This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

The analysis and design of all the components of even the most simple bridge type can be a fairly laborious and cumbersome job especially with respect to the various elements of the bridge substructure. For bridges located on major perennial rivers, resort will have to be made to deep foundations like wells or pile foundations, the design of which involves lengthy computational effort. The bridge engineer should be equipped with a handy computational tool with the help of which he can quickly and reliably determine the suitability of various layouts and configuration of the sub-structure before finalizing the most optimum design of the substructure. In this thesis and attempt has been made to develop a P.C. based software on VB.Net platform for the analysis and design of substructure for bridges with simply-supported spans. The computer programme includes the analysis and of wall-type and circular piers and includes the option for the complete analysis and design of two-types of deep foundations on the basis of the relevant IS Codes of Practice: Well foundations and pile foundations. The pile foundations can be analyzed and designed for both river and non-river bridge crossings and the user is presented the option of two types of piles for use in the foundations: under-reamed piles particularly for non-river bridge foundations and bored cast-in-situ circular piles. A noteworthy feature of the program is that lateral load analysis of both free and fixed-head piles can be carried out by the user in line with the recommendations of the relevant IS Codes. The user friendly and interactive program assists the user in the selection of preliminary dimensions of the well foundation, the safety of which is checked of the elastic state of the soil surrounding the well and at ultimate loads. Structural design of the critical well components like well curb, steining and well cap is incorporated in the software. The results for foundation design obtained from the program have been validated with long-hand calculations present in the Appendix.

CONTENTS

Chapter No. Chapter-1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Chapter-2 Introduction Objective of the Thesis Scope of the Work Organization of the Thesis 1 3 3 3 Title Pg. No.

PIERS & PIER CAPS 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Introduction Types of Piers Procedure for Analysis of Pier Conclusions 4 4 6 9

Chapter-3

WELL FOUNDATIONS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Introduction Types of Well Foundations Elements of a Well Foundation Analysis and Design of Well Foundation 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.4.7 3.5 Determination of Maximum Scour Depth Loads for Well Foundation Design Stability Analysis of Well Foundations Design of Well Curb Design of Well Steining Design of Bottom Plug Design of Well Cap 10 10 12 14 14 16 16 21 22 23 23 25

Conclusions

Chapter-4

PILE FOUNDATIONS 4.1 4.2 Introduction Design of Pile Foundations 4.2.1 4.2.2 Under-reamed Piles Bored Cast-in-situ Piles 26 29 29 30

4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 4.2.9 4.3 Chapter-5

Numbers, Spacing and Arrangement of Piles Safe Bearing Capacity of Pile Groups Distribution of load between Vertical Piles of Pile Group Lateral load analysis of Piles Structural Design of Pile Settlement of Pile Group Design of Pile Cap

35 37 39 40 42 44 46 48

Conclusions

SOFTWARE FEATURES 5.1 5.2 Introduction Functions Layout of the Software 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3. Selection and Input of Parameters used for Analysis and Design of Foundations Analysis of Pier Estimation of Scour Depth for Foundation Design Analysis and Design of Well Foundation Analysis and Design of Pile Foundation 49 49 50 53 53 55 62 73

Conclusions

Chapter-6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Introduction Problem on Well Foundation Problem on Pile Foundation Conclusions 74 74 103 128

Chapter-7

CONCLUSIONS 7.1 7.2 Conclusions Scope for Further Work 129 129 130 132

Chapter-8 APPENDIX A

REFERENCES SUPPORTING LONG HAND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEM ON WELL FOUNDATION

APPENDIX B

SUPPORTING LONG HAND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEM ON PILE FOUNDATION

164

LIST OF TABLES

Table. No. 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8

Title Value of constant K for Pressure Intensity due to Water Current Permissible Stresses in Concrete Silt factors for Sandy beds, IRC: 78-20008 Values of the constant Q for square or rectangular wells Bearing Capacity Factor, Value of coefficient of horizontal soil stress ( Safe loads for under-reamed piles Values of the constant (kN/m3) Values of the constant K (kN/m2) Calculation of Maximum Shear forces bearings Stresses due to horizontal shear force at bearings Summary of Stresses due to various forces acting on the Pier Resultant Compressive Stresses at Point “A” & “B” on Pier Resultant Tensile Stresses at Point “A” & “B” on Pier Horizontal shear force at bearings & moments at the base of foundation Seismic moment due of mass of bridge components & Live load Calculation of Maximum Shear forces at bearings Stresses due to horizontal shear force at bearings Summary of Stresses due to various forces acting on the Pier Resultant Compressive Stresses at “A” & “B” on Pier Resultant Tensile Stresses at “A” & “B” on Pier Moment about longitudinal axis in pile cap from the critical section Calculation of two-way shear force Calculation of one-way shear force at critical section along L-L axis of bridge

Pg.No. 7 9 15 20 33 33 35 41 41 141 141 142 143 143 148 148 168 169 169 170 170 182 184 185

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No. 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Typical Shapes of Piers Different Shapes of Well Typical Section of Well Foundation

Title

Pg. No. 5 11 12 26 27 27 28 29 29 31 32 34 36 42 43 45 47 47 47 51 52 54 56 58 59 60

Piles Classification on the basis of load transfer mechanism Uplift Piles Use of piles in scourable beds Piles in expansive soils can control seasonal movements Free Standing Pile Group Piled Foundation Load resisting mechanism in a pile Bearing Capacity Factor, for bored piles

Adhesion factor for cohesive soils Typical arrangement of piles in a group Determination of the depth of fixity of the pile Reduction factors for free-head and fixed-head piles Computation of Settlements for End Bearing Piles & Friction Piles Critical section for moment & one-way shear Critical section for two-way shear Typical detailing of reinforcement in a pile cap Flow Chart of preliminary dimensioning of pier Flow Chart for Analysis of Pier Flow Chart for calculation of Maximum Scour Depth Flow Chart for calculation of soil resistance Flow Chart for calculation of soil resistance at ultimate loads Flow Chart for design of Well curb Flow Chart for design of Well steining

5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 6.1 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6

Flow Chart for design of Well Cap Flow Chart for soil details Flow Chart for calculating safe bearing Capacity of bored cast-in-situ pile Flow Chart for calculating safe bearing Capacity of an under-reamed Pile Flow Chart for calculation of SBC of group of bored cast-in-situ piles Flow Chart for calculation of SBC of group of under-reamed piles Lateral load capacity of Under-reamed Pile Lateral load capacity of Bored Cast-in-situ pile Design of Pile Cap Details of Soil layers in Ground Pier Section in longitudinal direction of bridge Water Pressure Details Location of “A” & “B” on pier Diagram of a Well Foundation Diagram of Well curb Diagram of Bottom Plug Load dispersion area in well cap Moments in well-cap when freely supported Moments in well-cap when fully clamped Reinforcement Details of Well Cap Pier Section in transverse direction of bridge Location of “A” & “B” on Pier Effective overburden pressure on pile Arrangement of Piles in Foundation Settlement of End bearing piles Reinforcement details of Pile Cap

61 63 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 104 133 137 142 145 146 146 158 160 161 163 164 170 172 174 180 186

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION Thomas B. Macaulay once said: “Of all inventions, the alphabet and the printing press alone, excepted, those inventions which abridge distance have done the most for the civilization of our species”. Since ancient times, bridges have been the most visible testimony to the contribution of engineers. Bridges have always figured prominently in human history. They enhance the vitalities of the cities and aid the social, cultural and economic improvements of the locations around them. Bridge is a structure providing passage over an obstacle without closing the way beneath. The required passage may be for a road, a railway, pedestrians, a canal or a pipeline and the obstacle to be crossed may be a river, a road, railways or a valley. The portion of the bridge structure below the level of the bearing and above the founding level is generally referred to as the substructure. The design of bridge substructure is an important part of the overall design for a bridge and affects to a considerable extent the aesthetics, the safety and the economy of the bridge. Bridge substructure are a very important part of a bridge as it safely transfers the loads from the superstructure to the earth in such a manner that the stresses on the soil are not excessive & the resulting deformations are within the acceptable limits. The selection of the foundation system for a particular site depends on many considerations, including the nature of subsoil, location where a bridge is proposed to be constructed i.e. over a river, road, or a valley, etc. & the scour depth. A bridge may have either have the following types of foundations: 1. Well foundations: It is the most common type of foundation in India for both road & railway bridges. Such foundation can be sunk to great depths and can carry very heavy vertical and lateral loads. Well foundations can also be installed in a boulder stratum. It is a massive structure and is relatively rigid in its structural behavior. 2. Pile foundations: It consist of relatively long and slender members, called piles which are used to transfer loads through weak soil or water to deeper soil or rock strata having a high bearing capacity. They are also used in normal ground conditions for elevated road ways. The analysis and the design of all the components of a bridge particularly with reference to the bridge substructure can become a very lengthy and laborious task if the calculations are attempted manually. A design engineer would like to try various

1|Page

configurations, shapes and sizes of the principal components of a bridge before finalizing the most optimum combination on the basis of safety, economics and aesthetics of the elements of the super-structure and the sub-structure. At the same time, in spite of the best efforts during sub-soil investigations, many uncertainties always exist with respect to the sub-soil conditions which may be encountered at pier and foundation locations. Unexpected sub-soil conditions may require a significant redesign of the foundation or in extreme cases the foundation type may have to be changed from for example an open-footing to a pile or a well foundation. For the above eventualities, it is desirable that a quick, handy and reliable computational tool should be available to the design engineer for the analyses and design of bridge sub-structure in general and well and pile foundations in particular. In this thesis an attempt has been made to develop P.C. software package in the VB.Net platform for the analysis and design of sub-structures for concrete bridges with simply supported spans. Analysis of the super-structure for loads transferred to the sub-structure is included in the software. Two IRC loading categories: Class AA and Class A are considered for superstructure analysis. The option for single lane and two lanes of traffic is included. The user is provided with the option of two types of concrete piers: wall-type and hammer-head type with a circular shaft. The analysis and design of both these types of piers is included in the software. In the software, the option is provided for two types of deep foundations: well and piles. Well foundations are essentially meant for river-bridge crossings where as the option for pile foundations take care of pile analysis and design for both non-river and river bridge crossings. The analysis of the well foundation is carried out as per the relevant IRC code for the resultant axial, lateral loads and moments transferred from the super-structure for the following two conditions: (1) The soil surrounding the well is in an elastic state (2) At ultimate load conditions. The program includes check on thickness of the bottom plug and the analysis and design of the critical components of a well viz. well curb, well steining and well cap. Practical considerations related to construction of wells are examined through a check on the sinking effort developed in the well. Two types of piles are available for design of pile foundations: (1) Under-reamed piles and (2) Bored cast-in-situ circular piles. Under-reamed piles are essentially meant for non-river bridge crossings and their design for vertical and lateral loads has been carried out as per recommendations of IS: 2911. The software includes the analysis and design of both free-head and fixed-head bored cast-in-situ circular piles in cohesion less as well as cohesive soils. A noteworthy feature of the software is the lateral load analysis of the pile as per the relevant IS Code. The design of the pile foundation

2|Page

concludes with check on group behavior including settlement analysis and structural design of the pile and the pile cap. 1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS Development of an interactive user-friendly software for the analysis and design of substructures of RCC bridges with simply supported spans for river as well as non-river bridge crossings. 1.3 SCOPE OF THE WORK The analysis of the simply supported super-structure has been carried out for only two loading classes: Class AA and Class A. Two type of piers are included in the software: walltype and hammer-head type with a circular shaft. Besides gravity loads, lateral loads due to wind, earthquake and hydro-dynamic effect are considered in the analysis. The well foundation analysis is performed at both elastic and ultimate state. The analysis and design of pile foundation is restricted to under-reamed and bored cast-in-situ piles in both cohesionless and cohesive soils for vertical as well as lateral loads. Structural design of piles and pile-cap is included in the software. The software does not have the option of generating detailing and working drawings of the bridge sub-structure. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS The introduction to the thesis & the scope of present work together with the organization of thesis is contained in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 discusses about the piers in substructure. It contains the details & summarizes the available literature on pier. The steps for analysis for pier are explained in this chapter. The knowledge base of well foundation is provided in Chapter 3, following the procedure for analysis of well foundation & design of various components of the well. Chapter 4 includes the literature review on pile foundations & discusses the analysis & design steps of pile foundations. The features & limitations of the software developed as the part of thesis work are being explained in Chapter 5. The functioning of various modules of the software are explained in the form of flow chart, in the same chapter. The application of the proposed software to the analysis & design of typical well foundation and pile foundation is presented in Chapter 6. The conclusions from the present study are discussed in Chapter 7. References form the last part of this thesis.

3|Page

**CHAPTER 2 PIERS & PIER CAPS
**

2.1 INTRODUCTION Piers are substructures located at the ends of bridge spans at intermediate points between the abutments. The function of the piers is two-fold: to transfer the superstructure vertical loads to the foundation and to resist all horizontal and transverse forces acting on the bridge. Piers are generally constructed of masonry or reinforced concrete. Being one of the most visible components of a bridge, the piers contribute to the aesthetic appearance of the structure. They are found in different shapes, depending on the type, size and dimensions of the superstructure and also on the environment in which the pier is located. The pier cap (also known as the bridge seat) is the block resting over the top of the pier or the abutment. It provides the immediate bearing surface for the support of the superstructure at the pier location, and disperses the strip loads from the bearings to the substructure more evenly. The pier cap is given an offset of 75 mm beyond the edge of the pier. This offset prevents rain water from dripping down the sides and ends of the pier and also improves the appearance of the pier. Minimum thickness provided to the pier cap is 225 mm for spans of up to 25 m, otherwise 300 mm. 2.2 TYPES OF PIERS Typical shapes of piers commonly used in practice are as shown in Fig. 2.1. They can be solid, cellular, trestle or hammer-head types. Solid and cellular piers for river bridges are provided with semicircular cut-waters to facilitate and streamlined flow and to reduce the scour. Solid piers can be of mass concrete or of masonry for heights of up to 6 m and spans up to about 20 m. Hammer-head type piers are increasingly used in urban elevated highway applications, as it provides slender substructure with open and free-flowing perception to the motorists using the road below. It is also used for river crossings with skew alignment, which will result in least obstruction to passage of flood below the bridge. Cellular, trestle, hammerhead types are suitable for heights above 6 m and spans over 20 m. In trestle type piers, concrete hinges have been recently introduced between the top of column and the bent cap in order to avoid moment being transferred from deck to the columns. Reinforced concrete framed types of piers as shown in Fig. 2.1 (e) have also been used in recent years. Such piers lead to economy in cost of superstructure as it reduces the span length of girders on either side of pier, but at the same time it will accumulate debris and floating trees from the stream flow. Two expansion joints formed on each pier will result in riding discomfort.

4|Page

(a) Solid Pier

(b) Cellular Type Pier

(c) Trestle R.C. Pier

(d) Hammer-head Type Pier

(e) Framed Type Piers

Fig. 2.1 Typical Shapes of Piers

5|Page

Minimum top width of pier is kept 600 mm more than the out-to-out dimension of the bearing plates, measured along the longitudinal axis of the superstructure. Length of pier should not be less than 1200 mm in excess of the out-to-out dimension of the bearing plates measured perpendicular to the axis of the superstructure. The bottom width of pier is usually larger than the top width so as to restrict the net stresses within the permissible values. It is normally sufficient to provide a batter of 1 in 25 on all sides for the portion of pier between the bottom of the pier cap and the top of the well or pile cap, as the case may be. 2.3 PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF PIER Analysis of pier is carried out considering various forces and loads transmitted from the superstructure and forces acting directly on the pier. Following are the loads and forces to be resisted by a pier: 1. Dead load: Dead load of superstructure and substructure above the base level of pier. 2. Live load: This consists of Live load of traffic passing over the bridge. Effect of eccentric loading due to live load should also be considered. 3. Buoyancy: Buoyancy has the influence of reducing weight. In masonry or concrete structure, the buoyancy effect through pore pressure may be limited to 15 percent of full buoyancy on the submerged portion. 4. Wind load: Wind load is considered on the live load, superstructure and the part of the substructure above the base of pier or water level, whichever is higher. It acts on the area of the bridge in elevation and is thus always taken to be acting laterally to the bridge only. This force could be considered as per recommendations of IS:8752. 5. Horizontal forces due to water current: Horizontal force due to water current is considered on that part of substructure that lies between the water level and the base of pier. The water current pressure is given by Equation 2.1 , where, = intensity of pressure in kN/m2 due to water current, K = a constant having different values for different shapes of piers. The values of this constant for different pier shapes are present in (2.1)

6|Page

Table 2.1 V = velocity of current in m/sec at the point where pressure intensity is being calculated. It is assumed that the velocity distribution in stream is such that V2 is maximum at the free surface of water, zero at the deepest scour level and varies linearly in between them. Also the maximum velocity of flow is assumed to be equal to times the velocity of the current. Table 2.1: Value of constant K for Pressure Intensity due to Water Current SHAPE Square ended piers Circular piers Piers with semi-circular cut-waters Piers with triangular cut-waters Trestle type piers K – Values 1.50 0.66 0.66 0.5 to 0.9 1.25

For calculating the pressure on the pier, the angle which the current makes with the axis of the pier should be taken into account. Generally, the maximum variation in the angle of water current to the transverse axis of the bridge is taken as 20°. Thus, the pressure along the axis of the pier and transverse to it is respectively given by, (2.2) (2.3) 6. Centrifugal forces: Centrifugal forces are taken into account, when the bridge is located on a curve. 7. Longitudinal forces: Longitudinal forces are caused due to tractive effort caused through acceleration of the driving wheels, braking effect due to application of brakes to the wheels & frictional resistance offered to the movement of free bearings due to change of temperature. Braking effect is invariably greater than the tractive effort, and as a result the tractive effort of vehicles is neglected.

7|Page

8. Seismic forces: Seismic force acts on all loads, which posses mass at their centre of gravity. Seismic forces acting in horizontal direction, along longitudinal and transverse axis of the bridge are considered. Forces acting in the vertical directions are comparatively small, and are hence neglected. During earthquake, water in river will apply hydrodynamic force on the submerged portion of pier. Seismic forces are considered to act only in one direction at a time. All the above loads are classified into different loading cases as discussed below. 1. Normal (N) Case loading: It includes dead load, live load, buoyant force, wind load, forces due to water current, centrifugal forces, braking force/tractive force & horizontal shear force at hinge bearings due to the effect of braking force, wind load. 2. Temperature (T) Case loading: It includes loads due to frictional restraint to temperature movement at bearings. 3. Seismic (S) Case loading: acting in horizontal direction. Considering the probability of earthquake with other forces, it is generally assumed that earthquake and wind forces will not occur simultaneously and so only one can be considered at a time. Taking all the case loading into accounts, pier is analyzed for three different load combinations: Normal (N) Case, Normal and Temperature (N + T) Case & Normal, Temperature and Seismic (N + T + S) Case. Longitudinal forces acting on the bridge like braking effort/tractive effort, frictional resistance at the bearings and seismic forces acting on live load and bridge superstructure will produce horizontal shear force at the bearings. The horizontal shear force will be calculated for different load combinations as discussed above, and later is incorporated into their respective case of load combinations. Stresses developed into the pier due to different loads and forces are calculated individually, and the resultant maximum stress acting on the pier is worked out for different load combinations. The resultant maximum stress for each load combination should be within the permissible stress limits. For brick masonry in cement mortar, permissible compressive stress is 1 MPa and permissible tensile stress is 0.10 MPa. In stone masonry, compressive stress is limited to 1.5 MPa and tensile stress is limited to 0.10 MPa. Permissible stresses for concrete are given in Table 21 of IS: 456-20001, for different grades of concrete. Table 2.1 shows the permissible stresses for plain concrete used in bridge analysis and design. It includes seismic forces acting in horizontal forces

8|Page

Table 2.2: Permissible Stresses in Concrete Grade of Concrete M 10 M 15 M 20 M 25 M 30 M 35 M 40 M 45 M 50 Permissible Stresses in Concrete (in MPa) For Compression 2.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 For Tension 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

IRC: 6-20006 allows the increase in permissible stresses of concrete for different load combinations. For Normal and Temperature (N + T) case i.e. when the effect of temperature is considered, permissible stress can be increased by 15 percent. Finally, for Normal, Temperature and Seismic (N + T + S) case permissible stress can be exceeded by 50%. If the maximum stresses in piers for the worst loading combination are more than the permissible stress, it is required to redesign the piers in order to bring maximum stresses within the permissible limit. 2.4 CONCLUSIONS The types and the features of piers and pier caps usually employed for bridge crossings have been briefly discussed together with analysis methodology and permissible stresses for design.

9|Page

**CHAPTER 3 WELL FOUNDATIONS
**

3.1 INTRODUCTION Well foundations have their origin in India & have been used for hundreds of years for providing deep foundation to important buildings and bridges. Well foundations were freely used during the Moghal Period for bridges across the major rivers. Moghal monuments including Taj Mahal are built on well foundations. Well foundations provide a solid & massive structure. This foundation has maximum sectional modulus for a given crosssectional area. Wells can resist large horizontal forces & vertical loads even when the unsupported length is large in scourable river beds. A well foundation is monolithic and relatively rigid in its structural behaviour. 3.2 TYPES OF WELL FOUNDATIONS Different types of wells in common use are shown in Fig. 3.1 The controlling factors in selecting the shape of the well foundation are: the base dimensions of pier or abutment, the ease with which the well can be sunk, cost, considerations of tilt and shift, ease of sinking and the magnitude of the forces to be resisted by the foundation. Circular wells are used most commonly and the mains points in their favour are their strength, simplicity in construction and ease of sinking. However, in terms of the lateral stability for a given cross-sectional area, circular wells offer the least resistance against tilting when compared with other sections. Circular wells also suffer from the disadvantage that in the case of large oblong piers, the diameter of a circular well becomes excessive which renders them uneconomical besides creating obstruction to the flow of water. Two or three independent circular, square or rectangular wells in section suitably connected can be used for supporting long piers. Such wells are called tied wells. Tied wells of different shapes are preferred to avoid relative tilts between wells. Double-D shaped and dumb-bell shaped wells are the most commonly used shapes of tied wells. Double octagonal well is also a monolithic well consisting of two circular dredge holes. On account of its shape, the flexural stresses developed in the steining are relatively less compared to a doubleD shape. However, sharp corners of double octagonal wells produce grater scour. Rectangular wells are generally adopted for bridge foundations having shallow depths. They can be adopted very conveniently where the bridge is designed for open foundations and change to well foundation becomes necessary during the course of construction on account of adverse conditions such as excessive inflow of water and silt into the excavation. For piers of

10 | P a g e

very large sizes, wells with multiple dredge holes are used. Wells of this type have been used for the towers of the Howrah Bridge.

(a) Circular well

(b) Double-D well

(c) Double octagonal well

(d) Double rectangular well

(e) Dumb-bell

(f) Rectangular well

(g) Multiple dredge-hole well Fig. 3.1 Different Shapes of Well

11 | P a g e

3.3 ELEMENTS OF A WELL FOUNDATION A well foundation is a type of foundation which is generally built in parts at the surface and sunk to its final position, where it forms the permanent foundation. Fig. 3.2 shows a typical section of a circular well foundation.

Fig. 3.2 Typical Section of Well Foundation (a) Well-cap: It is a RCC slab laid at the top of the well steining to transmit the loads and moments from the pier to the well or wells below. Shape of well cap is same as that of well with a possible overhand of 150 mm all-around to accommodate lengthy piers. It is designed as a two-way slab with partial fixedity at supports. The top of the well cap is usually kept at the bed level in case of rivers with seasonal flow or at about the low water level in case of perennial rivers. Thickness of well cap is usually between 1500 mm to 2000 mm.

12 | P a g e

(b) Steining: It is the main body of the well which transfers load to the base of the foundation. Steining is normally of reinforced concrete. Minimum grade of concrete used in steining is M20 with cement content not less than 310 kg/m3. To facilitate well sinking an off-set of 75 mm to 100 mm is provided in well steining at its junction with the well curb. The thickness of well steining should not be less tan 500 mm nor less than that given by Eq. 3.1. (3.1) where, t = minimum thickness of concrete steining, m, D = external diameter of circular well or dumb bell shaped well or smaller plan dimension of twin D well, m, L = depth of well in m below L.W.L. or top of well cap whichever is greater, K = a constant depending on the nature of subsoil and steining material (taken as 0.30 for circular well and 0.039 for twin – D well for concrete steining in sandy strata and 10% more than the corresponding value in the case of clayey soil). (c) Well curb: It is the wedge shaped RCC ring beam located at the lower portion of the well steining provided to facilitate sinking. Well curb carries cutting edge for the well and is made up of reinforced concrete using controlled concrete of grade M25. The cutting edge usually consists of a mild steel equal angle of side 150 mm. In case blasting in anticipated, the outer face of the well curb should be protected with 6 mm thick steel plate and the inner face should have 10 mm thick plate up to the top of the curb and 6 mm plate further up to a height of 3 m above the top of the curb. (d) Bottom plug: After the well is sunk to the required depth, the base of the well is plugged with concrete. This is called the bottom plug. It acts like an inverted dome supported by the steining on all the sides and transmits the load to the subsoil and acts as a raft against soil pressure from below. Minimum grade of concrete used in bottom plug is M15. Thickness of bottom plug should not be less than the half of dredge-hole diameter nor less than the value calculated in Eq. 3.2. , where, W = total bearing pressure at the base of well,

13 | P a g e

(3.2)

fc = flexural strength of concrete in bottom plug, , and, = Poisson‟s ratio for concrete, 0.18 to 0.20. (e) Top plug: The top plug is an unreinforced concrete plug, generally provided with a thickness of about 600 mm beneath the well cap to transmit the loads from the pier to the steining. Minimum grade of concrete used in top plug is M15. The space inside the well between the bottom of the top plug and the top of bottom plug is usually filled with clean sand, so that the stability of the well against overturning is increased. While this practice is good in case of wells resting on sand or rock, the desirability of sand filling for wells resting on clayey strata is doubtful, as this increases the load on the foundation and may lead to greater settlement. In the latter case, the sand filling is done only for the part of well up to scour level, and remaining portion is left free. (f) Intermediate plug: As discussed above, for wells resting on clayey strata, it is not preferable to fill the space inside the well completely with sand. In such cases, sand filling is not done or sand is filled up to the scour level. A concrete plug covering the filling is usually provided, known as intermediate plug. Usually, thickness of intermediate plug is taken as 500 mm. 3.4 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF WELL FOUNDATION In order to design the well foundation, maximum depth of scour should be determined first since the maximum scour depth decides the depth of the well foundation. 3.4.1 DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM SCOUR DEPTH The codes IRC: 78-20008 and IS:3955-19675 recommend that the maximum scour depth in a stream should be ascertained, whenever possible, by actual soundings at or near the site proposed for the bridge, during or immediately after a flood before the scour holes have had time to silt up appreciably. In case actual soundings are not possible, depth of scour in stream can be ascertained using theoretical methods taking into account the velocity of stream, characteristics of the river bed materials, and many other factors. The IRC: 78-20008 recommended formula for calculating the mean depth of scour below High Flood Level (HFL) for natural channels flowing over scourable bed is as follows:

,

(3.3)

**where, Db = Design discharge per meter width of effective linear waterway, m3/ms,
**

14 | P a g e

=

, Q is the design discharge in the stream in m3/s and is the linear waterway, m,

Ksf = Silt factor for a representative sample of the bed material obtained up to the level of the anticipated deepest scour, and, = 1.76 , dm is the median size of the bed sediments in mm.

Table 3.1 presents the IRC: 78-20008 recommended values of silt factor for various types of sandy beds for ready reference and adoption. Table 3.1: Silt factors for Sandy beds, IRC: 78-20008 Type of bed material Coarse silt Silt/fine sand Medium sand Coarse sand Fine bajri and sand Heavy sand 0.04 0.081 to 0.158 0.233 to 0.505 0.725 0.988 1.29 to 2.00 0.35 0.5 to 0.6 0.8 to 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 to 2.42

The normal scour depth for natural streams in alluvial beds can also be calculated using Lacey‟s formula given below:

,

(3.4)

where, d = Normal depth of scour below highest flood level for regime conditions in a stable channel, m. Q = Designed discharge, m3/s and, f = Lacey‟s silt factor for a representative sample of the bed material. This can be determined from Table 3.1. The scour depth with maximum value, obtained from any of the formulae as discussed above will be considered as , the mean scour depth for design of foundation. As per the recommendations of IRC: 78 – 20008, at the noses of piers, the maximum depth of scour, dmax, is taken as twice of mean scour depth, . (3.5)

15 | P a g e

The well foundation shall be taken to such a depth that it is safe against scour. Apart from this, the depth of the well foundation should also be sufficient from considerations of bearing capacity, settlement stability and suitability of strata at the founding level. Invariably, the well foundation in all cases shall be taken down to a depth which will provide sufficient grip. The grip length below the anticipated maximum scour level shall not be less than 1/3 rd the maximum anticipated depth of scour below H.F.L. 3.4.2 LOADS FOR WELL FOUNDATION DESIGN After determining the depth of the well foundation, the dimensions of well and its different components are empirically assumed. The following loads are considered for the analysis and design of well foundation: 1. Dead load 2. Live load 3. Buoyancy 4. Wind load 5. Horizontal force due to water current 6. Centrifugal forces 7. Longitudinal forces 8. Seismic forces 9. Horizontal shear forces at bearings due to longitudinal forces and seismic forces 10. Forces due to tilt and shift. The loads mentioned above are discussed in Section 2.2 of Chapter 2. These loads are calculated with respect to the bridge superstructure and substructure and correspondingly, the total vertical load, the total horizontal forces acting along the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction of bridge and the moments about the transverse and longitudinal axis of the bridge are obtained for the design of the well foundation. Moments due to shift and tilt of wells are also be included in the analysis of the well. 3.4.3 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF WELL FOUNDATIONS The stability of well foundation under the action of lateral loads, particularly large magnitudes of seismic forces, depends on the passive resistance of the soil on the sides and the base of the well. As the lateral load increases for a given magnitude of the vertical load, the soil deformation increases disproportionately when compared with the deformation at initial loading. Under the combined action of vertical and lateral loads the mechanism of sharing the applied loads between the sides and the base of the well also gets significantly modified. Hence, the behaviour of the soil at ultimate loads is different form that at the elastic

16 | P a g e

stage which is assumed to prevail under vertical loading. The IRC: 45-19727 therefore specifies two checks, one for soil pressures under working loads and the other for the factor of safety available with respect to ultimate strength of the surrounding the well. As per IRC: 45-19727, the resistance of the soil surrounding the well is checked using: a. Elastic theory b. Plastic theory (also called as Ultimate Resistance Method) The following assumptions are made in computing soil pressure using elastic theory: i. The soil surrounding the well and below the base is perfectly elastic, homogeneous and obeys Hooke‟s law ii. Under design loads, the lateral deflections are so small that the unit soil reaction „p‟ increases linearly with increasing lateral deflections „z‟. Hence p = KHz where, KH is the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction at the base. iii. The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction increases linearly with depths in the case of cohesionless soils. iv. The well is assumed to be a rigid body, subjected to an external unidirectional horizontal force „H‟ and moment „M‟ at scour level. As a consequence of the above assumptions, the pressure distribution is parabolic on the sides of the well and linear at the base. The elastic theory gives the soil pressure in the sides and the base of the well under design loads. However, to determine the actual factor of safety against failure it is necessary to calculate the ultimate soil resistance which is done by assuming plastic behaviour of the soil at ultimate loads. For checking the ultimate load capacity of the well foundation, the applied loads are multiplied by suitable load factors for various load combinations and the ultimate resistance is reduced by appropriate under-strength factors and the two are then compared. A step-wise description of these two methods of analysis of well foundations is given below: Both the above methods are applicable if the well foundation is resting on non-cohesive soil like sand and is surrounded by the same soil below the maximum scour level. The above methods should not be used for analysis if the depth of embedment of the well is less than 0.5 times the width of foundation in the direction of the principal lateral forces.

17 | P a g e

1. ELASTIC THEORY STEP 1: Determine the values of W, H and M under combination of normal loads without wind and seismic loads where, W = total downward load acting at the base of well, including self weight of well H = external horizontal force acting on the well at scour level M = total applied external moment about the base of well, including those due to tilts and shifts, STEP 2: Compute where, = moment of inertia of base about an axis normal to the direction of horizontal forces and passing though the C.G. of the well. = moment of inertia of the projected area in elevation of the soil mass offering lateral resistance = and and ; (3.6)

;

L = projected width of the soil mass offering lateral resistance multiplied by the appropriate value of shape the factor. The value of shape factor for circular wells shall be taken as 0.9. For square or rectangular wells where the resultant horizontal force acts parallel to the principal axis, the shape factor shall be unity and where the forces are inclined to the principal axis, a suitable shape factor based on experimental results is used. D = depth of well below scour level, m = KH/K; Ratio of horizontal to vertical coefficient of sub grade reaction at base of well. In the absence of values for KH and K determined by field tests m shall generally be assumed to be unity, = coefficient of friction between the sides of the well and the soil = α = = , where δ is the angle of wall friction between well and the soil, for a rectangular well, for a circular well.

STEP 3: Ensure the following:

(3.7)

18 | P a g e

(3.8)

where,

**, = coefficient of friction between the base of the and the soil. It
**

shall be taken as = angle of internal friction of soil.

STEP 4: Check the elastic state

(3.9)

where,

**= density of the soil (submerged density to be taken when under water or
**

below water table)

**= passive and active pressure coefficients to be calculated using Coulomb‟s
**

theory, assuming „δ‟, the angle of wall friction between well and soil to be equal to , but limited to a value of .

(3.10) (3.11)

STEP 5: Calculate where, & = maximum and minimum base pressures, respectively, A = area of the base of well, B = width of the base of well in the direction of forces and moments, P = M/r, STEP 6: Check & i.e. no tension, and, allowable bearing capacity of soil.

(3.12)

STEP 7: If any of the conditions in Step 3 or Step 4 is not satisfied, then the grip length of the well may be increased and all the calculations are revised. If the conditions in Step 5 are not satisfied then, either the grip length of the well or the diameter of the well is increased. STEP 8: The above steps are repeated for load combinations containing seismic and wind loads separately.

19 | P a g e

2. ULTIMATE RESISTANCE METHOD STEP 1: Check that

,

(3.13)

where, W = total downward load acting at the base of well, taking appropriate load factors as per the combinations given below: 1.1D 1.1D + B + 1.4(WC + EP + W or S) 1.1D + 1.6L 1.1D + B + 1.4(L + WC + EP) 1.1D + B + 1.25(L + WC + EP + W or S) where, D = dead load L = live load including barking load and other forces related to live load B = Buoyancy WC = water current force EP = earth pressure W = wind force S = seismic force A = area of the base of well = ultimate bearing capacity of soil below the base of well (taking a factor of safety of 2.5). STEP 2: Calculate the base resisting moment, Mb, at the base of well using the following equation: Mb = QWB , (3.14)

where, B = width, in the case of square and rectangular wells measured parallel to the direction of forces and diameter for circular wells Q = a constant whose values are given in Table 3.2 below for wells with a square or a rectangular base. A value of 0.60 is taken for circular wells = angle of internal friction of soil.

Table 3.2 Values of the constant Q for square or rectangular wells D/B Q 0.5 0.41 1.0 0.45 1.5 0.50 2.0 0.56 2.5 0.64

20 | P a g e

The ultimate moment of resistance of the well sides due to the passive resistance of the soil, , is calculated next. (3.15) where, = density of soil (submerged density to be taken for soils under water or below the water table), L = projected width of the soil mass offering resistance. In case of circular wells, it shall be 0.9 times the well diameter

**= passive and active pressure coefficients to be calculated using Coulomb‟s
**

theory, assuming „δ‟, the angle of wall friction between the well and the surrounding soil to be equal to but limited to a value of . , is

STEP 3: The ultimate moment of resistance of the well sides due to friction, calculated (i) For rectangular wells,

(3.16) (ii) For circular wells, (3.17) STEP 4: The total ultimate moment of resistance of the well is taken as Mt Mt = 0.7(Mb + Ms + Mf) Where 0.7 is the strength reduction factor STEP 5: Check Mt M (3.18)

where, M = Total applied external moment about the plane of rotation of the well taking appropriate load factors as per combinations given vide step 1. STEP 6: If the conditions in Steps 1 and 5 are not satisfied, the well shall be redesigned. 3.4.4 DESIGN OF WELL CURB When the well is dredged during the process of sinking, the curb cuts through the soil under the action of the dead weight of the steining including kentledge, if any and hence hoop tension is developed in the well curb. The well curb has to be designed for the hoop tension. Total hoop tension, where, N = running load of the well steining on the curb, d = mean diameter of well steining, = angle of beveled edge of well curb with horizontal, and,

(3.19)

**µ = coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of curb.
**

21 | P a g e

A minimum reinforcement of 72 kg/m3 is provided in the well curb. The

**reinforcement is provided in the form of rings distributed along the perimeter of the well
**

curb, the rings being enclosed within stirrups. 3.4.5 DESIGN OF WELL STEINING: Before designing the section of the steining, the stresses in the steining are calculated at the level of maximum scour.

**(3.20) (3.21) where, W = total vertical load acting up to the maximum scour depth,
**

A = area of cross-section of well steining, M = Resultant moment due to various loads as considered during analysis of well at maximum scour level Z = Section modulus of well steining. The stresses should be within the permissible limits. Permissible limit of stresses for different grades of concrete can be obtained from Table 2.2. If the stresses exceed the permissible limits, the thickness of the well steining has to be increased. A minimum thickness of the steining, tmin, given by the following equation is required to avoid the excessive kentledge during sinking of the well. Thickness,

(3.22)

**where, d = external diameter of well,
**

= density of concrete, and, f = skin friction acting on the curved surface area of the well, = where, = coefficient of friction between soil and concrete,

KA = coefficient of active earth pressure = submerged density of soil on the sides of steining h = height of well. After performing the checks for stresses and thickness of steining, the reinforcements in the steining are calculated. The vertical reinforcements in the steining should not be less than 0.12 percent of the gross sectional area of the actual thickness provided for the steining. The vertical reinforcement should be equally distributed on both the faces of the steining. The

22 | P a g e

vertical reinforcement should be tied up with hoop steel not less than 0.04 percent of the volume per unit length of the steining. 3.4.6 DESIGN OF BOTTOM PLUG The bottom plug has to be checked for minimum thickness given by the following equations,

**(For circular wells), (For rectangular wells),
**

where, r = radius of well at the base q = unit bearing pressure against the base of the well

(3.23) (3.24)

**= flexural strength of concrete used in bottom plug
**

b = short side of well α = short side/long side ratio of well. 3.4.7 DESIGN OF WELL CAP A well cap is needed to transfer the loads and moments from the pier to the well. The shape of the wall cap is normally kept the same as of the well with a possible overhang of 150 mm. The top of the well cap is usually kept at about the low water level in case of perennial rivers. The well cap is designed as a two-way reinforced concrete slab resting over the top of well. The support conditions are taken partially restrained. The design of the well cap is carried out by assuming that the load from the pier acts on an imaginary circle having an area equal to the area of dispersion of the loads transferred from the pier to the well cap. Since the well-cap is assumed to be partially restrained by the steining, the moments in the well-cap are calculated for circular patch loading and for U.D.L. (self-weight of well cap) for the following two conditions: (1) Well cap freely supported on steining (2) Well cap fully clamped on steining Condition 1: Well cap freely supported on the steining Take, Poisson‟s ratio of concrete, w = weight of well cap per unit area V = vertical load acting on the well-cap h = effective diameter of well-cap,

&

23 | P a g e

are the radial and the tangential moments in well-cap, respectively.

In the first instance, the moments in the well cap due to vertical loads transferred from the pier and the self weight of the well cap are determined. (i) Moments beneath loaded area due to circular patch loading

(3.25) (3.26)

d = diameter of equivalent circular patch loading (ii) Moments beneath unloaded area due to circular patch loading (3.27) (3.28) At support, d = h; = 1

The radial and tangential moments in the well cap due to U.D.L. are given by

(3.29) (3.30)

At centre, d = 0; At support, d = h; = 0 = 1

Condition 2: Well cap fully clamped at support (i) Moments beneath loaded area due to circular patch loading

(3.31) (3.32)

d = diameter of equivalent circular patch loading (ii) Moments beneath unloaded area due to circular patch loading

(3.33) (3.34)

At support, d = h; = 1

The radial and tangential moments in the well cap due to U.D.L. are given by

(3.35)

24 | P a g e

(3.36)

At centre, d = 0; At support, d = h; If = 0 = 1

is the resultant moment per metre length of the pier, then maximum reactive moment at

the support = Hence, the maximum moment at the centre of the well cap due to moments transferred form pier = The maximum moment at the edges of the well cap due to moments transferred from pier =

.

The resultant moments for the design of the well-cap section at mid-span and at

supports can be found out as follows. Mcentre = (Mean radial moment due to patch loads beneath the loaded area) + (Mean radial moment due to U.D.L. at the centre of well-cap) + (moment at the centre of well cap due to moments transferred from pier) Medge = (Mean radial moment due to patch loads beneath unloaded area) + (Mean radial moment due to U.D.L. at the support of well-cap) + (moment at the edges of well cap due to moments transferred from pier) Hence, the reinforcement at the centre of the well-cap is calculated for the moment Mcentre and the reinforcement at the edges of well-cap is calculated for the moment Medge. Half of the main tension reinforcement at the centre and at the support sections of the well cap is provided on the compression face. All reinforcement in the well-cap is provided as an orthotropic mesh. The well-cap is finally checked for punching shear as per IS: 456-20001. 3.5 CONCLUSIONS The role and the features of well foundations have been discussed in this chapter. This stability analysis of well foundations has been explained and the design of various components has been briefly reviewed.

25 | P a g e

**CHAPTER 4 PILE FOUNDATIONS
**

4.1 INTRODUCTION Piles are relatively long and slender members used to transfer loads through weak soil or water to deeper soil or rock strata having a high bearing capacity. Piles are usually installed in clusters/group to provide foundations for bridges. A pile foundation may have vertical piles or batter piles or a combination of vertical and batter piles. Well foundations are provided to the bridges, only when soils with high bearing capacity are available at the shallow depths in ground, in order to resist loads and moments transferred by well to the soil. It is not preferable to use well foundations, when low bearing strata like clay is present in the ground up to greater depths. The uses of piles for bridge foundations are justified in the following cases: (a) The upper soil strata are too compressible or too weak to support the heavy vertical reaction transmitted by the superstructures and piers. In this instance, piles serve as extensions of piers to carry the loads to deep, rigid stratum such as rock. Such piles are called as point or end bearing Piles. If a rigid stratum does not exist within reasonable depth, the load must be gradually transferred, mainly by the friction, along the pile shafts. Piles transferring loads to soil by skin friction through its lateral surface area are called as Friction Piles.

(a) Point Bearing Piles

(b) Friction Piles

Fig. 4.1 Piles Classification on the basis of load transfer mechanism

26 | P a g e

(b) Piles are also frequently required because of relative inability of other foundations to transmit inclined, horizontal, or uplift forces and overturning moments. As the name implies, uplift piles are used for resisting uplift forces on foundations.

Fig. 4.2 Uplift Piles (c) Pile foundations are often required when scour around the foundations can cause erosion in spite of presence of strong, incompressible strata (such as sand, gravel, etc.) at shallow depths. In such cases, piles can be particularly effective in bypassing scourable strata and transferring loads to in erodible soil.

Fig. 4.3 Use of piles in scourable beds (d) In areas where expansive or collapsible soil extends to considerable depth below the ground, pile foundations may be needed to ensure safety against undesirable seasonal movements of foundations.

27 | P a g e

Fig. 4.4 Piles in expansive soils can control seasonal movements Piles can be classified according to the materials of which they are made of. The main materials used in makings piles are timber, reinforced concrete and steel. Reinforced concrete piles are generally used in pile foundations for bridges. Concrete piles are either precast or cast-in-situ. Precast piles are installed into the ground by drilling, while cast-in-situ piles are bored pile. Under-reamed pile is a special type of bored pile having one or more bulbs. With the presence of under-ream, substantial bearing or anchorage is available. These piles find application in widely varying situations in different types of soils where foundations are required to be taken down to a certain depth. Diameters of bulbs are usually 2 to 3 times the diameter of the pile shaft. The under-ream increases the load carrying capacity of the pile. Such piles are claimed to be useful and economical in expansive soils like black cotton soils of India, where shrinkage and swelling of clays rules out the use of shallow spread footings. Piles in foundations are usually installed in a group. The top of the piles are connected together with a stiff reinforced concrete slab called pile cap. All the piles are projected atleast 50 mm in the concrete of the cap. A pile group having pile cap standing clearly above the ground is know as a free standing pile group. Free standing pile groups are used in river bridge crossings, where the top of the pile cap is usually kept at the level of L.W.L. A pile group in which the pile cap rests on the soil, partially or is fully buried below ground level is known as piled foundation. In a piled foundation, the pile cap may, under certain soil conditions, help in transmitting a part of the load to the soil on which it rests. Piled foundations are generally used for elevated highways and flyovers where pile cap is fully buried inside the ground to provide space for the roadways.

28 | P a g e

Fig. 4.5 Free Standing Pile Group 4.2 DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

Fig. 4.6 Piled Foundation

If pile foundations are to be used for river bridge crossings, then the maximum scour depth for the stream has to be determined. The calculation of maximum scour depth is discussed in Section 3.3.1 of Chapter 3. For river bridge crossings, the top of the pile cap is placed at the level of L.W.L., while for non-river bridge crossings, the pile cap is fully buried into the ground with its top placed at ground level. Later, the forces and moments acting at the top of pile cap i.e. at the base of pier are calculated, during the analysis of pier. After calculating the forces and moments at the base of pier, the axial loads in the piles due to applied forces and moments are determined for an assumed size and configuration of piles in a pile group. The assumed pile properties are subsequently checked for safety. 4.2.1 UNDER-REAMED PILES The diameter of under-reamed piles in bridge applications is generally not taken less than 300 mm. The length of the pile is selected as per the nature of the soil strata. For example, if a weak layer is underlain by a strong stratum at a reasonable depth, the length of the pile is so chosen such that the penetration of the pile into the strong stratum (bearing stratum) is a minimum of 5 times the pile diameter or width. On the other hand, if the weak layer extends to a considerable depth, the length of pile is so chosen as to obtain adequate pile capacity through skin resistance. The design of under-reamed piles can be carried out with the aid of Table 1 of IS: 2911(Part III) – 19804. Table 1 of IS: 2911(Part III) – 19804 which is reproduced in toto as Table 4.3 in this thesis is a useful guide for selecting important parameter w.r.t. under-reamed piles viz. Diameter of pile shaft and under-ream, length of pile number of under-reams and the capacity of a selected configuration of under-reamed pile in compression, tension and

29 | P a g e

lateral load carrying capacity. Usually a suitable value is selected as the diameter of the pile shaft. The diameter of the under-ream is taken as 2.5 times the diameter of pile shaft. Piles can have one or more than one under-reams, but it is not advisable to have more than two under-reams on one pile without ensuring their feasibility in strata needing stabilization of boreholes by drilling mud. For piles up to 300 mm diameter, the spacing between consecutive under-reams should not exceed 1.5 times the diameter of the under-ream. For piles of diameter greater than 300 mm, spacing can be reduced to 1.25 times the stem diameter. The top-most under-ream should be at a minimum depth of 2 times the under-ream diameter below the ground. In expansive soils, the top-most under-ream should not be less than 1.75 m below ground level. Clearance between the underside of pile cap embedded in the ground and the top under-ream should be minimum 1.5 times the under-ream diameter. Columns (3) & (4) of Table 4.3 provide minimum length for single and double under-reamed piles, respectively. After fixing the dimensions of the under-reamed pile, the load bearing capacity of a single under-reamed pile is estimated. The pile capacity is compared with the maximum load expected on the pile to ensure an adequate margin of safety. 4.2.2 BORED CAST-IN-SITU PILES The safe bearing capacity of a pile can be determined from its ultimate bearing capacity, by using a suitable factor of safety. The methods available to estimate the ultimate capacity of a single pile in compression can be grouped into the following categories: i. ii. iii. Static-in-situ test. Static analysis, Dynamic analysis, The static-in-situ test, popularly known as pile load test, is the only direct method for determining the allowable load on piles. It is considered to be the most reliable of all the approaches, primarily due to the fact that it is an in-situ test performed on a pile of prototype pile dimension. Pile load test is a costly test and is used to confirm whether the actual pile installed in the filed can take the load predicted by static or dynamic analysis. Dynamic analysis is used for determining ultimate capacity of driven piles. Static analysis, which is based on „soil mechanics‟ approach provides approximate estimates of pile capacity, as values of a number of parameters appearing in the static formulae are assigned empirically. For bored piles, static analysis is performed. A brief description of static analysis of piles is presented next. A pile when loaded, transfers the load through skin friction along the length of the

30 | P a g e

pile and through point bearing at the tip of the pile. Thus, the ultimate capacity of a pile may be obtained as,

, where, = total skin frictional resistance, = total point bearing resistance, = unit skin frictional resistance, = unit point resistance,

(4.1)

= lateral surface area of the pile, and, = area of the pile tip.

Fig. 4.7 Load resisting mechanism in a pile The unit frictional resistance, and the unit point bearing resistance, , depend on

many factors such as the type of soil, method of installation and the pile material. Of these, the method of pile installation affects the pile capacity significantly, and also makes the estimation of pile capacity more complex. In order to clearly identify the effect of pile installation and account for the same, it is convenient to discuss separately the case of piles in cohesion-less soils and cohesive soils.

31 | P a g e

Piles in Cohesion-less soil: As suggested in Eq. 4.1, the pile capacity can be obtained as the sum of point bearing resistance and skin friction resistance. Point Bearing Resistance: The unit point bearing resistance in cohesion-less soil is given by, , where, = effective overburden stress at the level of the pile tip, B = diameter or width of pile, = density of the soil, = shape factor, 0.4 for square or rectangular piles, and,0.3 for circular piles, and, & = bearing capacity factors. is usually neglected, particularly in the case of (4.2)

The second term in Eq. 4.2,

long piles, as this constitutes an insignificant part of the total capacity. The first term in Eq. 4.2 implies that the base resistance increases linearly with depth. The bearing capacity factor, is a function of the angle of internal friction of soil, , and its value can be obtained from Fig. 1 of IS: 2911 (Part 1) – 19793, reproduced here as Fig. 4.8. The bearing capacity factor, can also be read off from Table4.1.

**Fig. 4.8 Bearing Capacity Factor,
**

32 | P a g e

for bored piles.

Table 4.1 Bearing Capacity Factor, Angle of internal friction of soil ( , in ( ° ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

,

0.00 0.45 1.22 2.65 5.39 10.88 22.40 48.03 109.41 271.76 762.89

Skin Frictional Resistance: The unit skin frictional resistance at any depth, z, below the ground level may be obtained as follows , where, = the effective overburden stress at the depth considered, = angle of wall friction of the material of the pile, = of the angle of friction of soil( ) (4.3)

= coefficient of horizontal stress. The value of depends on the soil properties and the method of installation of the can be selected from Table 4.2

pile. The appropriate value of

Table 4.2 Value of coefficient of horizontal soil stress ( Installation Method Driven piles, large displacement Driven piles, small displacement Bored and cast-in-situ piles Jetted piles

33 | P a g e

1 to 2 0.75 to 1.25 0.70 to 1 0.50 to 0.70

Here, Piles in cohesive soils:

.

(4.4)

The point bearing resistance and the skin frictional resistance of a pile in cohesive soil i.e. clay, can be determined as follows: Point Bearing Resistance: The unit point bearing resistance is obtained as follows, , where, = undrained cohesion at the pile tip, and, = bearing capacity factor, generally taken as 9. Skin Frictional Resistance: The unit skin resistance is obtained as follows, , where, α = adhesion factor. The adhesion factor depends on the cohesive strength of the soil. It can be obtained from Fig. 4.9. (4.6) (4.5)

Fig. 4.9 Adhesion factor for cohesive soils The safe bearing capacity of a bored pile can be computed by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile by an appropriate factor of safety. The minimum factor of safety for static analysis is 2.5.

34 | P a g e

Table 4.3 Safe loads for under-reamed piles

4.2.3 NUMBERS, SPACING AND ARRANGEMENT OF PILES The number of piles required in bridge foundation is obtained by dividing the total vertical load acting on the foundation by the safe bearing capacity of a single pile. The spacing of piles shall be considered in relation to the nature of ground, the types of piles and the manner in which the piles transfer the load to the ground. Generally, the centre-to-centre spacing of under-reamed piles in a group should be at least 1.5 times the diameter of the under-ream. For bored cast-in-situ piles, a minimum spacing of 2.5 times the diameter of pile is recommended for piles deriving their capacities mainly from the end bearing stratum (end bearing piles). On the other hand, piles deriving their bearing capacity primarily from friction (friction piles) shall be sufficiently apart to ensure that the zones of soils from which the piles derive their support do not overlap to such an extent that their bearing values are reduced. Generally the spacing in such case shall not be less than 3 times the diameter of the pile. The arrangement of piles in a foundation depends upon the number of piles to be installed in the foundation. Wherever conditions permit, the piles should be arranged in the most compact geometric form in order to keep the stresses in the pile cap to a minimum. Some geometric forms are shown in Figure 4.10.

35 | P a g e

Fig. 4.10 Typical arrangement of piles in a group Piles in foundation can be arranged in a grid pattern, where the spacing between the piles in longitudinal as well as transverse direction of the bridge remains the same. After fixing the arrangement of piles in a group, the dimensions of the pile cap are determined. A clear overhang of 100 mm to 150 mm should be provided in the pile cap beyond the edge of the outermost pile in the group. A minimum of three piles shall be provided in pile group. If the numbers of piles provided in the foundation are three, then the connection of the pile cap with the piles is

36 | P a g e

assumed to be hinged connection i.e. pile cap can transmit only forces and not the moments, from pier to the piles. If the number of piles in the pile group exceeds three, then a rigid connection is provided between the piles and the pile cap i.e. the pile cap is able to transmit both forces and moments, from pier to the piles. The group capacity of piles is found by assuming the pile group to behave as a deep footing. 4.2.4 SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUPS The group capacity of piles may be found assuming the pile group to behave as one deep footing. 4.2.4(a) GROUP OF BORED CAST-IN-SITU PILES The ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group in can be estimated as follows: Pile Group in cohesion-less soil For a pile group in sand, the values of the different parameters used for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group can be calculated as follows: (4.7) = unit skin frictional resistance, , where, = the effective overburden stress at the depth considered, = angle of friction of soil, and, , = lateral surface area of the block enclosing the piles in the group, = unit point resistance, , and, where, = undrained cohesion at the bottom of pile group, and, = bearing capacity factor, generally taken as 9, = base area enclosing all the piles in group. For Pile Group in cohesive soil For pile group in clay, the values of different parameters used in estimating ultimate bearing capacity of pile group can be calculated as follows: = unit skin frictional resistance, , where, = undrained cohesion at the bottom of pile group, = lateral surface area of the block enclosing the piles in the group,

37 | P a g e

(4.8)

(4.9)

(4.10)

(4.11)

=

unit point resistance, , and, (4.12)

where,

= bearing capacity factor, generally taken as 9, = base area enclosing all the piles in group.

The safe bearing capacity of the pile group shall be taken as the smaller of the two values given below:

where, n = number of piles in group, = ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile, = ultimate bearing capacity of the pile group as estimated above, FOS = Factor of Safety, generally taken as 3. 4.2.4(b) GROUP OF UNDER-REAMED PILES For under-reamed piles with a spacing of 2 times the diameter of the under-ream, the safe bearing capacity of the pile group will be equal to the safe load on an individual pile multiplied by the number of piles in the group. For piles at spacing of 1.5 times the diameter of the under-ream, the safe bearing capacity of the pile group will be equal to 90 percent of the safe load on an individual pile multiplied by the number of piles in the group. The safe bearing capacity of a pile group shall be greater then the actual load acting on the pile foundation. The vertical load acting on the foundation will also include the weight of pile cap. If the load acting on the foundation exceeds the safe bearing capacity of the pile group, then the piles are redesigned or the numbers of piles in the group are increased or the spacing between the piles is increased. In case of under-reamed piles, the number of under-reams on each pile can also be increased to extend the safe load limit of the pile group. Safe bearing capacity of the pile group is then re-estimated to check whether it is greater than the loads acting on foundation.

38 | P a g e

4.2.5 DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD BETWEEN VERTICAL PILES OF PILE GROUP The load acting on an individual pile is obtained from the elastic theory by using the following method:

,

where, Qi = load on ith pile, = Total vertical load acting on the foundation n = Total number of piles in group, = Moment acting at the soffit of pile cap about longitudinal axis of bridge = Moment acting at the soffit of pile cap about transverse axis of bridge = distance of the centre of ith pile from the centre of gravity of pile group, measured parallel to transverse axis of bridge

(4.13)

= distance of the centre of the ith pile from the centre of gravity of pile group, measured parallel to longitudinal axis of bridge = summation of squares of distances of the centres of all the piles from the centre of gravity of pile group measured parallel to transverse axis of bridge = summation of squares of distances of the centres of all the piles from the centre of gravity of pile group measured parallel to longitudinal axis of bridge If the calculated load on a pile exceeds its safe bearing capacity then the piles are required to be redesigned. The option is that, the number of piles or the spacing between piles can also be increased to reduce the maximum load acting on the piles. In the case of underreamed piles, the number of under-reams can be increased to increase the safe load limit of the pile.

39 | P a g e

4.2.6 LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS OF PILES It is assumed that all the piles in a group share equally the lateral load acting on the foundation. 4.2.6 (a) LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS OF BORED CAST-IN-SITU PILES When the length of a pile is more than ten times its diameter it is classified as a long pile and flexural behaviour governs the response of the pile to lateral loads. A majority of the piles used in bridge practice belong to this category. Generally, three types of boundary conditions are encountered in long piles namely (a) free-head pile, (b) fixed-head pile, & (c) partially-restrained head pile. In the case of freehead pile, the lateral load may act at or above the ground level and the pile head is free to rotate without any restraint. A fixed-head pile is free to move only laterally but rotation is prevented completely, whereas a pile with partially restrained head moves and rotates under restraint. If the number of piles in group is 3 or less, then the piles are considered as free-head piles. If the number of piles in group exceeds 3, the piles are considered as fixed-head piles. The following procedure is followed for finding the lateral load capacity of a pile. i. The relative stiffness factor T or R as the case may be, is found. (for piles founded in sand and normally loaded clays), (for piles founded in pre-loaded clays), where, E = Young‟s modulus of the pile material, . For concrete piles, = (in MPa), (4.16) (4.14) (4.15)

where, fck is the 28-days characteristic compressive strength of .concrete, I = second moment of inertia of the pile cross-section, in m4, The values of the soil constants respectively. ii. Form Fig. 4.11, the depth of fixity, Lf, of the pile assumed as an equivalent cantilever is found as a function of the ratio or where L1 is the unsupported length of the and K are presented in Table 4.4 and 4.5

pile. For non-river bridge crossings where in the piles are completely embedded in ground where in the piles are completely embedded in ground, L1 = 0. As shown in Fig. 4.11, the total length of equivalent cantilever is obtained as the summation of L1 and Lf. iii. Knowing the total length (L1 + Lf) of the equivalent cantilever, the lateral load capacity of a pile is calculated from the following equations

40 | P a g e

, ,

(for free head piles), (for fixed head piles),

(4.17) (4.18)

where, Y is the limiting lateral deflection of pile head taken as 5 mm for bridge substructures. Table 4.4 Values of the constant Value of SOIL TYPE Dry Loose sand Medium sand Dense sand Very loose sand under repeated loading Very soft organic soil For normally loaded clays Static loads Repeated loads 450 270 2600 7750 20760 Submerged 1460 5260 12450 410 110-270 (kN/m3) , (kN/m3)

Table 4.5 Values of the constant K (kN/m2) Unconfined Compression Strength, in kN/m2 20 – 40 100 - 200 200 - 400 > 400 Range of values of K, in kN/m2 700 – 4200 3200 – 6500 6500 – 13000 Probable value of K, in kN/m2 775 4880 9770 19546

41 | P a g e

Fig. 4.11 Determination of the depth of fixity of the pile 4.2.6 (b) LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY OF UNDER-REAMED PILES The safe lateral load of an under-reamed pile can be obtained from columns (16) and (17) of Table 1 of IS: 2911 (Part III)4 – 1980, which is reproduced as Table 4.3 in this thesis/. It may be noted from Table 4.3 that the lateral loads cannot be increased or decreased with change in the pile length. At the same time for piles with multi-under reamed the allowable lateral load values should not exceed those given in column (17) of Table 4.3. 4.2.7 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE As pointed out earlier, the fixed or free-head pile is treated as an equivalent cantilever for lateral load analysis. The fixed end moment (MF) of the equivalent cantilever is higher than the actual maximum moment (M) expected in the pile. The design moment for the pile is obtained by multiplying the fixed end moment of the equivalent cantilever by a reduction factor, m, obtained from Fig. 3 of IS: 2911 (Part 1)-19793 or from Fig. 5 of IS: 2911 (Part III) – 19804. The two figures are reproduced in Fig. 4.12 of this thesis for ready reference. The fixed end moment of the equivalent cantilever is given by: , , (for a free-head pile) (for a fixed head-pile) (4.19) (4.20) (4.21)

The design moment for the pile, M = m (MF)

42 | P a g e

(a) For Free Head Piles

(b) For Fixed Head Piles Fig. 4.12 Reduction factors for free-head and fixed-head piles The pile is designed as a RCC column for the maximum vertical load P and moment M. The area of longitudinal reinforcement provided in the pile should not be less than 0.4 percent of the gross-sectional area of pile. The longitudinal reinforcement is confined by lateral ties i.e. transverse

reinforcements. The diameter and the spacing of the lateral ties should be provided as per the requirements of IS 456: 20001.

43 | P a g e

4.2.8 SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUP According to Terzaghi and Peck (1967)21, the total settlement of a group of driven or bored piles under a safe design load not exceeding one-third to one half of the ultimate group capacity can generally be estimated roughly as that of an equivalent raft foundation. The deformation and compressibility properties of the soil beneath the equivalent raft foundation can be estimated from empirical correlations with the results of field tests, plate load tests, etc. or from the laboratory tests on undisturbed soil samples of cohesive soils. The settlement estimates should also be checked by pile load tests for possible extrapolation to group behaviour. Since the use of elastic theory for determination of vertical stresses in the soil surrounding and below the pile tips is extremely laborious for practical cases, approximate methods are proposed. These methods are briefly discussed below: (i) For friction piles, the vertical load acting on the foundation is placed on a fictitious raft footing located at from the bottom of the piles, where Lf is the penetration of the pile

into the ground. Plan dimensions of the raft are determined on the basis of a 1H : 2V dispersion of load as shown in Fig. 4.13 (b) & (c). .

(ii) For point bearing piles in dense sand-gravel deposits, the fictitious raft is placed at from the bottom of the piles, where Lf is penetration of the pile into the soil layer where the pile tip is situated. Plan dimensions of the raft are determined on the basis of a 1H : 2V dispersion of load as shown in Fig. 4.13 (a). .

The soil at or below the fictitious raft must carry the applied loads without excessive deformation. In some cases the settlements calculated by the above methods are smaller than the measured values. However, these simple approximations give sufficient information for determining the supporting strength of the lower strata of the soil.

44 | P a g e

(a) End Bearing Piles

(b) Friction pile, with pile cap embedded into the ground

(c) Partially embedded friction piles

Fig. 4.13 Computation of Settlements for End Bearing Piles & Friction Piles Settlement of pile group in cohesionless soil On the basis of the raft analogy, a preliminary estimate of the settlement of a pile group in cohesionless soil can be made. The settlement of the pile group in a soil layer can be estimated from the following equation proposed by De-Beer and Martens method (1957)22.

,

where, Si = settlement of the layer considered, H = height of layer, = mean effective overburden pressure for the layer,

(4.22)

= average increase in vertical stress in the layer due to footing load. This may be obtained assuming 1H : 2V load dispersion

45 | P a g e

C = constant of compressibility, , where, (4.23)

= average static cone penetration resistance for the layer considered.

Settlement of pile group in cohesive soils For piles in normally consolidated clays, the settlement is given by,

,

where, Si = settlement of the layer considered, H = height of layer, = mean effective overburden pressure for the layer,

(4.24)

= average increase in vertical stress in the layer due to footing load. This may be obtained assuming 1H : 2V load dispersion,

= compression index, and, = void ratio in the clay layer corresponding to the effective in-situ overburden pressure.

For piles in pre-consolidated clays, the settlement

is given by

,

where, = pre-consolidated pressure of the layer considered.

(4.25)

From serviceability considerations, the settlement of pile group should not exceed 50 mm. 4.2.9 DESIGN OF PILE CAP Pile cap is a structural member that ties a group of piles together. Plan dimensions of the pile cap are decided from the spacing between the piles and their arrangement in the group. Piles should be well arranged in a group so that the centroid of the group coincides with the line of action of load. A clear overhang of 100 mm to 150 mm beyond the edge of the outermost pile is given to the pile cap. The thickness of pile cap is usually governed by the shear developed in the pile cap. Pile caps can also be designed using the truss analogy. A clear cover of 50 mm is provided to the reinforcement in pile cap. As shown in Fig. 4.14, the critical section for moment in the pile cap is at the face of the pier. The pile cap is also checked for both, one-way shear & two-way shear. The critical section for one-way shear in the pile cap is located at a distance equal to effective depth „d‟

46 | P a g e

away from the face of the pier, Fig. 4.14. For two-way shear, the critical section is located at a distance of half of the effective depth „d‟, from the face of pier, Fig. 4.15.

Fig. 4.14 Critical section for moment & one-way shear

Fig. 4.15 Critical section for two-way shear

When the vertical load from the pier is transferred to the centroid of the piles through inclined internal coverage struts in the pile cap, large tension forces are induced in the reinforcements of the pile cap. The component of the thrust in the inclined concrete struts acting in the horizontal direction away from the pile-cap has a tendency to create “bursting forces” in the pile cap. Therefore, it is desirable to configure the concrete in the pile cap with suitable “bursting reinforcement”, usually 12 mm diameter closed rings at 150 c/c along the depth of the pile cap, Fig. 4.16.

**Fig. 4.16 Typical detailing of reinforcement in a pile cap.
**

47 | P a g e

4.3 CONCLUSIONS The features, analysis methodologies and the design of piles for vertical as well as lateral loads have been discussed in this chapter. The analysis and design of pile caps has been briefly reviewed.

48 | P a g e

**CHAPTER 5 SOFTWARE FEATURES
**

5.1 INTRODUCTION A software has been developed in the Visual Basic.Net platform for the analysis and design of bridge piers and foundations. The analysis and design of both well and pile foundations is incorporated in the software. The details and features of the software along with its functions layout are presented in this Chapter. Interactive feature are incorporated in the software which provides guidelines to the user for the input of every data. The software provides ample of flexibility to the user for selecting suitable data. Some of the important user friendly aspects of the software developed are as follows: 1. The analysis and design calculations are explained sequentially with the help of appropriate diagrams 2. Alert messages are given by the software if the user misses to input the required data in any of the form pages. 3. In case any of the analysis or design requirements are not satisfied the software will prompt the user with appropriate alternatives. The limitations of the software developed are as follows: 1. Simply supported spans are assumed for the superstructure 2. Only the following live load categories are included in the software: Class A and Class AA loading 3. The functions of the software are limited only up to the analysis of the pier. Software does not incorporate the structural design of piers. Also software can perform analysis of only two types of piers: wall type pier and hammer-head type piers 4. Software can work out for circular well foundation, bored cast-in-situ & under-reamed piles only. 5.2 FUNCTIONS LAYOUT OF THE SOFTWARE The tasks performed by the software are partitioned into various modules. The computations done in each module & the functioning of the modules are presented in the form of flow charts as explained below.

49 | P a g e

5.2.1 SELECTION AND INPUT OF PARAMETERS USED FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS Initially, the software will ask the user to select the type of foundation whose analysis and design is to be performed. The option of pile foundations is provided for river bridge crossings and for elevated roadways. The user will be asked to select any one type of bridge: river bridge crossing or non-river bridge crossing. The option of well foundations is provided for river bridge crossing. For well as well as and pile foundations in river bridge crossing, the user will be asked to input values of maximum mean velocity of stream, High Flood Level (HFL), Low Water Level (LWL), mean diameter of river bed particle & submerged density of soil at the site where the proposed foundation is to be provided. The option for use of different type of material in the pier is included in the software is included in the software. The user will be asked to input other relevant parameters like depth of girder, span, dead load on each girder, area of superstructure, type and width of carriageway & seismic zone, etc... The flow chart for the preliminary dimensioning of the pier is presented in Fig. 5.1 If a wall type pier is selected then as per the bearing spacing and plan dimensions of the bearings, the minimum required top width and length of the pier (without cutwater) is calculated. Software will not perform the next stage of calculations unless the input value of top width and length of pier (without cutwater) is greater than the minimum requirements. Later, the user is prompted to enter the batter of the pier so as to calculate the bottom width of the pier. Length of pier cap of walled type pier is calculated from the top length of pier. If a hammer-head type of pier is selected by the user then the user is asked to input the diameter and height of the pier shaft Length of pier cap is calculated from bearing spacing and dimensions. The user will be asked to enter the thickness of the rectangular and the tapered portion of the pier cap.

50 | P a g e

Fig.5.1 Flow Chart of preliminary dimensioning of pier

51 | P a g e

Fig. 5.2 Flow Chart for Analysis of Pier

52 | P a g e

5.2.2 ANALYSIS OF PIER The flow chart for the analysis of the pier is presented in Fig. 5.2. After deciding the preliminary dimensions of pier and pier cap, the software will perform the analysis of pier for the various forces acting on the pier. For both well and pile foundations in river bridge crossing, the pier is analysed for flood condition i.e. water level is at HFL. Stresses for various types of forces acting on pier due to dead load on pier, eccentric live load, longitudinal forces, water current in river, buoyant force, wind load, seismic force and shear forces at the bearings are computed. These loads are categorized into three loading categories: Normal (N) Case, Temperature (T) Case & Seismic (S) Case. Stresses in pier due to N Case, T Case and S Case loading are computed separately. Subsequently, the resultant stresses in the pier due to the following load combinations are calculated: N case, N+T Case, N+T+S case. These resultant stresses are compared with the permissible limits. If the stresses are within the permissible limits, the pier is safe and the pier will be analyzed next for no water condition. However if the resultant stresses exceed the permissible limit, then the software will direct the user to a page where the pier will be redesigned in order to withstand the stresses safely. 5.2.3 ESTIMATION OF SCOUR DEPTH FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN For both well and pile foundations in river-bridge crossings, the scour depth is required to be calculated for determining the founding levels. The flow chart for calculation of maximum scour depth is shown in Fig. 5.3. To ensure a sufficient margin of safety in the scour depth calculations, the software multiplies the design discharge by a flat value of 1.30 to get the discharge for calculation of the normal depth of scour. The software calculates the normal scour depth using two formulae: formula suggested in IRC: 78-20008 & Lacey’s formula. Linear water-way in calculated form the equation . Knowing the linear , where

water-way L, Db is calculated. The silt factor in both the equation is taken as 1.76 dm is the median size of the bed sediments, in mm.

The higher of the two values of the normal scour depth is used for calculating the maximum scour depth. The normal scour depth is multiplied with two to get the of maximum scour depth at the nose of the pier.

53 | P a g e

**Fig. 5.3 Flow Chart for calculation of Maximum Scour Depth
**

54 | P a g e

5.2.4 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF WELL FOUNDATION The analysis and design of well foundation follows the designing of the pier. The user is prompted to select the preliminary dimensions of the ell based on empirical rules. 5.2.4.1 ANALYSIS OF WELL FOUNDATION The resistance of soil surrounding the well foundation is determined in its elastic state and at ultimate loads to check whether the soil will be able to resist the force and moments transferred by the well foundation. The flow chart for calculation of soil resistance using elastic theory is presented in Fig. 5.4. The flow chart for calculation of soil resistance at ultimate loads is presented in Fig. 5.5.

55 | P a g e

**Fig. 5.4 Flow Chart for calculation of soil resistance
**

56 | P a g e

5.2.4.2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF WELL Once the safety of the selected preliminary size of the well has been established in the elastic state and at ultimate loads, the structural design of the following components of the well is performed next by the software: Bottom plug (check on thickness provided), well curb, steining and well cap. The design aspects for these components have been explained in detail in an earlier chapter. The flow charts for the structural design of well curb, steining and well cap are presented in Figs. 5.6,5.7 and 5.8 respectively.

57 | P a g e

**Fig. 5.5 Flow Chart for calculation of soil resistance at ultimate loads
**

58 | P a g e

Fig. 5.6 Flow Chart for design of Well curb

59 | P a g e

**Fig. 5.7 Flow Chart for design of Well steining
**

60 | P a g e

**Fig. 5.8 Flow Chart for design of Well Cap
**

61 | P a g e

5.2.5 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION Before proceeding to the analysis of pile foundation, the software will prompt the user to supply details of the sub-soil investigations. The user will be required to input details of the numbers, the type and the engineering properties of the soil layers at the site where the pile foundation is to be constructed. Particularly, care will be required to enter the relevant properties of cohesive soils and the user will be required to make a distinction between pre-consolidated and normally consolidated clays. The flow chart for soil details is show in Fig. 5.9. The software will first run the loop to enter details of soil layers, and subsequently, the user will be asked to enter details about the first layer. User will be asked to enter the height of first layers, density of soil & type of soil. If the soil is sandy, then the user will be asked to enter the angle of internal friction and the average cone resistance of the soil layer (qc). If soil is clay then software will

ask user to enter the undrained cohesion of soil (cu) and the compression index of clay. Further, the user will be asked to select the type of clay. If the clay is pre-consolidated, then preconsolidation pressure will have to be entered. Similarly, the loop will run again so as to enable the user to enter the details of next soil layer. The loop will be terminated when details of all the layers are entered.

62 | P a g e

Fig. 5.9 Flow Chart for soil details 5.2.5.1 ANALYSIS OF PILES (a) Bored cast-in-situ circular piles The user will have to enter the diameter and the length of the pile. Thereafter, the software will perform the calculations for estimating the safe bearing capacity of the pile. The procedure for calculation of the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile in cohesive as well as cohesion less soils has been explained in detail in Chapter 4. The computed ultimate bearing capacity is divided by a factor of safety of 3 to get the safe bearing capacity of the pile. The flow chart for calculation of the safe bearing capacity of a bored cast-in-situ pile is presented in

63 | P a g e

Fig.5.10. (b) Under-reamed piles The user will be asked to select the diameter of pile stem and the number of under-reams on each pile. For the selected diameter of the pile stem, the length of pile specified in Table 1 of IS: 2911(Part III) – 19804 is noted. This pile length is stored in “L”. If the number of underreams selected for the pile is less than or equal to two, then for the user specified diameter, number of under-reams & length “L”, the safe vertical load for the under-reamed pile is read from Table 1 of IS: 2911(Part III) – 19804. However, if the number of under-reams specidified by the user exceeds two, then the safe vertical load for the pile is extrapolated with the help of the incremental values given in Table 1 of IS:2911 (Part III) – 19804. The procedure for obtaining the safe vertical load of an under-reamed pile is presented in the flow chart in Fig. 5.11.

64 | P a g e

**Fig. 5.10 Flow Chart for calculating safe bearing Capacity of bored cast-in-situ pile
**

65 | P a g e

Fig. 5.11 Flow Chart for calculating safe bearing Capacity of an under-reamed Pile

66 | P a g e

5.2.5.2 SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUP After calculating the single pile capacity, the safe bearing capacity of the pile group is calculated. (a) Pile groups with bored cast-in-situ piles The software will calculate the vertical load acting on the foundation. The pile dimensions are then entered by the user in software. As discussed in the previous section, the software will calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile and from it the safe bearing capacity of the pile. Dividing the total vertical load on the foundation by the safe bearing capacity of one pile will give the total number of piles required in the foundation. The software will ask the user to enter the total number of piles. The number of piles provided will be accepted only if it is greater than total number of piles required. For analysis, the pile group is considered to act as a deep footing in soil. The software will then run the loop file to calculate pile group capacity. The software will start with soil layer 1. If layer 1 is sand then Qs & Qp will be calculated as per the formulae of sand, while if it is clay then the formulae of clay will be used to calculate values of Qs & Qp. The loop will run again and calculate Qs & Qp for the second layer, as per the soil type. In this manner the software will calculate the value of Qs & Qp for each layer of the soil. Finally, Qs & Qp for all the soil layers are added together to obtain the value of Qg;. Qg,safe is obtained by dividing Qg by 3. If Qg is more than the total number of piles provided * ultimate bearing capacity of each pile (Q) / 3, then Qg,safe will be equal to the total number of piles provided * ultimate bearing capacity of each pile (Q) / 3. The values of Qg,safe finally obtained is the safe bearing capacity of the pile group. The flow chart for calculating the safe bearing capacity of pile groups made of bored cast-in-situ circular piles is presented in Fig. 5.12 (b) For under-reamed piles The flow chart of Fig. 5.13 explains the complete procedure to compute safe bearing capacity of under-reamed pile. User is required to enter diameter of pile stem, number of underreams on each pile & spacing between piles. Diameter of under-ream is taken as 2.5 times the diameter of pile stem. If the spacing between piles is less than two times the under-ream diameter, then the safe bearing capacity of pile group is taken as 90% of safe bearing capacity of single pile X number of piles in foundation. While if spacing is more than or equals to two times the under-ream diameter, then the safe bearing capacity of pile group is taken as safe bearing

67 | P a g e

capacity of single pile X number of piles in foundation.

**Fig. 5.12 Flow Chart for calculation of SBC of group of bored cast-in-situ piles
**

68 | P a g e

Fig. 5.13 Flow Chart for calculation of SBC of group of under-reamed piles 5.2.5.3 LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS OF PILES The lateral load capacity of the piles has to be determined so as to ensure that the foundation can safely resist all design lateral loads. The flow chart for the lateral load analysis of an under-reamed pile is given in Fig. 5.14. (a) Under-reamed piles For the given under-reamed pile selected by the user, the lateral load capacity is directly read-off from the values given in Table 1 of IS: 2911 (Part III)-1980 and compared with the lateral load apportioned to each pile. If required the under-reamed pile parameters are revised to ensure safety. The flow chart for the lateral load analysis of under-reamed piles is given in Fig. 5.14. The detailed procedure for lateral load analysis of a bored cast-in-situ pile has been explained in Chapter 4 and the flow chart for the same is shown in Fig. 5.15. 5.2.5.4 DESIGN OF PILE CAP As shown in the flow chart of Fig. 5.16 the plan dimensions of the pile cap are computed according to the arrangement and layout of piles in the group. Thereafter, the user will be asked to enter the overall depth of the pile cap. Subsequently, the effective depth of pile cap is

69 | P a g e

calculated. Later, the moment in the pile cap is calculated considering the critical section to be located at the face of pier. For calculated moments, the area of steel required in pile cap is calculated. Then, the user will be asked to select the diameter of bars to be used in pile cap and enter the desired spacing between the reinforcement. For the selected bar diameter and spacing, area of steel to be provided in the pile cap is calculated. Further, the pile cap is checked for oneway shear and two-way shear. If it fails, effective depth of pile cap will be increased.

Figure 5.14 Lateral load capacity of Under-reamed Pile

70 | P a g e

Figure 5.15 Lateral load capacity of Bored Cast-in-situ pile

71 | P a g e

Figure 5.16 Design of Pile Cap

72 | P a g e

5.3 CONCLUSION The features of the software developed in theVB.Net platform for the analysis and design of bridge sub-structure have been explained with relevant flow charts in this chapter. Some of the interactive features of the program which facilitate the work of the user have been highlighted.

73 | P a g e

**CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
**

6.1 INTRODUCTION The features & the functioning of various modules of the software developed for analysis and design of bridge substructure has been discussed in the previous chapter. To illustrate the practical application of the software, analysis and design of the well foundation and pile foundation is performed for the assumed parameters. The long hand calculations of the problem will be done, which are compared with the results of software, to verify the output of the software developed in the thesis work. 6.2 PROBLEM ON WELL FOUNDATION The analysis of the well foundation and design of various components of well are being performed. The details required for the analysis and design of well foundation are given below: DETAILS REGARDING BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE Dead load on each span: 1500 kN Depth of simply supported girder: 2 m Span of simply supported girder: 16 m Type of Carriage way: Two lane carriage way Clear carriage way width: 7.5 m Area of bridge superstructure: 70 m2 Type of live load acting on bridge: Class A loading BEARING DETAILS Type of bearing used in bridge: Sliding bearings of Teflon on Stainless Steel Centre-to-Centre distance between bearings along longitudinal axis of bridge (S1): 900 mm Centre-to-Centre distance between bearings along transverse axis of bridge (S2): 5500 mm dimension of bearing along longitudinal axis of bridge: 300 mm dimension of bearing along transverse axis of bridge: 400 mm OTHER DETAILS Maximum mean velocity of stream: 4 m/sec Maximum discharge of stream: 4500 m3/sec

74 | P a g e

Weighted mean diameter of river bed particle: 0.505 mm High Flood Level (H.F.L.): 459.5 m Low Water Level (L.W.L.): 455.5 m Bridge is located in seismic zone II Angle of internal wall friction of soil ( : 37° Submerged density of soil (γsub): 14 kN/m3 DETAILS OF PIER Type of Material used in Pier: Reinforced Concrete Grade of Concrete used in Pier: M25 Type of Pier used in bridge: Wall Type Pier Type of cut-water provided to pier: Circular cut-water Height of Pier: 7 m Batter provided to pier: 1 in 20 PIER CAP DETAILS

Thickness of pier cap provided: 500 mm

75 | P a g e

6.3 PROBLEM ON PILE FOUNDATION The analysis of pile foundation design of pile and pile cap are being performed. The long hand calculations are compared with the results of software to verify the output of software. The detail used in analysis and design of foundation is given below: DETAILS REGARDING BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE Dead load on each span: 1500 kN Depth of simply supported girder: 2 m Span of simply supported girder: 16 m Type of Carriage way: Single lane carriage way Clear carriage way width: 5 m Area of bridge superstructure: 70 m2 Type of live load acting on bridge: Class AA loading BEARING DETAILS Type of bearing used in bridge: Sliding bearings of Teflon on Stainless Steel Centre-to-Centre distance between bearings along longitudinal axis of bridge (S1): 1000 mm Centre-to-Centre distance between bearings along transverse axis of bridge (S2): 4500 mm dimension of bearing along longitudinal axis of bridge: 300 mm dimension of bearing along transverse axis of bridge: 400 mm GROUND PROFILE Elevation of Ground Level: 453.4 m Details of soil layer present in ground For soil layer 1, Height of layer: 7 m Type of soil: Normally Consolidated Clay Density of soil: 17 kN/m3 Undrained Cohesion, Cu: 120 kN/m2 Compression Index: 0.3 For soil layer 2, Height of layer: 9m Type of soil: Sand Density of soil: 23 kN/m3

103 | P a g e

Angle of internal friction,

= 36°

Average static cone resistance: 2800 kN/m2

Fig. 6.1 Details of Soil layers in Ground OTHER DETAILS Bridge is located in seismic zone III Type of Bridge: Non-river Bridge Crossing DETAILS OF PIER Type of Material used in Pier: Reinforced Concrete Grade of Concrete used in Pier: M25 Type of Pier used in bridge: Hammer-head Type Pier Height of Pier: 8 m Diameter of Pier: 4 m PIER CAP DETAILS Thickness of rectangular portion of pier cap: 500 mm Thickness of tapered portion of pier cap: 500 mm

104 | P a g e

6.4 CONCLUSIONS The analysis and design of well foundation and pile foundation for the provided details have been performed. The software generates the output of result with diagrammatic representation. All the guide line are given to user where necessary. The output of the software is compared with the long hand calculations of the problem. The output of software resemble with the results of long hand calculations. Hence, it is concluded that the software provides accurate results and with in the short period of time.

128 | P a g e

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are drawn on the basis of the software development work related to analysis and design of bridge structures carried out for this thesis. 1) It is possible to develope user friendly, interactive and handy computational tools for the analysis and design of bridge sub-structure sing readily available software platforms. 2) The proposed software can be particularly useful for the design optimisation of bridge foundations particularly in the context of unexpected sub-soil conditions encountered during construction. The program equips design engineers with a handy and convenient software tool to quickly reconfigure and analyse and design bridge foundation in response to field conditions for best performance and economy. 7.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK The capabilities of the software developed can be further expanded to include the following additional aspects of substructure analysis and design: 1) The superstructure analysis for continuous spans on different types of bearings and of different configuration can be included so as to broad-base the scope of application of the software. 2) Options for pier design can be included for varying geometry pier. Option for analysis and design of pier cap of hammer-head type of piers using strut-and-tie models can be included in the software. 3) Options for different arrangement and layouts of pile in a pile group can be included in the software 4) The software can be interfaced with standard CAD packages like AUTOCAD for generating detailing and working drawings of the bridge sub-structure.

129 | P a g e

CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES

1. IS: 456 2000; “Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice (Fourth Revision)”; BIS, New Delhi. 2. IS: 875 (Part 3) – 1987; “Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and structures”; BIS, New Delhi. 3. IS: 2911 (Part I/Sec 2) – 1979; “Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations, Concrete Piles, Bored Cast In-situ Piles (First Revision)”; BIS, New Delhi. 4. IS: 2911 (Part III) – 1980; “Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundations, Under-reamed Piles (First Revision)”; BIS, New Delhi. 5. IS: 3955 - 1967; “Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Well Foundations”; BIS, New Delhi. 6. IRC: 6 – 2000; “Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, Section: II, Loads and Stresses (Fourth Revision)”; The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi. 7. IRC: 45 – 1972; “Recommendations for estimating the resistance of soil below the maximum scour level in the design of well foundations of bridges”; The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi. 8. IRC: 78 – 2000; “Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, Section: VII, Foundations and Substructure”; The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi. 9. SP: 16 (1980); “Design Aids For Reinforced Concrete to IS: 456-1978”; BIS, New Delhi. 10. SP: 34 (S & T) (1980); “Hand Book on Concrete Reinforcement and Detailing”; BIS, New Delhi. 11. Saran, S. (1996); “Analysis and Design of Substructure - Limit State Design (Second Edition)”; Oxford & IHB Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 12. Victor, D. J. (1973); “Essentials of Bridge Engineering (Fifth Edition)”; Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13. Jain, A. K. (1993); ”Reinforced Concrete – Limit State Design (Fourth Edition)”; Nem Chand & Bros., Roorkee, Fourth Edition. 14. Pillai, S. U. & Menon, D. (1999); “Reinforced Concrete Design”; Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.

130 | P a g e

15. Das, B. M. (2004); “Principles of Foundation Engineering (Fifth Edition)”; Brook/Coles Pub. Co., CA. 16. Singh, V. (1981); “Wells and Caissons (Second Edition)”; Nem Chand & Bros., Roorkee 17. Prakash, S. (1979); “Analysis and Design of Foundations And Retaining Structures”; Sarita Prakashan, New Delhi. 18. Arora, K. R. (2003); “Soil Mechanics And Foundation Engineering (Sixth Edition)”; Standard Publishers Distributors, New Delhi. 19. Ramamrutham, S. (2005); “Theory of Structure (Eighth Edition)”; Dhanpat Rai Publishing Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 20. Holzner, S. (2005); “Visual Basic .Net Programming Black Book”; Paraglyph Press, USA. 21. Terzaghi, K. And Peck, R. B. (1976); “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”; John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 22. De Beer, E. And Marten (1957); “Method of Computation on Upper limit for the Influences of Heterogeneity of Sand Layers in the Settlement of Bridges”; Proc. 4th Int. Conf. On SMFE, London, Vol. 1. 23. www.iricen.gov.in , website of Indian Railway Institute of Civil Engineering, Pune.

131 | P a g e

**APPENDIX – A SUPPORTING LONG HAND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ILLUSTRATVIE PROBLEM ON WELL FOUNDATION
**

Minimum top width of pier required = bearing spacing along longitudinal axis + bearing dimension along longitudinal axis + 600 mm = 900 + 300 + 600 = 1800 mm Top width of pier provided: 1800 mm (= minimum top width of pier required. Hence OK.) Minimum desirable length of pier (without cut-water) = bearing spacing along transverse axis + bearing dimension along transverse axis + 1200 mm = 5500 + 400 + 1200 = 7100 mm Length of pier provided (without cut-water): 7100 mm (= minimum desirable length of pier. Hence OK.) Batter provided in pier: 1 in 20 Hence, bottom width of pier = PIER CAP DETAILS Span of bridge is 16 m i.e. less than 25 m. Hence, minimum thickness of pier cap should be 250 mm. Thickness of pier cap provided: 500 mm (> 250 mm. Hence OK.) Width of pier cap = top width pier cap + (2 * 75) = 1800 + 150 = 1950 mm Length of pier cap = length of pier (including cut-water) + (2 * 75) = 7100 + 1800 + 150 = 9050 mm = 2500 mm

132 | P a g e

Fig. A-1 Pier Section in longitudinal direction of bridge ANALYSIS OF PIER Now, after deciding the dimensions of pier & pier cap, the pier is analyzed for various forces & stresses are calculated due to these forces. CALCULATION OF STRESSES IN PIER The stresses developed in pier due to various forces acting on it are calculated as below: 1. Stresses due to dead load & self weight of Pier Dead load from superstructure of bridge = 2 X 1500 = 3000 kN Area at the top of pier = = 15.33 m2 Area at the bottom of pier = = 22.66 m2 Area at the middle of pier = = 18.9 m2

133 | P a g e

Pier Volume =

= = 132.52 m3 Pier cap volume = = 8.82 m3 Total volume = 132.52 + 8.82 = 141.34 m3 Hence, total weight of pier & pier cap = Stresses due to dead load of superstructure & weight of pier & pier cap =

= 288.34 kN/m2 2. Stresses due to eccentricity of live load Moment of Inertia about X axis i.e. T-T axis of bridge, Ixx

Moment of Inertia about Y axis i.e. L-L axis of bridge, Iyy

(a) Due to eccentric live load about transverse axis of bridge Vertical live load on pier, producing maximum stress about transverse axis = 763 kN, & Moment due to live load eccentricity about transverse axis of bridge, producing maximum stress about transverse axis = 180 kNm Stress at the base of pier due to eccentricity of live load about transverse axis = = = 53.84 kN/m2 or 13.57 kN/m2

**(b) Due to eccentric live load about longitudinal axis of bridge
**

Vertical live load on pier, producing maximum stress due about longitudinal axis = 395 kN,

134 | P a g e

Moment due to live load eccentricity about transverse axis of bridge, producing maximum about longitudinal axis = 969 kNm Stress at the base of pier due to eccentricity of live load about longitudinal axis = = = 46.85 kN/m2 or -11.94 kN/m2 NOTE: The stresses acting at the base of pier due to live load eccentricity is calculated with the use of program prepared in Microsoft Excel Worksheet. 3. Stresses due to longitudinal forces (a) Due to tractive effort or braking forces Braking effect is invariably greater than tractive effort. Hence, braking effort is considered. Longitudinal force of Class A load = 0.2 X 486 X 2 = 194.4 kN Moment at the base = 194.4 X 11 = 2138 kNm Stress at the base of pier due to braking effort =

=

= (b) Due to resistance at bearings Coefficient of friction on the left side of bearing = 0.05 Coefficient of friction on the right side of bearing (reducing 5%) = 0.0475 Assume the combination of dead load & live load acting on the left side bearing and dead load on right side bearing Maximum live load reaction acting on the left side bearing = 648 kN (as calculated from the program based on Excel Worksheet) Total resistance to sliding on the left side bearing = 0.05 X (1500 + 648) = 107 kN & Total reacting on the right side bearing = 0.0475 X 1500 = 71.25 kN Unbalanced force = 36 kN Moment due to unbalanced force at the base of pier = 36 X 7.8 = 282 kNm

135 | P a g e

Stress at the base of pier = 4. Stresses due to water current

=

= 31.56 kN

Maximum scour depth due to river stream will be calculated. Discharge, Q = 4500 m3/sec Linear water-way, Db = = , here Q is increased by 30%

= 17.98 m

According to the formula recommended by IRC: 78-20008, Mean scour depth, where, 1.76 = 1.76 = 1.25

= 8.54 m

And as per the Lacey’s formula, Normal depth of scour, where, 1.76 = 1.76 = 1.25

The scour depth calculated from the formula recommended by IRC: 78-20008 is greater. Hence maximum score depth is computed from the scour depth as per the formula recommended by IRC: 78-20008. Maximum scour depth = 2 X Intensity of pressure, = = 10.67 kN/m2 To account for possible variation in water current direction, assume maximum angle change in current direction of 20° Hence, considering the change of 20° in direction of water current, ,

= 17.07 m

136 | P a g e

Pressure along longitudinal axis of bridge = = 2.81 kN/ m2 & Pressure along transverse axis of bridge = = 9.42 kN/ m2 Total Pressure along transverse axis of bridge = 10.67 + 9.42 = 20.09 kN/ m2

(a)

(b)

Fig. A-2 Water Pressure Details (a) in transverse direction & (b) in longitudinal direction of bridge Moment about longitudinal axis of bridge Pressure at HFL = 20.09 kN/ m2 & Pressure at LWL = 15.38 kN/ m2

lever arm of resultant pressure from the base of pier =

= 2.09

Moment at the base of pier = Stress about longitudinal axis at the base of pier =

=

=

137 | P a g e

Moment about transverse axis of bridge Pressure at HFL = 2.81 kN/ m2 & Pressure at LWL = 2.15 kN/ m2

lever arm of resultant pressure from the base of pier =

= 2.09

Moment at the base of pier = Stress about transverse axis at the base of pier =

=

= 5. Stresses due to effect of buoyancy Width of pier at HFL = 2.1 m Area of pier at the HFL = Hence, submerged volume of pier = Net buoyant force = 82 X 10 X 0.15 = 123 kN Stress due to buoyant force = 6. Stresses due to wind load (a) Area of superstructure as seen in elevation = 70 m2 The height of exposed surface of bridge structure, when water level is at HFL = 5.8 m For 5.8 m, the intensity of wind load is taken as 0.72 kN/ m2 Hence, Total wind force = 70 X 0.72 = 50.4 kN/ m2 (b) Considering the wind load acting on moving live load having magnitude of 3 kN/m & acting at 1.5 m above road way, Wind force against the moving load = 16 X 3 = 48 kN (c) Total wind force as in (a) & (b) above = 48 + 50.4 = 98.4 kN (d) Minimum limiting load on deck at 4.5 kN/m = 16 X 4.5 = 72 kN (e) Minimum limiting load on at 2.4 kN/m2 on exposed surface = 2.4 X 70 = 168 kN Since force in (e) is maximum, this will be adopted. This force will be assumed to act at the bearing level for the purpose of calculating the moment at the base of pier.

=

138 | P a g e

Moment at the base of pier = 168 X 8.8 = 1478.4 kNm Stress at the base of pier =

=

= 7. Stresses due to seismic effect (a) Seismic moment acting at the base of pier due to the masses of bridge component & live load Seismic moment at the base of pier, due to mass of pier =

Maximum live load acting on the pier, for Class A train = 791 kN (as calculated from the program coded in Excel Worksheet) Total dead load of superstructure = 2 X 1500 = 3000 kN & Mass of pier cap = 221 kN Hence, total seismic moment due to mass of bridge components = ((791 X 11) + (3000 X 8.8) + (221 X 7.25)) X 0.1 + 1084 = 4755 kNm Total seismic moment due to mass of pier about longitudinal axis = 4755 kNm & Total seismic moment due to mass of pier about transverse axis = ((3000 X 8.8) + (221 X 7.25)) X 0.1 + 1084 = 3885 kNm (b) Moment due to hydrodynamic forces For hydrodynamic force along longitudinal direction H = 4 m, a = 4.8 Therefore, For seismic zone II, For value of , &

= 71 kN

139 | P a g e

Moment at the base of pier about transverse axis = 110 kNm For hydrodynamic force along transverse direction H = 4 m, a = 1.25 Therefore, For seismic zone II, For value of , &

= 10 kN Moment at the base of pier about longitudinal axis = 6.5 kNm Now, Resultant stress due to seismic effect about transverse axis = = = Resultant stress due to seismic effect about longitudinal axis = = =

8. Stresses due to horizontal shear forces Maximum horizontal shear force at roller support is calculated for N Case, N + T Case & N + T + S Case. For these maximum shear forces, resultant stresses at the base of pier are calculated for different load combinations.

140 | P a g e

Table A-1 Calculation of Maximum Shear forces bearings No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forces Vertical Reaction due to dead load, kN Vertical Reaction due to live load, kN (when live load at roller support is max.) Total Vertical Reaction, kN Maximum horizontal force at roller support, due to resistance at bearings, kN Braking force at bearing level, kN Resultant horizontal forces, at roller support for N Case loading, kN Resultant horizontal forces, at roller support for N + T Case loading, kN Resultant horizontal forces, at roller 8 support for N + T + S Case loading, kN (No braking force) --At hinge support 750 176 926 --48.6 --At roller support 750 323 1073 0.05 X 1073 = 53.7 48.6 48.6 48.6 + 53.7 = 102.3 (1500 X 0.1) + ((323+176) X 0.1) + 53.7 = 253.7 kN

7

---

Table A-2 Stresses due to horizontal shear force at bearings No. Load Combination 1 2 3 N Case N + T Case N + T + S Case Shear Force, kN 48.6 102.3 253.7 kN Moment, kNm 379 798 1979 Stress, kN/m2

Table A-3 shows the summary of stresses calculated due to various forces acting on the pier.

141 | P a g e

**Table A-3 Summary of Stresses due to various forces acting on the Pier
**

Stresses due to vertical forces, kN/m2

DRY FLOODS 288.34 33.67

No.

Loads

**Stresses due to moment about transverse axis of bridge, kN/m2
**

DRY -FLOODS --

**Stresses due to moment about longitudinal axis of bridge, kN/m2
**

DRY -FLOODS --

1 2

Dead load & self weight Eccentric live load Longitudinal force

288.34 33.67

3

(1) Braking effort (2)Bearing resistance

-------

-----5.43 -------

---

---

4 5 6 7

Wind load Water current Buoyancy Seismic effect

----

The summary of stresses due to horizontal shear forces is given in Table A-2. Now, considering stresses due to all the forces as calculated above, we will compute the resultant maximum stresses at “A” & “B” on pier for different load combinations. The location of “A” & “B” on pier are shown in Fig. A-3. The resultant compressive & tensile stresses acting at point “A” & “B” on pier for different load combinations are shown in Table A-4 & Table A-5 respectively.

Fig. A-3 Location of “A” & “B” on pier

142 | P a g e

**Table A-4 Resultant Compressive Stresses at Point “A” & “B” on Pier
**

No. 1 2 3 Loads N Case N + T Case N + T + S Case Resultant compressive stress at “A” on pier, MPa

DRY FLOOD

**Resultant compressive stress at “B” on pier, MPa
**

DRY FLOOD

0.380 0.380 0.479

0.385 0.385 0.485

0.624 0.743 1.309

0.640 0.759 1.338

**Table A-5 Resultant Tensile Stresses at Point “A” & “B” on Pier
**

No. 1 2 3 Loads N Case N + T Case N + T + S Case Resultant compressive stress at “A” on pier, MPa

DRY FLOOD

**Resultant compressive stress at “B” on pier, MPa
**

DRY FLOOD

0.231 0.231 0.132

0.216 0.216 0.116

0.02 -0.081 -0.649

-0.0072 0.108 1.338

COMPARISION OF MAXIMUM STRESSES IN PIER WITH THEIR PERMISSIBLE LIMITS The maximum compressive and tensile stresses in pier calculated for different load combinations are compared with their permissible limits as shown below: Permissible compressive stress for M25 grade of concrete = 6 MPa (as per Table 21 of IS: 45620001) & Permissible tensile stress for M25 grade of concrete = 0.15 X 6 MPa = 0.9 MPa Maximum compressive stress under “N” Case loading = 0.64 MPa < 6 MPa. Hence, Safe. Maximum compressive stress under “N + T” Case loading = 0.759 MPa < 6.9 MPa (15% increase). Hence, Safe. Maximum compressive stress under “N + T + S” Case loading = 1.338 MPa < 9 MPa (50% increase). Hence, Safe. Maximum tensile stress under “N” Case loading = 0.0072 MPa < 0.9 MPa. Hence, Safe. Maximum tensile stress under “N + T” Case loading = 0.081 MPa < 1.035 MPa (15% increase). Hence, Safe. Maximum tensile stress under “N + T + S” Case loading = 0.649 MPa < 1.35 MPa (50% increase). Hence, Safe.

143 | P a g e

ANALYSIS OF WELL FOUNDATION Now, the dimensions of different components of well foundation are decided. Maximum scour depth = 17.1 m (as calculated previously) Maximum scour level = 442.4 m Unsupported length of well is LWL – Maximum scour level = 455.5 – 442.4 = 13.1 m Providing the grip length of 10 m, the height of well is 23.1 m. Diameter of well is assumed 12000 mm Thickness of well cap = 1200 mm Thickness of top plug = 500 mm Minimum thickness of steining = Thickness of steining = 1750 mm > 1730 mm. Hence, OK. Height of well curb = 2750 mm Height of steining = 23.1 – 1.2 – 2.75 = 19.15 m Diameter of dredge hole = 12000 – (2 X 1750) = 8500 mm Thickness of bottom plug = 2750 + 500 + 1000 = 4250 mm Sand filling is done in well foundation up to the soffit of top plug Density of sand filled in dredge hole = 24 kN/m3 = 1730 mm

144 | P a g e

Fig. A-4 Diagram of a Well Foundation Thereafter, the vertical and horizontal forces & moments acting at the base of the foundation is calculated CALCULATION OF FORCES & MOMENTS AT THE BASE OF WELL FOUNDATION Water level is considered at HFL. Hence all the vertical load and horizontal forces are calculated accordingly. Calculation of Vertical load at the base of foundation 1. Total Dead load from superstructure = (2 X 1500) = 3000 kN 2. Live load reaction acting at the base of foundation = 791 kN (As calculated from the program prepared on Microsoft Excel Worksheet) 3. Weight of pier & pier cap = 2492 + 221 = 2713 kN 4. Weight of well cap = 5. Weight of top plug =

145 | P a g e

6. Weight of Steining = Volume of Well curb= +

= 97.82 m3 7. Weight of well curb = 1467 kN

Fig. A-5 Diagram of Well curb 8. Weight of bottom plug =

= 4520 kN 9. Weight of sand filling =

Fig. A-6 Diagram of Bottom Plug Therefore, total vertical load acting at the base of well = 45508 kN Calculation of Horizontal forces & Moments at the base of foundation 1. Due to water current (Refer Fig. A-2) Moment about longitudinal axis =

**= 26679 kNm Moment about transverse axis =
**

146 | P a g e

= 2282 + 3153 = 5495 kNm Force along transverse axis = = 1372 kN Force along longitudinal axis = = 262 kN 2. Due to braking effect Braking force acting at the base of pier = 194 kN Moment at the base of pier = 6623 kNm 3. Due to resistance at bearing Coefficient of friction on the left side of bearing = 0.05 Coefficient of friction on the right side of bearing (reducing 5%) = 0.0475 Assume the combination of dead load & live load acting on the left side bearing and dead load on right side bearing Maximum live load reaction acting on the left side bearing = 1296 kN (as calculated from the program prepared on Excel worksheet) Total resistance to sliding on the left side bearing = 0.05 X (3000 + 1296) = 214 kN & Total reacting on the right side bearing = 0.0475 X 3000 = 142.5 kN Unbalanced force = 72 kN Moment due to unbalanced force at the base of pier = 72 X 30.87 = 2231 kNm 4. Stresses due to wind load (a) Area of superstructure as seen in elevation = 70 m2 The height of exposed surface of bridge structure, when water level is at HFL = 5.8 m For 5.8 m, the intensity of wind load is taken as 0.72 kN/ m2 Hence, Total wind force = 70 X 0.72 = 50.4 kN/ m2 (b) Considering the wind load acting on moving live load having magnitude of 3 kN/m & acting at 1.5 m above road way, Wind force against the moving load = 16 X 3 = 48 kN (c) Total wind force as in (a) & (b) above = 48 + 50.4 = 98.4 kN

147 | P a g e

(d) Minimum limiting load on deck at 4.5 kN/m = 16 X 4.5 = 72 kN (e) Minimum limiting load on at 2.4 kN/m2 on exposed surface = 2.4 X 70 = 168 kN Since force in (e) is maximum, this will be adopted. This force will be assumed to act at the bearing level for the purpose of calculating the moment at the base of pier. Moment at the base of pier = 168 X 31.7 = 5354.16 kNm 5. Due to eccentricity of live load Moment due to live load eccentricity about transverse axis of bridge = 179.8 kNm .Moment due to live load eccentricity about longitudinal axis of bridge = 968.9 kNm 6. Due to horizontal shear forces at bearing level Table A-6 Horizontal shear force at bearings & moments at the base of foundation No. Load Combination 1 2 3 N Case N + T Case N + T + S Case Shear Force, kN 48.6 102.3 253.7 kN Moment, kNm 1500 3158 7831

7. Due to seismic effect (a) Seismic moment due to mass of bridge components & live load Table A-7 Seismic moment due of mass of bridge components & Live load No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Live load Dead load of superstructure Pier cap Pier Well Cap Top Plug Steining Well curb Bottom Plug Sand fill Force Seismic force acting at the centroid of component, kN 79.1 300 22.1 249.3 203.6 42.6 1616 146.7 371.4 1440 Moment, kNm 2694.9 9561 668.8 6656 4574 920 19899 251.3 579.7 17748

148 | P a g e

Considering the forces and moments as calculated above, Total moment about longitudinal axis = 63524.5 kNm & Total moment about transverse axis = 60829.6 kNm

(b) Moment due to hydrodynamic forces For hydrodynamic force along longitudinal direction H = 17.1 m, a = 6 m Therefore, For seismic zone II, For value of , &

= 943.4 kN , &

Net force on well = Net moment at the base of well = For the hydrodynamic force on pier H = 17.1 m, a = 4.8 Therefore, For seismic zone II, For value of , &

= 647.47 kN Resultant hydrodynamic pressure on the pier = Moment at the base of well = Total moment at the base of well about transverse axis of bridge = 6093 kNm For hydrodynamic force along transverse direction H = 17.1 m, a = 1.25 Therefore, For seismic zone II, For value of

149 | P a g e

,

&

= 55.49 kN

Moment at the base of well = Total moment at the base of well = 4925 + 105 = 5030 kNm 6. Due to tilt & shift Moment due to tilt = Moment due to shift = The forces and moments as computed by software are as follows: Total vertical load acting at the base of well foundation W = 45515 kN Horizontal force along longitudinal axis of bridge, HLL = 630.8 kN Horizontal force along transverse axis of bridge, HTT = 6754.9 kN Moment acting at the base of well about longitudinal axis, MLL = 104160 kNm Moment acting at the base of well about transverse axis, MTT = 17692 kNm Now, the resistance of the soil surrounding the foundation is determined by elastic theory & ultimate resistance method & is checked whether the soil surrounding the foundation is able to resist the forces and moments transferred by the well foundation. ELASTIC THEORY STEP 1: The value of W, H & M is determined as follows: Values of total vertical force W, resultant horizontal force H & resultant moment M acting at the base of pier is calculated considering seismic effect & neglecting the wind effect on bridge. Seismic effect along transverse direction is critical. Hence the forces & moments are calculated considering the seismic effect along transverse direction. W = 45508 kN HLL = 630.3 kN & HTT = 6749.3 kN MTT = 17696 kNm = 5634 kNm = 2317 kNm

MLL = 104146 kNm & W = 45515 kN HLL = 630.8 kN &

The values of forces and moments as calculated by the software are

HTT = 6754.9 kN MTT = 17692 kNm

**MLL = 104160 kNm &
**

150 | P a g e

The results of long hand calculations and as generated by software are almost same. Hence, we will continue the problem considering the force and moments as generated by software. Hence, W = 45515 kN

STEP 2: Compute Take, m = 1,

Hence,

= 2254.5 m4 STEP 3: Ensure the following

Both the conditions are satisfied. STEP 4: Check the elastic state

151 | P a g e

=

46.86

Hence, the condition is satisfied STEP 5: Calculate

> 675 kN/m2. Hence, Safe. & 77.7 kN/ m2 > 0. Hence, Safe.

All the above five steps are repeated for loads with combination of wind load & neglecting seismic effect STEP 1: The value of W, H & M is determined as follows: W = 45508 kN MLL = 40945.43 kNm & W = 45515 kN HLL = 630.8 kN & HTT = 1537.4 kN & MTT = 17692.86 kNm MTT = 17696 kNm

The values of forces and moments as calculated by the software are

MLL = 40945.91 kNm

The results of long hand calculations and as generated by software are almost same. Hence, we will continue the problem considering the force and moments as generated by software. Hence, W = 45515 kN

152 | P a g e

STEP 2: Compute Take, m = 1,

& Hence, &

= 2254.5 m4 STEP 3: Ensure the following

Both the conditions are satisfied. STEP 4: Check the elastic state

=

19.78

**Hence, the condition is satisfied
**

153 | P a g e

STEP 5: Calculate

> 675 kN/m2. Hence, Safe. & 259.65 kN/ m2 > 0. Hence, Safe.

6.2.2.3 ULTIMATE RESISTANCE METHOD STEP 1: Check that W = 1.1 DL + 1.6 LL = (1.1 X 44724) + (1.6 X 791) = 50461.6 kN

,

Hence, condition STEP 2: Calculate Mb & Calculate Mb = QWB

is satisfied

For ratio

, Q = 0.262, (as obtained from Table 3.2 of Chapter 3)

W = 50461.6 kN Mb = QWB = 0.262 X 50461.6 X 12 X = 119552 kNm

= 162509 kNm

154 | P a g e

STEP 3: Calculate

= 91211.52 kNm STEP 4: Calculate Mt = 0.7(Mb + Ms + Mf) Mt = 0.7(119552 + 162509 + 91211.52) = 261291 kNm STEP 5: Calculate ,

= 132066 kNm Mt . Hence, OK.

DESIGN OF COMPONENTS OF WELL FOUNDATION DESIGN OF WELL CURB Well curb is designed for hoop tension, N = Referring to Fig. A-5, , ,

Value of hoop tension being less, minimum reinforcement is provided in well curb Volume of well curb = 97.819 m3 Reinforcement required in well curb = Minimum reinforcement in well curb = 72 X 97.819 = 7043 kg = (7043/7850) m3 = 0.8972 m3 Provide 50 nos. of 25 mm dia.bar rings distributed along the perimeter of the well curb & 80 nos. of 16 mm dia. bar stirrups enclosing the perimeter of well curb Volume of rings = Volume of stirrups =

155 | P a g e

Total volume of reinforcement provided = 0.9121 m3 > 0.8972 m3 . Hence, OK. 16 mm dia. anchor bars are provided at 300 mm c/c DESIGN OF WELL STEINING Before designing the section of steining, stresses in steining are calculated at the level of maximum scour as shown below:

Moment at the section of steining about longitudinal axis = 9881 kNm Moment at the section of steining about transverse axis = 41869 kNm

Vertical load acting on the section at the level of maximum scour, W = 19001 kN Area of section = Z= Hence, & . Hence, Safe.

Required area of vertical reinforcement in steining = 0.12 % of gross sectional area of steining

= 0.0676 m2 = 67622 mm2 Area of steel required on both the faces of steining = 67622 mm2 Area of steel required on one face of steining = 33811 mm2 Using 16 mm dia. bars in vertical reinforcement, Spacing of 16 mm dia. bars required = Effective depth of steining = 1750 – 50-8 = 1692 mm Spacing provided = 150 mm < Hence, 16 mm dia. bars of vertical reinforcement is provided at 150 mm c/c Required volume of hoop steel in steining =0.04 % of volume of steining / unit length of steining

156 | P a g e

= 0.02254 m3 = 2.254 X 107 mm3 Area of steel required on both face of steining = Area of steel required on each face = 350 Using 10 mm dia. bars in hoop reinforcement, Spacing of 10 mm dia. bars required = Spacing provided = 220 mm < Hence, 10 mm dia. bars of hoop reinforcement is provided at 220 mm c/c The thickness of steining is checked for requirement of excessive kentledge during sinking of well. Thickness, where, kN/m2 on each face

Hence, excessive kentledge is required for sinking the well DESIGN OF WELL CAP Over all depth of well cap = 1200 mm Effective depth = 12000-50-12.5 = 1137.5 mm Vertical load on well cap = 7325.5 kN Self weight of well cap = 25 X 1.2 = 30 kN/m2 Moment at the base of pier, about transverse axis = 8768 kNm Moment at the base of pier, about longitudinal axis = 1309.6 kNm Resultant moment, M = =8865.3 kNm

The load from the pier is dispersed at an angle of 45° to the well cap, throughout its effective depth. Area of load dispersion is calculated, Dispersion width = 2500 + (2 X effective depth of well cap) = 4.775 m Length of dispersion = 9.6 + (2 X effective depth of well cap) = 11.875 m < Diameter of well cap. Hence, OK.

157 | P a g e

Maximum dispersion width available = a

Mean length of dispersion =

Fig. A-7 Load dispersion area in well cap Hence, dispersion area = 11.44 X 4.775 = 54.636 m2 Diameter of equivalent circle i.e. circle of patch loading = 8.34 m Since the well-cap is assumed to be partially restrained by the steining, the moments in the well-cap are calculated for circular patch loading and for U.D.L. (self-weight of well cap) for the following two conditions: Well cap freely supported on steining & Well cap fully clamped on steining Condition 1: Well cap freely supported on steining (i) For moments beneath loaded area due to circular patch loading

158 | P a g e

Hence,

= 833.1 kNm

(ii) For moments beneath unloaded area due to circular patch loading

At support, d = h; Hence,

= 1

The radial and tangential moments in the well cap due to U.D.L. are given by

At centre, d = 0;

= 0

At support, d = h;

= 1

Condition 2: Well cap fully clamped at support (i) For moments beneath loaded area due to circular patch loading

(ii) For moments beneath unloaded area due to circular patch loading

At support, d = h;

= 1

159 | P a g e

The radial and tangential moments in the well cap due to U.D.L. are given by

At centre, d = 0;

= 0

At support, d = h;

= 1

(a) Moments due to Patch load

(b) Moments due to Self weight load

Fig. A-8 Moments in well-cap when freely supported

160 | P a g e

(a) Moments due to Patch load

(b) Moments due to Self weight load

Fig. A-9 Moments in well-cap when fully clamped Maximum moment at the centre of well cap due to moments transferred form pier = = Maximum moment at the edges of well cap due to moments transferred from pier = = Total moment at the centre of well-cap Due to patch loads = Due to self weight of well cap = Due to moment from pier & superstructure = Hence, total sagging moment = total hogging moment = 780.4 kNm Total moment at the support of well-cap Due to patch loads = Due to self weight of well cap = Due to moment from pier & superstructure = Hence, total hogging moment = 486.16 kNm & 1469 kNm & , where

.

**Total hogging moment at the centre of well cap = 780.4 kNm
**

161 | P a g e

Total sagging moment at the centre of well cap = 1469 kNm & Total hogging moment at the support of well cap = 486.2 kNm Now, the reinforcement of the well cap is calculated. Bottom reinforcement of the well cap will be designed for total sagging moment at the centre of well cap = 1469 kNm

0.515%

28 mm dia. bars are used at the bottom of well cap, Spacing required for 28 mm dia. bars = Spacing provided to 28 mm dia. bars = 100 mm < Top reinforcement of the well cap will be designed for total hogging moment at the centre of well cap = 780.4 kNm

0.262%

25 mm dia. bars are used at the top of well cap, Spacing required for 25 mm dia. bars = Spacing provided to 25 mm dia. bars = 150 mm < Hence, 25 mm dia. bars at 150 mm c/c is provided at the top of well cap & 28 mm dia. bars are provided at 100 mm c/c is provided at the bottom of well cap.

162 | P a g e

Check for Punching Shear Total vertical load acting on the well cap = 3533 + 3000 +791 = 7324 kN Hence, Shear stress acting on the well-cap = Maximum shear stress for M25 Grade concrete = Hence, Safe

Fig. A-10 Reinforcement Details of Well Cap

163 | P a g e

**APPENDIX – B SUPPORTING LONG HAND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ILLUSTRATVIE PROBLEM ON PILE FOUNDATION
**

Width of pier cap = 4000 mm Length of pier cap = Bearing Spacing(S2) + dimension of bearing along transverse axis + 1200 = 4500 + 400 + 1200 = 6100 mm

Fig. B-1 Pier Section in transverse direction of bridge ANALYSIS OF PIER Now, the pier is analyzed for various forces acting on it. CALCULATION OF STRESSES IN PIER The stresses developed in pier due to various forces acting on it are calculated as below: 1. Stresses due to dead load & self weight of Pier Dead load from superstructure of bridge = 2 X 1500 = 3000 kN Pier Volume =

164 | P a g e

= = 100.53 m3 Volume of tapered portion of Pier cap = Volume of rectangular portion of Pier cap = Total volume of pier & pier cap = 122.83 m3 Hence, total weight of pier & pier cap = C/s area of pier = 12.57 m2 Stresses due to dead load of superstructure & weight of pier & pier cap =

= 483.1 kN/m2 2. Stresses due to eccentricity of live load Moment of Inertia about X axis i.e. T-T axis of bridge, Ixx = Moment of Inertia about Y axis i.e. L-L axis of bridge, Iyy

(a) Due to eccentric live load about transverse axis of bridge Vertical live load on pier, producing maximum stress about transverse axis = 385 kN, & Moment due to live load eccentricity about transverse axis of bridge, producing maximum stress about transverse axis = 192.5 kNm Stress at the base of pier due to eccentricity of live load about transverse axis = = = 61.27 kN/m2 or 0 kN/m2

**(b) Due to eccentric live load about longitudinal axis of bridge
**

Vertical live load on pier, producing maximum stress due about longitudinal axis = 397.5 kN, & Moment due to live load eccentricity about transverse axis of bridge, producing maximum stress about longitudinal axis = 377.6 kNm Stress at the base of pier due to eccentricity of live load about longitudinal axis =

165 | P a g e

= = 91.73 kN/m2 or -28.47 kN/m2 NOTE: The stresses acting at the base of pier due to live load eccentricity is calculated on program made in Microsoft Excel Worksheet. 3. Stresses due to longitudinal forces (a) Due to tractive effort or braking forces Braking effect is invariably greater than tractive effort. Hence, braking effort is considered. Longitudinal force of Class AA load = 0.2 X 400 = 80 kN Moment at the base = 80 X 12.5 = 1000 kNm Stress at the base of pier due to braking effort =

=

= (b) Due to resistance at bearings Coefficient of friction on the left side of bearing = 0.05 Coefficient of friction on the right side of bearing (reducing 5%) = 0.0475 Assume the combination of dead load & live load acting on the left side bearing and dead load on right side bearing Maximum live load reaction acting on the left side bearing = 385 kN (as calculated on program prepared in Microsoft Excel Worksheet) Total resistance to sliding on the left side bearing = 0.05 X (1500 + 385) = 94.25 kN & Total reacting on the right side bearing = 0.0475 X 1500 = 71.25 kN Unbalanced force = 23 kN Moment due to unbalanced force at the base of pier = 23 X 9.3 = 213.9 kNm Stress at the base of pier =

=

=

34.04

**4. Stresses due to wind load (a) Area of superstructure as seen in elevation = 70 m2
**

166 | P a g e

The height of exposed surface of bridge structure = 10.3 m For 10.3 m, the intensity of wind load is taken as 0.92 kN/ m2 Hence, Total wind force = 70 X 0.92 = 64.37 kN/ m2 (b) Considering the wind load acting on moving live load having magnitude of 3 kN/m & acting at 1.5 m above road way, Wind force against the moving load = 1.2 X 3 = 4.2 kN (c) Total wind force as in (a) & (b) above = 68.57 kN (d) Minimum limiting load on deck at 4.5 kN/m = 1.2 X 4.5 = 5.4 kN (e) Minimum limiting load on at 2.4 kN/m2 on exposed surface = 2.4 X 70 = 168 kN Since force in (e) is maximum, this will be adopted. This force will be assumed to act at the bearing level for the purpose of calculating the moment at the base of pier. Moment at the base of pier = 168 X 10.3 = 1730.4 kNm Stress at the base of pier =

=

= 5. Stresses due to seismic effect (a) Seismic moment acting at the base of pier due to the masses of bridge component & live load Lever arm of tapered portion of pier cap from the base of pier =

Hence, total seismic moment due to mass of bridge components & live load about longitudinal axis = ((397.5 X 12.5) + (305 X 8.75) + (252.5 X 8.3) + (252.5 X 8.3) + (2513 X 4) + (1500 X 10.3 X 2)) X 0.1 = 5068.7 kNm Total seismic moment due to mass of bridge components & live load about transverse axis = ((305 X 8.75) + (252.5 X 8.3) + (252.5 X 8.3) + (2513 X 4) + (1500 X 10.3 X 2)) X 0.1 = 4571.8 kNm Resultant stress due to seismic effect about transverse axis = = =

167 | P a g e

Resultant stress due to seismic effect about longitudinal axis = = = 6. Stresses due to horizontal shear forces Maximum horizontal shear force at roller support is calculated for N Case, N + T Case & N + T + S Case. For these maximum shear forces, resultant stresses at the base of pier are calculated for different load combinations.

Table B-1 Calculation of Maximum Shear forces at bearings No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Forces Vertical Reaction due to dead load, kN Vertical Reaction due to live load, kN (when live load at roller support is max.) Total Vertical Reaction, kN Maximum horizontal force at roller support, due to resistance at bearings, kN Braking force at bearing level, kN Resultant horizontal forces, at roller support for N Case loading, kN Resultant horizontal forces, at roller support for N + T Case loading, kN Resultant horizontal forces, at roller 8 support for N + T + S Case loading, kN (No braking force) --At hinge support 750 0 750 -40 -At roller support 750 385 1135 0.05 X 1135= 56.75 40 40

7

---

40+ 56.75= 96.75 (1500 X 0.1) + (397.5X 0.1) = 189.75

168 | P a g e

Table B-2 Stresses due to horizontal shear force at bearings No. Load Combination 1 2 3 N Case N + T Case N + T + S Case Shear Force, kN 40 96.75 189.75 Moment, kNm 372 899.78 2294.76 Stress, kN/m2

Table B-3 shows the summary of stresses occurring due to various forces acting on the pier, as calculated above.

**Table B-3 Summary of Stresses due to various forces acting on the Pier
**

Stresses due to vertical load, kN/m2 Stresses due to moment about transverse axis of bridge, kN/m2 -30.63 Stresses due to moment about longitudinal axis of bridge, kN/m2 -60.1

No.

Loads

1 2

Dead load & self weight Eccentric live load Longitudinal force

483.1 31.45

3

(a) Braking Effort (b)Due to resistance at bearing

------

--275.4

4 5

Wind load Seismic effect

The summary of stresses due to horizontal shear forces is given in Table B-2. Now, considering stresses due to all the forces as calculated above, we will compute the resultant maximum stresses at “A” & “B” on pier for different load combinations. Fig. B-2 shows the location of “A” & “B” on pier.

169 | P a g e

Fig. B-2 Location of “A” & “B” on Pier The resultant compressive & tensile stresses acting at “A” & “B” on pier for different load combinations are shown in Table B-4 & Table B-5 respectively. Table B-4 Resultant Compressive Stresses at “A” & “B” on Pier

No. 1 2 3 Loads N Case N + T Case N + T + S Case Resultant compressive stress at “A” on pier, MPa 0.85 0.85 1.38 Resultant compressive stress at “B” on pier, MPa 0.763 0.886 1.845

**Table B-5 Resultant Tensile Stresses at “A” & “B” on Pier
**

No. 1 2 3 Loads N Case N + T Case N + T + S Case Resultant compressive stress at “A” on pier, MPa 0.179 0.179 -0.352 Resultant compressive stress at “B” on pier, MPa 0.264 0.152 -0.708

COMPARISION OF MAXIMUM STRESSES IN PIER WITH THEIR PERMISSIBLE LIMITS The maximum compressive and tensile stresses in pier calculated for different load combinations are compared with their permissible limits as shown below: Permissible compressive stress for M25 grade of concrete = 6 MPa (as per Table 21 of IS: 45620001) & Permissible tensile stress for M25 grade of concrete = 0.15 X 6 MPa = 0.9 MPa

170 | P a g e

Maximum compressive stress under “N” Case loading = 0.85 MPa < 6 MPa. Hence, Safe. Maximum compressive stress under “N + T” Case loading = 0.886 MPa < 6.9 MPa (15% increase). Hence, Safe. Maximum compressive stress under “N + T + S” Case loading = 1.845 MPa < 9 MPa (50% increase). Hence, Safe. Maximum tensile stress under “N + T + S” Case loading = 0.708 MPa < 1.35 MPa (50% increase). Hence, Safe. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION The pile cap in foundation is embedded into the ground such that the top of pile cap is at ground level. The thickness of pile cap is assumed as 1500 mm. Piles used in the foundation are bored cast-in-situ pile. The diameter of pile is taken as 900 mm & pile length is taken as 13 m. SAFE BERING CAPACITY OF PILE To estimate the safe bearing capacity of pile, the ultimate bearing capacity of pile is calculated. Static formulae are used in estimating ultimate bearing capacity of pile: Ultimate bearing capacity of a pile , The pile is penetrated into the two soil layers. Hence, its ultimate bearing capacity is dependent on the properties of both the soils, For soil layer 1 Skin frictional resistance due to soil layer 1, As the soil layer 1 is Clay, , where α = adhesion factor, is obtained from Figure 4.9 of Chapter 4 = 0.415 undrained cohesion of soil, = 120 kN/m2 &

= 774.78 kN

171 | P a g e

Fig. B-3 Effective overburden pressure on pile For soil layer 2 Skin frictional resistance due to soil layer 2, As the soil layer 2 is Sand, , Effective overburden pressure at top of the soil layer 2,

Effective overburden pressure at pile tip,

Effective overburden pressure at mid of the pile penetration in soil layer 2,

,

= =0.7, for Bored cast-in-situ piles

172 | P a g e

Hence,

= 16.41

= 348.03 kN Point bearing resistance of pile, For sand, , where,

For – 19793)

, value of bearing capacity factor

(obtained from Fig. 1 of IS: 2911 (Part 1)

= 10413.5 Area of pile at the tip,

= 6624.8 Hence, Ultimate bearing capacity of a pile

= 774.78 + 348.03 + 6624.8 = 7747.6 kN Taking Factor of safety as 3, safe bearing capacity of pile, = 2583 Kn

173 | P a g e

ARRANGEMENT OF PILES IN FOUNDATION Total vertical load acting on the pile foundation = Dead load from the superstructure + Live load acting on the bridge + weight of pier + weight of pier cap = 3000 + 3070.8 + 397.5 = 6468.3 kN Number of pile required in foundation =

Number of piles provided in the foundation = 36

Fig. B-4 Arrangement of Piles in Foundation Piles are arranged in grip pattern, having six rows of pile and six columns of pile along transverse and longitudinal axis of bridge Minimum spacing between piles = 3 X diameter of pile = 2700 mm Spacing between the piles provided = 2700 mm Hence, the dimensions of pile cap is calculated considering clear over hang of 150 mm from outermost pile, Length of pile cap = (2700 X 5) + 900 + 300 = 14700 mm

174 | P a g e

Width of pile cap = (2700 X 5) + 900 + 300 = 14700 mm DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS ON PILE Load on pile ith pile Qi Moment & is calculated at the soffit of pile cap,

Considering the seismic effect along longitudinal direction Moment about longitudinal axis of bridge, = Eccentric moment due to live load about longitudinal axis = 377.6 kNm Moment about transverse axis of bridge, = Eccentric moment due to live load about longitudinal axis + Moment due to braking effort + Moment due to resistance at bearings + Moment due to horizontal shear force +

Moment due to seismic effect = 192.5 + 1120 + 248.4 + 2665 + 6090.2 = 10316 kNm Vertical load acting on the pile foundation, Q = 14571.7 kN

Pile at distance

from the longitudinal and transverse axis of bridge

respectively, is carrying the maximum load. Hence, load on the pile Qi

= 499 kN <

SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE GROUP Ultimate bearing capacity of pile group, The pile group is penetrated into the two soil layers. Hence, its ultimate bearing capacity is dependent on the properties of both the soils. For soil layer 1 Skin frictional resistance due to soil layer 1, As the soil layer 1 is Clay, , But for pile group

175 | P a g e

Undrained cohesion of soil,

= 120 kN/m2

Plan dimensions of pile group are, Length of pile group = (2.7 X 5) + 0.9 = 14.4 m Width of pile group = (2.7 X 5) + 0.9 = 14.4 m

= 38016 kN For soil layer 2 Skin frictional resistance due to soil layer 2, As the soil layer 2 is Sand, , For pile group, , Hence, ,

Effective overburden pressure at mid of the pile group penetration in soil layer 2,

\ Hence,

= 38.26

= 16528 kN Point bearing resistance of pile group, For sand, , where,

176 | P a g e

For (Part 1) – 19793)

, value of bearing capacity factor

(obtained from Fig. 1 of IS: 2911

= 10413.5 Area of pile group at the bottom,

= 2159343 Hence, Ultimate bearing capacity of a pile group

= 38016 + 16528 + 2159343 = 2213887 kN Safe bearing capacity of pile group shall be taken as smaller of the two values given below:

Hence, the Safe bearing capacity of pile group is pile. Hence, Safe.

kN > Total vertical load acting on the

LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS OF PILE The lateral load capacity of the pile is estimated as per the layer of soil situated at the ground level as it will have the major contribution in the lateral load capacity of pile. As the top most soil layer is normally consolidated clay, , where, E = I= = 25000 MPa m4 & = 450 kN/m3, for normally loaded clays Hence, T = 4.47 As the pile is completely embedded into the unscourable ground,

177 | P a g e

From Figure 2 of IS: 2911 (Part 1)-19793, depth of fixity Lf = 9.72 m Here, number of piles provided in foundation is 36 i.e. more than 3 The pile head is considered as fixed head pile Lateral load capacity of fixed head pile is calculated as,

where, Y = limiting lateral deflection of pile head, = 5 mm, for bridge substructures kN Actual lateral acting on the pile is 49.1 kN < 52.59 kN Hence, Safe.

The fixed end moment of the equivalent cantilever is given by:

, for fixed head pile

Reduction factor, m as obtained from Figure 3 of IS: 2911 (Part 1)- 19793 is 0.82 Hence, the actual maximum moment, M = m (MF) = STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Axial load acting on pile, P = 499 kN & Moment acting on pile, M = 209.6 kNm = 209.6 kNm

**& Referring to SP:16 (1980)9, For 0.005 Hence, Area of steel required =
**

178 | P a g e

& d’/D = 0.10

Minimum area of steel = 0.4% of gross-sectional area of pile = Minimum area of steel governs, Provide 20 mm dia. bars as longitudinal reinforcement in pile Number of 20 mm dia. bars required = Hence, 9 bars of 20 mm diameter are provided in piles as longitudinal reinforcement Lateral ties of 6 mm are provided at the spacing of 300 mm Diameter of lateral ties i.e. 6mm Spacing between lateral ≯ 900 mm, and, ties ≯ 320 mm, and, ≯ 300 mm. SETTLEMENT OF PILE GROUP The point bearing resistance of pile has major contribution in bearing capacity of pile. Hence, the piles are considered as end bearing piles. As shown in Fig. B-5, the fictitious raft is situated in sand layer at the depth of 12 m depth below ground level. On the basis of 1H : 2V dispersion of load, the plan dimensions of raft are decided as: Length of raft = 14.4 + 5 = 19.4 m Width of raft = 14.4 + 5 = 19.4 m The soil below the raft is sand. Hence, De-Beer and Marten method (1957)22 is used for estimating settlement of pile group in sand. , and, 6 mm.

where,

= mean effective overburden pressure for the layer, = = C= =31.82 kN/m2

179 | P a g e

= 27.8

Fig. B-5 Settlement of End bearing piles Permissible settlement for pile foundations = 50 mm > 28 mm. Hence, Safe DESIGN OF PILE CAP Length of pile cap = 14.7 m & width of pile cap = 14.7 m Depth of pile cap = 1500 mm Effective depth of pile cap = 1500 – 60(reinforcement cover) = 1440 mm The critical section for bending moment is at the face of pier. Moment in the pie cap about the transverse axis of bridge, MTT = 21428 kNm.

0.308%

<

Provide 25 mm dia. bars in pile cap,

. Hence, OK.

180 | P a g e

Spacing required for 25 mm dia. bars = Spacing provided to 25 mm dia. bars = 90 mm < Moment in the pie cap about the longitudinal axis of bridge, MLL = 16634 kNm. (as obtained from table B – 6)

0.236%

<

Provide 25 mm dia. bars in pile cap, Spacing required for 25 mm dia. bars = Spacing provided to 25 mm dia. bars = 120 mm <

. Hence, OK.

181 | P a g e

Table B-6 Moment about longitudinal axis in pile cap from the critical section

NUMBER

X- CO-ORDINATE OF PILE

Y- CO-ORDINATE OF PILE

LOAD ON PILE

MOMENT FROM FACE OF PIER ON INDIVIDUAL PILE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75

6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75

496.4043474 460.0163404 423.6283333 387.2403263 350.8523192 314.4643122 497.7363404 461.3483333 424.9603263 388.5723192 352.1843122 315.7963051 499.0683333 462.6803263 426.2923192 389.9043122 353.5163051 317.1282981 TOTAL MOMENT

0 0 0 0 0 0 1020.359498 945.7640833 871.1686689 796.5732544 721.9778399 647.3824255 2370.574583 2197.73155 2024.888516 1852.045483 1679.202449 1506.359416 16634.02777

182 | P a g e

Check of two-way shear The critical section for two way shear is effective depth/2 i.e. 720 mm away from the face of pier. The two- way shear developed in pile cap is as calculated in Table B-7. Hence, for two-way shear Shear force = 12952 kN Nominal Shear Stress = Permissible shear stress, & Check of one-way shear The critical section for one way shear is effective depth i.e. 720 mm away from the face of pier. The one - way shear developed in pile cap is as calculated in Table 6.14. For shear force acting at the critical section along transverse axis of bridge Shear force = 5730 kN Nominal Shear Stress = As per Table 23 of IS: 456-20001, for 0.34% steel, Permissible shear stress, . Hence, OK. , where > Nominal shear stress. Hence OK.

For shear force acting at the critical section along longitudinal axis of bridge Shear force = 4889 kN Nominal Shear Stress = As per Table 23 of IS: 456-20001, for 0.26% steel, Permissible shear stress, < . Nominal Shear Stress. Hence, OK.

183 | P a g e

**Table B-7 Calculation of two-way shear force
**

NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 X- CO-ORDINATE OF PILE 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 Y- CO-ORDINATE OF PILE 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 LOAD ON PILE 496.4043474 460.0163404 423.6283333 387.2403263 350.8523192 314.4643122 497.7363404 461.3483333 424.9603263 388.5723192 352.1843122 315.7963051 499.0683333 462.6803263 426.2923192 389.9043122 353.5163051 317.1282981 495.0723545 458.6843474 422.2963404 385.9083333 349.5203263 313.1323192 493.7403616 457.3523545 420.9643474 384.5763404 348.1883333 311.8003263 492.4083686 456.0203616 419.6323545 383.2443474 346.8563404 310.4683333 TOTAL SHEAR CONTRIBUTION OF PILE IN SHEAR FORCE 496.4043474 460.0163404 0 0 350.8523192 314.4643122 497.7363404 461.3483333 424.9603263 388.5723192 352.1843122 315.7963051 499.0683333 462.6803263 426.2923192 389.9043122 353.5163051 317.1282981 495.0723545 458.6843474 0 0 349.5203263 313.1323192 493.7403616 457.3523545 420.9643474 384.5763404 348.1883333 311.8003263 492.4083686 456.0203616 419.6323545 383.2443474 346.8563404 310.4683333 12952.58667

184 | P a g e

**Table B-8 Calculation of one-way shear force at critical section along L-L axis of bridge
**

X- CO-ORDINATE OF PILE 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -4.05 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 -6.75 Y- CO-ORDINATE OF PILE 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 6.75 4.05 1.35 -1.35 -4.05 -6.75 LOAD ON PILE 496.4043474 460.0163404 423.6283333 387.2403263 350.8523192 314.4643122 497.7363404 461.3483333 424.9603263 388.5723192 352.1843122 315.7963051 499.0683333 462.6803263 426.2923192 389.9043122 353.5163051 317.1282981 495.0723545 458.6843474 422.2963404 385.9083333 349.5203263 313.1323192 493.7403616 457.3523545 420.9643474 384.5763404 348.1883333 311.8003263 492.4083686 456.0203616 419.6323545 383.2443474 346.8563404 310.4683333 TOTAL SHEAR CONTRIBUTION OF PILE IN SHEAR FORCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 497.7363404 461.3483333 424.9603263 388.5723192 352.1843122 315.7963051 499.0683333 462.6803263 426.2923192 389.9043122 353.5163051 317.1282981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4889.187831

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

185 | P a g e

Fig. B-6 Reinforcement details of Pile Cap

186 | P a g e

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd