IE Comments
06.09.2022
Horizontal Alignment
The drawings are not satisfying as per
IRC:73 clause 9.1.5 “Short curves give
appearance of kinks, particularly for
small
deflection angle and should be avoided.
The curves should be sufficiently long
and have suitable transition to provide
pleasing appearance. Curve length should
be at least 150 meters for a deflection
angle of 5 degrees and this should be
increased by 30 meters for each one
degree decrease in the deflection angle.
For deflection angle less than one degree,
no curve is required to be designed”
These locations are as below which
requires modifications and resubmission:-
The drawings are not satisfying as per
IRC:73 clause 9.1.7 “Curve in the same
direction separated by short tangents,
known as broken-back curves, should be
avoided as far as possible in the interest
of aesthetics and safety and replaced by a
single curve. If this is not feasible, a
tangent length corresponding to 10
Location Concessionaire Compliances IE Reply Concessionaire Compliances
513140.656, Clause 9.1.5 of IRC:73 is only for As per codal We have provided AutoCAD file also
513286.4065, aesthetics and appearance, it is not provisions, Short to IE and it was discussed that
514058.4145, safety / geometry requirement. We have curves give alignment cannot be modified further.
514270.6555 tried to fulfill this requirement in the appearance of kinks,
whole stretch except 4 locations particularly for small
mentioned by you. Please note that, at deflection angle and
all location mentioned in letter, curve should be Avoided.
radius is provided more than 2000m and However, decision
practically straight. It will not give any has to be taken by
bad appearance because of very mild Authority as the
radius. If length of curve is increased, matter related to
ROW will go outside the ROW constraints.
acquired ROW at Locations mentioned
by IE. There is only one location where
radius is very sharp (60 m) and It is not
feasible to increase the curve length due
to ROW constraints and buildings. So
this requirement can be relaxed at these
few locations due to site constraints and
considering very mild radius. This is
relaxed in DPR alignment also.
504470.1585, We agree that broken back Curves are Decision has to be We have provided AutoCAD file also
506946.5555, not desirable and tried to avoid in the taken by Authority as to IE and it was discussed that
513647.3675, whole stretch except few locations as the matter related to alignment cannot be modified further.
514270.6555 mentioned DPR Alignment is also ROW constraints.
showing broken back curve at these
locations and land is also acquired like
that. It is not feasible to avoid this and
convert it into single curve due to ROW
seconds travel time must at least be
ensured between the two curves”. These
locations are as below which requires
modifications and resubmission
Vertical Alignment
The drawings are not satisfying as per
IRC:SP:84 clause 2.9.5 “The safe
stopping sight distance and desirable
minimum sight distance for divided
carriageway for various design speed are
given in Table 2.7. The desirable values
of sight distances shall be adopted
throughout unless specified in schedule.
A minimum of safe stopping sight
distance shall be available throughout
these locations are as below which
requires modifications and resubmission.
Gradient
Gradient to be provided as per clause
2.9.4.2 of IRC:SP:99.
Design FRL Vs CA FRL with OGL to be
constraint in built up area.
504736.9904, Please note that probably Engineer is ok ok
505900.25, checking as per case (i) given in IRC:73
508840.8277, 10.4.1.There are two equation’ given in
511608 IRC code for calculation of length of
summit curve. locations mentioned in
letter( sn 2 to 5), equation (ii) is
applicable i.e., L<S and we have
checked SSD / ISD at all location and
found all are ok as per IRC 73 .
SSD / ISD is achieved at all locations.
504736 (a) Ruling gradient as per IRC:
SP: 99 is 2.5% and limiting
gradient is 3.0% for plain
terrain. We have adopted 3.0%
which is also permitted as per
IRC: SP: 99.
(b) Also, note that in DPR also
gradient of 3.3% is adopted. In
our case it is mild (3.0%).
(c) This cannot be changed as
minor bridge at chainage
504782 is to be retained.
This is an elevated road project and not Design FRL to be (a) Nowhere in Schedule-B
provided as mentioned in 4.11 of
schedule-B
and same has to be maintained.
a conventional highway project.
Nowhere in schedules/bid documents, it clause 4.11 of
is mentioned that DPR FRL is to be
followed. FRL is designed on the basis
of 5.5 m clearance pier cap depth and
Structure depth. Our structural system is
different from DPR structural system.
So there is no point of comparing the
total height with DPR. So, we request
you to kindly approve the P&P of
expressway ch 503200 to 515000.
Chainage Av. Diff. Av. Diff.
maintained as per (clause-4.11), it is mentioned
to maintain minimum FRL as
Schedule-B. per DPR P&P. In our case,
this is an elevated road project
and not a conventional
highway project.
(b) Please note in comparison
table made by IE, for chainage
509000 to 510000, existing
levels in DPR seems to be
wrong. We can see from our
profile that there is a existing
flyover at site which is not
reflected in DPR levels/ P&P.
There is no point comparing
the total height with DPR.
(c) The girder system adopted in
the Detailed project report
(DPR) differs from the girder
system adopted by the
concessionaire. e.g in DPR
conventional I girder was
proposed in which 9 nos of
girder with depth of 2225mm,
whereas concessionaire has
adopted flanged to flange 21
nos of girder with depth of
1450mm.
Diff.
 From To CA Design (Design
(FRL- (FRL- – CA)
GL) GL)
504+000 505+00 6.158 6.002 -0.156
0
506+000 507+00 10.188 9.012 -1.176
0
507+000 508+00 10.313 10.098 -0.215
0
509+000 510+00 9.511 7.040 -2.472
0
510+000 511+00 10.480 10.191 -0.289
0
511+000 512+00 11.515 11.028 -0.486
0