The document is a point-by-point reply to comments on a pier cap design. It addresses 12 points raised in the comments, providing clarification or noting updates in response to each point. Key topics addressed include the minimum cover of reinforcement, impact factor calculations, dimensions in the design, scale of drawings, basis of calculations, adequacy of depth, definition of terms, basis of horizontal force values, checking quantities against original dimensions, inclusion of launcher details, incorporating torsion checks, and checking lateral forces.
The document is a point-by-point reply to comments on a pier cap design. It addresses 12 points raised in the comments, providing clarification or noting updates in response to each point. Key topics addressed include the minimum cover of reinforcement, impact factor calculations, dimensions in the design, scale of drawings, basis of calculations, adequacy of depth, definition of terms, basis of horizontal force values, checking quantities against original dimensions, inclusion of launcher details, incorporating torsion checks, and checking lateral forces.
The document is a point-by-point reply to comments on a pier cap design. It addresses 12 points raised in the comments, providing clarification or noting updates in response to each point. Key topics addressed include the minimum cover of reinforcement, impact factor calculations, dimensions in the design, scale of drawings, basis of calculations, adequacy of depth, definition of terms, basis of horizontal force values, checking quantities against original dimensions, inclusion of launcher details, incorporating torsion checks, and checking lateral forces.
Reply: Provided cover is 45mm as per contract documents. 2 check impact factor cal. on page no. 5. Reply: Noted and updated 3 height of exposed surface is 7.9m? what is this , from where this come? Reply: Noted and updated 4 plase make piercap plan to the atleast some scale , it looks like square piercap.mark long and trans widths. Reply: Noted and updated 5 title shows P56 on straight, however you considered 1387m radius for calculation.Correct accordingly. Reply: Noted and updated 6 1.2m depth is adequate or not? where this check is given? plz mention.. as your minimum reinforcement is governing we have to reduce the depth if possible. Reply: As per design, required reinforcement for 1.2m depth as per forces is approximately equal to minimum reinforcement calculations. This appears to be optimum depth of pier cap 7 what is the definition of fc'.. Reply: fc’ is standard nomenclature used in ACI code for concrete cylinder strength which is equal to 0.8x cube strength (fck). 8 why Horizontal force (Hu)is taken 81 kn? Reply: Noted and updated 9 as the piercap size is governing by plan dimension we have to check the reinforcement as per original piercap size. And compare the quantities.( concrete as well as steel).During submission we have to specifically write to client about quantities. Reply: Noted and same shall be done once this pier cap design is approved by you. 10 launcher check is missing in design. Reply: As discussed over call, please provide launcher details. Once I receive those details, will include launcher check also in the design calculations. 11 torsion check should be incorporated the design.Refer irc 112 for thta. Reply: Noted and updated 12 check LA of transverse seismic case( DL and sidl) and horizontal force also. Reply: Noted and updated