Beidge Site Selection Report Gauchar Sidoli KM 16 SEN COMBINED

SITE SELECTION REPORT
Name of Area: - Gauchar, Chamoli
Name of Circle: - Seventh Circle, Public Work Department, Gauchar
Name of District: - Chamoli
Name of Block: - Construction Division, P.W.D Gauchar
Development Block: - Karnaprayag
Assembly Area: - Karnaprayag
Lok Sabha Area: - Pauri Garhwal
Name of Work: - Design and Cost Estimation for Construction of Bridge

at Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road (SH-95) Km
16.00(Chainage-15.051) over Local Stream. Site
Selection Report
Proposed Bridge span: - 18 M
Page 1
Table of Contents
A. SITE SELECTION REPORT PAGE No.
1. PREFACE…………………………………………………………………………………. 3
2. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………… 4
3. LIST OF INSPECTING ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS, ………………………...... 4-5

AND SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
4. SPECIFICATIONS …………………………………………………………….... 5
5. SITE INSPECTION ……………………………………………………………... 5-7
6. GEOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………….. 7
7. HYDROLOGY …………………………………………………………………… 7-8
8. TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY ……………………………………………………. 9-10
9. SITE SELECTION ……………………………………………………….. 10-12
10. RECOMMENDATION …………………………………………………... 12-13
11. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………. 13
B. ANNEXURES
a) ANNEXURE (A) : - HYDROLOGY REPORT
b) ANNEXURE (B) : - GEOLOGY REPORT
c) ANNEXURE (C) : - TOPOGRAPHYCAL REPORT
Page 2
1. PREFACE
The Government of Uttarakhand has sanctioned the construction of the Motor Bridge at
Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road SH-95 Km 16.00 (Chainage-15.051) over local stream,
Karnaprayag Block, Chamoli, Uttarakhand. The Government Sanction for the construction of
the First Phase of the Motor Bridge is accorded by the following Government Order.
Name of Work Government Order Sanction Amount (First

Phase) in Rs. Lakh
Design and Cost Estimation for Construction 2.4Lakh

of Bridge at Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road
e-file 49189 PED
(SH-95) Km 16.00 (Chainage-15.051) over
Section-2 Date-
Local Stream.(First stage)
15.03.2023
The Construction Division, Gauchar has been entrusted with the construction of a Motor
Bridge over the local stream at Km 16 (Chainage 15.051) of Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road ,
Karnaprayag block, Chamoli, Uttarakhand. The proposed Motor Bridge will be class-“A”
Loading with Intermediate Lane.
The Construction Division, PWD, Gauchar, has made Contract Bond Agreement with
Consultant, Festal Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4th Floor, Orbit Plaza Crossing
Republik, Ghaziabad, as detailed below:
Name of Contract Bond Agreement
Contract Bond No.
Amount of Contract Bond Agreement
This Site Selection Report is being made and submitted, in compliance with the above-
referred Contract Bond Agreement.
2. INTRODUCTION
Uttarakhand is one of the hilly states located in the Himalayan region of India. Uttarakhand
State lies in the northern part of India between the latitudes 28°43‘N and 31°27‘N and
longitudes 77°34‘E and 81°02‘E, covering an area of 53,483 square kilometers. This state
elevation has a significant spatial variability and ranges from 210 m to 7817 m.
Page 3
Karnaprayag is a town and municipal board in the Chamoli District in
the Indian state of Uttarakhand. Karnaprayag is one of the Panch Prayag (five confluences)
of Alaknanda River, situated at the confluence of the Alaknanda and Pindar River. As of the
2001 census, Karnaprayag had a population of 6976. Males constitute 56% of the population, and
females make up 44%. Karnaprayag has an average literacy rate of 76%, higher than the national
average of 59.5%. Male literacy is 81%, and female literacy is 69%. 13% of the population is under
six years of age.
The site visit was completed on 18/07/2023 to start the reconnaissance surveys and data
collection broadly about Bridge Inventory, Site Conditions, Geographical data, etc. by Er.
Govind Sen, Design Engineer of the Consultant, Festal Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,
Ghaziabad along with Mr. Anup singh (Assistant Engineer) and Mr. Narendra Kumar (Junior
Engineer) as representative of the Construction Division, PWD, Gauchar .
The selection of bridge construction sites over local stream is one of the most important tasks
in construction feasibility. In this report, a potential site for the construction of a Motor
bridge is selected using Geological, Hydrological, Topographical, River/Channel Flow,
Economy, and Construction Methodology, Construction Material availability, Social,
Benefiting Villager requirements, Approach Road Characteristics, and other relevant
parameters. For the selection of the final bridge site location based on the above-mentioned
characteristics and parameters, the site visit was done by the Bridge Design Engineer, and the
representative of P.W.D., as mentioned in the List of Inspecting officers.
3. INSPECTING ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE
The list of the engineers from consultant side and client side and the site selection committee
members are tabulated below:
REPRESENTATIVE OF CONSULTANTS
Date of
S.No. Name of Officers Designation Name of Consultant Signature
Visit
Govind Sen Design Festal Consulting
1
Engineer Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Raghav Tiwari Surveyor Festal Consulting
2
Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
REPRESENTATIVE OF PWD
Date of
S.No. Name of Officers Designation Name of Office Signature
Visit
Er. Amit Kumar Executive Construction Division,

1
Patel Engineer PWD, Gauchar
2 Er. Anup Singh Assistant Construction Division,
Page 4
Engineer PWD, Gauchar
Er. Narendra Junior Construction Division,
3
Kumar Engineer PWD, Gauchar
LIST OF SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Date of
S.No. Name of Officers Designation Name of Office Signature
Visit
Er. Rajesh Superintending 7th circle , PWD

1
Chandra Engineer Gopeshwar, Chamoli
Er.Amit Kumar Executive Construction
2 Patel Engineer Division
,PWD,Gauchar
4. SPECIFICATIONS
All the works will be executed as per the prevailing detailed specifications of the Public
Work Department, Uttarakhand.
5. SITE INSPECTION
The site should be sufficiently away from the confluence point. There should not be the
necessity for extensive river training works. There should be the availability of hard strata or
non-erodible foundations for the bridge. There should be no excessive scouring & silting at
the bridge site.
The existing bridge is at Ch. 15.051.The bridge is located across the Local stream. The
existing span arrangement of the bridge is 1x8.0 m, and the overall width of the bridge is 5 m.
The approaches of the existing bridge are forming a sharp curve. The approach road has a
high FRL relative to the existing bridge FRL. The both approach road side of the existing
bridge has no Built-up area.The existing bridge is Class B category bridge which cannot
handel heavy loaded vehicle and due to less width two way traffic cannot pass . Inspection
Details of Existing Bridge (As per IRC: SP: 52-1999) is given below:
Table 1:- Inspection Detail of Existing Bridge
Salient Features of Existing Bridge

Length of the Bridge 8m
Width of Bridge 5m
Type of Loading Class-“B” (16.2 Tonne)
Type of Bridge Minor Bridge
Type of Deck Slab RCC
Type of Super structure RCC Deck Slab
Type of Sub structure Brick Masonry Abutment Wall Type
Type of Foundation Open Foundation
Type of Bearing Nil
Expansion Joint (If any) Nil
Kerbs Nil
Page 5
Footpath Nil
Parapets, Railing And Crash Barrier Railing
Seismic Stopper Nil
Any Protection Works Nil
Condition of Existing Bridge
Wearing Coarse Condition
Wearing Coarse Type Concrete wearing coarse
Crack in Wearing Surface Yes
Bumpy Roads on approaches Right Side
Drainage Spout Yes
Water logging on the deck No
Railing/ Crash Barrier Railing
Expansion Joint Nil
River
Blockages in Waterway No
Debris in Waterway Yes
Trees or Bushes growing under bridge No
Any River Training work Nil
Damage on Abutment due to river training works Nil
Damage on Piers due to river training works Nil
Super-structure
Damage in Girder/Trusses/Bracing Nil
Vegetation in Beams/ Girder/Trusses Nil
Water Coming through the deck Yes
Rusting in Superstructure Nil
Bends in webs, flanges, stiffeners or bracings Nil
Loose Bolts or Rivets Nil
Bearings
Debris or Vegetation around Nil
Damaged Bedding Mortar Nil
Earthquake Restraints Nil
Substructure
Erosion or scour at abutment Nil
Damage to Foundation Nil
Exposure of Reinforcement Nil
Debris against abutment Yes
Corrosion of Reinforcement Nil
Crack in Abutments Nil
Deterioration of Stones or bricks Nil
6. GEOLOGY
Geology investigations are becoming increasingly acceptable and implemented in the field of
geotechnical engineering world over, on account of its simplicity and advantages over
traditional methods Geology methods can be used to provide volumetric knowledge of
unforeseen, highly variable sub-surface ground conditions assisting bridge engineers in pin
Page 6
point borings, especially in inclined beds for foundations. The geology characteristics such as
thickness of unconsolidated overburden, bed rock depth, void location, and ground water
depth are required in the planning stage itself. Each of these characteristics will significantly
affect the design and construction phase of any project. Additional knowledge about these
conditions, provided by geology methods can reduce project risk, improve construction
quality and safety. The document details various geology methods, brief principle,
operations, capabilities, limitations and method selection criteria. The document also deals
with investigation of existing bridges using geology methods.
Geological methods are sensitive to contrast in the physical properties in the subsurface.
Different methods respond to different physical properties, like material strength, material
conductivity, change in density etc. Geological techniques, by virtue of their non-invasive
and non-destructive nature, offer an excellent solution for site investigations. No single
geological technique can uniquely solve the problem due to a large overlapping of physical
properties in various subsurface materials. That is the reason why it becomes important to use
a combination of geological methods to uniquely resolve the problem. Choosing the right
tool/ technique to address to a specific problem is critical for success of a geological program.
The objectives of Geological methods are to locate or to detect the presence of sub-surface
structure or bodies and to determine their configuration in terms of size, shape and depth
along with physical properties.
7. HYDROLOGY
The Central Water Commission (CWC) has divided the whole Geographical Territory of
India into 26 distinct hydro-meteorologically homogeneous sub zones. The proposed project
area comes under zone-7. The 24-hr maximum rainfall value of 100 years generally adopted
for this study area.
The basic purpose of collecting hydrological data is to study the rainfall pattern (like
intensity, duration, frequency) and runoff characteristics of the basin under consideration, and
there by determine the likely discharge through the channel and thus decide upon the
optimum waterway for the bridge. The extent of hydrological data collection and subsequent
analysis should be commensurate with the type and size of crossing under study. The
catchment area of a bridge site should be identified and marked clearly on the topographical
map. The identified catchment should also include the contour and existing land use pattern
like forests, cultivated land, barren land, desert, etc. to the extent possible.
All details of configuration of the river/channel as maybe relevant to hydrological analysis
may be obtained from ground aerial survey. All controls, natural (drops, rapids, bends, and
debris) and artificial (dams, barrages, weirs, spurs, road and railway bridges, etc.) should be
Identified and relevant information obtained. Details, if any, of future work that may affect
the stream hydraulics should be collected. Degradation of a river channel may invite higher
flood discharge whereas aggradation may result in higher flood level and bank spills. These
Page 7
factors have a direct bearing on the design of water way clearance and approaches as well as
the bridge structure itself. All information which may help evaluate present or possible future
aggradation/ degradation of channel should also be collected. Efforts should also be made to
collect data regarding the quantity, size and nature of debris and floating material and the
period of occurrence of debris in relation to flood peaks.
HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Existing Bridge Upstream side Downstream side
Cross Section followed for bridge Point 0+150 m of 0+135m of survey 0+165m of survey
survey data data data
Deepest Bed Level 1415.42 m 1417.91 m 1410.79 m
Silt Factor as per Geotechnical report NIL NIL NIL
Silt factor assumed 4 4 4
HFL information received from local NIL NIL NIL
enquiry
Discharge Calculation
Catchment Area 1.74 Sq. Km 1.74 sq. Km 1.74 Sq. Km
Discharge by Rational Formula (Q100) 120Cumec 120Cumec 120Cumec
Discharge by Dicken’s Formula 14Cumec 14Cumec 14Cumec
Observed discharge NIL NIL NIL
Adopted Discharge
For Fixing Effective Clear Waterway 6Cumec 20.45Cumec 20.45Cumec
normal to flow
For Fixing HFL 120Cumec 120Cumec 120Cumec
For Estimation of Scour 156.02Cumec 156Cumec 155.98Cumec
Waterway
Clear Waterway Provided 6m 10 m 6m
Summary of Calculation for Proposed Bridge
Afflux (h) for Q100 0.814 m 0.668m 0.320 m
Velocity under Bridge for Q100 9.369 m/s 8.759 m/s 9.448 m/s
HFL with afflux for Q100 1420.21 m 1420.46 m 1413.74 m
Recommendation
As per hydrological calculation the bridge may be proposed with following salient features:
Clear Waterway 6m 10 m 6m
Discharge Q100 120Cumec 120Cumec 120 Cumec
Velocity 8.56 m/s 8.05 m/s 9.14 m/s
Deepest Bed Level 1415.42 m 1414.91 m 1410.79 m
HFL with Afflux 1420.21m 1420.46 m 1413.74 m
Minimum soffit level required 1421.11 m 1421.36 m 1414.64 m
For details calculation refer to Annexure – A.
Page 8
8.
9. TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY
The Topographical Survey for the construction of the Vehicular Bridge over the Local
Stream of SH 95 (Chainage-15.051) Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road is conducted by Mr.
Raghav Tiwari, Surveyor on behalf of the Consultant .
A detailed topographical survey has been carried out to identify and map the surface features
of the terrain in a given area. The bridge site benchmark has been marked on existing
structures by using Total Station Instrument. The topographical survey process typically
comprised of:
 Establishment of a reference system of coordinates in the form of a suitable network

of survey control points.
 Providing temporary bench mark on 2-locations at bridge location using Total Station
instrument.
 Conducting detailed topographical survey using Total Stations to obtain x, y, and z
coordinates of all topographical features including spot levels.
 Using the obtained survey data to generate a 3D digital terrain model of the site for
preparation of the site plan and developing the cross sections & further the subsequent
bridge design.
To establish a reference system of coordinates, Survey Control Points, preferably of

permanent nature and inter-visible, were fixed on suitable locations on the banks of the river
at the proposed bridge site. Survey control points were marked on the existing structures and
suitable locations. Grid coordinates of these control points were determined by the Total
Station instrument in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection on WGS 84 Datum.
The height of all survey control points was based on the GPS level of the first control point
and interconnected by differential levelling in a loop so that there was no relative error, using
digital levels with independent local reference for the bridge site.
Based on the precise x, y & z coordinates of survey control points, a detailed topographical
survey is carried out of the approach road/track along with all natural and manmade features
like houses, water bodies, communication, and power lines within the specified area using
Total Station with standard codes. The survey also included hydrological requirements for
suitable lengths on the upstream and downstream sides of the proposed bridge site. All
ground survey data collected in the field by Total Station in the form of x, y & z coordinates
were downloaded and suitably processed to develop a desired plan of the area updated with
relevant information like names of the place, locality, destinations of the approach roads and
other important landmarks. Updated 3D CAD data of the project site is produced in digital
format for developing Digital Terrain Models (DTM) and subsequent design and mapping on
Page 9
the desired scale for planning and reporting. The following major features were covered in
the survey:
 Collection of details of all features such as structures, utilities, existing roads, electric
and telephone installations (overhead), huts, buildings, fencing, trees (with girth
greater than 0.3 meters), oil and gas lines, etc. falling within contour plan.
 Longitudinal section levels were collected along the centreline at every 10 m interval
& the interval was reduced suitably at the locations of curve points and the locations
of change in elevation.
 Longitudinal section levels of the river have been collected along a centre line at
every 10m interval 500m on the upstream side and 500m on the downstream side of
the bridge.
 Cross-Sections across the stream shall be taken at 0m, 10m, 150m & 300m on both
upstream and downstream for Minor Bridges and 0m, 20m, 150m & 500m for Major
Bridges concerning the centre line of the Bridge. The level shall be taken at 10m
intervals and closer intervals at changes of elevation for all bridges so that a complete
cross-section showing all changes in levels is available. Cross section shall be taken
up from the approach Road to the bridges.
 Longitudinal and cross sections are taken as per recommendations contained in IRC
Special Publication No.13 (Guidelines for the Design of Small Bridges and Culverts)
and IRC: 5-2015 ("Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section 1-General Features of Design"). The survey has been carried out for 500m on
the upstream side and downstream side by taking cross-sections and L-section. L-
section of stream and X-section of a stream at every 10m on the upstream and
downstream side that has been shown in the topographical survey drawing. The
abutment location should be at a well maintained distance from the bank line
considering the location. Required protection works will be mentioned in the design
and drawing. The approach road is required for bridge construction at both sides of
the abutment.
For details Topographical survey drawings and cross-section refers to Annexure

– C.
10. SITE SELECTION

Selection of bridge construction sites over rivers is one of the most important tasks in
construction of bridge. The Bridge Site Selection is done as per relevant clauses of the Pocket
Book for Bridge Engineers published by the Indian Road Congress (IRC) and IRC-SP: 54-
2000, Project Preparation Manual for Bridges. In this report, potential site for the
construction of a vehicular bridge is selected using Geological, Hydrological, Topographical,
River/Channel Flow, Economy, and Construction Methodology, Construction Material
availability, Social, Benefiting Villagers requirements, Approach Road Characteristics and
Page 10
other relevant parameters. For the selection of final bridge site location based on above
mentioned characteristic and parameters, the site visit was done by Geologist, Surveyor,
Bridge Design Engineer and the representative of PWD, as mentioned in List of Inspecting
officers. Geographic information system (GIS) is used to facilitate the decision-making
process by determining alternative sites and evaluating the selection criteria.
There is continuous increase in traffic and this bridge is not sufficient to cater the present
demand of traffic. A new bridge is proposed to cater the traffic demand .The proposed bridge
shall be intermediate lane bridge designed to cater vehicular loading as per IRC provisions.
Name of work: Design and Cost Estimation for Construction of Bridge at Gauchar Sidoli Motor
Road (SH-95) Km 16.00 (Chainage-15.051) over Local Stream. The details comparison of the
various alignment options for siting of the bridge is given below:
Table 2:- Bridge Alignment Options

Sr.
Description Option-1 Option-2
No.
Design and Cost Estimation Design and Cost Estimation
for Construction of Bridge for Construction of Bridge
Main Features (Description of at Gauchar Sidoli Motor at Gauchar Sidoli Motor
1
Site) Road (SH-95) Km Road (SH-95) Km
16.00(Chainage-15.051) 16.00(Chainage-15.051)
over Local Stream. over Local Stream.
Sidoli Damdama Bartoli Sidoli Damdama Bartoli
Population Served By the
2 Kharsai Gwad Dewal Kharsai Gwad Dewal
Bridge
Matha Matha
3 General Details of Bridge
Span ---- ----
Width ---- ----
Type of Traffic Light & Medium Light & Medium
Type and Suitability of the
4 RCC Solid Slab RCC Solid Slab
Bridge
Suitable for Bridge Not Suitable for Bridge
5 Geological Appreciation
Construction Construction
Alluvial soil/Ordinary Alluvial soil/Ordinary Rock/
6 Suitability of Founding Strata
Rock/ Hard Rock Hard Rock
7 Type of Foundation Open Foundation Open Foundation
8 Climate Conditions
Temperature Maximum &
0 to 30 degree Centigrates 0 to 30 degree Centigrates
Minimum
Rainfall Data Average Annual
Peak intensity, monthly
360 mm 360 mm
distribution of the available road
length covered by Snow
39m/s, Basic Wind Speed 39m/s, Basic Wind Speed as
Wind Direction & velocity
as per IRC 6 per IRC 6
Fog conditions Foggy Area Foggy Area
Exposure to Sun Yes Yes
Drainage Characteristics of the No Stagnation of water No Stagnation of water
Page 11
Sr.
No.
area indicating susceptibility to Occurs Occurs
9 Hydrological Details
General Discharge – 120Cumec Discharge – 120Cumec
Total Water Way 6m 6m
10 Free Board --- m --- m
11 Approach Road
Length 100 m 100 m
Width 5.5 m 5.5 m
Grade 4.06 % & -1.40 % 3.68 % & -1.61 %
Recreational Potential/
12 Potential for Tourism yes yes
Development
13 Extent of Forest Nil Nil
Period Required for
14 12 Months 12 Months
Construction
15 Facilities & Resources
Construction site is Construction site is
Landing Ground
Accessible Accessible
Dropping Zone Not Required Not Required
Food Stuffs Available in nearby area Available in nearby area
Labor locally available or need
Locally available Locally available
of import
Construction materials Available Available
Timber, Bamboo, Sand, Shingle,
grit etc. extent of their Available within 45 km Available within 45 km
availability & lead involved
Quarry Position / Location As per Block SOR As per Block SOR
Average Lead 25 Km 25 Km
Access point indicating
16
possibility of equipment
17 Merits & Demerits
As per alignment Plan & As per alignment Plan &
Profile, the filling required Profile, the filling required
Filling
is less in comparison to is more in comparison to
option 2 option 1.
As per alignment Plan & As per alignment Plan &
Profile, the Cutting Profile, the Cutting required
Cutting
required less in comparison is not needed.
to option 2.
Safety Measures Safety measures need to be Safety measures need to be
18 taken during the taken during the
construction. construction.
19 Cost of Bridge
Any other useful information
viz. Other important projects
20 being taken in the area
required for proper
completion of the Work.
21 Recommendation of Executive
Page 12
Sr.
No.
Engineer/ Assistant Engineer/
Junior Engineer
11. RECOMMENDATION
 Option-1 (the upstream bridge):- It is shown in the topographical drawing and river as
well. It has a 18-meter span of bridge and, upstream, has no built-up area. At this
location, there is minimum cutting of the soil for the bridge approach road and no filling.
When bridge is constructed in the upstream side situated Gauchar - Sidoli Motor road .It
is a suitable option for the construction of a bridge because there is no built-up area and
no soil filling for the approach road.
 Option-2 (On upstream side of the existing bridge):- It is shown in the topographical
drawing and river as well. It has a 25-meter span of bridge at this location.The
requirement for more soil filling for approaches can increase construction costs and may
lead to additional challenges in managing earthworks and ensuring stability. A steeper
approach road gradient can pose safety concerns, especially for vehicles with heavy loads.
It might result in reduced vehicle stability and may require additional engineering
measures to address the steeper incline. The increased height of the abutment suggests the
need for more substantial retaining structures, which can add complexity and cost to the
project.
 Option-3 (At existing bridge location):- Existing Bridge is in fair condition but this has
been designed for Class B loading. For improvement to the bridge to carry Class A
loading, new bridge is proposed at the place of the existing bridge. The option to
construct the bridge at the existing bridge location is not feasible, as there is no alternate
route for vehicular movement.
CONCLUSION Option-1 remains the most suitable choice for building the bridge at
the specified location. It offers a minimum gradient of approaches, less soil cutting, and
aims to minimize disturbances to the existing Gauchar - Sidoli road during the
construction process. While some disruption may occur during construction, Option-1 is
the best option available to minimize such impacts.
Executive Engineer Superintending Engineer
Construction Division, PWD, Gauchar 7th Circle,PWD Gopeshwar , Chamoli
Page 13
Topographical Survey Report
ANNEXURE-II
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY REPORT
Page |1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TOPOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................... 3
2. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ..................................................................................................... 3
3. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF PROJECT SITE ........................................................................... 3
4. UTM COORDINATE OF THE TBM POINTS................................................................................ 4
5. SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................ 5
6. PROJECT SITE DETAIL ............................................................................................................ 6
7. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 1: SITE PHOTOS DURING SURVEY...................................................................................... 6
TABLE 1: COORDINATE OF THE TBMS............................................................................................ 4

TABLE 2: EXISTING BRIDGE DETAIL................................................................................................ 6
Page |2
1. TOPOGRAPHY
Topography is the study of the forms and features of land surfaces. The topography of an area
may refer to the land forms and features themselves, or a description or depiction in maps.
Topography is concerned with local detail in general comprising of natural, artificial,
and cultural features such as roads, land boundaries, and buildings etc.
2. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
As you drive around your neighborhood, it is likely that you have no idea what lies beyond the
next hill. It is possible that the roads you are on will eventually take you to an area where
there is a steep drop-off. This unpredictability creates a number of dangers to drivers who
could be unaware of the depth of the slope or other hazards that lie ahead. A topographical
survey can help to show these high-risk areas and allow for appropriate planning before work
starts. The importance of a topographical survey is that it can help the developer understand
the overall topography of the area, identify areas that are steep or wet, and avoid siting of
buildings that would be hazardous to the public.
3. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF PROJECT SITE

In order to identify and map the surface features of the terrain in a given area, the detailed
topographical survey has been carried out. At bridge site bench mark has been marked on
existing structures through Total Station Instrument. Topographical survey process typically
comprised of:
 Establishment of reference system of coordinates in the form of suitable network

of survey control points
 Conducting detailed topographical survey using Total Stations Instrument to
collect x, y and z coordinates of all topographical features including spot levels
 Processing collected survey data to generate 3D digital terrain model of the site
for preparation of site plan and develop cross sections and subsequent design of
the bridge.
In order to establish a reference system of coordinates, Survey Control Points, preferably of

permanent nature and inter-visible, was fixed on suitable locations on banks of the river at
proposed bridge site. Survey control points were marked on the existing structures and
suitable locations. Grid coordinates of these control points were determined by Total Station
instrument in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection on WGS 84 Datum. The height
of all survey control points was based on the GPS level of the first control point and
interconnected by differential levelling in a loop so that there will be no relative error, using
digital levels with independent local reference for bridge site.
Based on the precise x, y & z coordinates of survey control points, detailed topographical
survey is carried out of approach road along with all natural and manmade features like
houses, water bodies, communication and power lines within specified area using Total
Station with standard feature codes. Survey also included hydrological requirements for
suitable lengths in upstream and downstream sides from the proposed bridge site. HFL data as
Page |3
determined with local consultation is collected. All ground survey data collected in the field by
Total Station in the form of x, y & z.
Coordinates is down loaded and suitably processed to develop desired plan of the area
updated with relevant information like names of the place, locality, destinations of the
approach roads and other important land marks. Updated 3D CAD data of the project site is
produced in digital format for developing Digital Terrain Models (DTM) and subsequent design
and mapping on desired scale for planning and reporting. Following major features are
covered in the survey:
 Collection of details of all features such as structures, utilities, existing roads,

electric and telephone installations (overhead), huts, buildings, fencing and trees
(with girth greater than 0.3 meter) oil and gas lines etc. falling within the extent
of survey
 Longitudinal section levels collected along centreline at every 10 m interval, the
interval reduced suitably at the locations of curve points and at the locations of
change in elevation
 Cross sections are taken at 10 m interval in full extent of survey covering
sufficient number of spot levels. Cross sections taken at closer 10m interval at
curves and at the locations of significant changes in vertical grades
 Longitudinal and cross sections are taken as per recommendations contained in
IRC SP 13 - Guidelines for the Design of Small Bridges and Culverts and IRC 5 2015
- Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section 1-General
Features of Design. The survey has been carried out for 300m on upstream side
and on downstream side by taking cross-sections and L-section.
4. UTM COORDINATE OF THE TBM POINTS

The coordinate points of the TBMs are given below and this will be permanent points in the
carrying out the detailed survey of the project site.
TABLE 1: COORDINATE OF THE TBMS
Point ID Easting (X) Northing (Y) Level (Z)

TBM1 ---------------- -------------------- ----------------
TBM2 -------------------------- -------------------- ------------------
Page |4
5. SITE PHOTOS
The topographical survey has been done on 09.08.2023, and the photos during the survey are
given below:
View of Bridge Carriage way of Bridge
Hand railing Poor Geometry
Small Boulders in river Vegetation
Page |5
Topography Topography
FIGURE 1: SITE PHOTOS DURING SURVEY
6. PROJECT SITE DETAIL

Main features of proposed bridge and site are given in table below:
TABLE 2: EXISTING BRIDGE DETAIL
Type of Bridge Motor Bridge

Span Arrangement of Existing Bridge 1*8m
Type of Loading IRC Class B
Linear Waterway at present 6m
Stream Flow West to East
Site of Bridge Perpendicular to flow of stream
Nature of Bank Hard rock
Bed Level 1415.42
HFL (As per local enquiry) NIL
Founding Strata Hard Rock
Drainage pipe No
Earthquake Zone Zone IV
Existing Bridge (if Any) No
Type of Existing Bridge RCC Solid Slab
7. CONCLUSION
After the detailed survey of the bridge site, all the point data shall be presented in a CAD
Drawing. The drawing shall consist of all the features present at the site. The longitudinal
section and cross sections shall be drawn to have proper idea of the ground features and level.
The detailed drawing is given at the end of the report.
Following drawings are enclosed with this report:
No. DWG No. Description
01
02
03
04
05
Page |6
Hydrology Report
ANNEXURE-III
HYDROLOGY REPORT
1
Hydrology Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. HYDROLOGY REPORT .................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 COMPILATION OF DATA AND FORMULATION OF DESIGN APPROACH ..................................... 3
1.2 DESIGN APPROACH FOR BRIDGE ................................................................................................ 3
2. METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE...................................................... 9
2.1. DESIGN DISCHARGE ESTIMATION .............................................................................................. 9
2.2. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF DESIGN HFL (UNOBSTRUCTED CONDITION) .............. 10
2.3. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF AFFLUX, VELOCITY THROUGH BRIDGE AND FIXATION
OF LINEAR WATERWAY ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.4. METHODOLOGY FOR SCOUR ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 11
3. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................................... 13
3.1. INPUT DATA .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.2. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN DISCHARGE ....................................................................................... 13
3.3. ESTIMATION OF LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF THE STREAM ....................................................... 15
3.4. CALCULATION OF HFL FOR EXISTING BRIDGE LOCATION......................................................... 19
3.5. AFFLUX CALCULATION .............................................................................................................. 20
3.6. ESTIMATED HYDROLOGICAL & HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS ....................................................... 21
3.7. RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................. 21
3.8. CALCULATION OF HFL AT CH. 0+135 ....................................................................................... 23
3.9. AFFLUX CALCULATION .............................................................................................................. 24
3.10. ESTIMATED HYDROLOGICAL & HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS ................................................... 25
3.11. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................. 25
3.12. CALCULATION OF HFL AT CH. 0+165 .................................................................................... 27
3.13. AFFLUX CALCULATION .......................................................................................................... 28
3.14. ESTIMATED HYDROLOGICAL & HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS ................................................... 29
3.15. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................. 29
2
Hydrology Report
1. HYDROLOGY REPORT
1.1 COMPILATION OF DATA AND FORMULATION OF DESIGN APPROACH
The Design Approach has been formulated through careful examination of the following data
collected:
 Local inquiries, Road/ culvert Inventory, HFL, History of flooding/ overtopping, mean
annual rainfall,regional runoff coefficient,
 30m, SRTM Digital Elevation Model (DEM) (from ISRO’s Geoportal website) - to analyze
the river catchment characteristics in GIS platform.
 Rainfall / Runoff data published in “Flood Estimation Report for zone 7 – Isopluvial maps
for design storms of 24-hour duration with 100-year return period.
 State Isopluvial Map for 24-hour duration with 100-year return period Rainfall Data
published by IMD.
 Visual inspection – Bed level, clearance, HFL, vegetation cover, flood plain, flow
direction, terrain, scour.
1.2 DESIGN APPROACH FOR BRIDGE

Hydro-Meteorologically Homogenous Sub zones
For estimation of Design Flood, The Central Water Commission (CWC) has divided the whole
Geographical Territory of India into 26 distinct hydro-meteorologically homogenous Sub
zones. The proposed project area comes under zone-7.
Design Rainfall
Relevant data have been taken from the Flood Estimation Report of zone-7. The following
table lists the 24-hr maximum point rainfall values (from Isopluvial Maps of different Return
Periods) generally adopted for the study area:
24-hour rainfall (mm) 100

Project Bridge
Years
Majkhola 360
3
Hydrology Report
Fig 1.1: 100-year 24 hr. Isopluvial Map of Zone-7
Estimation of Basin Parameters Using the Software

The watershed of the river/streamlet at the proposed crossing point has been delineated
with the help of Software. The watershed area, fall in height, total and segmental stream
lengths and corresponding elevationshave also be determined with the help of Software.
The superimposition of delineated catchment areas over the digitalized 100 years returns
rainfall isopluvial maps has been done with the help of ArcGIS to determine the area-
weighted design rainfall for the watershed. A Google Image of Drainage network of project
road and catchment area for bridge is shown below;
4
Hydrology Report
Fig 1.2: Catchment Area Map for Proposed Bridge
5
Hydrology Report
Estimation of Design Flood

Determinations of Design Discharges have been done in line with the stipulations of IRC-
5:2015, IRC-SP: 13-2004 and standard engineering practices.
For streams having catchment areas more than 25 sq. km and up to 2500 sq.km, SUH Method
as stipulated in the Flood Estimation Report have been followed. For catchment areas less
than 25 Sq. Km, Rational Method in general has been followed. Empirical Methods
(Catchment Area Method using Dicken’s Formula), without any assigned return period, has
been used as a check for the adopted Design Flood.
Slope Area Method demands accurate information regarding HFL at the particular crossing
point. During site visit, sincere efforts were made to collect reliable information regarding
Highest Flood Levels (at proposed crossing point) of memorable past.
Design Return Period
For Waterway
IRC-5: 2015 generally recommends determination of Waterway on the basis of 100 Years return
flood.
For HFL
HFL has been estimated on the basis of 100 Years frequency flood with backwater and
compared with HFL value collected from local enquiry. Higher of these two values has been
adopted in design.
For Scour
The stipulations of IRC-5:2015 and IRC-78: 2014 have been adopted for estimating the scour depth.
Foundation has been designed on the basis of Q100 multiplied by suitable factor based on
catchment area.
The following table summarizes the return period to be adopted for design of bridges:
S.No Design Parameter Adopted Return Period Flood

1 Waterway for bridge 100 Years
2 HFL for Bridge 100 Years
100 Year Flood multiplied by suitable factor,
3 Scour for foundation design
based on catchment area.
Design Afflux
Maximum permissible afflux under a bridge has been considered as 300 mm.
Vertical Clearance
The minimum vertical clearance for bridge will be provided on the basis of stipulations of IRC 5:
2015.
6
Hydrology Report
Discharges in Cumec Minimum Vertical

Clearance in mm
Upto 0.3 150
Above 0.3 & upto 3.0 450
Above 3.0 & upto 30 600
Above 30.0 & upto 300 900
Above 300 & upto 3000 1200
Above 3000 1500
Determination of Linear Waterway of bridge

IRC-5:2015 and IRC-SP:13-2004 stipulate methods for determining the linear waterway for
Alluvial streams, Quasi-Alluvial streams and streams with rigid boundaries. For hilly / rolling
terrain, the minimum waterway under the bridge has been decided as the linear waterway
at HFL and the past history of river behavior and flow conditions.
Manning’s “n”
The Rugosity Coefficients for use in design has been taken from Table 5.1, SP: 13-2004. The
same table is reproduced below for ready reference:
Rugosity Coefficients, “n”
Manning's N-value
S. No Surface (Natural stream)
Perfect Good Fair Bad
Clean, straight bank, full stage, no rifts or deep
1 0.025 0.0275 0.03 0.033
pools
2 Same as (1), but some weeds and stones 0.03 0.033 0.035 0.04
3 Winding, some pools and shoals, clear 0.35 0.04 0.045 0.05
Same as (3), lower stages, more ineffective
4 slope and sections 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055
5 Same as (3), some weeds and stones 0.033 0.035 0.04 0.045
6 Same as (4), Stoney section 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06
Sluggish river reaches, rather weedy or with
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
7 very deep pools
8 Very weedy reaches 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15
Suitable “n” values have been taken for different bed / bank conditions and for deep channel
and flood plainsof rivers.
Determination of HFL
HFL at the proposed crossing point has been determined on the basis of provisions of IRC-5:
2015. The design HFL will be the highest value amongst the following:
a) HFL ever recorded over the structure

b) HFL on the basis of analytical calculations for Design Flood.
7
Hydrology Report
Design Scour Depth

For determination of the scour depth, Lacey’s regime equations as stipulated in IRC-5:2015
and IRC-78: 2014 shall be used for all bridges of the study area as the soil constituting the
beds and banks of the streams are generally of silty sand.
8
Hydrology Report
2. METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE
Hydrological and Hydraulic Design of bridges require the following: -

 Hydrological analyses for estimation of Peak Design Flood
 Hydraulic calculation for determination of corresponding HFL under unobstructed
condition
 Hydraulic calculation for fixing linear waterway, afflux, flow velocity through
bridge opening and estimation of scour depth
2.1. DESIGN DISCHARGE ESTIMATION
A) Catchment Area Methods
Dicken’s Formula:
Q = CA0.75
Because of the varying topography and catchment characteristics C values will vary
appreciably, and reliability of computed discharge depends on the accuracy of the adopted
value for these coefficients. Dicken’s formulais being used in most of the cases.
Rational Method:
Unlike the Empirical Formulae, Rational Method takes into account the Rainfall and other
catchment characteristics. Flood discharges estimated by Rational formula can be assigned a
Return Period.
Rational Formula
Q= 0.028 P x f x A x IC
Where:
Q = Maximum runoff in cumecs
A = Catchment area in hectares
Ic = Critical intensity of rainfall in cm/ hr.
P = Coefficient of run-off for the given catchment characteristics.
f = Spread factor for converting point rainfall into areal mean rainfall.
Ic = (F/T) * ((T+1) / (Tc+1))
F = Total Rainfall of T hours duration (24 hrs.) in cm corresponding to 100 yrs return period.
T = Duration of total rainfall (F) in hours= 24 hrs.
Tc= Time of concentration in hour.
Time of concentration (Tc) has been determined from the following Empirical Formula:
Tc = [0.87(L3/H)] 0.385
Where, L is the length of catchment in km and H is the elevation difference in meter in length L.
Critical Rainfall Intensity (Ic)
Point rainfall values have been adjusted for aerial mean value using recommended spread
factor (area reduction factor) as per IRC: SP-13:2004 Clause 4.7.9 and CWC report. Total
rainfall in 24 hrs. has been adjusted corresponding to Tc hr. for finding critical rainfall
intensity Ic. Tc hr. point rainfall estimated with the help of rainfall distribution curve
9
Hydrology Report
(Duration vs. conversion ratio) of CWC report.
Runoff Coefficient (P)

The runoff coefficient (P) depends on characteristics of drainage basin. The runoff depends
on slope, permeability and vegetation of the catchment area. The runoff coefficient values
for as per Table 4.1 of IRC- SP:13 is given below:
Land Use / Land Cover Runoff Coefficient (P)

Steep, Bare Rock and also City Pavements 0.9
Rock, Steep but wooded 0.8
Plateaus, Lightly Covered 0.7
Clayey Soils, Stiff and Bare 0.6
Clayey Soils, Stiff and Bare, Lightly Covered 0.5
Loam, Lightly Cultivated or Covered 0.4
Loam, Lightly Cultivated or Covered, Largely
0.3
Cultivated
Sandy Soil, Light growth 0.2
Sandy Soil, Light growth, Covered, Heavy Brush 0.1
(B) Estimation of Design Discharge by Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) Method
For catchment areas more than 25 sq. km, SUH Method as stipulated in CWC Flood Estimation
Report for zone-7 has been considered.
2.2. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF DESIGN HFL (UNOBSTRUCTED CONDITION)
Before assessing the effect of constructing the bridge, it is necessary to estimate the HFL at
the bridge point in natural condition when the adopted Design Flood passes through the
bridge section. HFL corresponding to Design Flood in unobstructed condition is estimated by
equating the Design Flood with the Carrying Capacity ofthe channel.
The conveyance factor in unobstructed condition would be estimated with the help of
Manning’s equation with a trial depth of flow. Discharge corresponding to the trial depth
would be calculated and compared with the Design Discharge. With the help of Spreadsheet
calculation, level of water required to pass the design discharge is to be taken as the HFL in
unobstructed condition.
As the natural drains generally have irregular cross sections having varying roughness
coefficients in deep channel portion and flood plain, varying roughness coefficients, areas
and wetted perimeters for sub sections are considered for determining conveyance factor (K)
of each sub section. Discharge passing through each subsection is found as
Qn =Kn√S (n =1, 2, 3 ….)

Where Kn = Conveyance Factor for the nth sub section = (1/ n) *An*Rn^(2/3), n being the
Roughness Coefficient for the nth sub section.
10
Hydrology Report
Where S is the energy slope assumed as longitudinal bed slope of the channel. Average discharge
for the cross section of the channel is found by adding discharges passing through each sub
section.
2.3. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF AFFLUX, VELOCITY THROUGH BRIDGE AND FIXATION OF
LINEAR WATERWAY
While determining the HFL in natural condition the unobstructed waterway is required to be
found out. Trial values of clear effective waterways normal to flow (L) is required to be assumed
and the effect of the assumed L on the afflux and velocity under bridge are to be studied by the
Orifice Formula as explained in IRC-SP: 13:2004. Optimum L ensuring permissible afflux and
velocity through the bridge would be recommended for consideration. The raising of HFL due to
afflux, after considering the effect of the bridge, is found by adding the estimated afflux with the
HFL under natural condition of flow. To assess the effect of bridge construction on the natural river
regime, the Orifice Formula, and not the Weir Formula, would be used with the assumption that
the afflux should be less than 20% of the downstream flow depth. This assumption seems to be
reasonable as an afflux value more than 20% of the downstream depth of these deep channels
would not be acceptable to the upstream region.
Orifice formula
Q=CO√2gLDd[h+(1+e) u2/2g]1/2
h = Afflux = (Du – Dd)

u = Upstream velocity
Dd = Downstream depth
L = Clear Effective Waterway
Co and e are coefficients to account for losses of head and recovery respectively
Values of e and Co are given in Fig 5.13 and Fig 5.14 of IRC-SP: 13, respectively. The above
formula is valid for h< ¼ Dd.
2.4. METHODOLOGY FOR SCOUR ANALYSIS
Lacey’s Regime equations, as recommended by IRC-5:2015 and IRC-78:2014 is considered for

determination ofscour Depth for design of foundation. The equation is as follows:
Mean Scour Depth

dm=1.34(q2/f)1/3
Where dm is the mean scour depth measured below HFL, q is the design discharge intensity
under bridge in cumecs per meter and f is the silt factor given by the equation
f=1.76(d50)1/2
Where d50 is the mean sediment size in mm.
For computing scour depth, enhancement of flood flow to the maximum extent of 30%
(depending on the catchment area) is to be considered as per stipulations of IRC-78:2014.
11
Hydrology Report
Maximum scour levels for pier and abutment are to be considered using a factor of safety of 2
and 1.27 respectively as stipulated in IRC-78:2014.
A minimum depth of foundation would be considered as per IRC codes and Geo-Technical report.
12
Hydrology Report
3. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
3.1. INPUT DATA
The catchment parameters are delineated on the platform of software and given below;
Name of River / Stream / Nallah Local Nallah

S. No Stream Length Elevation (m)
(km)
1 0 1490.00
2 1.84 2114.00
Catchment Area in Sq Km (A) 1.74
Longest Stream Length in Km (L) 1.84
Point Rainfall Value (100 years) in mm 360
CWC Subzone zone 7
3.2. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN DISCHARGE
Dicken's formula Q = CA^ (3/4)
Where
Q = the peak run-off in m³/s and A is the catchment area in sq.km
C = 11-14 where the annual rainfall is 60-120 cm
= 14-19 where the annual rainfall is more than 120 cm
= 22 in Western Ghats
A = 1.74 sq.km
C = 9
Q = 14 cumics
= 14 cumics
Ryve's Formula Q = CA^2/3

Where
Q = run-off in m³/s and A is the catchment area in sq.km
C = 6.8 for areas within 25 km of the coast
= 8.5 for areas between 25 km and 160 km of the coast
= 10.0 for limited area near the hills
C = 7.5
A = 1.74 sq.km
Q = 10.8 cumics
= 11 cumics
Rational method :
Catchment Area, A = 1.74 sq.km
= 174 Hectare
Length of the longest stream = 1.84 km
Height, H = 624 m
3 0.385
Time of Concentration Tc by SP-13 formula = (0.87*L /H)
13
Hydrology Report
tc = 0.16 hours
100 years Return period rainfall for 24 hr. = 360 mm
From code SP 13 Intensity of rainfall, Ic = (F/T) * ((T+1) / (Tc+1))

F = Total Rainfall of T hours duration (24 hrs.) in cm
corresponding to 100 yrs. return period
T = Duration of total rainfall (F) in hours= 24 hrs.
Tc = Time of concentration in hour.
Ic = 32.30 cm/hr
From code SP 13 ' f ' Curve, Spread factor ' f ' = 0.95
Permeability Coefficient as per terrain condition (P) = 0.8
Design discharge, Q100 = 0.028PfAIc Cumecs
Where
Q = Maximum runoff in cumecs
A = Catchment area in hectares
Ic = Critical intensity of rainfall in cm/ hr.
P = Coefficient of run-off for the given catchment characteristic
f = Spread factor for converting point rainfall into areal mean rainfall.
Q100 = 120.0 Cumecs

say 120 Cumecs
14
Hydrology Report
3.3. ESTIMATION OF LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF THE STREAM
Distance Elevation
S. No
(m) (m)
1 0 1465.314
2 5 1464.202
3 10 1463.09
4 15 1462.289
5 20 1461.421
6 25 1459.629
7 30 1457.991
8 35 1456.927
9 40 1455.863
10 45 1454.916
11 50 1453.953
12 55 1452.812
13 60 1452.01
14 65 1451.317
15 70 1450.155
16 75 1448.854
17 80 1444.666
18 85 1426.975
19 90 1426.884
20 95 1426.659
21 100 1425.474
22 105 1423.355
23 110 1421.071
24 115 1419.761
25 120 1419.477
26 125 1419.499
27 130 1418.777
28 135 1417.911
29 140 1416.959
30 145 1416.26
31 150 1415.423
32 155 1414.21
33 160 1412.632
34 165 1410.795
35 170 1409.413
36 175 1407.171
37 180 1406.348
15
Hydrology Report
38 185 1405.175
39 190 1403.193
40 195 1401.493
41 200 1399.803
42 205 1398.454
43 210 1396.616
44 215 1395.015
45 220 1393.39
46 225 1391.802
47 230 1390.161
48 235 1388.518
49 240 1386.968
50 245 1385.3
51 250 1383.079
52 255 1381.953
53 260 1380.7
54 265 1378.164
55 270 1376.313
56 275 1374.144
57 280 1372.212
58 285 1371.305
59 290 1369.159
60 295 1367.41
61 300 1365.669
62 305 1363.93
63 310 1362.165
64 315 1360.372
65 320 1358.544
66 325 1356.634
67 330 1354.881
68 335 1353.354
69 340 1353.243
70 345 1351.723
71 350 1351.207
72 355 1350.772
73 360 1347.773
74 365 1338.728
16
Hydrology Report
y = -0.3349x + 1466.1
Longitudenal slope River R² = 0.9897
1480
1460
1440
Elevation (m)
1420
1400
1380
1360
1340
1320
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
River Chainage (m)
From the Graph

River Bed Slope = 0.33 m/m
17
Hydrology Report
Hydrology For Existing Bridge at Ch. 0+150
18
Hydrology Report
3.4. CALCULATION OF HFL FOR EXISTING BRIDGE LOCATION
CROSS SECTION AT BRIDGE C/L
HFL = 1419.39 m Q100 = 120.0 Cumecs
Offset Bed Natural

LWL Distance h Avg h Diff in h Area Perimeter
(m) Level HFL
2
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m ) (m)
0.0 1426.45 1419.392 1415.420 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.0 1425.98 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10.0 1426.47 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15.0 1426.52 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.0 1421.62 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.0 1421.17 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
27.5 1418.72 1419.392 1415.420 2.50 0.67 0.33 0.67 0.84 2.59
30.0 1415.42 1419.392 1415.420 2.50 3.97 2.32 3.30 5.80 4.14
32.5 1418.42 1419.392 1415.420 2.50 0.97 2.47 3.00 6.18 3.91
35.0 1421.18 1419.392 1415.420 2.50 0.00 0.48 0.97 1.21 2.68
40.0 1421.27 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
45.0 1421.96 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50.0 1424.15 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
55.0 1431.98 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
60.0 1438.92 1419.392 1415.420 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Area and corresponding Perimeter 14.03 13.32
Hydraulic Radius(m) R 1.053
Manning's n n 0.07
Conveyance Factor K 207.4
Bed Slope(m/m) S 0.33

Velocity (m/s) V 8.56
Equivalent CF Keq 207.4
Discharge(cumecs) Q 120.0
Max Depth, D/s(m) Dd
(max) 4.0
Dd(av
Avg Depth, D/s(m) ) 2.3
Unobstructed Width W 6.0
Gross length of structure L 8.0
19
Hydrology Report
Calculation of Discharge: (As per IRC-SP-13-2004,5.5)
Q = A*V
Q = (A*R2/3*S1/2)/n
Q = Λ*S1/2
Where, Λ = A*R2/3/n
Q = 120.0 Cumec
Cross-section at proposed bridge C/L

Series1 HFL
1445.00
1440.00
1435.00
River bed level (m)
1430.00
1425.00
1420.00
1415.00
1410.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Chainage (m)
3.5. AFFLUX CALCULATION
Afflux by Molesworth Formulae

Afflux, h= ((v2 / 17.88) + 0.015) ((A / a )2 - 1)
where
1419.39
1420.21
Vertical clearance As per IRC-SP-13-2004, 12.3, Table 12.1
Peak Design Discharge

Vertical clearance
Minimum Soffit Level of
Superstructure
(HFL+Afflux+Vertical Clearance)
20
Hydrology Report
3.6. ESTIMATED HYDROLOGICAL & HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
Cross Section followed for bridge Point 0+150 m of Survey data

Deepest Bed Level 1415.42 m
Silt Factor as per Geotechnical report NIL
Silt factor assumed 4
HFL information received from local enquiry NIL m above bed level
Catchment Area = 1.74 Sq. Km
Discharge by Rational Formula (Q100) = 120.0 Cumec
Discharge by Dicken's Formula= 14 Cumec
Observed discharge NIL Cumec
Adopted Discharge
For Fixing Effective Clear Waterway normal to flow 20.45 Cumec
For Fixing HFL 120 Cumec
For Estimation of Scour 156.02 Cumec
Waterway
Clear Waterway Provided 6 m

Afflux (h) for Q100 0.814 m
Velocity under Bridge for Q100 9.369 m/s
HFL with afflux for Q100 1420.21 m
3.7. RECOMMENDATION
As per hydrological calculation, the bridge may be proposed with following salient features:
Clear water way = 6 m

Discharge Q100 = 120 cumec
Velocity = 8.56 m/s
Deepest Bed level = 1415.42 m
HFL with Afflux = 1420.21 m
Minimum soffit level required = 1421.11 m
21
Hydrology Report
Hydrology for Up-Stream at Ch. 0+135
22
Hydrology Report
3.8. CALCULATION OF HFL AT CH. 0+135
HFL = 1419.796 m Q100 = 120.0 Cumecs
Offset Bed Natural

(m) Level HFL
2
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m ) (m)
0.0 1428.19 1419.796 1417.910 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.0 1430.59 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10.0 1429.31 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15.0 1424.21 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.0 1421.40 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.0 1418.70 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 1.10 0.55 1.10 2.74 5.12
30.0 1417.91 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 1.89 1.49 0.79 7.45 5.06
35.0 1421.15 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.94 1.89 4.71 5.34
40.0 1425.11 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
45.0 1427.96 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50.0 1431.35 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
55.0 1434.78 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
60.0 1438.09 1419.796 1417.910 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n n 0.07
(max) 1.9
Avg Depth, D/s(m) Dd(av) 1.5
Q = A*V
Q = (A*R2/3*S1/2)/n
Q = Λ*S1/2
Q = 120.0 Cumec
23
Hydrology Report

Series1 HFL
1440.00
1435.00
River bed level (m)
1430.00
1425.00
1420.00
1415.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Chainage (m)

Afflux, h= ((v2 / 17.88) + 0.015) ((A / a )2 - 1)
where
1419.80
1420.4

Vertical clearance
Superstructure
24
Hydrology Report

Adopted Discharge
Waterway

3.11. RECOMMENDATION

Velocity = 8.05 m/s
25
Hydrology Report
Hydrology for Down-Stream at Ch. 0+165
26
Hydrology Report
3.12. CALCULATION OF HFL AT CH. 0+165
HFL = 1413.416 m Q100 = 120.0 Cumecs
Offset Bed Natural

(m) Level HFL
2
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m ) (m)
0.0 1430.57 1413.416 1410.790 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.0 1428.33 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10.0 1423.61 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15.0 1421.49 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.0 1420.93 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.0 1416.89 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30.0 1410.79 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 2.63 1.31 2.63 6.56 5.65
35.0 1414.09 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 1.31 2.63 6.56 5.65
40.0 1419.30 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
45.0 1422.28 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
50.0 1424.17 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
55.0 1430.56 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
60.0 1435.61 1413.416 1410.790 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n n 0.07
(max) 2.6
Avg Depth, D/s(m) Dd(av) 2.2
Q = A*V
Q = (A*R2/3*S1/2)/n
Q = Λ*S1/2
Q = 120.0 Cumec
27
Hydrology Report

Series1 HFL
1440.00
1435.00
1430.00
River bed level (m)
1425.00
1420.00
1415.00
1410.00
1405.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Chainage (m)

Afflux, h= ((v2 / 17.88) + 0.015) ((A / a )2 - 1)
where
1413.4
1413.7

Vertical clearance
Superstructure
28
Hydrology Report

Adopted Discharge
Waterway

3.15. RECOMMENDATION

Velocity = 9.14 m/s
29
Geological Assessment of Proposed Majkhola Bridge, Gauchar
Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Regional Geology of the area .......................................................................................................... 2
3. Geology of Project area .................................................................................................................. 5
4. Methodology................................................................................................................................... 7
5. Geological assessment of the Majkhola bridge (8.00m) bridge ..................................................... 7
6. References .................................................................................................................................... 10
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Regional geological map of the Himalaya .............................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Geological map of the Gauchar and Karanparyag area (after Valdiya, 1981). ....................... 5
Figure 3: Field photographs are showing: (a)Left side of the bridge showing the nala where bed rock
is exposed and however overburden is present near bank; (b) medium to coarse grained light grey
colour quartzite of Jaunsar Group exposed in the left bank of nala a; (c) Jointed rock-mass of
Quartzite exposed towards Sidoli; (d)Bedrock quartzite exposure in the road side, left bank of nala ... 6
Figure 4 :(a) Grey colored quartzite is exposed in the right side of the bridge; (b)Quartzite is exposed
in the base of the nala in the right side of the existing Majkhola bridge (Ch. 15.015km of state
highway 95) ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 5 : A view of the existing 8m long existing Majkhola bridge with flow direction of the nala. ... 7
Figure 6: Seismic zone map of India ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Location map of Majkhola bridge. .......................................................................................... 8
List of Tables:
Table 1: Details of Majkhola bridge. ...................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Geology of the Majkhola bridge. .............................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Discontinuity table of Majkhola Bridge (8.00m long).............................................................. 9
1
1. Introduction
Public Work Department (PWD) proposed the upgradation of Majkhola bridge in
Karanparyag tehsil of Chamoli/Rudraprayag district, Uttarakhand. This RCC girder bridge is
situated on Gauchar to Shimili Road near Godi waterfall. It is located at a distance of 300m
from Majkhola village in the north-western side. It is 32km away from sub-district headquarter
Karanprayag. PWD wants to upgrade (with respect to width and capacity) this bridge according
to the present traffic conditions (Table-1).
Table 1: Details of Majkhola bridge.
Village Length Latitude Longitude

(m)
Ch. 15.051 Majkhola 8.00 30.243534° 79.121265°
2. Regional Geology of the area

Himalaya extends about 2500 Km in a NW-SE direction along the northern margin of Indian
continent. It is bound by Indus River in NW (Nanga Prabat syntaxis) and Brahamputra River
in SE (Namche Barwa syntaxis). The Himalaya is divided into three sectors from west to east
based on geographical distribution.
Western Himalaya: It covers area between Indus and Kali rivers. The area between the Indus
and the Sutlaj rivers (550km) is known as Punjab Himalaya and area between Sutlej and Kali
Rivers (320km) is known as Kumaon-Garhwal Himalaya.
Central Himalaya: It covers the middle part of the Himalaya. The area from the Kali River to
west of the Tista River (800km) is named as Central Himalaya. It is also known as Nepal
Himalaya. Different parts of the eastern Himalaya are named as Sikkim /Bhutan Himalaya,
Darjeeling Himalaya, Arunachal Himalaya, Lohit Himalaya etc.
According to Wadia (1961), the Himalaya covers approximately 250 Km wide areas bounded
between Indus-Tsangpo valleys in the north and the Indo-Gangetic alluvial plains of north India
in the south (Fig.1). Heim and Gansser (1939) studied the geology of the Himalaya in Kumaon-
Garhwal area and first time established the classic Himalayan divisions: the Sub Himalayan
Sequence; the Lesser Himalayan Sequence (LHS), the Higher Himalayan Crystallines (HHC)
, Tethyan Himalayan Sequence (THS) and Trans Himalaya including Indus-Tsangpo Suture
Zone (ITSZ) (Fig.1) that were staked from south to north by the north-dipping Main Frontal
2
Thrust (MFT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT), Main Central Thrust (MCT) and later identified
Martoli Fault/Trans-Himadri Fault (Fig.1) (Valdiya, 1980) or Zanskar Shear Zone (Herren,
1987; Patel et al., 1993) or STDS (LeFort, 1996). Later this classification was followed by
many workers (Gansser, 1964; Wadia, 1961; Valdiya, 1980; Thakur, 1992; Le Fort, 1996) and
now also all Himalayan geoscientists follow this division. A brief description of each division
is given below.
i. Sub-Himalayan Sequence: The outermost part of the Himalayas towards south comprises
Siwalik fluvial molasses sediments of Neogene (Cenozoic) time. It is about 9500 m thick
sequences of fluvial sedimentary piles with ages ranging from Paleocene to Upper-
Pleistocene. This outer Cenozoic Foothill Belt has an abruptly prominent topographic break
against the alluvial plain of the Ganga basin along the MFT or Himalayan Frontal Fault
(HFF) and in the north, overridden by the LHS of Proterozoic age along the MBT. Tertiary
rocks in the Ganga basin (Thakur, 1992; Singh, 1999) are also included in the sub-
Himalaya. The stratigraphic sequence starts from the Eocene Marine Transgression
(Subhathu Formation) followed by fluvial deposits of Dagshai, Kasauli and Siwalik groups.
The magnetostratigraphy and 40Ar-39Ar mica ages suggest the age of Dagshai Formation in
the range of 32 to 25 Ma, followed by the overlying Kasauli Formation as 32 to 22 Ma. The
overlying Siwalik Group represents the sediments of an age of 14 Ma (Burbank et al., 1996;
Najman et al., 1997, 2000; Jain et al., 2002).
ii. Lesser Himalayan Sequence (LHS): The low-lying rock units between the MBT and the
MCT are designated as the LHS. The LHS has its largest exposed width of about 75-80 Km
in Kumaon and Garhwal region decreasing towards the Himachal and Jammu and Kashmir
Himalaya. The LHS rocks can be divided into (a) Lesser Himalayan meta-sedimentary
(LHMS) zone of Proterozoic age to the north of MBT and (b) the overthrusted Himalayan
Metamorphic Belt (HMB) which is the allochthonous crystalline thrust sheets rooted from
the HHC (Valdiya, 1980; Thakur and Choudhury, 1983). This zone of rock is recognized
as the Lesser Himalayan Crystalline (LHC) Belt.
iii. Higher Himalayan Crystallines (HHC): The HHC consists of 15-20 Km thick sequences
of crystalline rocks and occupies the highest elevation of the Himalayan range and thrusted
southwardly over the LHMS along the MCT (Heim and Gansser, 1939; Valdiya, 1980). It
is comprised of remobilized thick basement of 30 km having greenschist to upper
amphibolite grade of metamorphism. The HHC zone represents the intercontinental ductile
shear zone with inverted metamorphism (Pecher, 1977; Bouchez and Pecher, 1981; Brunel,
3
1986; Coward et al., 1986; Pecher and Le Fort, 1986; Searle, 1986; Thakur, 1987, Jain and
Anand, 1988; Jain and Manickavasagam, 1993; Patel et al., 1993; Grujic et al., 1996). It is
separated from the THS by a distinct tectonic boundary called as South-Tibetan
Detachment System (STDS). It has been named as Trans-Himadri Thrust (T-HT) (Valdiya,
1980) in Garhwal Himalaya and Zanskar Shear Zone (ZSZ) in Kashmir (Herren, 1987,
Patel et al., 1993), and Rohtang Shear Zone (RSZ) (Jain et al., 1999) in Himachal Himalaya.
iv. Tethyan Himalayan Sequence (THS): The THS comprises of sedimentary rocks from
Cambrian to Eocene on the northern edge of continental Indian plate. The rocks of this zone
exhibit marine facies. It is very well exposed in the Spiti basin, Kumaon and Zanskar area.
It is bounded by ZSZ/RSZ in the south and Tethyan thrust in the north (Valdiya, 1980;
Herren, 1987; Thakur, 1992; Patel et al., 1993; Jain et al., 1999). The ITSZ is present in the
north of it.
v. Trans-Himalaya: The Trans Himalaya comprises of the various lithotectonic units from
south to north. It includes the ITSZ, the Trans-Himalayan batholith, the Shyok Suture Zone
(SSZ) and the Karakoram Shear Zone (KSZ). The ITSZ represents the junction between
Indian and Eurasian plates.
Figure 1: Regional geological map of the Himalaya
4
3. Geology of Project area
Figure 2: Geological map of the Gauchar and Karanparyag area (after Valdiya, 1981).
Geologically, the existing bridge is lying in Lesser Himalaya (Fig.2). The major rock
formations in the area are Jaunsar Group and Nagthat Formation. Jaunsar group comprises of
Quartzite (Fig.3 a &b).
Table 2: Geology of the Majkhola bridge.
Village/Town Latitude Longitude Geology

Ch. 15.051 Majkhola 30.243534° 79.121265 Jaunsar Group/
° Quartzite
5
Figure 3: Field photographs are showing: (a)Left side of the bridge showing the nala where
bed rock is exposed and however overburden is present near bank; (b) medium to coarse
grained light grey colour quartzite of Jaunsar Group exposed in the left bank of nala a; (c)
Jointed rock-mass of Quartzite exposed towards Sidoli; (d)Bedrock quartzite exposure in the
road side, left bank of nala
Figure 4 :(a) Grey colored quartzite is exposed in the right side of the bridge; (b)Quartzite is
exposed in the base of the nala in the right side of the existing Majkhola bridge (Ch.
15.015km of state highway 95)
6
Figure 5 : A view of the existing 8m long existing Majkhola bridge with flow direction of the
nala.
4. Methodology
Orientation of available joint sets and other geological structures present like foliation, folds,
faults and different shear sense indicators are recorded during the field activities. Various
characteristics of the rock mass are also recorded to calculate the Rock Mass Rating (RMR).
These characteristics include the orientation of different discontinuities, uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) with relative method, and description of discontinuities (persistence, spacing,
aperture, roughness, filling, and alteration of discontinuities) and rockmass description (degree
of weathering, groundwater conditions and rock quality designation). Rock quality designation
(RQD) is calculated in the field by using number of joints per unit volume Jv and equal to 115-
3.3 Jv. Rock mass is classified by using Rock mass rating and Rock Quality Designation.
5. Geological assessment of the Majkhola bridge (8.00m) bridge

This bridge is situated on the Gauchar-sidoli road, which is located at a distance of 300m from
Majkhola village and its geographical coordinates are 30.243534° N and 79.121265° E. The
proposed length of the bridge is 8.00m.
7
Figure 6: Seismic zone map of India
This area falls in the seismic zone-IV according to the seismic zone map of India.
Figure 7: Location map of Majkhola bridge.
8
On both left and right bank of nala bed rock is exposed, where both the abutments of existing
Majkhola bridge stands. Bed rock is present up to a distance of 100m along the road both on
the upstream and downstream side of the bridge. The bedrock is slightly to moderately
weathered, hard, strong to very strong light grey colored medium to coarse grained Quartzite
is present. This litho-unit belongs to Nagthat formation of Jaunsar group. The overburden
material noticed near the banks are composed of boulder, pebbles and cobble intermixed with
sandy soil. During the field visit, it is observed that there is no active slide present near the
proposed bridge location. The rock mass present on both the abutments of the existing bridge
is dissected by 3 sets of joints. The strike of J1 is N180⁰-N360⁰ is dipping moderately with 40⁰
towards eastern side. The strike of J2 is N050⁰-N230⁰ is dipping moderately towards NW side.
The strike of J3 is N130⁰-N310⁰ is dipping sub-vertically with 75⁰-80⁰ towards north.
Table 3: Discontinuity table of Majkhola Bridge (8.00m long).
Discontinuity Table of the existing Majkhola bridge (8.00m long bridge)

Average Orientation Aperture
Set no. Spacing (cm) Roughness Remarks
(Dip/dip direction) (mm)/ filling
Partly
J1 40⁰/090⁰ 10-15 RP
open/None
Iron
Partly
J2 50⁰-55⁰/320⁰ 8-10 RP stained
open/None
joints
Partly open
J2 75⁰-80⁰/010⁰ 8-12 RP
/None
Geological recommendation for further investigation

Based on the field observations, the following recommendations are suggested:
i. Rock mechanics test should be conducted on the core samples, such as uniaxial
compression test, porosity, density, and triaxial test for ‘c’ and ‘ø’ values.
ii. In overburden, standard penetration test should be conducted at 1.5m intervals.
iii. Undisturbed samples of overburden should be collected for the laboratory.
iv. Direct shear Test (DST) and triaxial test should be conducted on overburden
samples.
v. Porosity, grain size analysis, density, Atterberg limit, and liquid limit tests are also
advised on the overburden samples.
Note: The proposed bridge location is suitable for construction of a motor bridge but is
subject to further investigation.
9
6. References
Bouchez, J.L., Pacher, A., 1981. The Himalayan Main Central Thrust pile and its quartz-rich
tectonic in central Nepal: Tectonophysics 78, 23-50.
Brunel, M., Kienast, J.R., 1986. Etude petro-structurale des chevauchements ductiles
himalayens sur la transversale de l"Everest – Makulu (Nepal oriental). Canadian
Journal of Earth Sciences, 23, 117– 1137.
Burbank, D.W., Beck, R.A., Mulder, T., 1996. The Himalayan foreland basin. In: Yin, A.,
Harrison, T.M. (Eds.), The Tectonics of Asia. Cambridge University Press, New
York, pp. 149– 188.
Burbank, D.W., Blythe, A.E., Putkonen, J.L., Pratt-Situala, B., Gabet, E.J., Oskin, M.E.,
Barros, A.P., Ohja, T.P., 2003. Decoupling of erosion and precipitation in the
Himalaya. Nature 426, 652-655.
Coward,M.P., Windley, B.F., Broughton, R.D., Luff, I.W., Petterson, M.G., Pusdsey, C.J., Rex,
D.C., Khan, M.A., 1986. Collision tectonics in the NW Himalayas,in Collision
Tectonics,edited by M.P.Coward and A.C.Ries,Geol,Soc.SpecPub. NO.19, 203-
219.
Gansser, A., 1964: Geology of the Himalayas. Intersci.Publ. London, p 273.
Grujic, D., Casey, M., Davidson, C., Hollister, L.S., KuÈ ndig, R., Pavlis, T., Schmid, S., 1996.
Ductile extrusion of the Higher Himalayan Crystalline in Bhutan: evidence from
the quartz Microfabircs, Tectophysics, 260, 21-43.
Heim, A., Gansser,A., 1939: Central Himlaya-Geological observations of Swiss Expedition

1936. Mem.Sqc.Helv.Sci.Nat., 73, 1-245.
Herren, E., 1987. Zanskar Shear Zone: northest–southwest extension with in the Higher
Himalayas (Ladakha, India). Geology 15, 409–413.
Jain, A. K., Manickavasagam, R. M., Singh, S., 1999. Collision tectonics in the NWHimalaya:
deformation, metamorphism, emplacement of leucogranite along 163 Beas–
Parbati Valleys, Himachal Pradesh. Gondwana Research Group Memior, 6, 3–
37.
Jain, A. K., Manickavasagam, R. M., Singh, S., 1999. Collision tectonics in the NWHimalaya:
deformation, metamorphism, emplacement of leucogranite along 163 Beas–
10
Parbati Valleys, Himachal Pradesh. Gondwana Research Group Memior, 6, 3–
37.
Jain, A.K, Anand, A., 1988. Deformation and strain pattern of intra-continental collision ductile
shear zone – an example from the Higher Himalayas. Journal of Structural
Geology,v,7, pp. 717-737.
Jain, A.K., Singh, S., Manickavasagam, R.M., 2002. Himalayan Collision Tectonics.
Gondawana Research Group Memoir No. 7, 114.
Le Fort, P., 1996. Evolution of the Himalaya. In The Tectonic Evolution of Asia (eds. Yin, A.
& Harrison, T. M.), Cambridge University Press, New York, 95-106.
Khanduri S. 2020. Cloudbursts Over Indian Sub-continent of Uttarakhand Himalaya: A
Traditional Habitation Input from Bansoli, District-Chamoli, India. IJESKA, (2)
2, 48-63.
Najman, Y., Bickle, M., Chapman, H., 2000. Early Himalayan exhumation: isotopic constraints
from the Indian foreland basin. Terra Nova 12, 28– 34.
Najman, Y.M.R., Pringle, M.S., Johnson, M.R.W., Robertson, A.H.F., Wijbrans, J.R., 1997.
Laser Ar-40/Ar-39 dating of single detrital muscovite grains from early foreland-
basin sedimentary deposits in India: implications for early Himalayan evolution.
Geology 25, 535–538.
Patel, R.C., Singh, S., Asokan, A., Manickavasagam, R.M., Jain, A.K., 1993. Extensional
tectonics in the Himalayan orogen Zanskar, NW India. In: Trelaor, P.J., Searle,
M.P. (Eds.), Himalayan Tectonics. Geological Society of Landon Special Paper
74, 445–459.
Peˆcher, A., Le Fort, P., 1986. The metamorphism in central Himalaya: its relations with the
thrust tectonic. Sciences de la Terre, Me´moire 47, 285– 309.
Pêcher, A., 1977. Geology of the Nepal Himalaya: deformation and petrography in the Main
central Thrust Zone. Ecologie et Geologie de l’Himalaya, Colloques
Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 268, 301-
318.
Searle, M. P., 1986. Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the High Himalayan,
Tibet-Tethys and Indus Suture Zones of Zanskar and Ladakh, western Himalaya,
Journal of Structural Geology, 8, 923-936.
Singh, B.P., 1999. Sediments dispersal pattern in the Murree Group of the Jammu area, NW
Himalaya, India. Himalayan Geology, 20 (in Press).
11
Thakur, V. C. 1992. Geology of Western Himalaya. Pergamon Press, New York, 366.
Thakur, V.C., 1987. Plate tectonic interpretation of the western Himalaya. Tectonophysics,
134, 91-102.
Thakur, V.C., Choudhury, B. K., 1983. Deformation, metamorphism and tectonic relations of
Central Crystallines and Main Central Thrust in Eastern Kumaon Himalaya. In.:
Saklani, P. S. (eds.), Himalayan Shears, Himalayan Books, New Delhi, 45-47.
Valdiya, K.S., 1980. Geology of Kumaun Lesser Himalaya.Wadia Institute of Himalayan
Geology Publication, Dehradun, P.291.
Valdiya, K.S., 1981. Tectonics of the central sector of the Himalaya, in: Zagros Hindu Kush
Himalaya Geodynamic Evolution. Wiley Online Library, pp. 87–110.
Wadia, D.N., 1961. Geology of India.MacMillan and Co.Ltd., London,p.419.
Yin, A., 2006. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as constrained by along-
strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation history, and foreland
sedimentation. Earth Science Review. 76, 1–131.
12
PROPOSED BRIDGE
OPTION-2
(DOWN STREAM)
COORDINATE (A2)
X-319242.975
Y-3347280.892
COORDINATE (A1)
X-319219.413 EXISTING BRIDGE
Y- 3347272.537 COORDINATE (A2)
X-319238.781
Y-3347265.291
COORDINATE (A1) PROPOSED BRIDGE
X-319230.793 OPTION-1
Y-3347263.231 (UP STREAM)
COORDINATE (A2)
X- 319248.868
Y-3347252.963
COORDINATE (A1)
X-319230.880
Y-3347253.610
Design and Cost Estimation for Construction of Bridge at FESTAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. TOPO
Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road (SH-95) Km 16.00 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
(Chainage-15.051) Over Local Stream.
SHEET
EXISTING BRIDGE
8M BRIDGE SPAN
FRL 1421.419
HFL-1420.21
DATUM
EXISTING
RL
CHAINAGE
Cross Section at Bridge Center Line
(Existing Bridge)
Design and Cost Estimation for Construction of Bridge at FESTAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. Cross Section at Bridge Center Line
Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road (SH-95) Km 16.00 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT (Existing Bridge)
SHEET
OPTION-1
18M BRIDGE SPAN
FRL 1423.000
HFL-1420.46
DATUM
OPTION - 1
RL
CHAINAGE
UP-STREAM
(Option-1)
Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road (SH-95) Km 16.00 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT (Option-1)
SHEET
OPTION-2
25M BRIDGE SPAN
FRL 1421.460
HFL-1413.74
DATUM
OPTION - 2
RL
CHAINAGE
DOWN-STREAM
(Option-2)
Gauchar Sidoli Motor Road (SH-95) Km 16.00 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT (Option-2)
SHEET
NEW BRIDGE
1X18M
DESIGN FRL - MCW RHS
GROUND LEVEL AT PCL
HORIZONTAL SCHEMATIC
VERTICAL SCHEMATIC
DESIGN CHAINAGE
PLAN & PROFILE
Design and Cost Estimation for Construction of Bridge at FESTAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. OPTION1 - ON UP STREAM
OF EXISTING BRIDGE
SHEET
NEW BRIDGE
1X25M
DESIGN FRL - MCW RHS
GROUND LEVEL AT PCL
HORIZONTAL SCHEMATIC
VERTICAL SCHEMATIC
DESIGN CHAINAGE
PLAN & PROFILE
Design and Cost Estimation for Construction of Bridge at FESTAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. OPTION2 - ON DOWN STREAM
OF EXISTING BRIDGE
SHEET

Beidge Site Selection Report Gauchar Sidoli KM 16 SEN COMBINED

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beidge Site Selection Report Gauchar Sidoli KM 16 SEN COMBINED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SITE SELECTION REPORT

Name of Area: - Gauchar, Chamoli

Name of Circle: - Seventh Circle, Public Work Department, Gauchar

Name of District: - Chamoli

Name of Block: - Construction Division, P.W.D Gauchar

Development Block: - Karnaprayag

Assembly Area: - Karnaprayag

Lok Sabha Area: - Pauri Garhwal

Name of Work: - Design and Cost Estimation for Construction of Bridge

Proposed Bridge span: - 18 M

A. SITE SELECTION REPORT PAGE No.

3. LIST OF INSPECTING ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS, ………………………...... 4-5

5. SITE INSPECTION ……………………………………………………………... 5-7

7. HYDROLOGY …………………………………………………………………… 7-8

8. TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY ……………………………………………………. 9-10

9. SITE SELECTION ……………………………………………………….. 10-12

10. RECOMMENDATION …………………………………………………... 12-13

11. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………. 13

a) ANNEXURE (A) : - HYDROLOGY REPORT

b) ANNEXURE (B) : - GEOLOGY REPORT

c) ANNEXURE (C) : - TOPOGRAPHYCAL REPORT

Name of Work Government Order Sanction Amount (First

Design and Cost Estimation for Construction 2.4Lakh

Name of Contract Bond Agreement

Contract Bond No.

Amount of Contract Bond Agreement

3. INSPECTING ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE

Er. Amit Kumar Executive Construction Division,

LIST OF SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Er. Rajesh Superintending 7th circle , PWD

Salient Features of Existing Bridge

For details calculation refer to Annexure – A.

 Establishment of a reference system of coordinates in the form of a suitable network

To establish a reference system of coordinates, Survey Control Points, preferably of

For details Topographical survey drawings and cross-section refers to Annexure

10. SITE SELECTION

Table 2:- Bridge Alignment Options

Executive Engineer Superintending Engineer

Construction Division, PWD, Gauchar 7th Circle,PWD Gopeshwar , Chamoli

FIGURE 1: SITE PHOTOS DURING SURVEY...................................................................................... 6

TABLE 1: COORDINATE OF THE TBMS............................................................................................ 4

3. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF PROJECT SITE

 Establishment of reference system of coordinates in the form of suitable network

In order to establish a reference system of coordinates, Survey Control Points, preferably of

 Collection of details of all features such as structures, utilities, existing roads,

4. UTM COORDINATE OF THE TBM POINTS

TABLE 1: COORDINATE OF THE TBMS

Point ID Easting (X) Northing (Y) Level (Z)

View of Bridge Carriage way of Bridge

Hand railing Poor Geometry

Small Boulders in river Vegetation

6. PROJECT SITE DETAIL

Type of Bridge Motor Bridge

1. HYDROLOGY REPORT .................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 COMPILATION OF DATA AND FORMULATION OF DESIGN APPROACH

1.2 DESIGN APPROACH FOR BRIDGE

24-hour rainfall (mm) 100

Fig 1.1: 100-year 24 hr. Isopluvial Map of Zone-7

Estimation of Basin Parameters Using the Software

Fig 1.2: Catchment Area Map for Proposed Bridge

Estimation of Design Flood

Design Return Period

S.No Design Parameter Adopted Return Period Flood

Discharges in Cumec Minimum Vertical