Ashish Verma <xenc2cnb@gmail.

com>

Fwd: Hamirpur - Comments on GAD & DBR

1 message

GPT HAMIRPUR <gpthamirpur2021@gmail.com> Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 1:56 PM

To: xenc2cnb@gmail.com

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Amrit Jyoti Tantia <ajt@gptgroup.co.in>

Date: Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 12:33 PM

Subject: Fwd: Hamirpur - Comments on GAD & DBR

To: Vinod Singh <vksingh@gptgroup.co.in>, gpthamirpur2021@gmail.com <gpthamirpur2021@gmail.com>

Get Outlook for Android

From: cdc consulting design engg centre pvt ltd <cdckolkata@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 7:12:28 PM

To: Shruti Dhandhania <sdhandhania@gptgroup.co.in>

Cc: Amrit Jyoti Tantia <ajt@gptgroup.co.in>

Subject: Re: Hamirpur - Comments on GAD & DBR

 
Dear Madam,

The revised DBR and GA Drawings (3 sheets) are attached.

Our reply to the concerned points are given below in "GREEN" font.

4.            Span not shown in GAD, however in DBR at Annexure A existing bridge span mention as
12x80.162m while that
of proposed is 12x76.2m. Why different span arrangement has taken, as per
guide lines pier/abutment alignment of proposed bridge should be same that of existing nearby bridge
to avoid staggered arrangement.
 
While the dimension 80.162 m in (12 x 80.162 m) for the existing bridge is the centre to centre distance
between piers, the dimension 76.2 m in (12 x 76.2 m) for the proposed bridge is the clear span length
between the inner faces of pier caps. The centre to centre distance between piers and well foundations
for both the existing and proposed bridge is 80.162 m
 
9.      Water way of existing bridge to be shown in table of GAD.
 
It is now mentioned in the table of the GAD sheet no. 1.
 
11.   Borehole details of A1, P1, to P5 are not shown in GAD.
 
All borehole details are now shown in the GAD sheet no. 2, as there is no space in the GAD sheet no. 3.
 
(i)     In addition to above, half top – half bottom plan, longitudinal section and X-section up to founding
level
of existing bridge vis-a-vis proposed bridge should be shown with all the dimensions.
 
Half top - half bottom plan and longitudinal elevation of the existing bridge and the proposed bridge
are now shown in the GAD sheet no. 3. Cross-section of the existing bridge and the proposed bridge is
now
shown in the GAD sheet no. 1, as there is no space in the GAD sheet no. 3.
 
17.   Kindly arrange contents as per RDSO report no BS-122. 
(vi)      All the para of RDSO’s guideline dated 27.11.2015
should be incorporated in DBR duly ensuring
that order is same as that given in guideline.
 
 Revised DBR incorporating this comment is attached.
 
(iv)   Name of the agency GPT should be removed from DBR and sentences consisting it to be corrected
properly.
 
Names of GPT and CDC are now given in the cover sheet of the revised DBR only.
 
 
18.   Discharge of existing bridge also mention in DBR submitted
for kind perusal and further compliance
from field unit.
 
Discharge of the existing bridge is not known to CDC, GPT may kindly arrange the same.
 
Additional comment:  
Dia of proposed bridge is more than dia of existing bridge. Justification for the same along with calculation should
be submitted. 
The existing bridge is more than 100 years old and since then the design forces have increased
considerably over the years. Shorter dimension of the well foundations for the existing bridge is 7.544
m (24 feet
9 inches). This has been rounded off to the next higher dimension with 500 mm interval to
8.000 m for the well foundations of the proposed bridge to cater for the increased design forces (Truly
speaking this was done to suit the formwork available with GPT).
Detailed design has been carried out
for the scour depth calculated with the actual linear waterway available for this minor increase in the
shorter dimension of the well foundations (8.000 m vis-a-vis 7.544 m). Design calculations of the well
foundation for
the piers of the proposed bridge are available with NCR.
 
Regards,

P. P. Das

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:33 PM Shruti Dhandhania <sdhandhania@gptgroup.co.in> wrote:

Dear Sir

You may please address the following point nos. only:

4.            Span not shown in GAD, however in DBR at Annexure A

existing bridge span mention as
12x80.162m while that of proposed is 12x76.2m. Why different span arrangement has taken, as per
guide lines pier/abutment alignment of proposed bridge should be same that of existing nearby
bridge to avoid staggered arrangement.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.

9.      Water way of existing bridge to be shown in table of

GAD.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.

11.   Borehole details of A1, P1, to P5 are not shown in GAD.

 
This comment will be addressed by CDC. - To be included in separate sheet no. 3 of GAD.

(i)          In
addition to above, half top – half bottom plan, longitudinal section and X-section up to
founding level of existing bridge vis-a-vis proposed bridge should be shown with all the dimensions.

Does it mean that longitudinal elevation of the existing bridge to be shown?

- Yes, in separate sheet
no. 3 of GAD,  all above details of existing bridge vis-a-vis proposed bridge will also
be shown. GAD of
another bridge is attached for reference.

17.   Kindly
arrange contents as per RDSO report no BS-122. 
(vi)   All
the para of RDSO’s guideline dated 27.11.2015 should be incorporated in DBR duly ensuring
that order is same as that given in guideline.

This comment will be addressed by CDC.

 (iv)    Name
of the agency GPT should be removed from DBR and sentences consisting it to be
corrected properly.

Railways did not appoint CDC for designing the bridge. Then how can CDC’s involvement in
preparation of the DBR be explained in the “Introduction”? CDC’s name should also not appear in the
DBR in such circumstances.
- Name of GPT & CDC will only appear on Top sheet of DBR as "Executing
Agency" & "Design Consultant". At all other pages
of DBR name will be replaced accordingly.

18.      Discharge of existing bridge also mention in

DBR submitted for kind perusal and further
compliance from field unit.

Discharge of the existing bridge is not known to CDC. GPT may arrange same.
- We will provide the
data as required.
 

Additional comment:  
Dia of proposed bridge is more than dia of existing bridge. Justification for the same along with
calculation should be submitted. 

Regards
Shruti Dhandhania

From: cdc consulting design engg centre pvt ltd <cdckolkata@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 7:40 PM

To: Shruti Dhandhania <sdhandhania@gptgroup.co.in>

Cc: Amrit Jyoti Tantia <ajt@gptgroup.co.in>

Subject: Re: Hamirpur - Comments on GAD & DBR

 
Dear Madam,

I had postponed my outstation visit by one day and will now leave Kolkata by 10.40 AM flight on 21.07.21. Most of
the comments forwarded by the Railways are not properly understood by us as highlighted in "BLUE" font in the
text given below. Unless you
clarify these points latest by 2 PM tomorrow (20.07.21), it may not possible to send
the incorporated documents to you during my absence from office.

1.     
Vide CBE office letter no 136-W/BR/Rehab./JHS dated 09.07.2021, it has conveyed that DBR had to
be approved first prior to approval of GAD. So kindly give direction whether GAD to be processed with
DBR approved or not?
 
CDC cannot give reply to this comment.
 
2.     
Span arrangement of existing Bridge nearby to this bridge is not mentioned in GAD. Detail analysis
considering techno economic analysis of Existing bridge detail should be submitted to this office.
 
CDC cannot give reply to this comment.
 
3.         
In DBR, page no 8, it is mentioned that “this decision regarding span arrangement and
superstructure configuration for the proposed bridge were taken by NCR before awarding the
construction assigned to GPT”. Kindly submit/enclosed
relevant supporting approval/decision
documents. How without approval of DBR, span arrangement has been decided?
 
CDC cannot give reply to this comment.
 
4.         
Span not shown in GAD, however in DBR at Annexure A existing bridge span mention as
12x80.162m while that of proposed is 12x76.2m. Why different span arrangement has taken, as per
guide lines pier/abutment alignment of proposed
bridge should be same that of existing nearby bridge
to avoid staggered arrangement.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.
 
5.     
Existing bridge foundation to shown in GAD.
 
Existing bridge foundations are shown in plan? What more is required?
 
6.     
Rail structure analysis for span arrangement shall be submitted to this office.
 
CDC cannot give reply to this comment.
 
7.     
In GAD end bracket over hang increased to 631mm while in letter it is 700mm.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.
 
8.     
HFL to be shown in section elevation. Bed level also to be shown in GAD.
HFL is shown in span A1-P1 with available vertical clearances in the “sectional elevation”. Where else
this has to be shown?
Existing bed level is shown in the “sectional elevation”. Where else this has to be shown?
 
9.     
Water way of existing bridge to be shown in table of GAD.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.

10.  
Sanction work detail mention in GAD.

 
This comment is not understood by CDC.
 
11.  
Borehole details of A1, P1, to P5 are not shown in GAD.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.
 
12.  
Note 34 is not clear, kindly correct/modify it.
 
Is it related to “eack” shall be made “each”?
 
13.  
Bearing reference drawing to be shown in section elevation.
 
GPT to forward the bearing reference drawing to CDC, as  spherical bearing shall be used.
 
14.   
  In section details are not matching with RDSO standard drawings. Kindly mention all important
detail and level in section.
 
Drawing has been prepared based on the RDSO Drawing No. RDSO/B-17183/R forwarded by GPT on
25.11.2020.
 
What important details are required?
 
Rail level is mentioned in the drawing. What other levels are required to be mentioned?
 
15.   
Geotechnical report submitted without signature of field unit and also in attachment of
geotechnical documents bridge no, chainage, and location not mentioned anywhere.  Complete
geotechnical (signed) send with DBR.
 
CDC cannot give reply to this comment.
 
16.  
In GAD point 40 is not clear?? Why drawing no 2020-21/J-891/02 is referred?
 
This comment is not understood by CDC.
 
17.  
Kindly arrange contents as per RDSO report no BS-122.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.
 
18.  
Discharge of existing bridge also mention in DBR submitted for kind perusal and further compliance
from field unit.
 
Discharge of the existing bridge is not known to CDC. GPT may arrange same.
 
AXEN/C/D
(i)       
In addition to above, half top – half bottom plan, longitudinal section and X-section up to
founding level of existing bridge vis-a-vis proposed bridge should be shown with all the
dimensions.
 
 Does it mean that longitudinal elevation of the existing bridge to be shown?
 
(ii)   
Completion plan of existing bridge should be attached with DBR.
 
CDC cannot address this comment.
 
(iii)  
Geotechnical report of a NABL accredited duly signed by Dy.CE/C/CNB in full.
 
CDC cannot address this comment.
 
(iv) 
Name of the agency GPT should be removed from DBR and sentences consisting it to be
corrected properly.
 
Railways did not appoint CDC for designing the bridge. Then how can CDC’s involvement in
preparation of the DBR be explained in the “Introduction”? CDC’s name should also not appear in
the DBR in such circumstances.
 
(v)   
DBR should be signed by Dy.CE/C/CNB.
 
CDC cannot address this comment.
 
(vi)  
All the para of RDSO’s guideline dated 27.11.2015 should be incorporated in DBR duly ensuring
that order is same as that given in guideline.
 
This comment will be addressed by CDC.
 
(vii) 
Good quality tracing paper with taped border should be used for GAD.
This can be arranged after the GAD is approved by all the concerned authorities.
 
Regards,

P. P. Das

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 5:15 PM Shruti Dhandhania <sdhandhania@gptgroup.co.in> wrote:

Dear Sir

Please find attached herewith comments on GAD & DBR for early compliance.

Main points being revision of DBR as per RDSO report no BS-122 (Attached) and inclusion of additional
drawing details in GAD which may be included as sheet 3.

Regards,

Shruti Dhandhania
GPT Infraprojects Limited

--

CDC Consulting Design Engg. Centre (P) Ltd.

12, Lake West Road, Santoshpur, Kolkata - 700075.
Tel : 033-2416 2560 , 033-2416 5903
Fax : 033-2416 5402
Website : www.cdcengg.com
Switch off as you go | Recycle always | Print only if absolutely necessary. Disclaimer: This e-mail message may
contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the
original intended recipient.
If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify
the sender. The recipient acknowledges that GPT Infraprojects Limited or its subsidiaries and associated
companies, (collectively "GPT Group"), are unable to exercise control
or ensure or guarantee the integrity of/over
the contents of the information contained in e-mail transmissions and further acknowledges that any views
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be
implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of GPT Group. Before opening any
attachments please check them for viruses and defects.

--

CDC Consulting Design Engg. Centre (P) Ltd.

12, Lake West Road, Santoshpur, Kolkata - 700075.
Tel : 033-2416 2560 , 033-2416 5903
Fax : 033-2416 5402
Website : www.cdcengg.com
Switch off as you go | Recycle always | Print only if absolutely necessary. Disclaimer: This e-mail message may
contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the
original intended recipient.
If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the
sender. The recipient acknowledges that GPT Infraprojects Limited or its subsidiaries and associated companies,
(collectively "GPT Group"), are unable to exercise control
or ensure or guarantee the integrity of/over the contents of
the information contained in e-mail transmissions and further acknowledges that any views expressed in this
message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be
implied or assumed unless
the sender does so expressly with due authority of GPT Group. Before opening any attachments please check them
for viruses and defects.

4 attachments
Design basis report_R3.pdf

3317K
2020-21_J-891-05_R0_GAD_SHEET 3 OF 3.pdf

895K
2020-21_J-891-02_R1_GAD-SHEET 2 OF 3.pdf

1221K
2020-21_J-891-01_R2_GAD-SHEET 1 OF 3.pdf

1378K