for the proposed residential project “attur century...

of 4

EMP

For The Proposed Residential Project

“Attur Century Star”

Environment Management Plan The Environment Management Plan would consist of all mitigation measures for each item wise

activity to be undertaken during the construction, operation and the entire life cycle to minimize

adverse environmental impacts as a result of the activities of the project. It would also delineate

the environmental monitoring plan for compliance of various environmental regulations. It will

state the steps to be taken in case of emergency such as accidents at the site including fire.

DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE Air Management

- Dust arising during construction will be mitigated by water spraying to prevent dust during construction rising into atmosphere.

- Use of ready mix concrete will be maximized so as to minimize the quantity of cement

dust due to on-site mixing.

- Vehicles maintained in proper conditions will be used to minimize the noise and emission

pollution.

- Construction area will be covered.

- Vehicles bringing construction materials will be covered.

- Budgetary allocation will be earmarked towards Air Management is Rs.1.05 Lakhs/A

of 4

Water Management

- 19KLD is the water demand. (15 KLD for construction & 04 KLD potable water for domestic requirement).

- 15 KLD will be sourced from BWSSB TTP / Onsite Mobile STP and 04 KLD will be sourced

from Tankers.

- Sufficient number of toilets will be provided in the site.

- Waste water generated from the site will be treated in mobile STP. Treated water from mobile

STP will be reused for dust suppression.

- Run off from the construction activities will be contained within the project site to avoid flooding. - Budgetary allocation will be earmarked towards Water Management including site sanitation is

Rs.54 Lakhs/A

Noise Management Noise generation during construction phase will have minimal adverse impact and the gestation

period is short.

The main source of noise pollution, which is short term, is from the construction activity during the

project due to movement of vehicle carrying construction materials and other equipments used for construction. This will be properly managed by regulating the vehicular traffic, using well serviced

vehicles and construction equipments.

Solid Waste Management Excavated earth : 58070 CUM Reused at site for Backfilling : 23288 CUM for Landsape : 9291.20 CUM for Roads & walkways : 13356.10 CUM Site Formation : 13356.10 CUM. Soil will not be carted away from site.

DURING OPERATIONAL PHASE

Air Management

The main source of Air pollution is flue gas from Gensets, which constitutes SOx, NOx and SPM.

Gen-sets of 2 nos x 320 KVA are proposed.

of 4

Chimney (height as per KSPCB Consent) is proposed to be installed to reduce the impact

on air environment.

CNG & diesel having low sulphur content (0.05%) will be used as a fuel to Gen-sets.

Flue gas monitoring will be carried out to ensure that the emissions are within the KSPCB

standards.

Water Management

296 KLD Water will be sourced from BWSSB.

Waste water generated from the proposed project will be treated in onsite STP.

90 KLD towards flushing and 123 KLD for landscape purpose.

Separate pipelines are proposed for raw water and treated water. Dual piping plumbing

system is proposed. Treated wastewater from the sewage treatment plant will be analyzed

for its quality as per KSPCB standards.

Budgetary capital cost towards STP installation will be Rs.31.67 Lakhs and Rs. 7.2 lakhs /year towards O&M is proposed.

22 CUM of terrace water will be harvested.

4 nos of percolation pits will be provided to percolate 58 CUM of surface runoff rain water.

Implementation cost planned is Rs.1.12 Lakhs.

Noise Management

Major noise producing sources are expected to be Gen-sets.

Gen-sets will be provided with acoustic enclosures to control the noise levels in such a way that the noise levels are within the permissible limits specified for ambient noise

levels.

The Gen-sets will be operated only during the emergencies when there is power failure.

Solid Waste Management Total occupancy will be 1995 nos.

539 kgs/day of Organic waste will be treated in onsite OWC and balance 359 kgs/day of Inorganic

waste will be disposed to Vendors /Re-Cyclers.

Budgetary allocation will be made towards solid waste management is Rs.4.5 Lakhs and Rs.0.3

Lakhs/year towards O&M cost.

Traffic Management

Sufficient parking is proposed as per the by-laws.

438 nos of Car parking provision are proposed .

of 4

Study on Present level of traffic and the proposed increase in the traffic due to the

proposed project is done by external Traffic Consultant.

Recommendations given by them will be implemented.

Greenbelt development 20991.62 Sq Mtrs ( 33 %) of greenbelt is proposed on natural ground with 266 trees in native

species in the proposed project site. EMP Monitoring

Treated water from STP will be analyzed periodically.

Flue gas from Gen sets will be monitored periodically as specified by KSPCB.

Compliance report will be submitted as per the consent conditions.

EMP will be reviewed periodically.

Solid waste disposal will be done scientifically.

G(B)8676

1

G(B)8676 -GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS REPORT for

proposed Group Housing Complex, at Attur, Yelahanka, Bangalore

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

M/s Century Group propose to construct Multistoried Buildings for a Group Housing Complex,

at Attur, Yelahanka, Bangalore.

The proposed Multistoried Buildings will be RCC Framed Structures, and will have ground floor

(stilts) and four upper floors

Soil investigations programme has been undertaken at the site, as per the scope of investigations,

stipulated by the Client. The scope of work consisted of 10 bore holes of 6.0m depth, in soil

strata.

The bore hole investigations indicate the presence of top surface layers of brown, clayey silty

sand to silty clayey sand, underlain by strata of grey, bluish grey with yellow, and grey with

brown, silty clayey sand. These top surface layers extend down to about 2.50m depth below

present ground level. Thereafter, the subsoil encountered is bluish grey with yellowish brown,

to yellowish brown with grey, silty clayey sand to silty sandy clay. These lower strata extend

down to 6.0m depth, at which level, the bore holes were terminated, as per scope of work.

The N-values (N : 17 - 27) indicates that the subsoil encountered at the site is generally medium

dense down to about 3.0m depth below present ground level. Below this level, the subsoil

encountered is medium dense to dense (N : 20- 49). However, the high N-values recorded in the

lower depths are due to the apparent hardness of the subsoil in its dry and desiccated state.

Ground water table was not encountered in any of the bore holes, at the time of investigations,

which was carried out in the month of November, 2009.

Considering the type of structure involved, and the subsoil characteristics as determined from the

subsoil investigations, Shallow Foundations have been recommended at a minimum depth of

1.50m below Top of Natural Ground Level. A Net Allowable Bearing Pressure value of

1.40kg/cm2 have been recommended for design of foundations, for a permissible settlement of

40mm.

G(B)8676

2

REPORT ON SOIL INVESTIGATIONS FOR PROPOSED

MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS, FOR GROUP HOUSING COMPLEX, AT ATTUR,

YELAHANKA, BANGALORE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 M/s Century Group propose to construct Multistoried Buildings for a Group Housing

Complex, at Attur, Yelahanka, Bangalore.

1.2 Detailed soil investigations, comprising of 10 bore holes and various laboratory tests,

have been carried out, in order to get relevant subsoil data required for design of

foundations, of the proposed Multistoried Building. This report presents the results and

analysis of these investigations, and includes recommendations for design of foundations

of the proposed Multistoried Buildings.

2.0 AUTHORITY

2.1 The Soil Investigations for the proposed Group Housing Complex, at Attur, Yelahanka,

Bangalore, has been carried out on the Authority of Work Order No : AP/WO/2009-

10/003 dated 20th October, 2009, issued by M/s Century Group, No.36, St Marks Road,

Bangalore 560 001.

3.0 OBJECT & SCOPE OF WORK

3.1 The object of the soil investigations programme has been to gain sufficient data regarding

physical and engineering properties of subsoil, required for evaluating allowable bearing

pressure on foundations of the proposed Multistoried Building.

3.2 The scope of work, as specified by the Client, included the following :

a) Sinking 10 bore holes to a minimum depth of 6.0m, or refusal strata, whichever

is encountered earlier

b) Conducting field investigations and relevant laboratory tests, on soil samples

collected from the bore holes.

c) Preparing a detailed report, giving recommendations for design of foundation of

the proposed Multistoried Buildings.

4.0 PROJECT DETAILS

G(B)8676

3

4.1 The Site

4.1.1 The site for the proposed Group Housing Complex is located in Sy Nos 78,79, 80 etc,

Attur, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore. The site is having a gentle slope. The site is located

on the downstream side of an irrigation tank. The site was formerly agricultural land. The

site is about 3.0m to 4.0m below the Tank Bund Road.

4.1.2 High tension power lines are located on the northern and southern boundary of the plot.

There are few wells in the site.

4.2 The Structures

4.2.1 The proposed Multistoried Buildings will be RCC Framed Structures, and will have

ground floor (stilts) and four upper floors.

4.3 Weather Conditions

4.3.1 Weather was bright and sunny, at the time of investigations

4.4 Seismic Zone

4.4.1 The site for the proposed Group Housing Complex is located at Attur, Yelahanka,

Bangalore, which comes under Seismic Zone II, as per IS 1893 (Part 1) - 2002.

5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

5.1 Preliminary Details

5.1.1 10 bore holes were sunk to study the subsoil conditions of the site. The bore holes were

progressed using hand operated auger. The bore holes have been designated as BH-1 to

BH-10, in this report.

5.1.2 The field investigations were carried out from 31st October to 5th November, 2009.

5.1.3 All the bore holes were progressed to 6.0m depth, and the boring was terminated, as per

scope of work.

5.2 Standard Penetration Tests

5.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests were conducted at various depths of the bore holes to

determine N-values, and thereby, the relative density / stiffness of the subsoil is evaluated.

5.3 Sampling

5.3.1 Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected from various depths of the bore

holes, for conducting relevant laboratory tests. Undisturbed soil samples were collected

using thin walled shelby tubes. The disturbed soil samples were collected in polythene

bags and labeled.

5.4 Site Plan

5.4.1 The site plan with location of bore holes, are given in figure no 1.

G(B)8676

4

5.5 LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

5.5.1 The soil samples brought to the laboratory were tested, to evaluate the following

properties:

a) Type of soil and its gradation

b) Consistency limits

c) Natural Density

d) Natural Water Content

e) Shear Strength Properties

f) Deleterious Chemicals.

5.5.2 In order to determine the above properties, the following tests have been conducted:

a) Sieve analysis and Hydrometer analysis

b) Liquid and plastic limits

c) Natural Density and Water Content Tests

d) Triaxial Shear Tests

e) Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests

f) Chemical Analysis of Soil Samples.

6.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF INVESTIGATIONS

6.1 Bore Holes

6.1.1 The results of field investigations conducted in the bore holes, and laboratory tests

conducted on the soil samples collected from the bore holes, have been presented, in the

form of soil profile tables.

6.1.2 The soil profile tables (Table Nos. 1 to 10) give the details of the soil strata including their

classification, and strength properties, as ascertained from the tests conducted.

6.1.3 The soil profile tables include the following :

a) Standard Penetration Test Values (i.e N-values observed) at various depths

b) Soil description, identifying the type of soil

c) Grain size analysis, indicating composition of subsoil

d) Consistency limits

e) Natural Bulk Density and Water Content

f) Triaxial Shear Test results.

6.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

6.2.1 Soil Profile

6.2.2 10 bore holes were sunk to study the subsoil conditions of the site.

G(B)8676

5

6.2.3 The bore hole investigations indicate the presence of top surface layers of brown, clayey

silty sand to silty clayey sand, underlain by strata of grey, bluish grey with yellow, and

grey with brown, silty clayey sand. These top surface layers extend down to about 2.50m

depth below present ground level. Thereafter, the subsoil encountered is bluish grey with

yellowish brown, to yellowish brown with grey, silty clayey sand to silty sandy clay.

These lower strata extend down to 6.0m depth, at which level, the bore holes were

terminated, as per scope of work.

6.2.4 The results of field investigations and laboratory tests, and the details of each strata i.e.

its thickness, classification, soil type, percentage of each fraction (namely – gravel, sand,

silt and clay) present in the subsoil, can be had from compiled soil profile figure no.2, and

in individual soil profile figure nos 3 to 7 , and table nos 1 to 10. The Grain Size Analysis

curves are given in figure nos. 8 to 13.

6.3 N-values

6.3.1 Standard Penetration Tests were conducted at various depths of each bore hole, to

determine N-values. The N-values are also presented in table nos.1 to 10, in compiled soil

profile figure no.2, and in individual soil profile figure nos 3 to 7.

6.3.2 The N-values (N : 17 - 27) indicates that the subsoil encountered at the site is generally

medium dense down to about 3.0m depth below present ground level. Below this level,

the subsoil encountered is medium dense to dense (N : 20- 49). However, the high N-

values recorded in the lower depths are due to the apparent hardness of the subsoil in its

dry and desiccated state.

6.3.3 The curve showing N-values (observed) vs depth is given in Fig nos 14 and 15.

6.4 Consistency Limits (Refer Table nos 1 to 10)

6.4.1 The liquid limit of the subsoil ranges between 24 % and 55 %, and the plastic limit varies

from 13 % to 27 %. Subsoil samples containing low percentage of fines, or mica, did not

exhibit any plastic limit.

6.5 Natural Bulk Density & Natural Water Content (Refer Table nos. 1 to 10)

6.5.1 The Natural Bulk Density of the subsoil ranges between 1.94 g/cm3 and 2.05g/cm3, and

the Natural Water Content varies between 12.1 % and 28.2 %.

6.6 Tri-axial Shear Tests (Refer Table nos. 1 to 10)

G(B)8676

6

6.6.1 Tri-axial shear tests were conducted on the soil samples, collected from the bore hole.

The angle of shearing resistance (Ø), determined from tri-axial shear tests, ranges

between 15 0 and 29 0. The Cohesion (C) values of the subsoil vary between

0.15kg/cm2 and 0.50 kg/cm2.

6.7 Unconfined Compression Tests (Refer Table No.11)

6.7.1 The Unconfined Compressive Strength of the subsoil ranges from 1.37 kg/cm2 to

1.71kg/cm2 .

6.8 Specific Gravity Test (Refer Table No.15)

6.8.1 The Specific Gravity of the subsoil determined from representative soil samples ranges

from 2.59 to 2.63.

6.9 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL SAMPLES (Refer Table No. 11)

6.9.1 Chemical Analysis of representative soil samples was carried out. The results of the

chemical analysis of the soil samples indicate that the pH of the subsoil ranges between

6.7 and 7.3 . The Chloride content (cl) of the subsoil ranges from 0.011 % to 0.036 %,

and the Sulphate (SO3) content ranges from 0.024 % to 0.060 %.

6.9.2 The results indicate that the pH, Chloride and Sulphate content in the soil samples are

within permissible limits. Hence, no special precaution need be taken against chemical

action on concrete in foundation. (Ref. Foundations Design and Construction by M.J

Tomlin son, pg, 758 and IS 456).

6.10 Water Table

6.10.1 The water table was not encountered in any of the bore holes, at the time of

investigations. However, as the site is located on the downstream side of an irrigation

tank, water table can be expected during rainy seasons. The observations were made in

the month of November, 2009.

7.0 DESIGN CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Type of Foundations

7.1.1 The type of foundations for any structure, depends upon the subsoil conditions, as well

as, the loading intensity.

7.1.2 The subsoil encountered at average founding levels is medium dense, and is further

G(B)8676

7

underlain by medium dense to dense strata, respectively. Hence, the load of the

superstructure can be supported on Shallow Foundations. The Shallow Foundations may

be Isolated or Combined Footings, depending upon the column loads, their spacing, and

configuration.

7.2 Depth of Foundations

7.2.1 The depth at which the foundations of the proposed buildings should be laid, will be

governed by the following criteria :

a) Foundation should be below top weak zone or “filled-up” soil, which is generally

filled with root holes and other cavities

b) Depth of top weak zone / “filled-up” soil

c) Securing of adequate bearing capacity

d) Requirement of structure.

7.2.2 Hence, based on the criteria given above, the minimum depth of foundations

recommended is 1.50m below Top of Natural Ground Level.

7.2.3 Note : The site is having a slope and hence, site leveling and grading will be carried out.

Therefore, in areas where filling is carried out, the foundations must be taken to a

minimum depth of 1.50m depth below Top of Natural Ground Level.

7.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure

7.3.1 Taking into consideration the data of the bore holes, the allowable bearing pressure on

foundations has been evaluated based on the following criteria:

a) Shear failure criterion

b) Settlement criterion

i From N-values

ii From elastic modulus determined from tri-axial shear tests.

7.3.2 Note :

a) The Water Table was not encountered in any of the bore holes. However, as the

site is located on the downstream site of an irrigation tank, as a measure of

abundant precaution, Full Submergence has been assumed. Hence, the Reduction

Factor for Water Table R’w = 0.50, has been applied, while calculating Safe

Bearing Capacity, based on Shear Failure Criterion. For calculation of Overburden

G(B)8676

8

Pressure, Submerged Density has been considered.

b) For calculations based on settlement criterion, the permissible total settlement has

been taken to 40mm.

c) Average Soil Parameters :

i Cohesion : 0.30kg/cm2

ii Angle of Shearing Resistance : 220

iii Bulk Density of Virgin Soil : 2.00g/cm3

7.3.3 Based on the above criteria, the allowable bearing pressure recommended for design

of foundations, resting at a minimum depth of 1.50m below Top of Natural Ground

Level, is given in the following table (Refer Appendix -A for sample calculations) :

Depth below Top ofNatural Ground Level

Allowable Bearing Pressure (kg/cm2) for Width of Foundations(cm)

150 300 & above

1.50m 1.40 1.40

7.4 Precautions

7.4.1 Loose pockets of soil, wherever encountered, should be completely removed and backfilled

with well compacted earth. A 15cm thick layer of 40-50mm size gravel should be laid and

rammed into the backfilled earth. A layer of sand should be placed and compacted in order

to fill the voids. A leveling course of lean concrete can then be laid over the gravel, and

construction of foundations can be taken up subsequently.

7.4.2 The site is having a slope. Hence, site leveling and grading will be carried out. Therefore,

in areas, where filling is carried out, the foundations must be taken to the specified

minimum depth of 1.50m depth below Top of Natural Ground Level.

7.5 Special Note

7.5.1 Wherever localised loose pockets of soil are encountered, it will be necessary to increase

the depth of foundations.

7.6 LIMITATIONS

7.6.1 The recommendations given in the report are based on the results of bore hole

investigations at 10 locations, as specified by the Client. In case there is any substantial

variation in the substrata conditions, from those encountered at the bore hole locations,

G(B)8676

9

additional investigations may be carried out, if necessary.

8.0 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

8.1 Principle

8.1.1 Reliability analysis is the analysis of the degree of variability of all the data collected

during the detailed geotechnical investigations and thereafter considered for providing the

recommendations and consequently, the reliability or in other words the degree of risk

involved in adopting the recommendations.

8.1.2 The reliability analysis of any geotechnical investigations involves the assessment of

degree of variability of :

a) In-situ densities determined from various undisturbed samples collected from

various depths in different boreholes, during the investigations

b) N-values or Standard Penetration Test values recorded at various depths in

different boreholes

c) Settlements due to imposed loads determined by considering the results of tests

conducted in each individual boreholes.

8.2 Reliability Analysis of In-situ Density

8.2.1 The coefficient of variation in the measured in-situ dry densities at various depths in all the

boreholes ranges from 0.3% to 4.6% with an average of about 1.9%.

8.2.2 This is well within the typical value of coefficient of variation of about 5% (and maximum

of 7%) as per general state of practice and hence, is acceptable.

8.3 Reliability Analysis of N-values

8.3.1 The coefficient of variation in the observed N-values at various depths in all the boreholes

varies from 14.0% to 16.8% with an average of about 15.1%.

8.3.2 This is well within the typical value of coefficient of variation of about 30% (and

maximum of 45%) as per general state of practice and hence, is acceptable.

8.4 Reliability Analysis of Settlement (from N-values)

8.4.1 The Coefficient of Variation of settlement of foundations determined based on N-values

observed in each individual borehole has been determined to vary from 10.2% to 11.1%

for different widths of foundations giving an average coefficient of variation of about

10.7%.

G(B)8676

10

8.4.2 Considering an allowable differential settlement of 20mm, the acceptable maximum

settlement of any foundation will be the mean allowable total settlement + 10mm.

8.4.3 In carrying out the reliability analysis, a factor of safety of 3 has been considered for the

case when the settlement of foundations is equal to the mean allowable total settlement and

the factor of safety is considered to reduce to 1 when the settlement is mean allowable total

settlement ± 10mm.

8.4.4 Accordingly, the standard deviation and coefficient of variation of the factor of safety has

been determined corresponding to the assessed values of the same for the settlement of the

foundations.

8.4.5 Based on the above mean targeted value of factor of safety of 3 and the coefficient of

variation of the factor of safety determined along the lines given above, the reliability

analysis has shown that the reliability index ‘��’ varies from 5.9 for larger widths of

foundations to 8.0 for the smaller widths of foundations giving an average reliability index

of 6.9.

8.4.6 A reliability index of 3.4 indicates that the probability of the factor of safety of settlements

of the foundations falling below 1, is Nil.

9.0 REFERENCES

9.1.1 A list of IS Codes referred for providing the recommendations, and that which might be

required to implement the same has been given in Appendix-B.

M. PRIYAKUMAR

for NAGADI CONSULTANTS PVT LTD

Appendix - A

ANALYSIS FOR ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

Data

(i) Soil Properties :

c = 0.30 kg/cm2 � = 22 0 �b = 2.00 g/cm3

(ii) Depth of Foundation, D = 1.50m below Top of Natural Ground Level

(iii) Allowable Settlement, s = 40mm

G(B)8676

11

( )q 13

23

c N p N 1 0.5 B N Rs c'

q' '

w'= ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ − + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅�

��

��γ γ

qs E

0.7 Hsa = ⋅⋅

Shear Failure Criterion (Ref. IS : 6403)

Nc' = 13.93 Nq' = 5.88 N�' = 4.89 Rw' = 0.50 p =�sub.d = 0.15 kg/cm2

B (cm) 150 300

qs (kg/cm2) 1.30 1.42

Settlement Criterion (Ref. IS : 8009)- Allowable Settlement, s = 40mm, Rw' =0.50

(i) From N :values

B (cm) 150 300

Hs (cm)

300 600

Nav

25 25

qa (kg/cm2) 2.19 1.84

(ii) From Triaxial Compression Tests :

s (mm) 40 40

B (cm) 150 300

Hs (cm) 300 600

E (kg/cm2) 75 150

qa (kg/cm2) 1.43 1.43

ADOPTB (cm) 150 300 & above

q (kg/cm2) 1.40 1.40

Note : qs and qa are NET VALUES, Weight of backfill etc. need not be added to the loadingexcept in case of filling above original G.L

Appendix - B

LIST OF IS CODES

Field Investigation

1. IS : 1498 - 1970 : Classification and identification of soils for general engineering

purposes (First Revision) (Amendment 2)

2. IS : 1888 - 1982 : Method of load test on soil (Second revision)

G(B)8676

12

3. IS : 1892 - 1979 : Code of practice for sub surface investigations for foundations

(First revision)

4. IS : 2131 - 1981 : Method of Standard Penetration Tests for soils (First revision)

5. IS : 2132 - 1986 : Code of practice for thin walled tube sampling of soils (Second

revision)

6. IS : 3043 - 1966 : Code of practice for earthing (Third reprint) January 1979.

Laboratory Tests

1. IS : 2720 - 1983 (Part 1) : Methods of test for soils: Preparation of dry soil samples for

various tests (Second revision)

2. IS : 2720 - 1980 (Part 2) : Method of test for soils: Determination of water content

(Second revision) Amendment 1

3. IS : 2720 - 1980 (Part 3/Sec 1) : Method of test for soils : Determination of Specific

Gravity : Fine grained soils. (First revision)

4. IS : 2720 - 1980 (Part 3/Sec 2) : Method of test for soils : Determination of Specific

Gravity : Fine, Medium & Coarse grained soils.

(First revision).

5. IS : 2720 - 1985 (Part 4) : Method of test for soils : Grain size analysis (Second

revision)

6. IS : 2720 - 1985 (Part 5) : Method of test for soils : Determination of liquid and

plastic limit (Second revision)

7. IS : 2720 - 1977 (Part 40) : Methods of tests for soils: Determination of free swell

index of soils

8. IS : 2720 - 1977 (Part 41) : Methods of tests for soils : Determination of swelling

pressure of soils.

Foundation Construction

1. IS : 1080 - 1986 : Code of practice for design and construction of shallow foundations

on soils (other than raft, ring and shell) (Second revision)

2. IS : 1904 - 1986 : Code of practice for design and construction of foundation in soils:

General requirements (Third revision)

3. IS 6403 - 1981 : Code of practice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow

G(B)8676

13

foundations : First revision (Amendment 1)

4. IS 8009 - 1976 (Part 1) : Code of practice for calculation of settlements of

foundations : Shallow foundations subject to symmetrical

static vertical loads (Amendment 2)

5. IS 1893 - 1984 : Criteria for Earthquake resistant design of structures (Fourth

revision).

1

G(B

)8676

SOIL PROFILE Project : Group Housing Complex at Sy Nos 78,79, 80 etc, Attur, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore

B.H. Location : Water Table : Nil Term. Depth : 6.00m B.H. No.: 1

� N

- Value

Depth

(m) Soil Description

Grain Size AnalysisAtterberg

LimitsIn-situ

propertiesTriaxial Test

Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

25

40

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00

Existing ground level

Brown clayey silty sand

Grey silty clayey sand

Light bluish grey with yellowish brown siltyclayey sand with traces of gravel

Yellowish brown with grey silty clayey sand

Yellow with grey and red silty clayey sand

Note : 1) �N-Value (Observed) 2) �b : Bulk Density

0

3

0

45

42

66

16

19

12

39

36

22

46

-

24

21

-

13

2.01

2.05

15.6

17.0

CD

CD

0.40

0.30

17

24

2

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

17

27

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00



Bluish grey with yellow silty clayey sand

Brownish yellow with grey silty clayey sand

Brownish yellow with grey and red silty clayeysand

Brownish yellow with grey and red silty clayeysand


0

0

42

46

21

22

37

32

44

41

23

20

1.98

1.96

13.6

12.5

CD

CD

0.35

0.25

22

25

3

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

37

45

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00



Grey silty sandy clay

Brownish yellow with grey silty clayey sandwith gravel




0

5

0

30

62

66

22

12

14

48

21

20

55

-

27

27

-

15

2.00

2.00

25.3

15.2

CD

CD

0.45

0.20

17

27

4

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

24

37

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00




Grey with brown silty clayey sand




0

0

0

63

72

54

15

12

19

22

16

27

-

-

35

-

-

16

1.98

1.99

12.5

14.1

CD

CD

0.15

0.20

27

26

5

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

34

46

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00



Light grey with yellow silty clayey sand

Grey with yellowish brown silty clayey sand

Grey with yellowish brown silty clayey sand

Brownish yellow with light bluish grey siltyclayey sand


0

0

65

68

15

13

20

19

26

-

13

-

2.03

1.96

16.8

12.1

CD

CD

0.20

0.20

24

28

6

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

25

48

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00


Brown silty clayey sand

Dark grey with brown silty clayey sand

Greyish brown silty clayey sand


Dark yellow with light bluish grey silty clayeysand


0

0

0

0

55

62

62

55

20

16

15

21

25

22

23

24

34

-

-

31

18

-

-

16

1.99

1.97

14.4

13.1

CD

CD

0.25

0.30

24

24

7

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

24

46

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00

Existing ground


Dark grey silty sandy clay


Yellowish brown with light grey silty clayeysand

Yellowish brown with light grey silty gravellyclayey sand


0

0

18

35

45

44

17

18

15

48

37

23

55

-

28

23

-

15

1.94

2.01

28.2

16.3

CD

CD

0.50

0.35

15

22

8

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

27

49

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00




Light bluish grey with yellow silty clayey sand

Yellowish brown with light bluish grey siltysandy clay

Yellowish brown with light bluish grey siltysandy clay


0

0

0

37

45

38

26

20

13

37

35

49

-

42

54

-

22

25

2.02

2.00

20.0

17.4

CD

CD

0.40

0.45

40

18

9

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

20

32

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00



Dark bluish grey with yellow silty clayey sand

Grey with yellow silty clayey sand




0

0

0

57

47

48

17

25

24

26

28

28

32

-

38

15

-

17

2.02

2.03

18.2

17.5

CD

CD

0.25

0.30

22

23

10

G(B

)8676



� N

- Value

Depth



LimitsIn-situ


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid (%

)

Plastic

(%)

Density

�b (g/cm

3)

Water

Cont (%

)

Type

c(kg/cm2)

�( O)

17

32

0.00

0.50

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00





Yellow with grey clayey gravelly sand with silt



0

0

30

53

58

51

20

16

8

27

26

11

-

31

-

-

15

-

2.03

2.00

16.5

13.0

CD

CD

0.20

0.15

25

29

G(B)8676

1

TABLE NO . 11RESULTS OF UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTS

Bore Hole No

Depth (m)

Unconfined CompressionStrength (qu) kg/cm2

3 1.50 1.37

7 4.50 1.71

8 6.00 1.55

TABLE NO :12 RESULTS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY TESTS

Bore Hole No

Depth (m)

Specific Gravity (Gs)

2 1.50 2.62

3 6.00 2.60

4. 3.00 2.65

7 1.50 2.60

9 4.50 2.59

10 6.00 2.63

TABLE NO :13RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL SAMPLES

Bore Hole No

Depth (m)

pH Chloride (cl) %

Sulphate (SO3) %

3 1.50 6.7 0.036 0.060

9 4.50 7.3 0.011 0.051

10 3.00 7.1 0.018 0.024

BH1 BH2

Soil Profile Legend

25 : N – value (Observed)E.G.L. : Existing ground level

E.G.L. E.G.L.

6.0

E.G.L.

De

pt

h (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

G(B

)8676

3 Note : Water table not encountered

25

40

17

27

Brown clayey silty sandBrown clayey silty sand


Light bluish grey with yellowish brownsilty clayey sand with traces of gravel


Yellow with grey and red silty clayeysand

Bluish grey with yellow silty clayeysand

Brownish yellow with grey siltyclayey sand

Brownish yellow with grey and redsilty clayey sand

Project :Group Housing Complex,SyNo.68,69/1(p),etc.,Attur, Yelahanka, Bangalore

BH3 BH4

Soil ProfileLegend


E.G.L. E.G.L.

6.0

E.G.L.

De

pt

h (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

G(B

)8676

4

Note : Water table not encountered

37

45

24

37

Brown clayey silty sandBrown clayey silty sand

Grey silty sandy clay

Brownish yellow with grey silty clayeysand with gravel

Yellowish brown with grey silty clayeysand Yellowish brown with grey silty

clayey sand


Grey with brown silty clayey sand


BH5 BH6

Soil Profile Legend


E.G.L. E.G.L.

6.0

E.G.L.

De

pt

h (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

G(B

)8676

5


34

46

25

48

Brown clayey silty sand Brown silty clayey sand


Grey with yellowish brown silty clayeysand

Brownish yellow with light bluish greysilty clayey sand

Dark grey with brown silty clayeysand

Yellowish brown with grey silty clayeysand

Greyish Brown silty clayey sand

Dark yellow with light bluish grey siltyclayey sand


BH7 BH8

Soil ProfileLegend


E.G.L. E.G.L.

6.0

E.G.L.

De

pt

h (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

G(B

)8676

6 Note : Water table not encountered

24

46

27

49

Brown clayey silty sand Brown clayey silty sand

Dark grey silty sandy clay


Yellowish brown with light grey silty clayey sand


Light bluish grey with yellow silty clayeysand

Yellowish brown with light bluish greysilty sandy clay

Yellowish brown with light grey siltygravelly clayey sand


BH9 BH10

Soil ProfileLegend


E.G.L. E.G.L.

6.0

E.G.L.

De

pt

h (

m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

G(B

)8676

7


20

32

17

32

Brown clayey silty sand Brown clayey silty sand

Dark bluish grey with yellow siltyclayey sand








Compiled Soil Profile

Legend

: N – value (Observed)

E.G.L. : Existing Ground Level

Sheet No. 2

Nagadi Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,Geotechnical Consultants,Bangalore.

Job No.G(B)8676

U2/1 : Second Undisturbed Sample in Bore Hole No. 1

25


BH1 BH2

6.0

E.G.L.

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

25

40

17

27

U1/1

U2/1

U1/2

U2/2

De

pt

h (

m)

BH3

37

45

U1/3

U2/3

24

37

U1/4

U2/4

BH4 BH5

34

46

U1/5

U2/5

25

48

U1/6

U2/6

BH6 BH7

24

46

U1/7

U2/7

BH8

27

49

U1/8

U2/8

BH9

20

32

U1/9

U2/9

BH10

17

32

U2/10

U1/10

Brown, clayey silty sand toSilty claayey sand[gravel(0%)sand(55%)silt(20%)clay(25%)]

Bluish grey with yellow,and grey with brown,Silty clayey sand[gravel(0%)sand(30-63%)silt(10-22%)clay(20-48%)]

Bluish grey with yellowish brown,to yellowish brown with grey,silty clayey sand,tosilty sandy clay[gravel()%)sand(30-66%)silt(8-24%)clay(11-49%)]

Project : Group Housing Complex,SyNo.68,69/1(p),etc.,Attur, Yelahanka, Bangalore

G(B)8676

1

Legend::Bore Hole

NOTE: Sketch Not To Scale

Site Plan and Location Of Bore Holes

To Yelahanka Satellite Town

To Ananthapura

High Tension Line

High Tension Line

N

28m

40m

40m

BH-2

BH-1

40m 44mBH-3

BH-4

BH-5

40m

57m

29m

45m

BH-9

36m

55mBH-6

LAKE

BH-10

BH-7

19m

8m

38m29m

20m

25m32m

BH-8

108m

48m

Fencing

Fencing


Symbol Bore hole

Depth (m) Description Gravel

(%)Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

d60 d10 U

1 1.5 Grey silty clayey sand 0 45 16 39 0.13 - -

1 3.0Light blusih grey with yellowish brown silty clayey sand with traces of gravel 3 42 19 36 0.13 - -

1 6.0Yellow with grey and red silty clayey sand 0 66 12 22 0.4 - -

2 1.5Bluish grey with yellow silty clayey sand 0 42 21 37 0.09 - -

2 4.5Brownish yellow with grey and red silty clayey sand 0 46 22 32 0.13 - -

G(B

)86768

0102030405060708090

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

grain size (mm)

perc

enta

ge fi

ner

SiltClaySand

Fine Medium Coarse

Gravel

Fine Coarse

0.002 0.075 0.425 2 204.75

Symbol Bore hole


(%)Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

d60 d10 U

3 1.5 Grey silty sandy clay 0 30 22 48 0.018 - -

3 3.0Brownish yellow with grey silty clayey sand with gravel 5 62 12 21 0.29 - -

3 6.0Yellowish brown with grey silty clayey sand 0 66 14 20 0.32 - -


4 3.0 Grey with brown silty clayey sand 0 72 12 16 0.7 - -

G(B

)86769

0102030405060708090

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

grain size (mm)

perc

enta

ge fi

ner

SiltClaySand

Fine Medium Coarse

Gravel

Fine Coarse

0.002 0.075 0.425 2 204.75

Symbol Bore hole


(%)Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

d60 d10 U

4 4.5Yellowisih brown with grey silty clayey sand 0 54 19 27 0.17 - -

5 1.5Light grey with yellow silty clayey sand 0 65 15 20 0.23 - -

5 4.5Grey with yellowish brown silty clayey sand 0 68 13 19 0.28 - -

6 0.5 Brown silty clayey sand 0 55 20 25 0.18 - -

6 1.5 Dark grey with brown silty clayey sand 0 62 16 22 0.17 - -

G(B

)867610

0102030405060708090

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

grain size (mm)

perc

enta

ge fi

ner

SiltClaySand

Fine Medium Coarse

Gravel

Fine Coarse

0.002 0.075 0.425 2 204.75

Symbol Bore hole


(%)Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

d60 d10 U

6 3.0 Greyish brown silty clayey sand 0 62 15 23 0.21 - -

6 6.0Dark yellow with light bluish grey silty clayey sand 0 55 21 24 0.19 - -

7 1.5 Dark grey silty sandy clay 0 35 17 48 0.02 - -

7 4.5Yellowish brown with light grey silty clayey sand 0 45 18 37 0.11 - -

7 6.0Yellowish brown with light grey silty gravelly clayey sand 18 44 15 23 0.8 - -

G(B

)867611

0102030405060708090

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

grain size (mm)

perc

enta

ge fi

ner

SiltClaySand

Fine Medium Coarse

Gravel

Fine Coarse

0.002 0.075 0.425 2 204.75

Symbol Bore hole


(%)Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

d60 d10 U

8 1.5 Dark grey with brown sitly clayey sand 0 37 26 37 0.12 - -

8 3.0Light bluish grey with yellow silty clayey sand 0 45 20 35 0.29 - -

8 6.0Yellowish brown with light bluish grey silty sandy clay 0 38 13 49 0.15 - -

9 1.5Dark bluish grey with yellow silty clayey sand 0 57 17 26 0.21 - -

9 3.0 Grey with yellow silty clayey sand 0 47 25 28 0.19 - -

G(B

)867612

0102030405060708090

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

grain size (mm)

perc

enta

ge fi

ner

SiltClaySand

Fine Medium Coarse

Gravel

Fine Coarse

0.002 0.075 0.425 2 204.75

Symbol Bore hole


(%)Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

d60 d10 U

9 6.0Yellowish brown with grey silty clayey sand 0 48 24 28 0.13 - -


10 3.0 Grey with yellow silty clayey sand 0 58 16 26 0.2 - -

10 4.5Yellow with grey clayey gravelly sand with silt 30 51 8 11 1.14 0.002 570.0

G(B

)867613

0102030405060708090

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

grain size (mm)

perc

enta

ge fi

ner

SiltClaySand

Fine Medium Coarse

Gravel

Fine Coarse

0.002 0.075 0.425 2 204.75

G(B)8676

14

N Values vs Depth Curves

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

N Value (Observed)

Dep

th (m

)

BH1

BH2

BH3

BH4

BH5

LEGEND

G(B)8676

15

N Values vs Depth Curves

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

N Value (Observed)

Dep

th (m

)

BH6

BH7

BH8

BH9

BH-10

LEGEND

BWSSB/Bought out Water

Roof Top

Rain Water

80% after diversity

90% of available STP water is 213 KLD

Domestic water reqt179 KLD

Flushing water reqt90 KLD

Total water reqt296 cum/day

Waste water generated237 cum/day

Landscaping123 KLD

Roof water22 cum/day(Seasonal)

Flushing water is90.0 KLD

Sewage Treatment Plant240 KLD

FEASIBILITY REPORT ONWATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMFORPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTSBUILDINGSBANGALORE

1) INTRODUCTION.

M/s.Century Builders, which is setting up a Residential development at Yelahanka, Hobli, Bangalore in

with a view to conserve fresh water resources and adopt re cycle and re-use measures. They propose

to set up a water pollution control and re-use system for the wastewater generated from entire complex

and also

proposed to harvest and recharge ground water as storm water management. The only

sources of wastewaters are from toilets, kitchen and washbasins etc in the lay out and

therefore domestic in nature.

This report details the following from the proposed facility. Collection, Treatment and

Disposal of Domestic Effluents.

2) QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WASTE WATERS

The Total no. of flats of the residential project is 399 and projected occupants are 1995 nos. averagewater demand considered is 135 LPCD. Flushing water requirement is 45 LPCD..The wastewater quantity from domestic sources is considered at maximum of80% of water consumed. Hence the quantity of wastewater generated is as below.

Quantity of water consumed = 296 cum/dayQuantity of wastewater flow = 237 cum/day

Treatment plant for treating sewage in the project has been proposed for a capacity of 240cum/day

Proposed quality of raw and treated sewage is as below

Quality of raw wastewater:pH = 6 – 8TSS = 400 Mg / LitBOD5 = 300 Mg/LitCOD = 450 Mg/Lit

Quality of treated wastewater:pH = 6.5 – 7.5TSS = <20 Mg / LitBOD5 = <10 Mg/LitCOD = <150 Mg/LitColor = unobjectionableOdor = unobjectionableTurbidity = < 2Ecoli = noneRes cl2 = < 1

3) PROPOSED TREATMENT SCHEME

Based on the quantity & quality of wastewater & also to substantiate the StatePollution Control Board requirements, it is proposed to treat the wastewater underbiological process known as Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process is a sequential suspendedgrowth (activated sludge), followed by Filtration & Disinfection.

The treatment methodology comprises of the following units.a) Bar screen

b) Collection and equalization

c) SBR 1 & 2

d) Decant tank.

e) Sludge holding tank

f) Final Sump

g) Pressure Sand Filtration & Activated Carbon Filtration

l) On-line Chlorination

Following is a description of individual treatment units, with their design criteria,dimensions, mechanical equipment selection etc.,

DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT UNITS

A. BAR SCREEN

In the incoming channel, a chamber medium screen shall be fitted, the purpose ofwhich is to filter out coarse trashy matter from introducing into succeeding unitsof the treatment plant. Screens shall be made of M.S Construction with EpoxyPainted.

Channel Size :

Type of screen : M.S Construction manually cleaned with MS flatsplaced at 20 mm c/c with MS hand rake withhandle all epoxy painted.

B. EQUALISATION TANKIn order to homogenize the quality of wastewater, as well as to feed wastewaterat a uniform rate to the rest of the treatment plant, an equalization tank isproposed. In order to mix the contents, as well as to provide a degree ofpreparation, diffused aeration by means of membranes and blowers areproposed.

Capacity : 75 CumAeration : Coarse diffuser

C. SBR TANK 1 & SBR TANK 2Biological stabilization of the wastewater is accomplished in the aeration tank inthe presence of microorganisms, for the respiration of which, oxygen is suppliedby means of diffused aeration comprising membrane diffusers and Air blowers.

BOD in expected : 300 mg/LBOD out desired : 20 mg/LTank Volume : 200 cumDiffusers : Fine pore diffusers.F: M : 0.1MLSS : 4000 Mg/Lit

D. AIR BLOWERS

Type : Twin lobe compressorCapacity : 350M3/Hr

E. DECANT TANK

The mixed liquor (waster water with micro-organism) exiting in the aerationtank has to be clarified in a clarifier tank having hopper bottom, in order toreduce the T.S.S. in the clarified waster, as well as to thicken the biomass forrecirculation back to the aeration tank in order to maintain the design MLSS(Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids)

Overflow Rate : 18 Cum/Sqm/DayRecirculation : 85%D.P. : 2 Hrs

F. SLUDGE DISPOSAL

The biomass in the aeration tank stabilizes BOD in wastewater by consuming theorganic matter in the wastewater. The metabolic activity results in growth of thebiomass population in the aeration tank. Consequently, in order to contain thelevel of M.L.S.S. in the aeration tank to the design level of 4000 Mg/L, it will benecessary to bleed off or waste the excess activated sludge. For this purpose aSludge holding tank of 23 cum for residential has been provided for dewatering sludge.

G. PRE FILTER WATER SUMP

The settled water from the settling tank is expected to meet the standards withrespect to BOD and TSS for discharge to inland surface waters. However it is ourintention to improve the quality of treated water further in order to be able to reuse.For this reason, further treatment in the form of coagulation, filtration anddisinfection’s is proposed. The clear water from the settling tank shall be fed toclarified water tank and pumped to filters for tertiary treatment.

Tank capacity : 40 cumFilter feed pump : 18 cum / hr at 35 M head.

H. PRESSURE SAND FILTERVertical down flow type with graded gravel / sand bed. Under drain plate withpolystyrene strainers.

Diameter : 1400 diaDepth of media : 1000 MMTest Pressure : 5 Kg. / Sq.cmRate of filtration : 10 cum /Sq.m / hr.

AC FILTERS

As above but with 1400 mm GAC

J. CHLORINATOR100 Lit tank & 4 LPH Metering Pump for STP.

K. FINAL SUMP

One No. Final Sump of 120 cum for residential is also provided to hold Filtered water, beforepumping to gardens and toilet flushing purpose.

Schematic of Sequential Batch reactor

To filter press

DESIGN DETAILS

Rational formula for calculating runoff = Q = (C I A) / 360Q = Runoff in m3/secI = Intensity of rainfall in mm/ hr.A = Drainage area in hectares.C = Co-efficient of run off as belowRun-off co-efficient for various types of surfacesOpen grounds, unpaved street 0.3Parks, lawns, gardens 0.1Macadam roads, pavements 0.7Asphalt pavements 0.85Water tight roof surface 0.95

Total Run-off : ROOF TOPQ = Runoff 0.024975 m3/secI = Intensity of rainfall 75 mm/hrA = Drainage area in hectares. 0.1332 hecC = Co-efficient of run off 0.9 cum

Data assumed:Considering 15 min of rainfallVolume of rainwater available for harvesting 22.4775 cumexisting RWH sump 22.4775

Total Run-off : GARDEN AREA

Q = Runoff 0.043733 m3/secI = Intensity of rainfall 75 mm/hrA = Drainage area in hec 2.09916C = Co-efficient of run off 0.1

Data assumed:Considering 15 min of rainfallVolume of rainwater available for recharging is 40% 15.7437 cum(Losses due to runoff, evaporation, absorption and evap-transpiration is 60%)

Total Run-off : HARDSCAPE & DRIVEWAYQ = Runoff 0.119656 m3/hrI = Intensity of rainfall 75 mm/hrA = Drainage area in sqm 0.8205C = Co-efficient of run off 0.7

Data assumed:Considering 15 min of rainfall

43.07625 cumVolume of rainwater available for recharging is 40%total run off 58.81995

Rain Water Harvesting : Century Square

total depth of chamber 3mtr and 2mtr. Diaeach recharge pit will take care of about 14 cum 0.05 cusec4 nos of recharge pits considered to take the water 4total water to internal drain 2.81995

Traffic Impact Assessment Studiesfor

Proposed Residential Building of Attur Village, Yelahanka Hobli,

Bangalore.

Prepared by,

M/s Consortia Of Infrastructure EngineersVijayanagar, Bangalore-40

Email: [email protected]

Traffic Impact Assessment

Before Construction

Road Geometrics

Road Connectivity

Speed

Vehicular Noise

Traffic VolumeV/C & LOS

During Construction

Addition Trucks(constructionMaterials)

Impact in V/C & LOS

Requirements for operation

Traffic Projection

Traffic dataFrom tptDept

MathematicalModeling

IRC Methodfor projection

ProjectedTraffic

V/C & LOS

After Construction

Parking

Traffic flow logistics

Modified Scenario of V/C &LOS

Impact

Changed Scenarioif any for reductionin V/C & LOS

Traffic ManagementMeasures

Google Image

Project Site

Location Plan

Project site

Site Plan

Road Geometric Scenario

Note: A – Available NA – Not Available

Road

ROW(m)

Surface Condition

Street lights

Drainage width (m)

Road

RemarksMarking Signs

CW(m)

Lanes

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided)

12

Good A A NA NA

Road marking has to has to be

marked &Sign board has to be

installed.

7

2

New Town Road(2+2 lanes divided)

24

Good A AAvailablebut faded

outNA

Road marking has to has to be

marked &Sign board has to be

installed.

8+8

2+2

The project is located along Attur Road having RoW of 12m.

Attur road is 2 lanes undivided road which connects to Ananthpura on

one side and New town Road on another side.

New Town Road is (2+2) lanes divided road having 24m RoW which

connects Doddballapur Road one side and Vidyaranyapura on another

side.

The project can also be accessed from other places of Bangalore city

such as Ananthapura, Attur, Yelahanka Road, Bettahalli Layout,

Doddaballapur Road, Airport Road etc.,

Hence pressure will not develop to any one particular road and traffic

gets distributed to various roads as stated above.

Road Connectivity

12m RoW, 7m CW, 2.5m FCD on

either side of the road

24m RoW, 8+8m CW, 1m Median, 1m drain on

either side of the road, 2m FP on one side & 3m FP on another side of the

road.

Existing Road Geometry Scenario

Project site

New Town RoadNew Town Road

Photos of Study Roads Date:28/03/2017

Doddaballapur RoadVidyaranyapuraVidyaranyapura

Doddaballapur Road

Ananthpur

Attur Road

New Town roadAnanthpurNew Town road

Speed spectrum for the study road (kmph)

Road Towards

2 Wh 3 Wh 4 Wh (C,J,V) B/L

Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided) 42 25 24 18 42 25 29 24

New TownRoad

(2+2 lanes divided)

Doddaballapur Road 43 27 29 22 50 38 32 26

Vidyaranyapura 40 26 26 20 48 33 35 23

The observed speed indicates that the vehicles are well within the speed limits andhence the road safety is ensured.

Real time traffic scenario along Attur Road (2 lanes undivided)

Note: The highest peak observed is 425 PCU’s as per IRC-106:1990 during 9.00 am to 10.00 am.

Timing 2Wh 3Wh 4Wh B/L Total V/C

7.00-8.00am 197(99) 30(23) 96(96) 15(45) 338(262) 0.12

8.00-9.00 291(146) 44(33) 121(121) 17(51) 473(351) 0.16

9:00-10:00 372(186) 48(36) 146(146) 19(57) 585(425) 0.19

10:00-11:00 314(157) 35(26) 158(158) 16(48) 523(389) 0.18

4:00-5:00pm 201(101) 29(22) 102(102) 14(42) 346(266) 0.12

5:00-6:00 234(117) 38(29) 110(110) 18(54) 400(310) 0.14

6:00-7:00 278(139) 53(40) 171(171) 15(45) 517(395) 0.18

7:00-8:00 257(129) 41(31) 134(134) 22(66) 454(359) 0.16

Vehicle Composition and Traffic flow distribution along Attur Road(2 lanes undivided)

Real time traffic scenario along New Town Road towards Doddaballapur Road (2 lanes)

Note: The highest peak observed is 1511 PCU’s as per IRC-106:1990 during 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm.


7.00-8.00am 276(138) 68(51) 328(328) 86(258) 758(775) 0.35

8.00-9.00 482(241) 91(68) 549(549) 112(336) 1234(1194) 0.54

9:00-10:00 504(252) 142(107) 647(647) 139(417) 1432(1423) 0.65

10:00-11:00 410(205) 129(97) 428(428) 130(390) 1097(1120) 0.51

4:00-5:00pm 332(166) 83(62) 386(386) 102(306) 903(920) 0.42

5:00-6:00 463(232) 106(80) 529(529) 125(375) 1223(1215) 0.55

6:00-7:00 549(275) 154(116) 674(674) 149(447) 1526(1511) 0.69

7:00-8:00 379(190) 138(104) 587(587) 157(471) 1261(1351) 0.61

Vehicle Composition and Traffic flow distribution along New Town Road towards Doddaballapur Road (2 lanes)

Real time traffic scenario along New Town Road towards Vidyaranyapura (2 lanes)

Note: The highest peak observed is 1481 PCU’s as per IRC-106:1990 during 9.00 am to 10.00 am.


7.00-8.00am 316(158) 87(65) 351(351) 84(252) 838(826) 0.38

8.00-9.00 415(208) 127(95) 439(439) 143(429) 1124(1171) 0.53

9:00-10:00 601(301) 189(142) 637(637) 134(402) 1561(1481) 0.67

10:00-11:00 434(217) 128(96) 543(543) 125(375) 1230(1231) 0.56

4:00-5:00pm 348(174) 112(84) 384(384) 74(222) 918(864) 0.39

5:00-6:00 406(203) 145(109) 496(496) 91(273) 1138(1081) 0.49

6:00-7:00 562(281) 168(126) 598(598) 128(384) 1456(1389) 0.63

7:00-8:00 485(243) 151(113) 662(662) 103(309) 1401(1327) 0.60

Vehicle Composition and Traffic flow distribution along New Town Road towards Vidyaranyapura (2+2 lanes divided)

Road Towards V C Existing V/C Ratio LOS

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided) 425 2200 0.19 A


Doddaballapur Road 1511 2200 0.69 D

Vidyaranyapura 1481 2200 0.67 D

V= Volume in PCU’s/hr & C= Capacity in PCU’s/ hr LOS = Level of Service

V/C LOS Performance

0.0 - 0.2 A Excellent

0.2 - 0.4 B Very Good

0.4 - 0.6 C Good

0.6 - 0.8 D Fair/Average

0.8 - 1.0 E Poor

1.0& Above F Very Poor

Existing Traffic Scenario for Study roads

Note: IRC is accepting the fact that, in Indian roads the real congestion starts when V/C ratio is >1, i.e., for

forced flow. Till this limit the road is free for traffic movement without any impediments. Hence it is

acceptable as normal upto V/C =1 and the performance will be taken as good only

Road TowardsAs per study (per minute)

2wh 3wh 4wh Buses/ Lorries

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided) 6 or 7 1 or 2 2 or 3 1 or 2


Doddaballapur Road 9 or 10 2 or 3 10 or 11 2 or 3

Vidyaranyapura 10 or 11 3 or 4 10 or 11 2 or 3

The Project is located along Attur road, the entry and exit is provided through thesame.

All types of vehicles i.e., 2Wh, 3Wh, 4Wh, Trucks and Buses/Lorries move along allthe study roads.

The observed speed indicates that the vehicles are well within the speed limits and hence theroad safety is ensured.

Real Time Traffic Scenario

425 PCU’s/ hr9.00 to 10.00 am

Real Time Traffic Scenario

Project site

During Construction The addition of 10 Lorries per day carrying construction material do not change any

significantly the traffic flow. Hence OK.

V/C during construction (Lorries) =0.19, 0.69 & 0.67

The present level of service will remain “ A, D & D” along Attur Road and Newtown road towards Doddaballapur Road and Vidyaranyapura respectively.

Number of trucks coming to the site (Off peak hours)

Day time –10 no’s.

The addition do not make any significant change for traffic movement at any giventime.

Vehicles carrying construction materials are well covered to prevent any spillage.

Vehicles hired for construction material will be in good condition and conforms tonoise and air emission standards.

Vehicles will operate only during non peak hours.

Parking logisticsParking required

Parking Provided-438 PCU’s

Activity Units Car Parking at Total required

Residential398 1 Car/Unit 398

10% visitors 40

Total no. of car required 438

Traffic Flow Logistics Since the activity is Residential, the vehicles will move from & to the

Project between 8:00am to 11:00am as egress & 6:00pm to 9:00pm as ingress.

Total traffic generated from this project =438 PCU’s.

Therefore, the hourly volume in PCU’s will be 438/3 = 146 PCU’s/hr.

This hourly generated traffic of 146 PCU’s/hr will distribute as follows.

100% of the generated traffic will first exit on to Attur Road and 20% of the

traffic moves towards Ananthapura remaining 80% moves towards New Town

Road along Attur Road .

i.e., 20% x 146 = 29 PCU’s/hr will move along Attur Road towards

Ananthapura.

80% x 146 =117 PCU’s/hr will move along Attur Road towards New

Town Road

Out of 117 PCU’s/hr , 70% of the traffic moves towards Vidyaranyapura from New

Town Road and remaining 30% move towards Doddaballapur Road from New Town

Road.

i.e., 70% x 117 = 82 PCU’s/hr will move towards Vidyaranyapura from New

Town Road.

30% x 117 = 35 PCU’s/hr will move towards Doddaballapur Road from

New Town Road.

Contd…

Modified V/C and LOS after adding generated traffic to existing traffic

Road Towards Existing Modified

V C V/C LOS V V/C LOSAttur Road

(2 lanes undivided) 425 2200 0.19 A 425+146= 571 0.26 B

New TownRoad

(2+2 lanes divided)

Doddaballapur Road 1511 2200 0.69 D 1511+35=1546 0.70 D

Vidyaranyapura 1481 2200 0.67 D 1481+82= 1563 0.71 D

Projected traffic for next three years based on individual vehicular growth as per IRC : 37-2001

(Exponential Growth is considered)

RoadVehicle Type 2Wh 3Wh 4Wh B/L

Total% Growth 7.68 6.53 11.82 7.14Towards

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided) 464(232) 58(44) 204(204) 23(69) 750(549)

New TownRoad

(2+2 lanes divided)

Doddaballapur Road 685(343) 186(140) 942(942) 183(549) 1997(1974)

Vidyaranyapura 750(375) 228(171) 891(891) 165(495) 2034(1932)

Note : Considering the neighboring development if any along with traffic growthpotential based on the socio-economic growth. The equation as recommended by IRCto work out the future generated traffic.

Modified V/C and LOS

Road Towards

Projected Traffic for next three year

Modified V/C and LOS after adding the generated traffic

V C V/C LOS V V/C LOS

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided) 549 2200 0.25 B 549+146=695 0.32 B

New TownRoad

(2+2 lanes divided)

Doddaballapur Road 1974 2200 0.90 E 1974+35=2009 0.91 E

Vidyaranyapura 1932 2200 0.88 E 1932+82=2014 0.92 E

BDA-CDP Map

Note: As per BDA-CDP Map, Attur Road is already widened

`

Project site

Changed Scenario after Commuter Rail System in Operation

Commuter Rail System (CRS) is also proposed from Chikkaballapur to Yelahanka. Asper the studies, about 15% of road traffic will be shared by CRS.

0.15 x 695= 104 Then the traffic reduces to 695– 104 = 591 along Attur road.

0.15x 2009 = 301 Then the traffic reduces to 2009 – 301= 1708 along New town

road towards Doddaballapur Road.

0.15x 2014= 302 Then the traffic reduces to 2014– 302= 1712 along New town road

towards Vidyaranyapura.

Road Towards

Modified V/C and LOS after adding the generated traffic

Changed Scenario(After introducing Commuter

Rail)

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

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided) 695 2200 0.32 B 591 2200 0.27 B

New TownRoad

(2+2 lanes divided)

Doddaballapur Road 2009 2200 0.91 E 1708 2200 0.78 D

Vidyaranyapura 2014 2200 0.92 E 1712 2200 0.78 D

Changed Scenario

Road Towards

Existing traffic

Changed V/C and LOS by adding

generated traffic

Projected traffic after three years

Modified V/C and LOS by adding the

generated traffic

Changed Scenario 2

(After introducing Commuter

Rail)

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

Attur Road(2 lanes undivided) 0.19 A 0.26 B 0.25 B 0.32 B 0.27 B

New TownRoad

(2+2 lanes divided)

Doddaballapur Road 0.69 D 0.70 D 0.90 E 0.91 E 0.78 D

Vidyaranyapura 0.67 D 0.71 D 0.88 E 0.92 E 0.78 D

Consolidated V/C and level of service for changed scenarios

Note : There will be only a marginal shift in V/C and do not have any impact.

Structural and Non structural intervention measures:

Structural measures:As per BDA-CDP Map, Attur Road is already widened.

Commuter Rail System (CRS) is also proposed from Chikkaballapur to Yelahanka.

Since this being a residential activity, safe footpath must be created and barricaded for

safety of along the roads.

Rubber humps will have to be introduced for the outgoing vehicles from the project

site at the exit gate drive way, not more than 3m from the gate.

To establish smooth entry & exit of vehicles, bell mouth shape geometry is provided

at the gates. This ensures smooth transition for merging of vehicles.

Merging of vehicles will be performed only to left traffic from the exit gates,

this ensures safety.

All gates are manned with efficient security who can guide the entry and exit

of vehicles.

All precautionary measures are ensured for the safety of construction

laborers while working at the site.

Adequate sign & guide posts for traffic as per IRC (Indian Roads Congress)

or ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers USA) to be installed along study

roads.

Road marking (edge markings in yellow and lane markings in broken white)

must be clearly painted so as to guide the drivers along study roads.

Non -Structural measures:

Date:Project: Century AtturElectrical Power Consumption - Residential

Description Type Power No. Of Total of Allocated C.L

Flat In KW Units in kW

1) TYPE - 1 2 BHK UNIT 3 399 11972) TYPE - 2 3 BHK UNIT 0 03) 04) LIFTS @ 10 KW 10 8 805) COMMON AREA LIGHTING 30 1 306) EXTERNAL LIGHTING 35 1 357) CLUB HOUSE 0 1 08) Pumps9) PHE /STP 45 1 4510) Commercial Loads 0 1 0

TOTAL 1387

Maximim demand in kW at 0.6 diversity factor 832

Consumption of power for 12 hours per day 9986 (1)

Minimum demand in kW at 0.2 diversity factor 277


Total consumption of power per day 13315 ( 1 + 2 )

Total consumption of power per year 48.60 Lakh Units

Date:Project: CenturyElectrical Power Consumption - Residential

Number of flat

Allocated in KW Units

Total C.Lin kW

1 SOLAR STREET LIGHT 0.3 15 4.5

2 CLUB HOUSE 0 0 0

TOTAL 4.5

Maximim demand in kW for solar Gyeser 0

Consumption of power for 3 hours per day 0

Maximim demand in kW for solar street light 4.5

Consumption of power for 6 hours per day 27

Total consumption of power per year 0.10 Lakh Units

Equivalent Power Savings by using Solar 0.10 Lakh Units

Date:Project: Century Electrical Power Consumption - on HF ballast

Power loss using conventional ballast 25%Power loss using HF ballast 14%Savings in power loss using HF ballast 11%

DescriptionType of

Flat

Power Allocated In

KWNo. Of Units

Total C.L in kW

1 BASEMENT LIGHTING 14.4 1 14.40

TOTAL 14.4

Maximim demand in kW at 0.8 diversity factor 11.52

Consumption of power for 4 hours per day 46.08 (1)

Minimum demand in kW at 0.4 diversity factor 5.76

Consumption of power for 8 hours per day 46.08 (2)

Total consumption of power per day 92.16 ( 1 + 2 )

Total consumption of power per year 0.33638 Lakh UnitsSavings in power loss using HF ballast 0.04 Lakh Units

Date:Project: Century Electrical Power Consumption - on Cu. Wound transformer

Power loss using Al. wound transformer 2.48%Power loss using CU. wound transformer 1.25%Savings in power loss using Cu. Wound transformer 1.23%

Description Type of Flat

Power Allocated In

KWNo. Of Units

Total C.L in kW

1) TYPE - 1 2 BHK UNIT 3 399 11972) TYPE - 2 3 BHK UNIT 4 0 03) LIFTS @ 5.5 KW 0 8 04) LIFTS @ 7.5 KW 10 8 805) COMMON AREA LIGHTING 30 1 306) EXTERNAL LIGHTING 35 1 357) CLUB HOUSE 0 1 08) Pumps9) PHE /STP 45 1 4510) Commercial Loads 0 1 0

TOTAL 1387






Total consumption of power per year 30.38 Lakh UnitsSavings in power loss using CU.wound 0.37 Lakh Unitstransformer

Date:Project:Century Electrical Power Consumption - on CFL

Savings in power Using leed as against Fluorescent Lamps 60%

Description Type of Flat

Power Allocated In

KWNo. Of Units

Total C.L in kW

1) TYPE - 1 2 BHK UNIT 3 399 11972) TYPE - 2 3 BHK UNIT 4 0 03) COMMON AREA LIGHTING 50 1 504) EXTERNAL LIGHTING 50 1 505) CLUB HOUSE 45 1 456) Commercial Lighitng 0 1 0

TOTAL 1342






Total consumption of power per year 26.45 Lakh UnitsSavings in power using leed 10.58 Lakh Units

Project:Century Savings in Electrical Power Consumption - SUMMARY

Description

Consumption per year in lakh

kWH

Saving using solar energy in lakh kWH units

Savings using HF ballast in

lakh kWH units

Savings using Cu. wound

transformer in lakh kWH

Savings using leed in

lakh kWH

Savings in Lakh kWH

unitsSavings in percentage

1Residential ( Percentage savings )

48.60 0.1 0.04 0.4 10.6 11.1 22.8

TOTAL 48.60 0.1 0.04 0.4 10.6 11.1

TOTAL percentage 0.2 0.08 0.8 21.8 22.8

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Record high °C (°F) 32.8(91)

35.9(96.6)

37.3(99.1)

39.2(102.6)

38.9(102)

38.1(100.6)

33.3(91.9)

33.3(91.9)

33.3(91.9)

32.4(90.3)

31.7(89.1)

31.1(88)

39.2(102.6)

Average high °C (°F) 27.6(81.7)

30.2(86.4)

33.2(91.8)

35.0(95)

33.8(92.8)

29.4(84.9)

28.1(82.6)

27.5(81.5)

28.3(82.9)

28.0(82.4)

27.0(80.6)

26.2(79.2)

29.4(84.9)

Average low °C (°F) 15.3(59.5)

17.2(63)

19.6(67.3)

21.8(71.2)

21.5(70.7)

20.2(68.4)

19.8(67.6)

19.6(67.3)

19.7(67.5)

19.4(66.9)

17.7(63.9)

16.0(60.8)

19.0(66.2)

Record low °C (°F) 7.8(46)

9.4(48.9)

11.1(52)

14.4(57.9)

16.7(62.1)

16.7(62.1)

16.1(61)

14.4(57.9)

15.0(59)

13.2(55.8)

9.6(49.3)

8.9(48)

7.8(46)

Average rainfall mm (inches) 1.8(0.071)

7.9(0.311)

7(0.28)

40(1.57)

110.2(4.339)

89.1(3.508)

108.9(4.287)

142.5(5.61)

241(9.49)

154.5(6.083)

54.1(2.13)

17.5(0.689)

974.5(38.368)

Average rainy days 0.2 0.5 0.8 3 6.9 6 7.4 10 10.3 7.9 3.9 1.6 58.5

Average relative humidity (%) 60 52 30 43 60 72 76 79 76 73 70 68 63.3

Mean monthly sunshine hours 262.3 247.6 271.4 257.0 241.1 136.8 111.8 114.3 143.6 173.1 190.2 211.7 2,360.9

Source #1: Indian Meteorological Department[75][76]

Source #2: NOAA (humidity and sun: 1971–1990)[77]

Climate data for Bangalore

for the proposed residential project “attur century...

Documents