ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF

WELL FOUNDATION

Under guidance of, Submitted by,

Mr.V.karthik.M.E, S.Rajesh kannan,
Department of civil engineering, C.Nandha Kumar,
G.Praveen kumar,
Paavai engineering college,
J.Mohamed Kasim,
Namakkal. Paavai engineering college,
Namakkal.
1
 ABSTRACT
 The report to accompany that the ANALYSIS , DESIGN AND
DRAFTING OF WELL FOUNDATION.
 The well foundations are quite appropriate foundations for alluvial soils
in rivers where the maximum depth of scour can be quite large.
 Analysis had been carried out using Elastic theory and Ultimate
Resistance method based on the recommendations made by IRC.
 The Circular Well Foundation is designed for the details collected from
P.W.D and bridge near thottilpatty.
 The height of the well foundation is 12m.
 The inner diameter of the well is 7.0m and outer diameter of the well is
10.0m.

2
 Well foundation
 It is the most common type of foundation in India for
both road & railway bridges.
 Such foundation can be sunk to great depths and can
carry very heavy vertical and lateral loads.
 Well foundations can also be installed in a boulder
stratum. It is a massive structure and is relatively
rigid in its structural behaviour.

3
 Well foundation

4
 Situations to carry out well
foundation:
 Wells surrounded by non-cohesive soils, below maximum scour level
and resting on non-cohesive soils;
 Wells surrounded by cohesive soils or mixed strata below maximum
scour level and resting on any strata viz. Cohesive soil, non–cohesive
soil or rock.
 Bridge construction,
 Marine structures, Abutments in lakes, rivers and sea.
 Where the sub-structure is subjected to huge horizontal and vertical
forces.

5
 Types of well foundation

6
 Circular well
 This type of well is used most commonly and the main
points in its favor are its strength.
 Nine meters is generally considered as the maximum
diameter of circular wells.
 The well is generally adopted for piers of single track
railway bridges and those of bridges on narrow roads.
 Allowing cantilever of one meter on either side the
maximum length of the pier resting on this type of well
is about 11 meters.

7
 Double D well

 This type of well is most common for the piers and

abutments of bridges which are too long to be
accommodated on circular well.
 The dimensions of the well are so determined that the
length and the width of the dredge holes are almost
equal.
 The disadvantage of this type of well is that considerable
bending moments are caused in the steining due to the
difference in the earth pressure from outside and water
pressure from inside which results in vertical cracks.

8
 Double octagonal well

 These types of wells are free from the shortcoming of

Double D-well. Blind corners are eliminated and bending
stress in the steining is also reduced considerably.
 They however, offer resistance against sinking on
account of the increased surface are.
 Masonry in steining is also more difficult than in case of
Double D well.

9
 Rectangular well

 These types of foundations are generally adopted for

bridge foundations having shallow depths.
 They can be adopted very conveniently where the bridge
is designed for open foundations and a change of well
foundations becomes necessary during the course of
construction on account of adverse conditions such as
excessive in flow of water and silt into the excavation.

10
 Twin circular well
 This type of foundations consists of two independent
circular wells placed very close to each other with a
common well cap.
 If the depth of sinking is small say up to 6 or 7 meters,
the clear space between the two wells may be kept 0.6
to 1 m to avoid tilting.
 These are advantages only when the depth of sinking is
small and the foundation material is soft rock or kankar
or some other soil capable of taking fairly high loads
 Design of well caps for the twin circular wells also
requires special care.

11
 Multi-cell rectangular well

 For piers and abutments of very large sizes, wells with

multiple dredge holes are used.
 Wells of this type were, however used for the towers of
Howrah Bridge.
 The size of these wells is 24.8m x 55m and there are 21
dredge holes in each of them, in the United States wells
of this type are common.

12
 Parts of a Well

13
 Construction sequence

14
 Design steps:
 Determination of maximum scour depth.
 Depth of foundation.
 Allowable bearing pressure.
 Loads to be considered.
 Design of pier cap.
 Types of well foundation.
 Sinking stresses in well.
 Design of well cap.

15
 Continued..!
 Design of well steining.
 Design of well curb.
 Design of cutting edge.
 Design of bottom plug.
 Top plug and filling.
 Sinking of well.
 Tilts and shifts.

16
 METHODOLOGY

• COLLECTION OF DATA
METTUR
• SITE SELECTION

• PLANNING
IRC-78
IRC-45 • ANALYSIS

IRC • DESIGN
21-200

17
 SPECIFICATIONS

SUBSOIL INVESTIGATION:
The soil from the river bed near Thottilpatty,
Mettur has been collected and the sieve analysis is
made.
The allowing bearing capacity of the soil is found
to be 450kN/m2.
DEPTH OF FOUNDATION:
Normal scour depth = 8.43M
Maximum scour depth = 16.87m
Depth of foundation below HFL = 23m

18
 DATA:
 The following are the details collected from the bridge near
the Thottilpatty, Mettur. (including P.W.D details)
 Main span = 30m
 Suspended span = 15m
 Cantilever span = 7.5m
 Loading = IRC class A loading
 Road width = 8m
 Footpath width = 1.5m
 Maximum design discharge = 7200 m3/sec
 Average velocity of flow = 3 m/sec
 Dead load of main span = 4250 kN

19
  Allowable soil pressure = 450 kN/m2
 Formation level of bridge = 480.00m
 Bed level = 462.50m
 H.F.L = 473.50m
 Level of bearing pins = 475.50m
 Level of the base of bearing pins= 475.20m
 Width of bearing = 500mm
 Type of bed material = medium sand
 Lacey’s silt factor = 1.25

20
 DIMENSIONS OF PIER:

Height of pier = 11.7m

Length of Pier at top = 6.0m
Width of pier at top = 1.0m
Length of pier at bottom = 10.0m
Width of pier at bottom = 3.0m

21
 DIMENSIONS OF WELL:

External diameter = 10.0m

Internal diameter = 7.0m
Thickness of steining = 1.50m
Thickness of well cap = 1.20m
Depth of foundation = 13.0m
Height of Well = 11.8m

22
23
24
 LOAD CALCULATION

 Dead load :
Dead load reaction on pier = 4250kN
 Live load:
As per IRC class A loading, the live load reaction is found to be
737kN
 Impact load:
Impact load on pier cap = 737 x 0.224 = 165 kN
 Wind load:
water at HFL
Height of center of area in elevation above HFL
= 480.00 - 1.75 - 473.50
= 4.75m
From Table 4, cl.212.4 of IRC: 6-2000,
25 p = 0.63 kN/m2
Wind force = 0.63x150 = 95 kN.
  Hydrodynamic pressures:
Along the traffic
On the pier:
Radius of enveloping cylinder, a = = 4.05 m
Height of submerged portion of pier, H = 11.0 m
   For H/a = 2.72, C = 0.644

Therefore, FHy = C. αh. W

= 0.644 x 0.1 x x 4.052 x 11 x 10
= 365 kN
It will act at R.L.= 462.50 + 5.5 = 468.00 m

26
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF WELL
FOUNDATION:
As per IRC: 45-1972, ‘Recommendations for Estimating the
Resistance of Soil below the maximum scour level in the design of Well
Foundation of Bridges’ to determine the actual factor against failure, the
Ultimate Soil Resistance method is used.
Ultimate resistance method:
(i) Ultimate load:
1.1D – B + 1.25 (L + WC + EP + W or S)
Where, D = Dead load.
L = Live load including tractive/ braking etc.
B = Buoyancy , Wc =Water current force
Ep = Earth pressure , W = Wind force
S = Seismic force

Ultimate load Wu = 24623 kN

27
 (ii) Check that W/A not greater than u/2:

= 314 KN/m2

= 797 KN/m2

< (hence safe)

(iii) Calculate the base resisting moment Mb at the plane of
rotation
   and side resisting moment Ms:
Mb = QWu B ; assuming of base soil as 40 
= 52273 KNm (for Q=0.253)
  Ms = 0.10b( KP – KA) D3f L = 12475 KNm

28
(iv) Calculate the resisting moment due to friction at front and back
faces (Mf) about the plane of rotation:
For circular well
Mf = 0.11 (Kp – KA) Sin
Kp , KA = passive and active pressure coefficient to be
calculated using Coulomb’s Theory assuming ‘‘’’ angle of wall friction
between well and soil equal to 2/3 .
  
Mf = 7905 KNm

(v) Check Mu < 0.7 (Mb + Ms + Mf ):

0.7(Mb + Ms + Mf ) = 50857 KNm
Mu = 50360 KNm
Hence safe

29
 DESIGN OF PIER CAP:
The design of the various components of the
substructure requires the determination of combination of
loads as given below:
 N - Case
DL+ LL + IL + B + WC + BR + WL(for no water condition,
water at HFL and no live load condition separately)
 ( N + T) - Case
All forces as in (a) +temperature effects
 (N + T + S) - Case
DL + LL + LL + B + WC + BR + EL (considering earthquake
load in longitudinal and transverse directions separately)

30
 As the permissible stresses in (N + T) Case and (N + T
+ S) case are increased by 15% and 25% respectively, N-
case (no water condition) seems to be most critical one for
checking the section of pier cap. Hence, the further design
of pier cap is done for this case only.

V = 5305 kN, Mxx = 40 kNm, Myy = 2804 kNm

Mxx = 2140 kNm

Thickness of pier cap = 910mm ≈ 1000mm

Reinforcement at the top = 13440 mm2

31
32
 DESIGN OF WELL CAP:

Since the well is circular the horizontal forces and

moments can be combined.
V = 10561kN, M = 15266 kNm
Eccentricity, e = 1.45m
Max. B.M = 10579 kNm
Thickness of well cap ≈ 1200 mm
Area of steel = 3830mm2

33
 DETAILS OF CAP

34
 DESIGN OF WELL STEINING:
The seismic condition gives forces and moments those are
larger and govern the design. More critical case is when seismic
forces is considered across the traffic, Therefore
V = 17560 kN
Maximum B.M = 19908 KN
Moment due to tilt = 535 kNm
Moment due to shift = 2986 KNm
Total moment = 34303 kNm
Transverse reinforcement =16000 mm²/m.

35
 DETAILS OF WELL STEINING

36
 DESIGN OF WELL CURB:

Assuming height of imaginary arch = 4m

Hoop tension = = = 2620 KN
Where q is the net vertical weight.
For the height of curb 2.5 m,
  
Hoop tension = 128 kN
Net hoop tension = 2620 - 128 = 2492 KN
Design hoop tension = 2492 x1.5 = 3740 KN
Hoop reinforcement = = 9012.04 mm²
37
 DETAILS OF WELL CURB AND
WELL STENING

38
 References:
 Aray, A.S and S.Saran (1973), “Design of Abutment, pier
and wells of Bhuntar Bridge, “University of Roorkee, Roorkee.
 IRC: 6 – 2000 – “Standard specifications and code of practice
for Road Bridges”, Section II – Loads and Stresses.
 IRC: 5 – 1998 – “Standard specifications and code of practice
for Road Bridges”, Section I – General Features of design.
 IRC: 45 – 1972 – “ Recommendation for estimating the
resistance of soil below the Maximum Scour level in the
Design Of Well foundation of Bridge”, Indian Road Congress,
New Delhi.
 IRC: 78 – 2000 – “Standard specifications and code of
practice for Road Bridges”, Section VII – foundation and
substructures.”

39
 Thank you…
40