Reply to the comments of AARVEE Associate vide letter no. 584 dated 01/07/19 & letter no.
989 dated 04/11/19 on FO 299+354
S. IE Comment dated 01/07/2019
No.
1. Any deviation in the structure type and span
configuration from the CA shall be justified by
concessionaire with a technical and financial proposal.
Any additional financial implication shall be at the cost
of the concessionaire and any saving shall be passed
on to the Authority
2. As per the latest humidity data available, the average
relative humidity is shown as 58% and the same shall
be considered in the design.
3. At relative humidity value of 50 to 70% rate of
carbonation is very high. Therefore, the concessionaire
shall conduct the carbonation test and the cover
requirement to the reinforcement may be finalized
based on the test results.
4. As the difference between spans is huge adaptability
of deck continuous shall be examined/checked, the
same has been discussed for other structures during
our meeting at Hyderabad office dated 14.05.19 to
17.05.19
5. As commented above proper arrangement with all the
necessary details shall be submitted for our review
6. Since the anchorages are proprietary items, the name
of manufacturer needs to be specified in drawing
showing end block details. Further, the spacing of
anchorages, end distance, spiral reinforcement around
anchorages, strength of end block concrete at the time
of transfer, etc. shall be strictly adhered to the details
furnished by the manufacturer.
Design Director Reply dated IE Comment dated 04/11/2019 Design Director Reply dated
16/10/2019 06/01/2020
The overall length of flyover is precise Noted -
the same as CA, span length has been
revised due to passing of pipeline at
proposed pier location. The revised
proposal (GAD) was submitted to IE
and in-principle approval was taken
Design calculation has been revised Noted -
considering RH as 58%
The carbonation test will be conducted Noted -
by concessionaire and report for the
same will be submitted separately.
The design of continuity slab is Noted -
checked for respected rotation in
spans and accordingly reinforcement
has been provided.
The Design calculation of continuity Noted -
slab has been enclosed with the design
of superstructure (35m span) along
with Staad analysis files
Dynamic system of prestressing is Noted -
adopted and its name is specified in
drawings. It has been ensured that all
dimension and reinforcement are in-
accordance to the Dynamic system.
 S. IE Comment dated 01/07/2019 Design Director Reply dated IE Comment dated 04/11/2019 Design Director Reply dated
No. 16/10/2019 06/01/2020

7. Height of pedestal shall be limited to 500mm Wall is proposed below pedestal for Recheck the revised drawings To do
maximum as per the Cl 710.10.2 of IRC: 78-2014. smaller span in order to limit height of once again. The height of
Revisit your proposal and modify accordingly pedestal. pedestal is shown more than
500mm at Piers (Fixed & Free)

8. As per Geotech and design report (pg no 89) the The capacity of pile determined vide Recheck the capccity shown for To do
maximum safe load on pile is reported as 287t, pile load test is significate height, pier (P1 & P2). The revised
whereas for fixed and free pier the safe load exceeds Hence the design load is within limit of design load is 314 tonnes
287t. Fixed Pier = 2850/9.81t, Free Pier = 2830/9.81 = capacity of pile whereas the safe load
288.5t. the safe load mentioned in the drg: mentioned in the GAD is 287
SES/PIL/VME/FLY-299+354/SUB-05 is 292.1t. seismic tonnes
capacity of pile also exceeds. Revisit and modify your
designs and drawings accordingly.

9. Recheck the bar mark 4 & 4a provided in fixed, free Checked and corrected Recheck the Bar mark 4a once To do
peir and abutment pile cap. Provided reinforcement again in Abutment pile cap.
seems to be less than the required. Recheck the bar
marks 7 & 8 shaft

10. Corbel reinforcement (bar mark 13) for P1 and P2 dwg: Complied With Noted -
SES/PIL/VME/FLY-299+354/SUB-06 and
SES/PIL/VME/FLY-299+354/SUB-09 shall be extended
upto the bearing. Reference is attached below

11. The approval of pile & pile cap shall be based on the Noted Noted -
test results arrived from initial pile load test. Initial pile
test procedure and the results to be resubmitted
based on our below comment for our review.

12. FRL, FL, median width shall be verified with the Checked and corrected where required Noted -
approved highway plan and profile

13. As discussed during our There is no Gap slab proposed,

meeting at Aarvee H.O. from only approach slab provided and
23.09 to 26.09, Gap slab standard drawing for the same
arrangement, design and ready submitted as
drawing details shall be SES/PIPL/VME/MISC-01.
submitted for our review
 S. IE Comment dated 01/07/2019 Design Director Reply dated IE Comment dated 04/11/2019 Design Director Reply dated
No. 16/10/2019 06/01/2020

14. As per CA, FRL & CRLs are The CRL as per site verification is
shown as 22.114 & 13.931 14.683 and accordingly FRL has
respectively, whereas in the been changed to 23.25
drawing the same is shown as considering 5.5m vertical
23.25 & 14.683, Hence clarify, clearance.
also the same shall be verified
at site prior to execution with
I.E’s representative.

15. Recheck the pile foundation TO DO

level mentioned in the dwg:
SES/PIPL/VME/FLY-
299+354/SUB-08, as the same is
not matching with the value
mentioned in the GAD.

16. Recheck the details mentioned TO DO

in the prestressing details table
(Grade of concrete for cables 2
& 4) in the dwg:
SES/PIPL/VME/FLY-
299+354/PSC/SUP-02.

17. Recheck the detail “Section 1-1” TO DO

mentioned in the dwg:
SES/PIPL/VME/FLY-
299+354/PSC/SUP-10 & 11.