.

Generally all signs are to be placed on the left side of the project road except at few locations
where duplicate signs are to be placed on right side as well as signs related to traffic calming
measures.

There are three categories of signs; Cautionary, mandatory and informatory signs. These would
be provided depending on the situation and function they perform in accordance with the IRC:
67-2001 guidelines for Road Signs. The sign boards would be in accordance with specification of
clause 801-3 of MORTH for high insensible sheeting. Overhead signs are proposed in accordance
with IRC: 67 -2001.

11.2 Road Markings

Road markings are provided to guide and assist the road users to negotiate conflict points and to
be positioned at precisely the right location to make his maneuvers in the safest and quickest way
so that the time vehicle’s/ user’s exposure to risk is minimized.

The markings serve as psychological barriers and signify the delineation of traffic paths and their
lateral clearance from traffic hazards for safe movement of traffic. Road markings are therefore
essential to ensure smooth and orderly flow of traffic and to promote road safety.

Pavement markings on the project road, location and type of marking lines, material and colour
have been proposed as per IRC: 35, “Code of Practice for Road Marking” with centre-line,
shyness and edge strip. The road markings would be carefully planned on carriageways,
intersections, bridge locations and built-up sections.

The pavement marking will be in thermo-plastic paint with glass beads as per the MORT&H
specification for Road and Bridge Works, 2001. Detailed instruction has been provided in the

Page 11-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

drawings for major and minor intersections showing lane markings, pedestrian crossings,
directional arrows etc.

11.3 Kilometre Stones

The det ails of kilometre and 5th Km stones would be in accordance with IRC: 8 guidelines. These
are to be made of precast M-20 grade reinforced cement concrete, and lettering / numbering as
per the respective IRC codes. Kilometre stones would be located on the left-hand side of the road
as one proceeds from the station from which the Kilometre count starts. Kilometre stones would
be fixed at right angles to the centre line of the carriageway.

11.3.1 200m Stones and Boundary Stones

The details of 200m stones and boundary stones would conform to IRC: 26 and IRC: 25. 200m
stones would be located on the same side of the road as the kilometer stones. The inscription on
the stones would be the numerals 2, 4, 6 and 8 marked in an ascending order in the direction of
increasing kilometer age away from the starting station. The numerals would be 80mm high. The
color of the numerals would be black on a white background.

Boundary stones at 100 m interval staggered on each side and kilometer stone have been
proposed as per the provision of IRC: 25-1967. In addition these would be fixed at all angular
points of the boundary. Where the boundary is on a curve or the land is of significant value and
likely to be encroached upon, the boundary stones, as required, would be installed at closer
intervals.

11.4 Delineators and Object Markers

Roadway delineators are intended to mark the edges of the roadway so as to guide drivers on the
alignment ahead. Object markers are used to indicate hazards and obstructions within the
vehicle flow path, for example, traffic islands close to the intersections.

Delineators and object markers would be provided in accordance with the provisions of IRC: 79.
They are basically driving aids and would not be regarded as substitutes for warning signs, road
markings or barriers. They are not provided at locations where Chevron sign boards are provided

Delineators provide visual assistance to drivers about the alignment of road ahead, particularly at
right side. Three types of delineators have been proposed for the project roads as per the
provision contained in IRC: 79 ’Recommended Practice for Road Delineators’, namely:

Roadway indicators with rectangular retro-reflectorised chevron markers (80mm x

100mm) for all curves of radius 1000m or less, horizontal curves with deflection angle >
30˚ on plain / rolling terrain. Delineator plastic post of 1m long and 10 cm square section
painted alternatively black and white in 15cm wide strips. Delineator posts are to be
erected at the edge of the roadway. The overall line of posts should be parallel to centre
line of the road. These are to be placed at outer and inner side of curves with the spacing
defined in IRC: 79 ’Recommended Practice for Road Delineators’.
Striped retro-reflectorised hazard markers (30 cm x 90 cm) consisting of alternative black
and yellow stripes sloping downwards at an angle of 45 degree towards the side of
obstruction. These are to be erected immediately ahead of bridge railing/ crash barrier.
The inside edge of markers is to be in line with the inner edge of the obstruction.

Page 11-2| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Cluster of red reflectors arranged on triangular panel as object markers provided at the
heads of medians and directional islands. The object markers are to be setback by 50 cm
from the face of the kerb. Height of the post will be 50 cm. Size of equilateral triangular
panel will be 30 cm and there will be four red reflectors of 75 mm diameter. Triangular
panel and post will be painted white.

11.5 Guard Post

Guard posts are proposed on the location where embankment height is in between 2.0 and 3.0m.
The spacing of guard post would be 5.0m c/c in these areas. Typical Guard post consists of
precast (M20) post of size 200mm x 200mm and a height of 600mm above ground level. They
are encased in M15 cement concrete for a depth of 450mm below ground level. Guard posts are
painted with alternate black and white reflective paint of 150mm wide bands.

11.6 Road Reflective Pavement Marker

The road reflective pavement markers (RRPM) i.e. road studs are proposed to improve the
visibility in night time and wet weather conditions.

11.7 Crash Barriers

Metal W Beam Crash Barrier is proposed at high embankment sections with embankment height
more than or equal to 3.0m, and at major bridge approaches. Metal beam rail would be W-profile
corrugated sheet steel beams complying with the following mechanical properties.

i. Tensile strength, Min = 483 MPA

ii. Elongation in 2 inches, Min = 12%
iii. Yield, Min = 345 MPA

The beam elements would have nominal width of 483mm. Post consists of formed channel of size
150 x 75 x 5, 785mm long and space consists of formed channel of size 150 x 75 x 5, 330 mm
long. All members of the system would be hot dipped galvanised to have a minimum counting of
550g/sqm, each face in compliance to relevant MORTH Specification (Cl. 810). The spacing of
posts would be 2.0m c/c. Crash barrier system absorbs impact of vehicle and laterally restrains a
vehicle from veering off. This would ensure minimum damage to the vehicle and passengers.

Besides that, metallic W beam crash barriers are proposed at safety hazard locations/sections like
ponds and sharp curves of radius less than 100m (that cannot be improved because of site
constraints)

RCC crash barriers are proposed on both sides of major bridges, minor bridges, culverts and
earth retained structures. The locations are given in tables below.

Table 11.1: Curve Section

Chainage Radius Length of Crash
Curve No Chainage To Side
From (m) Barrier (m)
2 2+577 2+673 40 96 RHS
82 55+034 55+200 200 166 LHS
86 57+946 58+068 300 122 RHS
94 61+433 61+594 200 161 RHS

Page 11-3| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 11.2: For Embankment Higher Greater than 3m

Chainage From Chainage To Length (m)
Left
2+125 2+515 390
4+665 4+735 70
4+805 4+845 40
4+865 4+915 50
59+225 59+620 395
59+890 60+965 1075
61+825 61+855 30
Total 2050
Right
2+095 2+535 440
2+585 2+665 80
2+895 3+015 120
3+065 3+285 220
4+565 4+605 40
4+675 4+715 40
4+755 4+905 150
9+445 9+495 50
9+545 9+585 40
10+925 10+945 20
12+405 12+425 20
13+235 13+275 40
13+295 13+315 20
13+335 13+365 30
17+035 17+105 70
58+625 58+645 20
59+225 59+620 395
59+890 60+965 1075
64+355 64+385 30
Total 2900

Table 11.3: At Existing Bridge Approaches with Narrow Width

Length(m)
Design Location Side
1st approach 1st approach
41+126 30 30 Both
43+356 30 30
45+900 30 30
48+185 30 30
57+930 30 30
59+760 30 30
Total 180 180

Table 11.4: At Chanduli Tir Village

Chainage From Chainage To Length (m) Side
3+380 3+680 300 Both Side

Page 11-4| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

Table 11.5: At Pond Locations

Chainage From Chainage To Length (m) Side
5+350 5+450 100 LHS
9+790 9+840 50 LHS
19+720 19+780 60 RHS
20+330 20+370 40 RHS
20+705 20+755 50 LHS
34+466 34+500 34 LHS
Total 334

Table 11.6: At Gantry location

Location Length (m) Side

2+100 RHS
49+900 10 LHS
53+200 10 RHS
Total 20

Page 11-5| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

12 PROJECT FACILITIES AND TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES

12.1 Project Facilities

For efficient functioning and operation of road, user facilities such as bus bays, bus shelters and
truck laybyes and traffic calming measures through built-up and activity areas are required to be
paid adequate attention.

12.1.1 Bus-bays and Bus Shelters

The project road is passing through a number of villages/towns. The bus-bays and bus shelters
are proposed at these locations to provide user facilities and improve safety of other users
negotiating bus stop areas. Pedestrian crossing facility is also an integral part of bus stops to
warn vehicle users and provide guided path for pedestrian to cross the highwayProposed bus-
bays and bus shelters locations are given below in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1: Locations for Bus bay / Bus shelter

Location of Bus- Bay
Existing Bus
S. No. Existing Proposed Name of the Village Shelter Retained
Chainage (m) Chainage (m) with Repair

1 4+035 4+000 Chanduli

2 9+925 9+900 Pothiya
3 12+545 12+525 Right
4 13+825 13+800 Ajnedi Sachivalya Gramin Left
5 16+775 16+750 Lalpura Village Left
6 20+320 20+300 Swasa Buzurg Right
7 26+455 26+450 Chaani Village
8 29+890 29+900 Abhinav Pragya College
9 31+080 31+100 Abhinav Pragya College Left
10 34+325 34+350 Biwar Village
11 41+360 41+400 Chilli Village Right
12 43+780 43+820 Left and Right
13 46+205 46+250 Damupur Village
14 48+350 48+450 Baswari Village
15 50+280 50+400 Muskara Village
16 58+270 58+772 Bihuni Village Left
17 62+280 62+780 Right
18 70+630 71+200 Left
19 74+100 74+730 Rath

12.2 Truck Lay-Byes

Truck laybyes primarily provide temporary resting place for the tired truck drivers along the
highway. These will be segregated from the usual travel way of traffic on the highway. These are
generally provided at areas/sections of freight activity and generally at 30km intervals.

Page 12-1| Rev: R4

 Uttar Pradesh Core Road Network Development Program
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
Volume-II: Design Report
Hamirpur – Rath Road (SH-42)

On the project road, the initial 20km of road section is witnessing higher activity of sand carrying
trucks. Therefore, truck lay-byes are provided in this section and another is provided in the rest
of the section. The proposed locations for truck lay-bye are given below in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2: Truck Lay-byes

Location of Truck- Lay -Bye Name of the Village
S. No.
Existing Chainage Proposed Chainage Side
1 8+230 8+200 LHS -
2 12+920 12+900 RHS -
3 18+725 18+700 LHS -
4 52+461 52+970 LHS Muskara

12.3 Traffic Calming Measures

Traffic calming measures have the advantage of:

- Reduce and control vehicle speeds to a level commensurate with the activities taking
place along the road
- Will encourage drivers to adopt a uniform speed without excessive acceleration and
declaration
- Influence driver behaviour towards non-motorised users

Traffic calming measures, when proposed on roads passing through urban areas/ environment,
whilst encouraging lower speed, will have reduced rate of accidents involving non-motorised
users.

As an initiative on this project, based on International practices, primarily the Gateway/ Entry
Points concept is used as the measure. This can be achieved by road markings, build outs,
coloured surfacing and/ or signs indicating that the driver is entering an area where road
conditions change, for example entering an urban area or a change of speed limit.

Page 12-2| Rev: R4