Presentation by Sandeep Pattiwar, TANGENT Technical Solutions

to
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Gurgaon
D
ate: 8th February 2010
Well Foundations in India
Introduction
⚫ In large parts of India, well foundations are
commonly adopted for bridges
⚫ Design and construction practices have been
progressively streamlined to cater for ever‐increasing
loads and foundation depths
⚫ With the introduction of large spans, the well size
also increases. For Second Hooghly Bridge, 24 m dia
wells have been adopted. The deepest well so for
constructed in India is up to 70 m below WL
Well Foundations in India
Introduction
⚫ Daring efforts are on in different parts of the world
to build bridges on a very large scale
⚫ Even bridges between continents are in
process, America‐ Asia, Europe‐Africa for
example
⚫ In India hundreds of thousands of bridges have
been constructed during the twentieth century
⚫ During the first decade of this century, about
Rs.100,000 cr are expected to be spent on
Bridges
⚫ Foundations cost 50 % or more
Use of Well Foundation
Introduction
⚫ Past Experience making it more reliable and
dependable by virtue of default choice
⚫ Well foundations are more suitable for deep water
where it is difficult to carry construction
equipment like River/Creek Bridges
⚫ Intake Structures, offshore as well as river
⚫ Deep foundation and suitable for alluvial soil
which mainly consist of Sandy
⚫ No special equipment and heavy machineries are
required
Use of Well Foundation
Introduction
⚫ Used in India and Indian Sub‐continent only
⚫ Well Foundation is preferable to pile foundation if it
has to resist large horizontal forces
⚫ Well foundation is more suitable for deep water
where it is difficult to carry construction equipment
⚫ Well Foundation is meant for deep foundation where
the river bed gets scoured and forces need to be
transferred to deeper level.
 Pile Foundation Vs Well Foundation
Item Pile Foundation Well Foundation

Vertical Capacity By Side Friction as well Only End Bearing

End Bearing
Lateral Capacity By Fixity Depth in clay as Net balance of Passive
well Sandy Soil, alternatively Resistance and Active
Spring Analogy can be used Pressure with FOS of 2
Structure Slender and Flexible Short and Rigid

Construction Difficult under deep water Easy comparatively

Construction Equipment Heavy and Costly like Crane and Grab

Rig and platform
Time Faster Longer

Protection Liner is required up to Caisson is required if

scour level necessary for construction
requirement
DESIGN ASPECTS
Shapes and Sizes

Shape is governed by the requirement of stability

during construction and least resistance during
service:
⚫ Need for effective streamline flow
⚫ Circular is the most common option available
⚫ D‐Shape well for wider and heavy foundations
⚫ Rectangular shape is rare unless required for
the functionality
⚫ Circular diameter is upto 12 m without any
diaphragm else either diaphragm is provided or
extensive study is undertaken for the steining
stresses.
Shapes and Sizes

Shape is governed by the requirement of stability

during construction and least resistance during
service:
⚫ Dredge hole for easy dredging > 2 m
⚫ D‐Shape well is not to have
aspect ratio (length/breadth) 2:1
 Well Foundation

A Well foundation consist of

following components:

⚫ Cutting Edge
⚫ Well Curb
⚫ Bottom Plug
⚫ Steining
⚫ Sand Filling
⚫ Top Plug
⚫ Intermediate Plug
⚫ Well Cap
Input Data

⚫ Forces above well foundation

⚫ Hydraulic Parameters like scour depth, current
velocity and Discharge
⚫ Seismic Zone and Wind Pressure
⚫ Bore Hole details for assessing depth of soil and
rock, if any
⚫ Geo‐technical Investigations including stratification,
density,  and c and weighted mean diameter of bed
material
⚫ Bearing Capacity
Special Requirement

⚫ Variation of depth of water i.e. HFL and LWL

⚫ Bed Levels and Ground Levels
⚫ Working Months availability
⚫ Formation Level
⚫ Any other feature depending on the location like
rock slope, type of water and moderate/severe
environment condition
⚫ Pneumatic Sinking in case of deeper founding
level with boulder strata
⚫ Floating caisson incase of deep standing water
Depth of Well Foundation for Soil

⚫ Mean scour depth is calculated as per bed material

1/ 3
D  2

dsm  1.34 b 
 k sf 
⚫ This “mean scour depth” is used to calculate
Maximum scour depth to account local scour effect
⚫ For Pier foundations : 2 x dsm from HFL
⚫ For Abutment foundations: 1.27 x dsm from HFL
⚫ Grip Length: The minimum depth of foundation
below scour level is 1/3 rd of Maximum Scour
Depth
Depth of Well Foundation for Rock

⚫ The well foundation shall be taken up to sound

rock and rest evenly along the periphery by blasting
or pneumatic sinking, if required.
⚫ The shear key should be provided inside the rock for
a depth of 300 mm in hard rock and 600 mm in soft
rock.
⚫ Diameter of shear key must be minimum 1.5 m or 1.5
m to 2.0 m less than dredge hole.
⚫ 6 dowel bars of 25 mm diameter with anchored 1.5
m in rock and projected 1.5 m above.
Well Steining

Thickness of well steining is governed by following

factors:
⚫ Natural sinking or sinking without excessive
kentledge
⚫ Without getting damaged during rectifying excessive
tilt and shift
⚫ Hoop compression for the differential pressure during
construction and service
⚫ Hoop tension arising out of differential earth pressure
developed during sand blow
⚫ Structural design at all levels due to external forces
Well Steining

Thickness of well steining is governed by following

factors:
⚫ The minimum thickness  500 mm
⚫ The thickness arrived for self sinking,
empirically:
h  kd l
⚫ steining
Where k is a constant and depends on
In Cement Concrete 0.03the type
of well Twin D wells 0.039

⚫ d is diameter of well or smaller dimensions in D‐Well

⚫ l is depth of well below top of well or LWL, which
ever is higher
Well Steining

Further steining thickness shall be adjusted as per

type of soil stratum:
Well Steining

Steining thickness can

be reduced, if the
height of well is more
than 30 m. However,
the reduced diameter
of well should be able
to support structure
above well
foundation.
Well Steining – Structural Design

⚫ Plain Concrete Wells

⚫ Vertical Reinforcement = 0.12% of Gross Area
⚫ Horizontal Hoop Reinforcement = 0.04% of volume
⚫ RC Concrete Wells
⚫ Vertical Reinforcement = 0.2% of Gross Area
⚫ Inner Face, vertical reinforcement = 0.06%
⚫ Transverse Reinforcement as per column design
and shall not be less than 0.04% of volume
Well Steining – Structural Design

⚫ Checking of steining stresses at all critical sections

and normally these are:
⚫ Well cap bottom level
⚫ At the level of change in steining thickness
⚫ Below scour level where resultant shear is zero

⚫ Well steining also shall be checked for ovalisation

moments
 Well Steining – Jack down method

• As per ‐IRC‐78‐2000 Clause‐708.2.3.5

If Specialised methiods of sinking such as jackdown
method are adopted then the steining thickness may
be adjusted according to design and construction
requirements.
Check for cohesion‐less soil

⚫ IRC 45 recommends checking of well

Side Earth Resistance
⚫ Active and Passive Earth Pressure as per Coulomb
Theory:
Side Earth Resistance

⚫ In case of c‐ soil, effect of ‘c’ may be added as

per procedure given by Bell:

Bell
Correction
Side Earth Resistance – F.O.S.

⚫ The Side earth resistance for pier wells is

considered below scour level
⚫ The resistance calculated is ultimate and converted
into allowable resistance by dividing F.O.S.
⚫ Net pressure of Passive and Active is calculated
⚫ F.O.S. is considered 2 for load combination without
wind or seismic
⚫ F.O.S. is considered 1.6 for load combination with wind
or seismic
Side Earth Resistance

⚫ For cohesionless soil, IRC 45 may be used for pier

well foundations
⚫ Side earth resistance may be ignored in case
of foundations resting on rock
⚫ However, side resistance of well foundations resting on
rock be considered if allowable bearing pressure is less
than 100 t/m2
Tilt and Shift

⚫ In Design of well, tilt of 1 in 80 and shift of 150 mm

due to translation both additive in a direction which
will cause most severe effects shall be considered
⚫ If the actual tilt and shift exceeds the above limits,
remedial measures have to be resorted to bring the
well within limit.
⚫ However, if not possible then its effect on bearing
pressure, steining stresses shall be examined and if
necessary can be sink further down to control the
base pressure.
Cutting Edge

⚫ To penetrate easily through the different type of strata

cutting edge is provided at the base of well. It is
designed to cater resistance which encountered during
sinking. It shall be anchored properly to well curb.
⚫ Guidelines of IRC 78 stipulate that its weight
should not be less than 40 kg/running meter.
⚫ When there are partitions, the intermediate cutting
edge have been placed 300 mm higher than the
outer cutting edge to prevent rocking.
Cutting Edge
Cutting Edge
Cutting Edge
Cutting Edge

Required 40 kg/meter
Well Curb
⚫ Minimum resistance while being sunk.
⚫ Strong enough to transmit forces from steining to
the bottom plug
⚫ Minimum reinforcement = 72 kg/m3
⚫ Internal angle of curb shall be kept in between 30 degree
to 37 degree.
Well Curb
Well Curb
Well Curb
Bottom Plug

⚫ Is provided to transfer the load from steining to

bottom plug and ultimately from bottom plug to
underneath strata.
⚫ A suitable sump shall be made below the level of
the cutting edge.
⚫ Before concreting, it shall be insured that its
inside faces have been cleared thoroughly.
Bottom Plug

SAND
FILLING
Bottom Plug
Well Cap

⚫ The bottom of well cap shall be as low as

possible taking into account of LWL.
⚫ Well cap design is as per any rational method
⚫ Normally design is cater to consider partial fixity at
the junction to take care large fixity moments.
Filling

⚫ Filling if required shall be sand or excavated material

free from organic matter.
⚫ Incase filling is not done, bottom plug shall
be checked for upward thrust.
⚫ Normally, if vertical pressure is within limit, filling is
done upto scour level atleast.
⚫ In a high seismic area, filling is avoided above
scour level.
Construction of Well Foundations:

 Conventional Construction on

Land / Sand Islands

 Floating Caissons

 Jack down method

 Pneumatic Sinking
Conventional Construction on
Land / Sand Island Method
Well Sinking – Sand Island Method
Well Sinking – Sand Island Method
Well Sinking – Sand Island Method
GANGA BRIDGE AT PATNA
Floating Caissons
Floating Caisson
 Area for fabrication of steel caisson will
be made near the river bank by
constructing suitable cofferdam
 Initial lift of steel caisson will be fabricated on a
leveled ground in fabrication yard
 Grabbing of soil from within and around the
caisson will be carried out so as to allow the water
to rush in and make the caisson to float. The
caisson will be held in position with proper guying
arrangement
 The caisson will be towed to the desired location
and aligned properly
 Caisson will be held in position with tethering
arrangement
 Concrete quantity as per design requirements will
be poured evenly in the curb portion so that the
caisson gets further immersed in the water
 Next lift of steel caisson will be built and concrete
quantity of designed amount will be poured inside
the caisson
 This procedure will continue till the cutting edge
comes near the riverbed
 When the caisson is about to get grounded its
alignment will be rechecked
 Water will be poured inside the caisson to ensure
its grounding at exact location
 Water ballast will be replaced with concrete so that
caisson gets grounded at its exact location
 Steining concreting will be continued further and
the well will be taken to its founding level as per
normal practice
Tethering arrangement

General Details
Caisson Aligned at location
First lift of concrete poured
Shifting of
concrete over
Barge
Concrete placing
Build next lift of Caisson

And place concrete

Checking of alignment with water
ballast
Muck removal by grabbing
Sinking in progress
Steining Concreting & sinking
Sinking in progress
Final stage – At founding
level
 Well Caisson Launching

Caisson
Fabrication Yard

Launching of
Caisson
 Well Caisson Launching

Caisson being towed

to location

Sinking in
progress
 SECOND HOOGHLY BRIDGE
Enabling works for caisson sinking
JOGIGOPHA BRIDGE
Slipway for Floating Caissons
Jogighopa Bridge
Slipway for Floating Caissons
Jogighopa Bridge
Floating Gantry for Handling Caissons
Floating Caisson being
Towed to Location

Colcrete
arrangemen for
foundation
Jack Down Method
Well Sinking By Jack Down Method
Well Sinking By Jack Down Method
Well Sinking By Jack Down Method
Well Sinking By Jack Down Method
Pneumatic Sinking
 Pneumatic sinking

⚫Pneumatic sinking is resorted to when open sinking

can not be continued in hard strata and excavation by
open grabbing and chiseling is not possible.
⚫When pneumatic sinking is adopted, it is possible to
inspect the well from inside and take the decision
based on the actual conditions.
 Pneumatic Sinking

• In this method airtight cover is fixed on dredge hole and compressed air is pumped in, so that water
is pushed out of well up to cutting edge level.
• Men are sent inside to carryout manual excavation. Muck is removed through shaft without
releasing pressure.
. . .Contd.
Sinking
Kali Bridge – Pneumatic Sinking
Kali Bridge – Pneumatic Sinking
Limitations

• Pneumatic sinking is very costly and is resorted to

only when the well can not be founded safely with
open sinking.

• Men have to work under compressed air, pressure of

which depends upon the depth of cutting edge below
the water level.

• Depth up to which pneumatic sinking can be done

without undue risk to human lives is restricted to
about 30 m.
….contd
Limitations

• Man feels increased pressure on ear drum when inside

the airlock. If it is not balanced properly it may result
in sever pain, bleeding and may cause damage to ear
drum.

• Dizziness, double vision, incoherence of speech are

quite common and some times man becomes
unconscious after coming out of well.

. . . contd
Limitations

• Due to the physiological effects on men working inside

an air lock, effective working hours are generally
restricted to about two hours. This is followed by
period of gradual decompression and a minimum rest
period of 5 to 6 hours
 CASE STUDY
Second Hooghly Bridge
Second Hooghly Bridge
Second Hooghly Bridge
Second Hooghly Bridge
Second Hooghly Bridge , Calcutta
Tilting Slipway for Floating Caisson
Second Hooghly Bridge , Calcutta
SECOND HOOGHLY BRIDGE
Vidyasagar Setu, Culcutta (1992)

Sinking a Pylon
 CASE STUDY
Jogighopa Bridge
CASE STUDY
Jogighopa Bridge
Brahmaputra Bridge, Jogighopa, 2.28 km

⚫ Wells 7 and 13 tilted; more than a year to correct

⚫ Wells 17 & 18 on hard rock at steep incline (1:1). 12 x
1500 mm dia anchor piles, provided through
steining, extending to 10 m below cutting edge
⚫ For well 17 additional 1500 dia, 8 nos, external
piles provided, integral with the well cap
⚫ Two rows of jet grouted piles around periphery of the
steining as curtain wall
Brahmaputra Bridge, Jogighopa
WELL CAP  1.5 m

3.5 m
1.5 m

50 m
2.5 DRILL PIPE WITH AIR
CONTROL VALVES
m
WORKING PLATFORM
RC PLUG
18
CASING
m
DRILL PIPE STABILIZER
PLAN + 35.00 m
CAISSON STEINING

AIR - LIFT DRILL PIPES

CC PLUG HEAVY DUTY STIFF
ASSEMBLY
HEAVY DUTY
3m STABILIZER
JET GROUT CURTAIN
STIFF SPACER PIPE

 1.5 m PILE NON ROTATING DRUM

STABILIZER
- 12.50 m
10
m DRILL BIT
FIG. JOGIGHOPA BR.
FOUNDATIONS WIRTH DRILLING RIG
SECTION
Jogighopa Bridge – Caisson Fabrication
JOGIGOPHA BRIDGE
Slipway for Floating Caissons
Jogighopa Bridge
Slipway for Floating Caissons
Jogighopa Bridge
Floating Gantry for
Handling Caissons
Jogighopa Bridge
Floating Gantry for Handling Caissons
Jet Grouting
Foundation scheme for wells 17 and 18
Design & construction of
above foundations, were
governed by following main
factors:
(i) Likely scour upto rock
strata.
(ii) Uniform support
over
steeply sloping strata
(iii) Sinking under
pneumatic condition
was not
feasible
Foundation scheme for wells
17 18
and In view of above, following
scheme was adopted :
(i) Sink well upto one metre
above top of rock
(ii) Stabilise
strata. soil around well
curb above rock strata by
forming grout barrier.
(iii) Support steining by
constructing six out of
twelve 1.5 m diameter R
piles through 1.65 mC
diameter holes kept in well
steining, with 10 m anchor
length in rock strata.
Foundation scheme for wells 17 and
1
(iv) Remove sand in
dredge‐hole by grabbing and
air‐lifting to entire
clean area
including that below well
curb.
(v) Construct concrete bottom
plug.
(vi) Construct balance six piles
to complete
anchoring of the
foundation.
(vii) Construct RC plug over
the bottom plug in
dry condition after dewatering
the well.
Jogighopa Bridge - Piling
Piling through the Well Foundation
CASE STUDY
Nepal Bridge
Artesian Conditions
Shivganga bridge, Nepal, 8 spans x 32 m

⚫ Artesian head encountered at 17 m below GL

⚫ Well redesigned with foundation resting on clay above
the artesian layer. Plus bed protection :
 Upstream & downstream aprons & Cut‐off walls,
 Concrete floor
 Artesian Conditions - Khara Bridge, Nepal
Well disappears during sinking
Artesian Bubbles

SAR 6 Y2k
 CASE STUDY
Passighat Bridge
Passighat Bridge, Arunachal Pradesh
Well Foundation

⚫ Non availability of formula for scour depth in bouldary

strata; slow sinking in such strata
⚫ Subsoil with large boulders 2 to 3 m dia; rate of
sinking 10 to 20 mm per hour initially
⚫ Sinking very difficult due to large size
boulders; considerable slow down in overall
progress
⚫ Difficulties in finally deciding the foundation level;
decision making body in considerable dilemma
⚫ ‐R K Dhiman IABSE colloquium 1999 foundations for
major bridges
Passighat Bridge, Arunachal Pradesh
Well Foundation

⚫ Design consultant recommended 50 m deep wells

⚫ The bore data indicated hard conglomerate
right through the depth up to 50 m except top 10
m
⚫ Core recovery was close to 90%
⚫ During execution, impossible to sink the well
beyond 10 m with conventional method
⚫ Pneumatic sinking used up to 30 m; beyond that it
is not possible physiologically to work under
compressed air, it is not permitted as per code
 Well Foundation Delays
Passighat Bridge, Arunachal Pradesh, 703 m long

⚫ Started in 1987 and well

sinking continues (2006)
⚫ Design envisaged, 50 m
deep wells. Hard
conglomerate strata with
very large boulders did not
permit sinking
⚫ After 15 years of struggle
Boulder
including pneumatic
dredged
sinking, the founding level
during
was raised by 22 m.
sinking
Unsuitable
foundation

design

Boulder
dredged
during
well
sinking
SAR 6 Y2k
Fig: 1 : PASSIGHAT
BRIDGE
LEGEND
 Narmada bridge,
Constructability Chandod
Well cap 14 m below
water

Bridge in Nepal SAR 6 2k

Y
Construction Equipments
Batching Plant on Shore

4/2/2010
Floating Batching Plant
Concrete cofferdam being towed to location
Cranes for Concreting and Dredging

4/2/2010
Floating arrangement for Batching Plant
Concrete pump and placer boom
GANGA BRIDGE AT PATNA
Floating crane for well sinking
Well sinking by cranes and
grabs
 SECOND HOOGHLY BRIDGE
Enabling works for caisson sinking
Correction of Tilt and Shift
Well sinking ;Tilt correction
Concrete Kentledge blocks
Kentledge for Well Sinking
Well sinking ;Tilt correction
Platform for concrete kentledge
Tilt Rectification of Wells
 Tilt Rectification of Wells
Tilt Rectification of Wells
Tilt Rectification of Wells
Tilt Rectification Platform for Well Foundation
Tilt Rectification Platform for Well Foundation

4/2/2010
Kandroor Bridge across Sutlej - Badly
tilted well being corrected

SAR 6 Y2k
Kandroor Bridge

SAR 6 Y2k
Select IRC Papers reporting Well
Foundation Problems
⚫ IRC Paper 253 ‐ Rupnarayan Bridge, West Bengal
293 ‐ Bassein Creek Bridge, Mumabi
314 ‐ Godavari Bridge, Maharashtra
328 ‐ Bhakla Bridge, UP
359 ‐ Haldi Bridge, WB
400 ‐ Hasdeo Bridge,
Champa, MP
434 ‐ Tapi Bridge, Idgaon, Maharashtra
464 – Kalyani Bridge, WB
⚫ Indian Highways, Dec 1982, Arjun Khola Bridge,
Nepal
 Conclusion

⚫ The construction of wells have not always been

smooth, a variety of problems during construction has
resulted in inordinate delays, increased cost of
rectification and even abandonment of wells
⚫ With advance methods of geo‐technical
investigation, equipments, revised codal specifications
and sound engineering practices, we should able to
decide the methodology and foundation type in
advance.
Comments, queries, suggestions
welcome

[email protected]