FEASIBILITY REPORT

FOR

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

OF CAPACITY – 420 KLD

SYS.N Consultants
 1) INTRODUCTION.
M/s. Jaganmayi Infra Solutions Private Limited which is setting up a IT Office Building at Sy Nos. 27/1, 27/2, 28/1, 28/2,
28/3, 28/4, 28/5, 29/1, 29/2, 30/8(P), 32/21(P), 32/22(P), 32/27(P), 32/29(P), 33/1(P), 33/2(P), Bellandur Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, with a view to conserve fresh water resources and adopt re cycle and re-
use measures, they propose to set up a water pollution control and re-use system for the wastewater generated from entire
development and also proposed to harvest and recharge ground water as storm water management.
This report details the following from the proposed facility. Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Domestic Effluents.
2) QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WASTEWATERS.
Population forecasting: 9386(as per NBC) Considering 45 Liter per capita per
day (as per NBC) Total water required: 9386 X 45 = 422 cum /day
Considering 90% of the water consumption as wastewater
Quantity of wastewater flow = 380 cum/day
Treatment plant for treating sewage in the development has been proposed for a capacity of 420 cum/day.

Method Adopted for the design

The sewage Treatment Plant is designed for SBR Technology (Sequencing Batch Reactor) which will operate up to a
maximum of 3 cycles per reactor in 24 hours period. The plant is designed for two reactor system which treats 420 Kilo
liters per day.
The tertiary treatment Filtration by Pressure Sand Filter and Activated Carbon Filter is designed for full plant capacity.
Characterization:
The general characteristic of sewage is considered as shown in the table below. General characteristics:
pH : 7 – 10
BOD : 250 – 350 mg/ltr.
COD : 400 – 500 mg/ltr.
SS : 150 - 250 mg/ltr.

The anticipated final water quality:

pH : 6–9
BOD : < 10 mg/L.
COD : < 60 mg/L.
SS : < 30 mg /L.
TSS : < 10 mg/L.
Residual Chlorine : > 1.0 mg/L
E.Coli : Nil
Mode of Treatment:
It is proposed to setup a treatment plant for treating the domestic waste, kitchen waste adopting Sequencing Batch reactor
using diffused aeration. The other modes of treatment considered before arriving at activated sludge process are FAB
(Fluidized Aerobic Bio Reactor), ASP (Activated Sludge Process) etc. The advantages and disadvantages of the each scheme,
initial investment and maintenance cost etc. were compared and finally arrived at providing a STP using SBR – Sequencing
Batch Reactor.
The units proposed for the proposed STP with sequencing Batch Reactor are:
SL. Name of the Unit Purpose
No.
1. Bar Screen Chamber For removing unwanted floating materials.
2. Pre- Aeration Tank To even out the flow variations, and continuous
uniform mixing operations with course bubble.
3. Sequencing Batch Activated Sludge Process for developing the bacterial culture, which
Reactor stabilizes the waste using submerged aerators. The SBR will also act as
Secondary clarifier during the settle process and as a pre-filtration tank
during the decant phase. During the decant phase only the supernatant is
removed from the reactor and taken up for tertiary treatment.
4. Pressure Sand Filter To filter out suspended solids if any in the treated water.
5. Activated Carbon To remove color and Odor if any in the filtered water.
Filter
6. Chlorinator To disinfect the treated water to make it safe to come in contact with
humans so that the treated water can be used for gardening / allied uses.

SYS.N Consultants
 420 KLD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

1. Bar Screen Chamber:

Provide a chamber to suit sewer gradient to accommodate an inclined bar screen with opening less than 10 mm. Provide a
suitable bar screen which will remove the large particles in the sewage water.
2. Equalization Tank:
The flow from the bar screen chamber is let into the Equalization Tank. This tank is provided to even out the flow variation,
and to provide a continuous feed into the secondary biological treatment units.
Design flow = 4, 20,000Lt/day Average flow = 20 Hours
Provide Equalization Tank with a HRT of 8 Hours (holding capacity) = 173 m3 Hence required volume of the tank =
173 m3
Provide a tank of 1,73,000L Capacity.
3. Sequencing Batch Reactor:

Flow = 420 KLD.

BOD after treatment <10 mg/L
Assumption:
Influent BOD = 350 mg/L
F/M ratio = 0.10
Total BOD load = 147 kg/day
No of Reactors = 2 No
No of Cycles per reactor = 3 Nos
Decant Fraction of Aeration Tank = 50%
Fill Volume per Batch = 107 Cumec
Volume of reactor = 214 Cumec
Hence provide each SBR tank of capacity 2,14,000 L capacity. Consider 20% for Pre aeration tank in total volume
of SBR.
The Pre-aeration tank volume should be 40 m3 and Main Aeration Tank volume should be 174 m3.
4. Calculation of Air Volume

"BOD5 after treatment <10 mg/L

"BOD5 Loading = 350mg/L
"Total BOD5 load = 420 x 1000 x 350kg/day
1000000
"Total BOD5 load = 147 kg/day
BOD5 load in Kg/day in the aeration tank = 147 Kg
O2 required in Kg/day = 294 kg/day (2 kgs of
Oxygen is required for every Kg of BOD5 to beremoved)
% of Oxygen in air = 0.21
Density of air = 1.2
No of Hours of oxygenation = 12 Hrs
Diffuser Efficiency = 20%
Therefore air requirement for Aeration tank = 522cum / Hr
Air requirement for EQT, SHT and TWT = 174cum / Hr
Total Air Requirement = 696cum / Hr @ 0.4 kg/cm2

5. Pressure Sand Filter:

Flow = 4, 20,000Lt/day
Loading rate = 12 Cumec/Sqm./Hr
Quantity = 1 No
Considering the operation of 16 hours of filter
Provide a Pressure Sand Filter of 1600mm Dia with sand as media over layer, under drainpipe, laterals face piping etc.,

6. Activated Carbon Filter:

Flow = 4,20,000 liter/day
Loading rate = 12 Cumec/Sqm/Hr.
Quantity = 1 No
Considering the operation of 16 hours of filter
Provide an Activated Carbon Filter of 1600mm Dia with activated carbon filter media with under drainpipe, lateral face
piping.

SYS.N Consultants
 7. Filter press:

Flow = 4, 20,000 liter/day

Plate Sizes = 420mm x 420mm
Quantity = 1 No
Duty: To separate the Sludge from Water and forming a cake of sludge for easy handling.
Chlorination:
The filtered water is further chlorinated through an online automatic chlorination system with electronic dosing pump for
disinfection. Provide 1 nos. 100 Lts capacity automatic Chlorinator with electronic metering pump to ensure the residual
chlorine level to be less than 2 PPM for disinfection so that it will not affect the plantations. The Chlorinator shall be coupled
with the filter outlet.
Pumps:
A. Provide 1 No Sludge transfer Pump
Capacity : 10 KLH/HR @ 10 m head.
Type : Centrifugal Self Priming Pumps. Solid handling
size : Up to 25 mm
Duty: To pump the sludge from the SBR tank to the Sludge Holding Tank.
B. Provide 2 Nos Filter feed Pumps
Capacity : 30 KLH @ 35 m head
Type : Centrifugal Self Priming Pumps. Solid handling
size : Up to 25 mm
Duty: To pump the effluent from the Decant Tank passes through the Pressure Sand Filter and Activated Carbon Filter to
Treated Water Tank.
C. Provide 2 Nos Raw Sewage Pumps
Capacity : 30 KLH @ 12 m head
Type : Centrifugal Self Priming Pumps. Solid handling
size : Up to 25 mm
Duty: To pump the Raw Sewage from Equalization tank to SBR tank.
D. Provide 1 No Filter Press Screw Pump
Capacity : 1 KLH @ 60 m head
Type : Screw Pump
Duty: To feed the sludge through Filter Press.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PROPOSED

SL NO ITEM Qty
1 Bar Screen 1 No.
2 Coarse Bubble Diffusers 32 Nos
3 Fine Pore Diffusers 54 Nos
4 Air Blowers 2 Nos.
5 Sludge Transfer pump 1 No.
6 Filter Feed Pump 2 Nos.
7 Raw Sewage Pump 2 Nos.
8 Pressure Sand Filter 1 No.
9 Activated carbon filter 1 No.
10 Chlorinator 1 No.
11 Decant Valve 1 No.
12 Filter Press 1 No.
13 Screw Pump 1 No.

Conclusions:
The STP would be able to treat the sewage to the standards prescribed by the KSPCB with treated BOD levels less than 10
mg/lit. The treated water is safe to come in contact as the chlorination is done to kill the bacteria disinfection. The treated
water will be consumed in irrigation, flushing toilets as well as washing pavements and driveways.

SYS.N Consultants
 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

FOR

“PROPOSED IT OFFICE BUILDING”

AT
SY NOS. 27/1, 27/2, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/4,
28/5, 29/1, 29/2, 30/8(P), 32/21(P), 32/22(P),
32/27(P), 32/29(P), 33/1(P), 33/2(P),
BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU.

PROMOTER:
M/S. JAGANMAYI INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE
LIMITED.,
BENGALURU.
G(B)11823- GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
The proposed IT Office Building at Bellandur, Varthur, Bangalore
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
M/s. Jaganmayi Infra Solutions Private Limited, propose to construct IT Office
Building Sy Nos. 27/1, 27/2, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/4, 28/5, 29/1, 29/2, 30/8(P),
32/21(P), 32/22(P), 32/27(P), 32/29(P), 33/1(P), 33/2(P), Bellandur Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. M/s Sterling Engineering
Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd are the Structural Consultants for the project. The site
is fairly level.

The lower basement floor level for both the blocks will be 9m below existing ground
level, as per the building section drawings issued by the client.
For obtaining the required parameters for the design of the foundations of the
proposed structure, geotechnical investigations have been undertaken at the site, as
per scope of investigation stipulated by the client, which consisted of 8 boreholes
down to 20m depth in soil/rock strata. Notably, refusal strata was encountered at
depths varying from 10.7m to 15.3m below existing ground level.
The borehole investigation indicate presence of top layer of filled-up soil extending
down to depths 1.3m and 1.1m below existing ground level, at the location of
boreholes BH1 and BH2, respectively. The fill contains soil, brickbats, debris, etc.
The fill is loose and unconsolidated. Filled-up soil was not encountered in the
remaining boreholes. The virgin subsoil encountered at the site is generally mixed
type of soil with varying percentages of sand (i.e. non-cohesive or cohesionless), silt
and clay (i.e. cohesive) fractions, underlain by clayey silty sand, to silty sand with
clay and gravel. The colour of the subsoil varies from reddish brown to red with
yellow at shallow depths, to yellow with red and grey to yellow with white at larger
depths.Boreholes BH1, BH4, BH7 and BH8 were progressed beyond refusal strata,
with a Mechanical Drill, using NX Size, TC & Diamond Drill Bits. The strata
encountered below refusal strata is highly disintegrated rock. The core recovery in
the highly disintegrated rock is 0%. Hard rock was not encountered in any of the
boreholes.

G(B)11823
The observed N-values (N : 12-36) indicate that the virgin subsoil encountered at the
site is medium dense, extending down to about 6 to 7m depth below existing ground
level. Thereafter, the N-values (N : 37-96) indicate that the subsoil is dense to very
dense.
The ground water table was encountered at an average depth of 6m below existing
ground level, at the time of investigation carried out in the month of June, 2018.
Based on subsoil characteristics as determined from the geotechnical
investigations, Shallow Foundations -Raft Foundations are recommended at a
minimum depth of 1m below lower basement floor level.
The recommendations are given in Para No.8.0. of this report.

G(B)11823
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 In order to determine relevant data regarding the subsoil stratigraphy at site
,that are required for design of foundations of the proposed IT Office
Building, being constructed at Bellandur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru, detailed
geotechnical investigations comprising of field and laboratory investigations
were carried out. This report presents a summary of the results of the
geotechnical investigations work carried out, and includes recommendations
for the design of foundations of the proposed IT Office Buildings.
1.2 M/s Sterling Engineering Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd, 1307, Brigade
Towers, 135, Brigade Road, Bengaluru 560001, are the Structural
Consultants for the project.
2.0 OBJECT AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS
2.1 Object of Investigations
2.1.1 For designing the foundation system of the proposed Multistoried
Buildings, the following data are required:
a) Type of foundation system
b) Depth below the ground level at which the foundation system is to be laid
c) Allowable bearing pressure at the foundation levels.
2.1.2 To determine the above factors, the following information would be required:
a) The subsoil / rock profile indicating thickness of the various soil/rock
strata, to a depth within the influence zone below the foundations
b) Engineering properties of the soil / rock strata at various levels
c) Physical characteristics of the soil / rock strata
d) Variation of strength of soil / rock strata with depth.

G(B)11823

3
2.1.3 For evaluating the above parameters, field investigations and laboratory
investigations on the soil / rock samples collected during the field investigations,
have been carried out.
2.2 The results from these investigations have been analysed to provide the
recommendations for the design of foundations of the proposed structure.
2.3 Scope
2.3.1 Boreholes
a) Progressing 8 Nos. of boreholes to 20m depth, or refusal strata, whichever
is encountered earlier
b) Drilling beyond refusal strata, if refusal strata is encountered within 20m
depth, collecting rock cores wherever possible, and recording the core
recovery
c) Conducting Standard Penetration Tests at various depths in the bore holes
d) Collecting disturbed and undisturbed soil samples from various depths of the
bore holes, for conducting relevant laboratory tests
e) Observing level of ground water table, if encountered.
2.3.2 Laboratory Tests
a) Conducting relevant laboratory tests on the disturbed and undisturbed soil
and rock samples, collected from the boreholes.
2.3.3 Report
a) Preparing a detailed report, giving soil/ rock profiles, results of field
investigations and laboratory tests, recommendations regarding type and
depth of foundations, and allowable bearing pressure on them, besides
presenting other information of special significance, which are likely to
have an influence on the design and construction of foundations of the
proposed Multistoried Buildings.
3.0 PROJECT DETAILS
3.1 Site Location
3.1.1 The site for the proposed IT Office Building is located Sy Nos. 27/1, 27/2, 28/1,
28/2, 28/3, 28/4, 28/5, 29/1, 29/2, 30/8(P), 32/21(P), 32/22(P), 32/27(P),
32/29(P), 33/1(P), 33/2(P), Bellandur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, Bengaluru.
3.2 Site Layout and Topography
3.2.1 A schematic site plan showing the dimensions and other details of the site is
enclosed in this report (fig. 1).
3.2.2 The site is fairly level.

G(B)11823

4
3.2.3 The lower basement floor level for both the blocks will be 9m below existing
ground level, as per the building section drawings issued by the client.
3.3 Seismic Zone
The site for the proposed IT Office Building is located at Bellandur, Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru., which comes under Seismic Zone II, as per IS 1893 (Part1) - 2002.
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
4.1 Preliminary Details
Field investigations had been carried out in the months of May and June, 2018.
The weather was clear and sunny, at the time of investigations.
4.2 Boreholes
4.2.1 The boreholes were progressed using wash boring technique. The boreholes have
been designated as BH1 to BH8.
4.2.2 The scope of investigation envisaged progressing the boreholes to 20m depth.
Notably, refusal strata was encountered at depths less than 20m in all the
boreholes.
4.2.3 Boreholes BH1, BH4, BH7 and BH8 were further progressed beyond refusal strata
using NX size TC/ diamond drill bits. The strata encountered below refusal is
highly disintegrated rock and hence rock cores could not be collected .
4.2.4 The depth at which refusal strata is encountered and the termination depth of
each borehole, are given below:

G(B)11823

5
 Location Borehole Depth(m) of Refusal Termination Depth
No Strata Below Existing (m)Below Existing
Ground Level Ground Level
BH1 13.6 16.6
Block 2
BH2 12.2 12.2
BH3 10.7 10.7

Block 1 BH4 13.6 16.6

BH5 12.3 12.3
BH6 12.4 12.4
BH7 15.3 18.3
BH8 12.2 15.2

4.2.5 In the soil strata, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) had been conducted in the boreholes,
at suitable intervals. Disturbed soil samples recovered from split spoon sampler had been
retained for identification purposes. The disturbed soil samples were collected in
polythene bags and labeled.
4.2.6 Standard penetration tests were also were also conducted in the disintegrated rock
encountered below refusal strata. Blow Counts for small depths of penetration of the SPT
Sampler were recorded with a view to determine the compactness of the disintegrated rock
below refusal strata.
4.2.7 Undisturbed soil samples were recovered from various level of the boreholes, using thin
walled shelby tubes.
4.2.8 The samples thus recovered were transported to the laboratory for testing purposes.
4.3 Ground Water Table
4.3.1 The depth of ground water table encountered at each borehole location, is given below:

Borehole Depth (m) of Ground Water Table

No below Existing Ground Level
BH1 6
BH2 5.5
BH3 6.5

G(B)11823

6
 Borehole Depth (m) of Ground Water Table
No below Existing Ground Level
BH4 5.5
BH5 6.2
BH6 5.9
BH7 6.5
BH8 6.1

4.3.2 The water table can be expected to rise further during the rainy seasons. The observations
were carried out in the month of June, 2018.
5.0 LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
5.1 Tests on soil and rock samples from Boreholes
5.1.1 The soil and rock samples that were collected, had been brought to the laboratory and
subjected to various tests to determine the following properties :
5.1.2 Soil Samples
a) Type of soil and its gradation
b) Consistency limits
c) Natural Bulk Density & Water Content
d) Strength parameters like cohesion, angle of shearing resistance
e) Settlement Characteristics
f) Specific Gravity
g) Swelling Potential
h) Deleterious Material.
5.1.3 Rock Samples
a) Unit Weight
b) Unconfined Compressive Strength and Water Absorption.
5.1.4 In order to determine the above properties, the following tests have been conducted:
a) Sieve analysis on coarse grained soil fraction
b) Hydrometer analysis on fine grained soil fraction
c) Atterberg Limits namely Liquid and Plastic Limits

G(B)11823

7
 d) Natural Density and Water Content
e) Triaxial Compression Tests
f) Specific Gravity Tests
g) Unconfined Compression Tests
h) Consolidation Tests
i) Permeability Tests
j) Chemical Analysis of Soil and Water Samples.
5.1.5 Rock Samples
As highly disintegrated rock was encountered below refusal, rock cores could not be
collected, and hence laboratory tests on rock samples were not conducted.
5.2 Chemical Analysis
The water/ soil samples collected from the boreholes had been tested to determine the pH-
value and the presence of salts harmful to reinforced cement concrete construction namely
Chloride and Sulphate contents.
6.0 RESULTS & ANALYSIS
6.1 Presentation of Results
6.1.1 The results of the borehole investigations have been presented in the form of soil profile
tables and rock profile tables 1 to 8, and in compiled soil/rock profile fig.2.
6.1.2 The soil profile tables include the following:
a) Standard Penetration Test values ( N-values) at various depths
b) Description identifying the type of soil and rock
c) Grain size analysis indicating composition of subsoil
d) Atterberg limits
e) Natural density and water content
f) Triaxial compression tests.
6.2 Analysis of Soil and Rock Profile
6.2.1 A perusal of the data presented in the soil /rock profile tables 1 to 8, and in compiled
soil/rock profile fig.2, indicates that the substrata mainly consists of the following four
strata in the boreholes:
a) Stratum - I : Filled-up soil. The fill contains brickbats, debris etc.

G(B)11823

8
 b) Stratum - II : Clayey silty sand to silty clayey sand with gravel. The
colour of the strata varies from reddish brown to red
with yellow.
c) Stratum - III : Clayey silty sand to silty clayey sand with gravel. The
colour of the strata varies from yellow with red to grey
with yellow.
d) Stratum - IV : Clayey silty sand, to silty sand with clay and gravel.
The colour of the strata varies from yellow with red and
grey to yellow with white.
e) Stratum - V : Highly disintegrated rock. The colour of the rock is
greyish white, and the type of the rock is granitic
gneiss.
6.2.2 The thickness of the four strata in the boreholes are as follows :

Borehole Strata (depth in m : from : to-)

No Stratum -I Stratum-II Stratum-III Stratum -IV Stratum-V
BH1 0.0 - 1.3 1.3 - 5.0 5.0 - 8.5 8.5 - 13.6 13.6 - 16.6
BH2 0.0 - 1.1 1.1 - 5.3 5.3 - 9.2 9.2 -12.2 -
BH3 - 0.0 - 2.1 2.1 - 7.0 7.0 - 10.7 -
BH4 - 0.0 - 1.9 1.9 - 8.0 8.0 - 13.6 13.6 - 1.6
BH5 - 0.0 - 2.4 2.4 - 8.6 8.6 - 12.3 -
BH6 - 0.0 - 3.3 3.3 - 8.7 8.7 - 12.4 -
BH7 - 0.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 8.6 8.6 - 15.3 15.3 - 18.3
BH8 - 0.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 12.2 12.2 - 15.2

6.2.3 The above results show that the soil strata consists of the following:
a) Stratum - I consists of filled-up soil encountered at the site, extending down to
depths of 1.3m and 1.1m below existing ground level, at the location of boreholes
BH1 and BH2, respectively. The fill contains soil, brickbats, debris, etc. The fill
is loose and unconsolidated. Filled-up soil was not encountered in the remaining
boreholes.

G(B)11823

9
 b) Stratum - II & Stratum -III consisting of mixed soils, with varying percentages of
sand, silt and clay
c) Stratum -IV consisting of predominately sandy soils with low percentage of silt
and clay.
6.3 Soil Composition
6.3.1 The grain size distributions of the soil samples in the boreholes have been presented in the
form of grain size analysis curves in figs. 3 to 9.
6.3.2 The variations in the grain size distributions in each of the strata in the boreholes(except
filled up soil), are as follows :
a) Stratum- II : Clayey silty sand to silty clayey sand with gravel.

BH. No. Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)
BH1 0 45 - 50 24 - 30 20 - 31
BH2 0-4 47 - 55 24 - 36 13 - 21
BH3 0 44 18 38
BH4 0 39 23 38
BH5 - - - -
BH6 2-6 45 - 47 21 - 31 22 - 26
BH7 0 40 26 34
BH8 0 55 27 18

b) Stratum - III: Clayey silty sand to silty clayey sand with gravel.

BH. No. Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)
BH1 2 55 25 18
BH2 0 51 32 17
BH3 0-6 41 -55 24 - 28 18 - 31
BH4 8 44 - 53 27 - 29 12 - 19
BH5 0-3 41 - 53 23 - 25 22 -33
BH6 0 52 - 61 20 - 21 18 - 28
BH7 7 47 27 19
BH8 0 -2 40 - 45 32 - 38 21 - 22

G(B)11823

10
 c) Stratum - IV : Clayey silty sand, to silty sand with clay and gravel.

BH. No. Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)
BH1 0 38 30 33
BH2 2 55 32 11
BH3 2 65 21 12
BH4 0-2 58 - 67 21 - 24 10 - 18
BH5 4 48 39 9
BH6 - - - -
BH7 0 42 32 26
BH8 8 53 32 7

6.3.3 The above results indicate that :

a) Stratum - II consists of about 40-61% of sand, 20-38% of silt, 12-33% of clay, and
with 0-8% gravel.
b) Stratum - III consists of about 39-55% of sand, 18-36% of silt, 13-38% of clay, and
with 0-6% of gravel.
c) Stratum - IV consists of about 38-67 % of sand, 21-39% of silt, 7-33% of clay, and
with 0 - 8% of gravel.
6.4 Natural Density and Water Content (Refer Table No 1 to 8)
6.4.1 The natural bulk densities, water contents and dry densities in the boreholes vary as
follows :

Borehole Bulk Density Water Content Dry Density

No. (g/cm3) (%) (g/cm3)
BH1 1.93 - 1.98 12.3 - 15.6 1.67 - 1.76
BH2 1.91 - 1.95 10.3 - 15.3 1.66 - 1.77
BH3 1.90 - 2.01 12.3 - 14.6 1.66 - 1.79
BH4 1.90 - 2.00 13.1 - 16.2 1.64 - 1.77
BH5 1.88 - 1.93 13.0 - 16.3 1.62 - 1.71
BH6 1.93 - 2.00 10.2 - 14.3 1.69 - 1.82
BH7 1.87 - 1.99 11.4 - 16.3 1.61 - 1.79
BH8 1.94 - 2.02 12.0 - 15.2 1.69 - 1.80

G(B)11823

11
6.4.2 The Natural Bulk Density of the subsoil ranges between 1.88 g/cm3 and 2.02g/cm3 and
the Natural Water Content varies between 10.2 % and 16.3 %.
6.5 Atterberg Limits(Refer Table No. 1 to 8)
The liquid limit of the subsoil ranges between 27 % to 41 % and the plastic limit varies
from 15 % to 24 %.
6.6 Triaxial Test Results (Refer Table No.1 to 8)
Tri-axial shear tests were conducted on the soil samples, collected from the boreholes.
The angle of shearing resistance (Ø), determined from tri-axial shear tests, ranges
between 17 0 and 37 0. The Cohesion (c) values of the subsoil vary between 0.00 kg/cm2
and 0.40 kg/cm2.
6.7 Standard Penetration Test Values (N-values)
6.7.1 Standard Penetration Tests were conducted at various depths of each bore hole, to
determine N-values. The N-values are also presented in tables 1 to 4, and in compiled
soil/rock profile fig.2.
6.7.2 The observed N-values (N : 12-36) indicate that the virgin subsoil encountered at the site
is medium dense, extending down to about 6 to 7m depth below existing ground level.
Thereafter, the N-values (N : 37-96) indicate that the subsoil is dense to very dense.
6.7.3 Standard Penetration Tests were also conducted in the disintegrated rock below refusal.
High blow counts have been recorded for small depths of penetration of the SPT sampler,
indicating that the disintegrated rock encountered below refusal is very hard and compact
insitu.
6.7.4 The N-values (observed ) have been plotted with respect to depth in figs.10 and 11.
6.8 Specific Gravity Test Results
Specific Gravity tests were conducted on representative soil samples. The results of
Specific Gravity Tests are given below :

Borehole No Depth (m) Specific Gravity (Gs)

BH1 3.5 2.62
BH4 0.9 2.6
BH6 6 2.63
BH8 10.5 2.65

G(B)11823

12
6.9 Unconfined Compression Tests
The results of Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests on undisturbed soil samples are
given below :

Borehole Depth Unconfined Compression

No (m) Strength (qu) kg/cm2
BH1 2.5 1.59
BH3 3.5 1.7
BH5 1.5 1.63
BH8 4.5 1.78

6.10 Consolidation Test Results

The Compression Index of the subsoil was determined from Consolidation Tests. The
results of Consolidation Test are given below :

Borehole Depth Compression Index

No (m) (Cc)
BH1 2.5 0.09
BH5 3.5 0.1
BH7 1.5 0.11
BH8 4.5 0.08

6.11 Free Swell Expansion Tests

6.11.1 Free Swell Expansion Tests were conducted on representative soil samples. The results
of Free Swell Expansion Tests are given below :

Borehole Depth Free Swell Expansion

No. (m) Index (%)
BH2 1.5 17
BH5 3.5 12
BH7 6 9
BH8 10.5 0

6.11.2 The Free Swell Expansion Index of the subsoil ranges from 0% to 17%, indicating that
the subsoil has low to negligible swelling potential and hence, will not undergo significant
volume changes with changes in moisture content.

G(B)11823

13
6.12 Chemical Analysis
6.12.1 The results of the chemical analysis conducted on two water samples and three soil
samples collected from different boreholes, for determining the presence of any harmful
salts which can have adverse effects on construction, are as follows :
a) Water Samples

Borehole pH value Chloride Sulphate

no. Content (ppm) Content (ppm)
BH2 7.2 59 20
BH6 6.9 93 103

b) Soil Samples

Borehole Depth pH value Chloride Sulphate

no. ( m) Content (ppm) Content (ppm)
BH1 10.5 6.6 49 78
BH7 12 6.8 63 25

IS LIMITS
pH value Not less than 6
Chloride content (ppm) Maximum 500 ppm
Sulphate content (ppm) Maximum 400 ppm

6.12.2 The above results indicate that the water/ soil encountered at the site will not have any
aggressive effect on normal concrete construction works.
6.13 Rock Conditions
6.13.1 Boreholes BH1, BH4, BH7 and BH8 were progressed beyond refusal strata, with a
Mechanical Drill, using NX Size, TC & Diamond Drill Bits.
6.13.2 The results of various tests conducted on rock samples are given in the rock profile tables.
6.13.3 The rock strata encountered below refusal is :
a) Highly disintegrated rock
b) Hard and compact insitu as indicated in the results of Standard Penetration Tests
in the highly disintegrated rock.

G(B)11823

14
 c) Core recovery in the highly disintegrated rock is 0%. Hard rock was not
encountered in any of the boreholes.
6.14 Compiled Soil/Rock Profile
6.14.1 An overview of the results and their analysis has been presented in the form of a compiled
soil/rock profile fig.2.
6.14.2 The above figure shows the various strata encountered and their thicknesses in each of the
boreholes and also gives the soil composition and the observed N - values at various
depths.
7.0 DESIGN CRITERIA
7.1 Design Parameters
7.1.1 The parameters required for the design of the foundation system for the proposed
Multistoried Buildings are:
a) Type of foundations to be adopted
b) Depth at which the foundations have to be laid
c) Allowable bearing pressure on the soil/rock at the foundation level
7.1.2 On the basis of the analysis of the results of the investigations, the required design
parameters have been arrived at, as given in the following sections.
7.2 Type of Foundations
7.2.1 The type of foundation depends upon the following :
a) Subsoil/rock conditions
b) Type of structure
c) Configuration of loading points
d) Loading intensity on each column at the foundation level.
7.2.2 The top strata of virgin subsoil encountered at the site is medium dense to dense, and are
further underlain by dense to very dense strata which extends down to refusal strata.
Hence, considering the substrata conditions and envisaged loadings, Shallow
Foundations-Raft Foundation can be adopted for the proposed buildings.

G(B)11823

15
7.3 Depth of Foundation
7.3.1 The minimum depth of foundations depends upon the following factors :
i) Top loose zone, if any
ii) Adequate depth of soil above founding level, to ensure mobilization of full safe
bearing capacity
iii) Adequate depth of soil strata below founding level of requisite strength to
mobilize the safe bearing capacity.
7.3.2 It is proposed to provide double basement for the building. Hence, based on the criteria
given above, the minimum depth of foundations recommended is 1m below lower
basement floor level, or on refusal strata, whichever is encountered earlier.
Note: Refusal strata can be defined as when further excavation by ordinary manual
means(using crowbar and pickaxe) or mechanical means is not possible.
7.3.3 The lower basement floor level will be about 9m below existing ground level, as informed
by the client. Hence, the minimum founding level of the raft will be between 10 to 11m
below existing ground level.
7.3.4 Alternatively, the Raft foundation can be laid between 11 to 12m below existing ground
level.
Note: The founding level of the Raft is subject to the thickness of the footing.
7.3.5 The soil available at the founding level will be generally clayey silty sand to silty sand
with clay and gravel.
7.4 Allowable Bearing Pressure
7.4.1 The allowable bearing pressure on foundations of any structure, is evaluated based on the
following criteria:
a) Shear failure criterion using average soil data
b) Settlement criterion
i) From N-values
ii) From deformation modulus determined from tri-axial shear tests.
7.4.2 The ground water table was encountered at an average depth of 6m below existing ground
level at the time of investigation in the boreholes . Hence, for calculation of safe bearing
capacity based on shear failure criterion, full submergence has been considered. The
reduction factor for water table R’w = 0.5 has been applied.

G(B)11823

16
7.4.3 Due to variation in level of refusal strata, the thickness of compressible strata below
foundations will vary, resulting in differential settlement more than allowable. Therefore,
to keep the differential settlement within allowable limits, the allowable settlement for
calculation of allowable bearing pressure has been restricted to 30mm for Raft
Foundation.
7.4.4 The soil parameters considered for evaluation of net allowable bearing pressure based on
the test results on undisturbed soil samples collected at the site are as given below:
i) Cohesion : 0.05kg/cm2
ii) Angle of shearing resistance : 340
iii) Bulk density of soil (() : 2g/cm3
7.4.5 On the basis of the above analysis, the Net Allowable Bearing Pressures for the Raft
Foundation, has been evaluated and is given below (Refer Appendix -A for sample
calculations):

Minimum Founding Level ( m) Net Allowable Bearing

below Existing Ground Level Pressure (t/m2)
10 to 11m 30
11 to 12m 35

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Type of Foundations : Shallow Foundations - Raft Foundation
8.2 Minimum Depth of Foundation : 1m below lower basement floor level
8.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure for Raft Foundation, for an allowable settlement of 30mm

Minimum Founding Level ( m) 10 to 11m 11 to 12m

below Existing Ground Level
Net Allowable Bearing Pressure 30 35
(t/m2)
Modulus of Subgrade
4 5
Reaction,K(kg/cm3)
Note: The recommendations given in this report have been arrived at on the basis of design
parameters which have been judiciously adopted by giving due consideration to the results
of field and laboratory investigations as well as NAGADI’s experience of over four decades
in working in various types of soil and rock conditions all over India.

G(B)11823

17
8.4 Construction Advisory
Loose pockets of soil, wherever encountered, should be completely removed and
backfilled with well compacted earth. A 15cm thick layer of 40-50mm size gravel should
be laid and rammed into the backfilled earth. A layer of sand should be placed and
compacted in order to fill the voids. A leveling course of lean concrete can then be laid
over the gravel, and construction of foundations can be taken up subsequently.
8.5 Deep Excavation
The top strata of soil encountered at the site is filled-up-soil. The top strata of virgin soil
encountered is generally medium dense. Also, high water table was encountered at the
site. Hence, adequate precautions must be taken against collapse of the sides of the
basement excavation and foundation pits. This can be done by providing adequate shoring
and supports, or proper slope.
8.6 Appendices
8.6.1 An appendix sheet showing the typical analysis of the allowable bearing pressure has been
given in Appendix - A of this report .
8.6.2 A list of IS Codes referred for providing the recommendations and that which might be
required to implement the same is also enclosed in this report in Appendix- B.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations given in the report are based on the results of borehole investigations
at 8 locations, as specified by the Client. In case, there is any substantial variation in the
substrata conditions, from those encountered at the borehole locations, additional
investigations may be carried out, if necessary.

N.Sudhindra
for Nagadi Consultants Pvt Ltd

G(B)11823

18
 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDIES
FOR
PROPOSED IT OFFICE BUILDING
AT SY NOS. 27/1, 27/2, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/4, 28/5, 29/1,
29/2, 30/8(P), 32/21(P), 32/22(P), 32/27(P), 32/29(P),
33/1(P), 33/2(P), BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU.

PREPARED BY,
PROF. M N SREEHARI
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40
GOOGLE IMAGE INDICATING THE SITE LOCATION

Project site
 MAJOR ROAD CONNECTIVITY
 The Project site is located along Outer ring road service road, the main entry and exit is given to the service
road of ORR.ORR is having ROW 45 m, (2+2) SR lanes divided road which connects to Silk Board on one side
and KR Puram on other side of the road.
 The through traffic will move on the elevated road where as the local traffic is connected to service roads. At
fewer places the service road is connected to main carriage way which is below the flyover.
 In addition to the above , a separate two lanes are created (6m) for operating bus rapid transit (BRTS) now
and at present the project is grounded and instead of this, metro is proposed for a amount of 4200 crores
connecting silk board to KR Puram and ITPL.
 Not withstanding this, a 10 lane elevated road is also planned and shortly it will be commissioned by the
government after clearing all the hurdles.
 The through traffic will move over the Flyover and connected to the ground level at many places for the
convince of local traffic to join or exit from the elevated portion.
 For the present project the existing fly over will join the ground level and about 160 m from the entry and
exit of the project. This will facilitate the vehicles to move for other side of the road after changing the
direction.
 Between the two elevated roads is 6 m lanes at the ground level exists which was planned earlier for BRT
system. Due to many reason BRTs is shelved and instead of that an elevated road with two tier mode of
transportation covering 10-lanes is proposed.
 In addition to this Government understood the strong need for mass transportation system and accordingly
metro link is coming up connecting Silk board side metro to ITPL and as well as Baiyyappanahalli as said
earlier.
 The overall RoW includes CW of 6 m for BRT, (8+8) m SR, (6.5+6.5) m area separator on either side, (3+3) m
FCD on either side of the road. 2 m shoulder on either side of the road.
 The project can also be accessed from other places such as Silk Board, HAL, Kadubisanhalli, Bellandur,
Panathur, K R Puram etc.
 Hence pressure will not develop to any one particular road and traffic gets distributed to various roads as
stated above gets distributed to various roads as stated above.
 EXISTING ROAD GEOMETRIC SCENARIO.
ROW(m) Drainage in m Road
CW (m) Pavement
Street
Road Surface Remarks
Lanes lights
Condition L R Marking Signs
Shoulder

45

(8+8) SR,
Outer Ring Road 6 m BRT 6.5+6.5 m
SR
Good A 3 3 A A area
(2 lanes 2+2 SR separator
Undivided) (1+1) lane
BRT
2+2

Note: A – Available NA – Not Available

SPEED SPECTRUM FOR THE STUDY ROADS (KMPH)
2 Wh 3 Wh 4 Wh Buses/Lorries TT
Road Towards
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min

K R Puram
42 28 24 15 48 40 30 24 22 18
(2 lanes SR)

Silk Board
48 34 20 18 46 35 32 26 24 16
(2 lanes SR)
ORR
K R Puram
52 40 26 20 50 40 40 32 22 18
(BRT lane)
Silk Board
54 42 20 18 46 35 38 30 24 16
(BRT lane)

 The observed speed indicates that the vehicles are well within the speed limits and hence the road safety is ensured. The reason for low speeds is
attributed to higher volume of traffic moving on the road at all times.
 REAL TIME TRAFFIC SCENARIO ALONG ORR TOWARDS SILK BOARD
(2 LANES SR)

Time 2Wh 3Wh 4Wh B/L TT Total V/C

7.00 -8.00
273(137) 27(20) 209(209) 38(114) 18(36) 565(516) 0.23
am

8:00-9:00 509(255) 65(49) 470(470) 75(225) 35(70) 1154(1068) 0.49

9:00-10.00 492(246) 48(36) 402(402) 59(177) 24(48) 1025(909) 0.41

10:00-11:00 431(216) 51(38) 411(411) 67(201) 19(38) 979(904) 0.41

4:00-5:00
325(163) 39(29) 307(307) 51(153) 24(48) 746(700) 0.32
pm

5:00-6:00 451(226) 63(47) 454(454) 54(162) 39(78) 1061(967) 0.44

6.00-7.00 509(255) 59(44) 368(368) 67(201) 27(54) 1030(922) 0.42

7:00-8:00 478(239) 41(31) 439(439) 58(174) 21(42) 1037(925) 0.42

Note: The highest peak observed is 1068 PCU’s/hr as per IRC-106:1990 during 8:00 am to 9:00 am.
 REAL TIME TRAFFIC SCENARIO ALONG ORR TOWARDS K R PURAM
(2 LANES SR)

Time 2Wh 3Wh 4Wh B/L TT Total V/C

7.00-8.00 am 245(123) 19(14) 289(289) 35(105) 18(36) 606(567) 0.26

6:00-7:00 390(195) 25(19) 325(325) 48(144) 25(50) 813(733) 0.33

9:00-10.00 508(254) 38(29) 408(408) 52(156) 53(106) 1059(953) 0.43

10:00-11:00 435(218) 43(32) 384(384) 86(258) 44(88) 992(980) 0.43

4:00-5:00 pm 332(166) 27(20) 301(301) 41(123) 20(40) 719(650) 0.30

5:00-6:00 456(228) 31(23) 445(445) 54(162) 22(44) 1008(902) 0.41

6.00-7.00 482(241) 57(43) 461(461) 67(201) 32(64) 1099(1010) 0.46

7:00-8:00 537(269) 53(40) 368(368) 75(225) 35(70) 1068(971) 0.44

Note: The highest peak observed is 1010 PCU’s/hr as per IRC-106:1990 during 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm.
 REAL TIME TRAFFIC SCENARIO ALONG ORR TOWARDS SILK BOARD
(1 LANE BRT)

Time 2Wh 3Wh 4Wh B/L TT Total V/C

7.00-8.00 am 187(94) 18(14) 171(171) 19(57) 17(34) 412(369) 0.34

8:00-9:00 242(121) 31(23) 218(218) 35(105) 24(48) 550(515) 0.47

9:00-10.00 203(102) 23(17) 199(199) 21(63) 19(38) 465(419) 0.38

10:00-11:00 158(79) 19(14) 184(184) 29(87) 15(30) 405(394) 0.36

4:00-5:00 pm 153(77) 15(11) 167(167) 15(45) 21(42) 371(342) 0.31

5:00-6:00 194(97) 27(20) 211(211) 27(81) 24(48) 483(457) 0.42

8.00-9.00 225(113) 21(16) 181(181) 23(69) 13(26) 463(404) 0.37

7:00-8:00 187(94) 16(12) 153(153) 17(51) 11(22) 384(332) 0.30

Note: The highest peak observed is 515 PCU’s/hr as per IRC-106:1990 during 8:00 am to 9:00 am.
REAL TIME TRAFFIC SCENARIO ALONG ORR TOWARDS K R PURAM
(1 LANE BRT)

Time 2Wh 3Wh 4Wh B/L TT Total V/C

7.00-8.00 am 155(78) 7(5) 172(172) 20(60) 5(10) 359(325) 0.30

6:00-7:00 171(86) 18(14) 181(181) 23(69) 10(20) 403(369) 0.34

9:00-10.00 189(95) 21(16) 205(205) 28(84) 12(24) 455(423) 0.38

10:00-11:00 176(88) 13(10) 189(189) 25(75) 6(12) 409(374) 0.34

4:00-5:00 pm 164(82) 11(8) 175(175) 22(66) 9(18) 381(349) 0.32

5:00-6:00 175(88) 16(12) 193(193) 26(78) 4(8) 414(379) 0.34

6.00-7.00 210(105) 25(19) 223(223) 36(108) 15(30) 509(485) 0.44

7:00-8:00 168(84) 10(8) 184(184) 17(51) 7(14) 386(341) 0.31

Note: The highest peak observed is 485 PCU’s/hr as per IRC-106:1990 during 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm.
REAL TIME V/C AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF STUDY ROADS

Existing
Road Towards V C LOS
V/C
Silk Board
1068 2200 0.49 C
(2 lanes SR)
K R Puram
1010 2200 0.46 C
(2 lanes SR)
ORR
Silk Board
515 1100 0.47 C
(1 lane BRT)
K R Puram
485 1100 0.44 C
(1 lane BRT)

V/C LOS Performance

0.0 - 0.2 A Excellent
0.2 - 0.4 B Very Good
0.4 - 0.6 C Good
0.6 - 0.8 D Fair/Average
0.8 - 1.0 E Poor
1.0& Above F Very Poor

V= Volume in PCU’s/hr &

C= Capacity in PCU’s/ hr
LOS = Level of Service
 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND MEASURES TAKEN DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR
ROADS.
 The addition of 6 Lorries per day carrying construction material do not change any significantly the traffic flow.
 Hence OK.V/C during construction (Lorries) = 0.46, 0.49 0.44, 0.47 along ORR towards KR Puram, Silk board, KR Puram
BRT lane and Silk board BRT Lane.
 The present level of service will remain “C, C,C and C” along ORR towards KR Puram, Silk board, KR Puram BRT lane and
Silk board BRT Lane.
 The lorries carrying construction materials are proposed to come to the site during off peak hours.
 Number of trucks planned to the site (off peak hours)
 Day time –6 no’s. Night time –Nil.
 V/C indicates that there is no significant change & hence performance also.
 Vehicles carrying construction materials will be well covered to prevent any spillage.
 Vehicles hired for construction material will be in good condition and conforms to noise and air emission standards.
 Vehicles will operate only during non peak hours.
 Vehicles will operate only during non peak hour

PEDESTRIAN FLOW MANAGEMENT & SAFETY

 Pedestrians are considered as most Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) as the accidents are increasing on pedestrians.
Hence pedestrians safety must be considered as top priority in traffic engineering.
 As per IRC, a minimum of 1.8 m wide neatly paved, well illuminated and leveled footpath must be made available for
pedestrians.
 The under ground drain is covered by slabs and used for pedestrian movement.
 Presently due to very less pedestrians use the footpath being a highway, hence the they are very safe.
 This width can accommodate 2520 pcu’s/hr in each direction of footpath.
RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN SIDE WALK CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF
SERVICE (IRC 103-2012)

Design Flow in number of Person per hour

Width of side
In Both Direction All in one direction
walk in (meter)
LOS B LOS C LOS B LOS C

1.8 1350 1890 2025 2835

2.0 1800 2520 2700 3780

2.5 2250 3150 3375 4725

3.0 2700 3780 4050 5670

3.5 3150 4410 4725 6615

4.0 3600 5040 5400 7560

 PARKING LOGISTICS FOR THE PROJECT

Total FAR Area Proposed 65,516.98 Sqmt

Total No. of Car parks required @ 1 Car Park per 50

1,310 Nos.
Sqmt. of FSI area
Total Required 1,310 Nos.
Car Parking Provided
1st Basement Floor Parking 396 Nos.
2nd Basement Floor Parking 598 Nos.
MLCP 325 Nos.
Surface Parking 31 Nos.
Total Parking Provided 1,350 Nos.
 FLOW CHART OF TRAFFIC/ TRIPS DISTRIBUTION

From the Project

100 %

To ORR of KR Puram(SR )
100%=450

To ORR of Silk board To ORR of Silk To ORR of KR Puram

(SR) board (BRT lane) (BRT lane)
20% =90 60% =270 20% =90
 TRAFFIC FLOW LOGISTICS

 Since the activity is Commercial, the vehicles will move to the Project between 7:00am to 10:00 am

as ingress & 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm as egress.

 The total traffic generated based on the total parking provided for the project will be 1350 PCU’s.

Therefore, the hourly volume in PCU’s will be 1350 /3 =450 PCU’s/hr.

 Out of 450 PCU’s/hr, 100% of the traffic will moves along SR of KR puram and 20% of the traffic

will move along SR of KR puram towards Silk board (SR ) , 60% of the traffic will move along SR of

KR puram towards Silk board (BRT ) and 20% of the traffic will move along SR of KR puram

towards KR Puram (BRT )

 .i.e., 100% x 450 = 450 will move along SR of KR puram.

 20 % X 450 = 90 PCU’s/hr will move along SR of KR Puram towards Silk board (SR ).

 60 % X 450 = 270 PCU’s/hr will move along SR of KR Puram towards Silk board (BRT ).

 20 % X 450 = 90 PCU’s/hr will move along SR of KR Puram towards KR Puram (BRT ).

CHANGED V/C & LOS- BY ADDING THE GENERATED TRAFFIC
TO THE EXISTING TRAFFIC FROM THE PROJECT SITE

Existing Modified
Road Towards
V C V/C LOS V V/C LOS
Silk Board
1068 2200 0.49 C 1068+90=1158 0.53 C
(2 lanes SR)

K R Puram
1010 2200 0.46 C 1042+450=1492 0.68 D
(2 lanes SR)
ORR
Silk Board
515 1100 0.47 C 515+270=785 0.71 D
(1 lane BRT)

K R Puram
485 1100 0.44 C 485+90=575 0.52 C
(1 lane BRT)
PROJECTED TRAFFIC FOR NEXT THREE YEAR BASED ON INDIVIDUAL
VEHICULAR GROWTH AS PER IRC : 37-2001

Vehicle
2Wh 3Wh 4Wh TT B/L
Type
Road Total
% Growth
8.95 13.90 6.26 1.10 7.71
Towards
Silk Board
658(329) 96(72) 564(564) 78(153) 44(131) 1439(1251)
(2 lanes SR)

K R Puram
623(312) 84(63) 553(553) 69(138) 40(120) 1370(1186)
(2 lanes SR)
ORR Silk Board
313(156) 46(34) 262(262) 36(72) 30(90) 686(615)
(1 lane BRT)
K R Puram
(1 lane 272(136) 37(28) 268(268) 37(74) 19(56) 632(562)
BRT)
 MODIFIED V/C & LOS

Projected Traffic for next Modified V/C and LOS after

Three years adding the generated traffic
Road Towards
V C V/C LOS V V/C LOS

Silk Board 1251+90=1341

1251 2200 0.57 C 0.61 D
(2 lanes SR)
K R Puram
1186 2200 0.54 C 1186+450=1636 0.74 D
(2 lanes SR)
ORR Silk Board D or
615 1100 0.56 C 615+270=885 0.80
(1 lane BRT) E
K R Puram
(1 lane 562 1100 0.51 C 562+90=652 0.59 C
BRT)
 Silk board to K R Puram
METRO connectivity along ORR

Bellandur
 Contnd..,

 METRO link along Outer Ring Road which is an extension from Silk Board to K R Puram is taken up connecting HSR Layout,
Agara lake, Ibblur, Bellandur, Marathalli, ISRO, Mahadevpura etc. Hence as per RITES, it is expected to reduce 40% of traffic
along ORR road by modal shift to METRO rail.
 0.4 x 1341 =536 Then the traffic reduces to 1341 – 536= 805 along ORR towards Silk board (SR).0.4 x 885 =354 Then the
traffic reduces to 885 – 354= 531 along ORR towards Silk Board (BRT).
 0.4 x 1636= 654 Then the traffic reduces to 1636 – 654 = 982 along ORR towards K R Puram (SR lane).
 0.4 x 652=261 Then the traffic reduces to 652 – 261 = 391 along ORR towards KR Puram (BRT lane).

Changed Scenario
Modified V/C and LOS after
adding the generated traffic (After introducing
Road Towards Metro)

V C V/C LOS V V/C LOS

Silk Board
1341 2200 0.61 D 805 0.37 B
(2 lanes SR)
K R Puram
1636 2200 0.74 D 982 0.45 C
(2 lanes SR)
ORR
Silk Board
885 1100 0.80 D or E 531 0.48 C
(1 lane BRT)
K R Puram
652 1100 0.59 C 391 0.36 B
(1 lane BRT)
CONSOLIDATED V/C AND LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR CHANGED SCENARIOS.

Modified Changed
Changed V/C Scenario
V/C and
and LOS by Projected
LOS by After
Existing adding traffic after
Road Towards adding the Introducin
generated Three years
generated g METRO
traffic
traffic

V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS

Silk Board
0.49 C 0.53 C 0.57 C 0.61 D 0.37 B
(2 lanes SR)
K R Puram
0.46 C 0.68 D 0.54 C 0.74 D 0.45 C
(2 lanes SR)
ORR
Silk Board D or
0.47 C 0.71 D 0.56 C 0.80 0.48 C
(1 lane BRT) E
K R Puram
0.44 C 0.52 C 0.51 C 0.59 C 0.36 B
(1 lane BRT)
 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES & INTERVENTIONS

 The proposed BMRCL metro work though started, it must be expedited fast to complete in 2021,the still exact picture is not
emerged out due to government policies.
 To establish smooth entry & exit of vehicles, bell mouth shape geometry is provided at the gates. This ensures smooth
transition for merging of vehicles. All precautionary measures are ensured for the safety of construction laborers while
working at the site.
 Road marking (edge markings in yellow and lane markings in broken white), STOP lines etc must be clearly painted so as to
guide the drivers along the study Roads.
 Amber blinker lights will be used at the gate to caution vehicles which are moving out. Sign boards will also to be installed to
this effect.

2.5 m 2.5 m

 Image : High raised pedestrian crossing proposed on service road of the ORR in front of the project site.
 High raised pedestrian crossing height must be 15cm from the road level.
 Rubber humps will have to be introduced for the outgoing vehicles from the project site at the exit gate drive way, not more
than 3m from the gate.
 All gates are manned with efficient security who can guide the entry and exit of vehicles.
 SURFACE HYDROLOGY STUDY TO ESTIMATE
THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF NALA

PROPOSED IT OFFICE BUILDING

PROJECT PROPONENT
M/s. JAGANMAYI INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE
LIMITED, BENGALURU.

PROJECT LOCATION
AT SY NOS. 27/1, 27/2, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/4, 28/5, 29/1,
29/2, 30/8(P), 32/21(P), 32/22(P), 32/27(P), 32/29(P),
33/1(P), 33/2(P), BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU.
JUNE ,2019
Hydrological Study
The hydrological study intends to estimate peak flow and carrying capacities of the drain for safe disposal of the peak flow generated
in the catchment
Rain fall Intensity
The Intensity Duration Curves (IDF) of the area are very useful while analyzing the peak flow. The IDF curves show the rainfall
intensity (in mm per hour) against the duration of the rains (in minutes) for specific return periods. Several curves from different
return periods may be presented in one graph. A curve with a return period of 1 year will show the worst storm that will on average
occur every year, a curve with a return period of 2 years is the worst storm that can be expected in a 2 year period and so on. To know
which value to take from the IDF curve, the time of concentration has to be calculated. The time of concentration is the time the water
needs to flow from
the furthest point in the catchment area to the point where it will leave the area .
Based on the rain fall intensity data a value of 65 mm/hr intensity is chosen
Land use and run off coefficient
The coefficient of run-off indicates the shedding characteristic of the catchment area. The actual quantum of run-off to be handled by
the storm water drain is a fraction of the total quantum of rainfall falling on the catchment. A part of the water may get absorbed by
the land depending upon its soil characteristics and again another part may get evaporated. The rest of the run-off enters the storm
water drain. The coefficient of run-off which is normally less than 1.0 accounts for this phenomenon. The manual on Sewerage and
Sewage Treatment published by C.P.H.E.E.O of the Government of India recommends design values of coefficient of run-off as per
Table below.
Run-off co-efficient for various types of surfaces :
Open grounds, unpaved street - 0.10 – 0.30
Parks, lawns, gardens - 0.10 – 0.25
Macadam roads, pavements - 0.25 – 0.70
Asphalt pavements - 0.85 – 0.90
Water tight roof surface - 0.90 – 0.95
Analysis of the Influencing Catchment Area
A catchment area is the entire surface that will discharge its storm water to one
point (the discharge point). Once the catchment area is identified, its surface area
is estimated..
Rain fall Intensity
Design Flood Estimation
Calculating the Peak Run off
The amount of storm water the catchment will produce can be determined with the
formula
Q = 1/360 C x i x A
Q : the design peak runoff rate, or the maximum flow of storm water the system will be designed for (in m3 per second)
C : the runoff coefficient
i : the rainfall intensity a value of 65mm/h can betaken
A : the surface area of the catchment area (in ha)
Q = 1/360 C x i x A
= 1/360x 0.4x65x73.4
=5.3 m3/sec
Manning’s formula is used for calculating the carrying capacity of Nala
Q=AxV
V = (1 x R2/3 x S1/2 ) / n
V - Velocity of flow in m/sec.
n - Co-efficient of friction, 0.013.
R - Hydraulic mean depth in m = A / P.
A - Area of cross section in m2. (width x depth of flow )
P - Wetted perimeter in meters, width+ (2 x depth of flow)
S - Hydraulic bed slope. ( 1 in 1000 )
Manning’s Equation

k is a unit conversion factor: k=1.49 for English units (feet and seconds).
k=1.0 for SI units (meters and seconds).
A=Flow area of channel.
P=Wetted perimeter.
Q=Discharge (flow rate).
S=Downward (longitudinal) slope of the channel.
V=Average velocity in the channel.
PROPOSED RECTANGULAR DRAIN
Q=AxV
V = (1 x R2/3 x S1/2 ) / n
Q = 3 x1.5 (1/0.013) x (4.5/8)2/3 x (1/1000)1/2
=4.5X76.92X 0.6840 X0.O316
Q = 7.4816m3 /sec.
Conclusions
1. Based on the rain fall intensity data for the year 1969-84 a value of 65 mm/hr intensity is chosen for a return period of 25
years for the estimation of peak flow.
2. The peak flow generated by this influencing catchment is estimated for 5.3m3/sec
3. Proposed channel (3x1.5m) has a capacity to discharge 7.481 m3/see is adequate to discharge the flood flow generated in
the area.

C.S.RAMASESHA
EX MEMBER CGWB