FPRJROAD59062021 2705212218048184 8HF7C Additionalfile

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RAJASTHAN
Consultancy Services
for
Preparation of Detailed Project Report for
CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE
(ACROSS RIVER CHAMBAL)
NEAR JHAREL KE BALAJI ON KHATOLI
- KAITHUDA SAWAI MADHOPUR ROAD
MDR 51 IN DISTRICT KOTA.
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Prepared by
Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.
1 DA 15, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur- 302004
Phone : 0141- 4049864,9829055330
e mail : thoughts.jaipur@gmail.com
Preparation of Detailed Project Report for CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (ACROSS RIVER CHAMBAL) NEAR
JHAREL KE BALAJI ON KHATOLI – KAITHUDA SAWAI MADHOPUR ROAD MDR 51 IN DISTRICT KOTA.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Background ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Study Objectives.................................................................................................................. 9
1.3. Study Area and Coverage .................................................................................................... 9
1.4. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................... 11
1.5. Approach & Methodology................................................................................................. 12
1.5.1. Review of Past Reports ................................................................................................. 12
1.5.2. Reconnaissance Survey ................................................................................................. 12
1.5.3. Alignment Option Study and Selection of Final Option ................................................ 12
1.6. Structure of Report ........................................................................................................... 13
2. ALIGNMENT OPTION STUDY & TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ....................................................... 14
2.1. Alignment option Study .................................................................................................... 14
2.2. Summary of option study.................................................................................................. 23
2.3. Topographical Survey ........................................................................................................ 26
2.4. Purpose: ............................................................................................................................ 26
2.5. Methodology:.................................................................................................................... 26
2.6. Establishment of Temporary Bench Mark: ....................................................................... 27
2.7. Leveling: ............................................................................................................................ 27
2.8. Detailed survey: ................................................................................................................ 27
2.9. Longitudinal Section and Cross Sections:.......................................................................... 28
2.10. Ground Verification........................................................................................................... 28
2.11. Preparation of Base Plan:.................................................................................................. 28
2.12. Site visit ............................................................................................................................. 30
2.13. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................... 32
3. PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GAD............................................................................................ 34
3.1. SPECIFICATION FOR MATERIAL ......................................................................................... 34
3.2. Loads and Forces to be considered in Design ................................................................... 35
3.3. Design Methodology ......................................................................................................... 41
3.4. GAD of Proposed Elevated Road ....................................................................................... 45
4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD................................................ 51
4.1. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 51
4.2. WAY FORWARD ................................................................................................................. 52
Page i
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Option Study ................................................................................. 24
Page ii
List of Figures
Figure 1-2: Regional Connectivity ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 1-3: Location of Project............................................................................................. 8
Figure 1-4: Study Area............................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2-1: Option-I (900m shifted from Existing Alignment towards
downstream side) ....................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-2: Option-II (1200m Shifted from Existing Alignment towards
Downstream Side) ...................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-3: Option-III (400m Shifted from Existing Alignment towards
Downstream side) ....................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-1: Proposed Cross Section for Bridge Portion ............................................... 46
Figure 3-2: Proposed Cross Section of approaches Road ........................................... 47
Page iii
List of Annexure
Annexure 2-1: Base Map of Project Area ..................................................................... 29
Annexure 3-1: General Arrangement Drawings for Proposed HFL BRIDGE
.............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Page iv
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
Rajasthan is the largest State in the country, with difficult terrain

comprising desert, forests, mountains, tribal belt, ravines and a long
international border. Kota is a city having Chambal River crisscrossing it’s
geographical spread. According to available records, grandson of the
chief of Bundi Jait Singh, founded Kota by attacking and ousting some
Bhils of Koteah clan from the place, east to Chambal, which he named as
Kotah (Kota). Another version is that Jait Singh captured Akelgarh in
Vikram Samvat 1321 (1264 A.D) and occupied Kota, subsequently used
as a pargana attached to the Jagir of Bundi.
A separate district by the name 'Kota' came into being when former Kota
and Tonk States had joined the former Rajasthan in March, 1948 and
integrated into the United States of Rajasthan in the year 1949. In
addition to a large area of Kota State, the district included certain areas
of the former Jhalawar State (viz. Kirpapur) and Tonk State, namely
Chhipa barod and Sironj. As against this, some areas of Kota State, viz.,
Asnawar, Aklera, Khanpur, Manohar Thana and Bakani were detached to
form part of the new Jhalawar district.
Inside the Kota Garh, or City Palace, the Maharao Madho Singh Museum
exhibits miniature paintings and antique weapons. South, along the river,
tranquil Chambal Garden has a pond with crocodiles. Northeast, 18th-
century Jagmandir Palace sits in the middle of Kishore Sagar Lake. Seven
Wonders Park includes mini replicas of the Eiffel Tower and Taj Mahal.
The Chambal River is a tributary of the Yamuna River in central India,

and thus forms part of the greater Gangetic drainage system. The river
flows north-northeast through Madhya Pradesh, running for a time
through Rajasthan, then forming the boundary between Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh before turning southeast to join the Yamuna in Uttar
Pradesh state. During rainy season Chambal creates discontinuity
between the Sawai Madopur-khatoli-Itawa towns. The Public Works
Department has constructed MDR 51road between Khatoli Kaithuda and
Sawai Madhopur Road. A submersible Bridge at Jharel ke balaji is the link
across Chambal river on this MDR 51. But the link gets submerged during
every monsoon disrupting the connectivity of locals.
Construction of HFL Bridge at this location is being demanded for a long

time by the local habitants. This Bridge will provide an all-weather
connectivity for vehicular & Pedestrian movement. The construction of
this bridge shall play vital role in saving fuel and time due to shorter
Page 5
distance. It shall result in increased economic activities.
In view of this Public Works Department has decided to construct a high-

level bridge on KHATOLI- KAITHUDA SAWAI MADHOPUR ROAD on
Chambal River Near Khatoli at Jharel ke balaji.
The location Map of the proposed HFL Bridge is given in following figure.
Page 6
Preparation of Detailed Project Report for CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (ACROSS RIVER CHAMBAL) NEAR JHAREL KE BALAJI ON KHATOLI – KAITHUDA SAWAI MADHOPUR
ROAD MDR 51 IN DISTRICT KOTA.
Figure 1-1: Regional Connectivity
Page 7
Figure 1-2: Location of Project
Page 8
1.2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The Public Works Department is desirous of taking up the Construction of

High-Level Bridge on Khatoli – Kaithuda Sawai Madhopur Road on Chambal
River near Jharel ke Balaji in Kota District”. With the above stated objective,
M/s Thoughts Consultant Private limited Jaipur has been mandated the task
to carry out Techno-Economic Feasibility study and Detailed Project Report of
High-Level Bridge on Bridge on Khatoli – Kaithuda Sawai Madhopur Road
(MDR-51). To achieve the same, in the feasibility report the basic traffic
studies, topographical and subsurface soil investigations have been conducted
with a view to attain optimum level of understanding in planning. Accordingly,
the GAD plans have also been prepared.
1.3. STUDY AREA AND COVERAGE
The study area includes the road stretch near Jharel ke Balaji on Khatoli-
Sawai Madhopur Road. The study area and coverage are given in the
following figures

Figure 1-3: Study Area
Page 10
1.4. SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of work includes:
 The Consultant shall perform all necessary planning, engineering and

economic analysis, field investigations and related works as described
herein with due care and diligence to attain the objectives of the
study.
 In conduct of the work, the Consultant shall contact the Public Works
Department (PWD), Itawa and other Government Departments and
agencies responsible for planning and rural development, in
Rajasthan.
 The Consultant shall carry out a reconnaissance survey and

topographic survey for the bridge.
 The Consultant shall conduct and provide a complete description of

the features of the area.
 The Consultant shall identify sources of suitable materials for the

works including embankment fill, unbound pavement materials,
aggregates, sand, quarry products, cement, bitumen, steel and water
in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the requirements of the
Project.
 The Consultant shall determine the type total traffic volume on

bridge and volume of divert-able traffic for the Bridge by analyzing all
existing statistical data, and by conducting and analyzing traffic
counts and origin - destination studies.
 Based on the surveys, Hydrological and geotechnical investigations,

the Consultant shall develop all possible preliminary designs.
 The Consultant shall prepare preliminary estimates of quantities with

an accuracy of +/- 10% of the works under Phase 1 of the services.
 The Consultant shall be responsible, however, for the analysis and

interpretation of all data received, undertake other studies to validate
the data and give conclusions and recommendations derived from
these data.

 All lands required for temporarily or permanent acquisition for the

road shall be clearly marked on Revenue (Village) Survey Maps with
Survey numbers, Part numbers, Structure details, Khata holder so
that land acquisition can be speedily proceeded with.
1.5. APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
For preparation of Feasibility and GAD report the following broad

approach and Methodology has been adopted.
1.5.1. Review of Past Reports
The consultant has reviewed the Proposal over Chambal River Near proposed
location of bridge location.
1.5.2. Reconnaissance Survey
♦ The detailed ground reconnaissance has been taken up immediately

after the study of maps and other data.
♦ Type and location of existing utility services (e.g. Fiber Optical Cable,
O/H and U/G Electric, Telephone line, Water mains, Sewer, Trees
etc.) has been looked into.
♦ The data derived from the reconnaissance surveys are utilised for
planning and programming the detailed surveys and investigations.
All field studies including the traffic surveys should be taken up on
the basis of information derived from the reconnaissance surveys.
1.5.3. Alignment Option Study and Selection of Final Option
♦ Formulation of various alignment options

♦ Comparison and selection of final option
♦ Topographic Survey and Base Map preparation
♦ General Arrangement of Final option
♦ Proposed Cross Sections
♦ Key Features of GAD
♦ Proposed design Standards
♦

1.6. STRUCTURE OF REPORT
The Report has been organized in five chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction: Background, objective of the study and

scope of work
Chapter 2: Alignment option study and Topographic Survey: The

details of the alignment option study and topographic survey their
methodology and inferences derived have been discussed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3: Design Standards and GAD: The project requirements,

site constraints, geometric and structural design considerations, General
Arrangement Drawing (GAD) for recommended option for Elevated road
are presented.
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations: The chapter

summarizes the project with various options worked and final
recommendations.

2. ALIGNMENT OPTION STUDY &

TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
2.1. ALIGNMENT OPTION STUDY
The consultant has carried out the alignment option study for selection
of the best alignment for the proposed HFL Bridge. The consultant has
examined three options. The brief of these options are as follows
Option-I: (1200m shifted from Existing Alignment towards

downstream side): The proposed Alignment starts from Y junction
near Dharampuri village, run across the Chambal River and ends at T
junction near Gurla Village. The proposed Alignment is a green field
Alignment and will require Land Acquisition. The length of this option is
approximately 2750.0 m. It includes 1230.0 m of Approaches on both
side and 1520.0 m of Bridge Portion.
The existing Alignment has many deficient curves, due to which design
speed as per IRC-SP-73-2018, won’t be achieved on this stretch hence a
Greenfield Alignment is proposed to overcome these difficulties. The
start point, end point and alignment are given in the following figures.

Figure 2-1: Option-I (900m shifted from Existing Alignment

towards downstream side)

Advantage
 Length of the bridge is lesser as compared to other options.
 Smooth movement of vehicle will be achieved.
 Habitation areas won’t be affected.
Limitation
 Proposed alignment requires more Land Acquisition than option-2.
 ‘S’ curve exists on alignments towards khatoli village.
 Crosses existing habitations and may lead to local resistance

Option-II: (900m shifted from Existing Alignment towards

downstream side): The proposed alignment starts from Y junction
junction near Gurla Village. The proposed alignment is a green field
alignment and will require Land Acquisition. The length of this option is
approximately 2644.0 m. It includes 1084.0 m of Approaches on both
sides and 1560.0 m of Bridge Portion.
The existing alignment has many deficient curves, due to which design
speed as per IRC-SP-73-2018, won’t be achieved on this stretch hence a
new Greenfield alignment is proposed to overcome these difficulties. The
start point, end point and alignment are given in the following figures.

Figure 2-2: Option-II (1200m Shifted from Existing Alignment

towards Downstream Side)

Advantage
 Smooth movement of vehicles will be achieved.
 Habitation areas won’t be affected.
 Length of approaches will reduce on both sides as compared to the

existing Alignment
 Length of bridge will be smaller than option-3 & existing alignment.
Limitation
 Land acquisition is required
 Length of bridge will be higher than option-1.

Option-III: (400m shifted from Existing Alignment towards

downstream side): The proposed Alignment starts from Y junction
junction near Gurla village. The proposed Alignment is a green field
alignment and will require Land Acquisition. The length of this option is
approximately 3050 m. It includes 1330.0 m of Approaches on both side
and 1330.0 m of Bridge Portion.
The required ROW as per Two Lane Configuration of Bridge is not
available throughout the road stretch though Approaches of the option
exist on the existing alignment. The start point, end point and alignment
are given in the following figures.

Figure 2-3: Option-III (400m Shifted from Existing Alignment towards Downstream side)
Page 21
Advantage
 The proposed alignment has lesser land acquisition among all

options.
Limitation
 The approach length required is maximum among all options.
 Alignment exists on curved portion of river. River is meandering at

this location.
 The Alignment shall have some deficient curves so as to reduce

land acquisition.
 The proposed Alignment has highest bridge length as compared to

other options.

2.2. SUMMARY OF OPTION STUDY
Page 23
Table 2-1: Summary of Option Study
Option-I Option-II Option-III
SN Particulars (1200m shifted from (900m shifted from (400m shifted from
Existing Alignment Existing Alignment Existing Alignment Towards
Towards Downstream) Towards Downstream) Downstream)
Span Arrangement.
1 38x40.0 =1520.0m 39x40.0= 1560.0m 43x40.0=1720.0m
(n x Span length m = Via
duct Length(m))
2 Approach Length (m) 1230.0 1084.0 1330.0
3 Total Length (m) 2750.0 2644.0 3050.0m
Approximate Civil Cost

4 103.00 102.0 117.00
(In Crs.)
Page 24
Land Required
(ROW 45m)
5 Total (Ha) 10.26 8.84 6.70
(Hectares.)
6 Approximate Land Cost (Crs) 7.50 5.75 5.4
Approximate Total Project

7 Cost Including Agency Charges 132.00 130.15 122.4
(Crs)
Shortest connectivity,
Medium connectivity shortest Longest connectivity Longest
Salient Features of Different medium Via ducts length,
8 Via ducts Length, Deficient Via ducts Length, Improved
Options Improved Curves,
Curves, Lesser Cost Curves, Higher Cost
comparable Cost
Options II recommended over Options I & Option III for following reasons
1. Option III is Costliest with no extra ordinary advantages hence rejected.

2. Cost of Option I is little lesser than Option II but has many disadvantages over Option II as follows
a) Non Via Duct Approaches shall have to be constructed over erodible strata which may get damaged
during high flooding condition as river has tendency to meander in that direction
b) Presence of sharp curve in Approach would reduce vehicular speed uptp 30 km/hr, not desired
c) There are some Existing structures in Alignment Option I, which will have to be removed and may lead
to resistance from locals hampering progress of the Project
Page 25
2.3. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
2.4. PURPOSE:
The Survey was carried out with the objective of:
i) Identification of Alignment of the Elevated Road.
ii) Identification of the following:
(a) Geometry of approach roads forming the approach of HFL

Bridge.
(b) Identifying obstructions / constraints in improvement

alignment.
2.5. METHODOLOGY:
The topographical survey consisted of the following activities:
• Establishment of temporary Bench Marks.

• Total Station traverse
• Leveling
• Detailed Survey and rendering
• Preparation of Longitudinal sections
• Ground verification
• Preparation of Base Plan
Horizontal Control Points were fixed by carrying out total station

traverse. The traverse points were fixed generally at 150 – 200 m
interval along the proposed project section. The traverse was closed
back to the originating points and the angular and linear variations were
noted and found to be within tolerance limit. The traverse was adjusted
and coordinates were calculated for each of the traverse points.
On completion of traverse survey the Bench mark was transferred to

these traverse points using Auto Levels. As there was no known bench
mark available near the site, the level of road was used as reference
levels for carrying out the survey.
Page 26
The work of carrying out a detailed engineering topographic survey was

started on completion of fixing of vertical and horizontal control points.
Location of trees with their details was noted. Course of approach

roads, streets, lanes, footpaths, drains, nallahs, location of residential
areas, adjacent to built up line, religious places, parks, green areas,
monuments, memorials, vacant lands etc. were collected in the detailed
survey.
Details of crossing spans of power lines, telephone / telegraphic lines

and overhead crossings including height of tower and vertical clearance
were noted. Locations and details of colonies, vertical clearance to
power line, overhead crossings were recorded. Levels at important
locations like road junctions and ground undulations were noted. Proper
coding method was adopted for each feature for plotting of data and
preparation of maps.
After the collection of field data, the measured data was downloaded to
the site computer and the plotting of survey features was done on daily
basis. All equipments used were calibrated before starting the survey
work.
2.6. ESTABLISHMENT OF TEMPORARY BENCH MARK:
With help of GTS Bench Marks in the close vicinity, suitable temporary
bench marks were established. In the stretch of existing road section on
both sides, the surveys were carried out with reference to such
established temporary bench marks. The locations of the temporary
benchmarks are distinctly marked on the Base Plans.
2.7. LEVELING:
The levels were connected to temporary benchmarks as stated above.

The leveling commenced from selected points and closed at the same
point.
2.8. DETAILED SURVEY:
This envisaged recording of all topographical features including trees,

utility services etc. for corridor consisting of approach road strips within
the available section. At curves, the survey was extended to full land
width available in the sections envisaging the curves. All the
Page 27
topographical features along the road sections were recorded to

facilitate preparation of Base Maps covering all plan features near the
existing road.
2.9. LONGITUDINAL SECTION AND CROSS SECTIONS:
The levels for longitudinal section were taken at every 25 m at the

centre line of the existing road and the cross-section levels were taken
at these locations with three readings on either side of the centre line.
2.10. GROUND VERIFICATION
On completion of the detailed survey and plotting the same on the

mapping software a check plot was drawn and all details as covered in
the detailed survey were verified on the ground to guard against any
omission or other such discrepancy.
2.11. PREPARATION OF BASE PLAN:
A Base Plan model of surveyed over was generated in design software

(Auto Plotter) using three-dimensional survey data recorded in
electronic field book. Base map of Study Area is attached at Annexure
3.1.
Page 28
Annexure 2-1: Base Map of Project Area
Page 29
2.12. SITE VISIT
Page 30
Page 31
2.13. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Page 32
Page 33
3. PROPOSED STANDARDS AND GAD
3.1. SPECIFICATION FOR MATERIAL
a) Concrete
The grade s of concrete has been either equal to or higher than those
prescribed in IRC: 112:2019.
i) Concrete Grades for various structural elements.
Grade of concrete in various structural elements has been for

moderate conditions of exposure.
Superstructure
PSC I Girder M45
RCC Crash Barriers M40
Substructure
RCC substructures and foundations M40
All PCC nonstructural members M15
Pedestals for bearings Pot M40
POT-PTFE Bearings
b) Steel
This shall conform to provisions given in IS: 1786, IS: 423 (Part I).
i) Reinforcement Steel
This will be;
High yield strength deformed bars conforming to Fe 500 TMT.
Page 34
c) Bearings
i) POT cum PTFE Bearings
POT cum PTFE bearings shall be provided where we have to

cater to large loads.
d) Expansion Joints
Elastomeric strip seal type expansion joints shall be provided on all the
bridges as per Clause No. 2607 of MORT&H specification for road and
bridge works and interim specifications for expansion joints issued
subsequently vide MORT&H’s letter no. RWINH-34059/l/96-S&R dated
25.01.2001 and addendum thereto circulated vide letter of even no.
30.11.2001, in case of bridges with smaller spans slab seal type
expansion joint shall be provided.
3.2. LOADS AND FORCES TO BE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN
Vertical Loads
a) Dead Loads
Following unit weights shall be assumed in the design as per IRC

Codes.
Reinforced Concrete - 2.5 t/cu.m
Plain Cement Concrete - 2.2 t/cu.m
Structural steel - 7.85 t/cu.m
Dry Density of Backfill Soil - 2.07 t/cu.m
Saturated Density of Backfill Soil - 2.2 t/cu.m
b) Superimposed Dead Loads
Page 35
Wearing Coat: 65mm thick asphaltic concrete with total 2.2

t/cum (1.1 tm for 7.50m wide c/way
including allowance for an overlay).
Crash barriers: From design (i.e. 1.0 t/m per side)
c) Live Loads
Carriageway Live Loads: The following load combinations will be

considered in the analysis and whichever produces the worst effect will
be considered.
- One/Two/Three lanes of Class A.
- One lane of IRC Class 70R (wheeled tracked).
- One lane of IRC Class 70R (wheeled) with one lane of IRC Class A
- One Lane of Special Vehicle(SV) 385
- Minimum clear distance between 70R vehicle and Class A vehicle,

when placed side by side in combination, shall be 1 .2m for design.
- Resultant live load stresses shall be reduced by 10% in case all the
three lanes are loaded i.e. in case of three lanes of IRC Class ‘A’ or
one lane of IRC Class 70R with one lane of IRC Class A.
- Impact factor shall be as per Cl. 211 of IRC:6 for the relevant load
combinations. For simplicity in design, Impact factor for continuous
structures shall be calculated for the smallest span of each module
and used for all the spans of that module.
d) Horizontal Forces
i) Longitudinal Forces due to live load
Following effects shall be considered in the design.
- Braking forces as per the provision of Cl. 214 of IRC: 6.
- Distribution of longitudinal forces due to horizontal

deformation of bearings/frictional resistance offered to
the movement of free bearings as per CI. 214.5 of IRC:
6.
Page 36
ii) Horizontal Forces due to Water Currents
The portion of bridge, which may be submerged in running

water, shall be designed to sustain safely the horizontal
pressure due to force of water current as per the stipulations of
Cl. 213 of IRC:6.
iii) Earth Load
1. Earth forces shall be calculated as per the provisions of

CI. 217 of IRC:6 assuming the following soil properties:
Type of soil assumed for backfilling As per Appendix 6 of [RC: 78 with dry
density of 2.07 t/cu.m and submerged
density of 1.2 t/cu.m.
Angle of Internal Friction Ф= 30.0
Angle of Wall Friction δ=20.0
Coefficient of Friction ‘p.’ at base tan (Ф), while Ф is the angle of internal
friction of substrata immediately under the
foundations.
2. Live load surcharge shall be considered as per the

provisions of Cl. 714.4 & Cl. 715.1.5 of IRC: 78 i.e.
equivalent to 1.2m height of fill in case of abutments and
return/wing walls and 0.6m height when there is .no live
load on the span.
iv) Centrifugal Forces
For the road bridges situated on curve centrifugal forces shall

have to be calculated as per the provisions of Cl.215 of IRC: 6
for a design speed applicable at horizontal curves.
v) Wind Effect
Structures shall be designed for wind effects as stipulated in Cl.

212 of IRC: 6. The wind forces shall be considered in the
following two ways and design shall be governed by the one
producing the worst effect.
Page 37
a. Full wind forces at right angles to the superstructure
b. 65% of wind force as calculated in (i) above acting

perpendicular to the superstructure and 35% acting in
traffic direction.
vi) Seismic Effect
The road stretch is located in Seismic Zone-II as per the revised

seismic map of India (IS: 1893-2002). The seismic forces will be
coefficient method as suggested by the modified clause for the
interim measures for seismic provisions (CI.222 of IRC: 6-2014)
published in Indian Highways, January 2003.
e) Other Forces/Effects
i) Temperature Effects
a. The bridge structure/components i.e. bearings and

expansion joints, shall be designed for a temperature
variation of± 25 degree C considering extreme climate.
b. The superstructures shall also be designed for effects of

distribution of temperature across the deck depth as
given in Fig. 10 of IRC6-2014, suitably modified for the
surfacing thickness.
Temperature effects shall be considered as follows:
(i). Effects of non-linear profile of temperature shall be

combined with 50% live load and full value of ‘E’ shall be
considered.
(ii). Effects of global rise and fall of temperature shall be

combined with 100% live load and full value of ‘E’ shall
be considered.
ii) Differential Shrinkage Effects
A minimum reinforcement of 0.2% of cross sectional area in the

longitudinal direction of the cast-in-situ slab shall be provided to
cater for differential shrinkage stresses in superstructures with
Page 38
cast-in-situ slab over precast girders as per Cl 605.2 of IRC:22-

2015.
However, effects due to differential shrinkage and/or differential

creep shall be duly accounted for in the design. Additional
reinforcements in the concrete deck shall have to be provided
wherever found necessary.
iii) Construction Stage Loadings/Effects
A uniformly distributed load of 3.6 KN/m2 of the form area shall

be considered to account for construction stage loadings in the
design of superstructure elements, wherever applicable, as per
Cl. 4.2.2.2.2 of IRC: 87-1984.
iv) Buoyancy
100% buoyancy shall be considered while checking stability of

foundations irrespective of their resting on soil/weathered
rock/or hard rock. However, the maximum base pressures shall
also be checked under an additional condition with 50%
buoyancy in cases where foundations are embedded into hard
rock. Pore pressure uplift limited to 15% shall be considered
while checking stresses of the substructure elements.
f) Load Combinations to be considered in Design
All members shall be designed to sustain safely the most critical

combination of various loads and forces that can coexist. Various load
combinations as relevant with increase in permissible stresses
considered in the design shall be as per Cl. 202 of IRC:6 and Cl. 706 of
IRC:78.
In addition, `the stability of bridge supporting two superstructures

(with an expansion joint) shall be checked under one span dislodged
condition also.
g) Exposure Condition
Moderate exposure conditions shall be considered while designing

various components of the bridge.
Page 39
h) Design Codes
Design of all components of structures has been carried out in

accordance with the provisions of the following Standards / Codes of
Practices:
• Foundation
(i) IRC:6-2017
(ii) IRC:78-2014
(iii) IRC:45-1972
(iv) IS:2911-2010
 Substructure
(i) IRC:6-2017
(ii) IRC:78-2014
 Superstructure
(i) IRC:6-2017
(ii) IRC 112-2011
 Bearings
(i) IRC: 83-2015 Part-I for metallic bearings
(ii) IRC: 83-Part-II-2015 for elastomeric bearings
(iii) BS: 5400 for POT/PTFE bearings
(iv) IRC: 83 Part III 2002 for POT, POT cum PTFE, PIN and
Metallic Guide
(v) Bearing (Provision of IS: 1893 will also be considered

wherever relevant
 Expansion Joints
Page 40
Ministry’s Interim Specifications contained in letter no. RW/NH-

4059/1/96- S&R dated 30-11-2000 and 25.01.2001 will be kept in
view while deciding the type of expansion joints.
 Protection Works
(i) IRC: 89-1997
I) Load combinations
The various load combinations to be considered will be as per the

provision of IRC: 6-2017
3.3. DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Superstructure
The superstructure is designed for various combination of Class A load and

70R load, severest of these load combinations are chosen for design. The
method of analysis and design of superstructure depends on type of
superstructure. Grillage model is adopted for I Girder for longitudinal live load
analysis. The superstructure is analyzed in the longitudinal direction for
bending moment and shear, corresponding reinforcement is provided for it. In
the transverse direction deck slab is analyzed as continuous over girders and
effect of differential bending of girders is also considered for deck slab design.
The superstructure is also designed for temperature stresses, resulting from
maximum and minimum temperature variations.
The superstructure shall be RCC solid slab for spans upto 10.0 m. For spans
ranging from 10.0 m to 25 m RCC T-girder and slab shall be provided. For
spans from 25m to 40m the PSC I Girder. For spans above 40m the PSC Box
girder shall be provided.
Based on the loads mentioned earlier, the bending moments and shear forces
are worked out at the selected sections. Distributions of live Load on
longitudinal beams are worked out (in case of T-beam and slab type of
superstructure). The sections are then designed as reinforced concrete
sections subjected to the applied moments and shear forces. The design
moments, shear forces and joint displacements can be worked out using
Grillage method of analysis in STAAD-Pro, MIDAS Civil, based on which
structural design of various elements and checking of adequacy of different
section can be done.
Page 41
The RC Solid slab superstructures shall be analyzed using Grillage analogy

method to obtain internal moments and forces based on which structural
design shall be carried out.
Modelling & analysis of Superstructure
Modelling is substituting the actual structure to an equivalent mathematical

structure, which is amenable to computer analysis. In modelling, the
properties of the prototype are required to be correctly assessed and assign
to corresponding components of the model. Similarly support conditions are
based on deformations permitted at the supports. Line Element modeling
offers a good choice for a large variety of super structure forms.
The analysis is accurate only if the prototype is modelled accurately. We will

pay special attention to the modelling / idealization aspect and if necessary,
will revise our model for greater accuracy.
We have suitable software for the analysis of bridges of all types for various
IRC live loading, permanent dead loading and construction stage loading.
These will be used in the analysis.
Design of Elements above Deck Level
The miscellaneous elements such as kerbs and parapets/railing are designed

as reinforced concrete section for the loads and forces as per Cl. 209 of IRC:
6. -2017.
Design of Bearing
The loads transferred from the superstructure to the bearings shall be taken
from the earlier analysis of superstructure. Short- and long-term deformations
shall be computed for the temperature, shrinkage and creep of concrete.
POT-PTFE bearings shall be designed as per IRC: 83 (Part III) for these
effects as reinforced multi-layer neoprene bearings. However, design loads
and movements are to be supplied to the manufacturer to enable him to
manufacture these bearings. The manufacturer’s details & design have to be
got checked to ensure compliance with the design requirements.
Page 42
Substructure and Foundation
Piers
Pier will be circular type with cantilever fixed at base, which is taken as top of
foundation. The sections at various levels will be checked as sections
subjected to axial thrust and bi-axial bending. In addition to dead load and
live loads from superstructure, the pier substructure and its foundation will be
designed for the loads due to seismic/wind and water current forces as
appropriate.
Abutment
Abutments will be of non-spill through type. These shall be designed resting

on Pile foundations, pile foundations or well foundations as per requirement
and may have cantilever returns at top. In case the cantilever returns become
too long independent RCC retaining walls shall be provided. For height of
abutments greater than 8.0 m counter forts shall be provided.
Pile foundation for piers and abutments shall be designed in reinforced

concrete or some other suitable material. The stability checks shall be carried
out as per relevant IRC Codes.
Foundation
Foundation of bridge is to be conceptualized after evaluation of subsoil data

such as type of soil and its safe bearing capacity at foundation level for
abutment pier/return-wall and footings. Thereafter suitable type of
foundations is to be provided with respect to soil and type of superstructure.
Adequacy of the size and depth of foundation will be ensured for the
satisfactory performance of the structure. The structural design of the
foundation is to be designed as per the latest computerized modeling.
Particular attention is paid to stability checks and corresponding safety
factors.
Open Foundation
Design of isolated open foundation shall be based on complete sub soil

investigations. The allowable bearing pressure shall satis1’ the provisions
contained in the clause and the minimum foundation depth shall not be less
than that specified in Clause 705 of IRC: 78-2014. The selection of the
appropriate type of open foundation (counter fort type or cantilever type)
Page 43
depends on the magnitude and disposition of structural loads, allowable

bearing capacity etc. However, if rock strata are encountered at shallow
depth, it will be preferable to adopt open foundation to pile foundation.
Deep Foundations
In case of large scour depths and unavailability of rock at shallow depth deep
foundation shall be provided. This may be pile foundation or well foundation
depending on vertical load, horizontal load, bending moment and soil strata.
Cast in situ Pile foundation up to 1.2m dia can be constructed fast and are
more suitable if the total length of pile is up to 25.0m, pile can also be seated
on hard rock, and guidance can be taken from Appendix-5 of IRC —78-2014.
Beyond 30.0 m depth of foundation, well foundation shall be adopted as they
can carry large horizontal loads and bending moments compared to pile
foundations. Choice of foundation between pile and well shall depend on their
relative merits and demerits with respect to loads and soil strata.
Load & Stresses
In meeting the broad scope of the assignment as outlined, our proposed

methodology is as under:
Independent assessment of the loading will be made on each component of

structure and possible combination of these loading in line with IRC: 6-2017
will be made for designing the various components of the bridge — structure
at various stages of construction. These loading and loading combinations will
be compared with other IRC codal provisions also wherever applicable.
Permissible stresses under various combinations of loading are different.
These permissible stresses are given in IRC 6 and these will be followed. It
will be ensured that these are never exceeded. If a particular component is
appreciably under stressed then relevant sections will be revised and reduced
in the interest of the economy.
Page 44
3.4. GAD OF PROPOSED ELEVATED ROAD
The general arrangement drawing for Option-II has been prepared.
 12.15 m wide cross section has been proposed in approaches.
=7.50m (Carriage way Width) + 2x1.50m (Footpath) +2x0.45m

(Pedestrian Railing) + 2x0.375m (Crash Barrier)
 A 2-lane Bridge with 7.50 m wide carriage way with 1.5 m

Footpath and 0.45 m Crash barrier & Railing on both sides.
The proposed GAD arrangement for four options are depicted in drawings
placed at Annexure-4-1.
The component wise design feature summary is given below:
Span Arrangement
The proposed span system is as follows:
40.0m in general and it may reduce or increase as per the site conditions
Components
a) Superstructure PSC I Girders
b) Substructure Single circular RCC pier of Dia. of 3.0 m
c) Foundation Pile foundation, Well & Open Foundation
d) Retaining wall RCC Retaining Wall
Bearing
All the bearings shall be POT – PTEF.
Drainage Provisions
GI Drainage spout with GI grating shall be provided at the superstructure

near the pier locations.
Page 45
Wearing Coat
Wearing Coat shall be reinforced cement concrete wearing coat type & of
thickness 65 mm.
Expansion Joints
Single Strip seal type of expansion joint has been proposed for every
expansion joint in superstructure.
Crash Barrier
Crash Barrier of 450 mm thickness would be provided at the outer edge of the
structures.
Figure 3-1: Proposed Cross Section for Bridge Portion
Page 46
Figure 3-2: Proposed Cross Section of approaches Road
Page 47
Annexure 3-1: General Arrangement Drawings for Proposed HFL BRIDGE
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
4. CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD
4.1. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
 Construction of Bridge road will provide direct connectivity b/w Itawa,

Khatoli village and Sawai Madopur. It will reduce travel distance
between villages by around 40kms consequently saving time, energy
and resources. It will also result in enhanced socio economic activities
in nearby areas. T
 Consultant has formulated three alignment options. Option-I:, Option-

II: & Option-III:. The consultant recommends option-II
 Discharge expected to pass through proposed Bridge is 105450

cumec. For that HFL is worked out to reach 212.00m, FRL of the
Bridge has been proposed as 217.00m. Span 39x40 m of PSC Beams
on circular Piers is proposed.
(It is prudent to compare it with vital specifications of Gaita Makhida

Bridge being constructed 50 kms on upstream of the proposed Bridge
site, for which Discharge is 93798 cumec, HFL is 216.0, FRL of the
Bridge is 221.0, Lowest Bed level is 190.729 m & Span Arrangement
is 42x37.20 m)
 The General arrangement drawing of the Options-II has been

prepared by consultant.
 As per IRC: SP:73-2018 MANUAL OF SPECIFICATIONS AND

STANDARDS FOR TWO LANING OF HIGHWAYS WITH PAVED
SHOULDERS, SECTION -7 Clause 7.3 ii) Fig 7.6
Overall width should be 18.0m as below
13.00m (Carriage way Width) + 2x1.50m (Footpath)

+2x0.500m (Pedestrian Railing) + 2x0.500m(Crash Barrier)
But looking at the MDR nature of the Road, it was decided in the
meeting held on 5.08.2020 at zone level that Bridge width should be
as follows

 A 2-lane Bridge with 7.50 m wide carriage way with 1.5 m Footpath and
0.45 m Crash barrier & Railing on both sides.
 12.15 m wide cross section has been proposed in approaches.
 =7.50m (Carriage way Width) + 2x1.50m (Footpath)

+2x0.375m (Pedestrian Railing) + 2x0.45m(Crash Barrier)
 The 40.0 m span (c/c of Exp Gap) on single Piers has been
proposed.
 Wildlife clearance: The Recommended Alignment passes

through National Crocodile sanctuary. So, wildlife clearance
will be needed before starting the work. Proposal for wildlife
clearance will be applied after approval of alignment & General
Arrangement Drawing.
4.2. WAY FORWARD
 Based on the approval of Alignment by PWD authorities, consultant will

carry out necessary Engineering surveys & Investigations and prepare the
Project Report and Draft DPR.

FPRJROAD59062021 2705212218048184 8HF7C Additionalfile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

FPRJROAD59062021 2705212218048184 8HF7C Additionalfile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Rajasthan is the largest State in the country, with difficult terrain

The Chambal River is a tributary of the Yamuna River in central India,

Construction of HFL Bridge at this location is being demanded for a long

distance. It shall result in increased economic activities.

In view of this Public Works Department has decided to construct a high-

Figure 1-1: Regional Connectivity

Figure 1-2: Location of Project

1.2. STUDY OBJECTIVES

The Public Works Department is desirous of taking up the Construction of

1.3. STUDY AREA AND COVERAGE

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

Figure 1-3: Study Area

1.4. SCOPE OF WORK

The Scope of work includes:

 The Consultant shall perform all necessary planning, engineering and

 The Consultant shall carry out a reconnaissance survey and

 The Consultant shall conduct and provide a complete description of

 The Consultant shall identify sources of suitable materials for the

 The Consultant shall determine the type total traffic volume on

 Based on the surveys, Hydrological and geotechnical investigations,

 The Consultant shall prepare preliminary estimates of quantities with

 The Consultant shall be responsible, however, for the analysis and

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

 All lands required for temporarily or permanent acquisition for the

1.5. APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

For preparation of Feasibility and GAD report the following broad

1.5.1. Review of Past Reports

1.5.2. Reconnaissance Survey

♦ The detailed ground reconnaissance has been taken up immediately

1.5.3. Alignment Option Study and Selection of Final Option

♦ Formulation of various alignment options

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

1.6. STRUCTURE OF REPORT

The Report has been organized in five chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction: Background, objective of the study and

Chapter 2: Alignment option study and Topographic Survey: The

Chapter 3: Design Standards and GAD: The project requirements,

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations: The chapter

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

2. ALIGNMENT OPTION STUDY &

2.1. ALIGNMENT OPTION STUDY

Option-I: (1200m shifted from Existing Alignment towards

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

Figure 2-1: Option-I (900m shifted from Existing Alignment

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

 Length of the bridge is lesser as compared to other options.

 Smooth movement of vehicle will be achieved.

 Habitation areas won’t be affected.

 Proposed alignment requires more Land Acquisition than option-2.

 ‘S’ curve exists on alignments towards khatoli village.

 Crosses existing habitations and may lead to local resistance

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

Option-II: (900m shifted from Existing Alignment towards

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

Figure 2-2: Option-II (1200m Shifted from Existing Alignment

Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd.

 Smooth movement of vehicles will be achieved.

 Habitation areas won’t be affected.

 Length of approaches will reduce on both sides as compared to the

 Length of bridge will be smaller than option-3 & existing alignment.

 Land acquisition is required