The document discusses design details for a road connector from Km 0+000 to Km 0+945. It addresses three comments from an AE regarding the plan and profile. For the first comment, it is requested to accept a limiting gradient of 6.9% used when the ruling gradient of 6% was not possible within the proposed right of way. For the second comment, encasing has been approved for three pipe culverts. For the third comment, a concrete drain has been considered on the hillside to maintain the embankment as required. The AE is asked to accept the compliance for all three comments.
The document discusses design details for a road connector from Km 0+000 to Km 0+945. It addresses three comments from an AE regarding the plan and profile. For the first comment, it is requested to accept a limiting gradient of 6.9% used when the ruling gradient of 6% was not possible within the proposed right of way. For the second comment, encasing has been approved for three pipe culverts. For the third comment, a concrete drain has been considered on the hillside to maintain the embankment as required. The AE is asked to accept the compliance for all three comments.
The document discusses design details for a road connector from Km 0+000 to Km 0+945. It addresses three comments from an AE regarding the plan and profile. For the first comment, it is requested to accept a limiting gradient of 6.9% used when the ruling gradient of 6% was not possible within the proposed right of way. For the second comment, encasing has been approved for three pipe culverts. For the third comment, a concrete drain has been considered on the hillside to maintain the embankment as required. The AE is asked to accept the compliance for all three comments.
DESIGN CHAINAGE (km) Sr No AE Comments on plan and profile R0 Compliance AE Comments on plan and profile R1 FROM TO
Proposed ROW in this section is 13m .Also As per clause 1.2 of
Schedule- B of EPC agreement geometry has to be corrected to the Speed provided in P&P is not as per standard extent land is available. Hence geometry has been developed to OK specification and also not provided in Schedule D maximum possible extent within Proposed Right of Way (ROW).Hence it is requested to accept the compliance.
Limiting gradient of 6.9% as per IRC-SP-48 has been adopted
Provide limiting gradient as per standard whenever it is not possible to provide rulling gradients of 6%. OK specifications. Hence it is requested to accept the compliance. 1 0/000 Raise the FRL at Pipe Culvert ch 0+090, Ch 0+476 GAD for HPC at CH-0+090 & 0+476 has found in order by AE for 0/945 OK and ch 0+685 for coushionong Encasing vide mail dated 14/10/2022. As per IRC SP 73 Clause 4.2, it is necessary to raise Provision of CC drain has been considered on hill side on LHS as the FRL to maintain the embankment at location OK per applicable TCS. Hence it is requested to accept the compliance. from km 0+800 to km 0+945 (on RHS).
Provide Superelevation schematically in Profile.
No Value has been mentioned in schematic. Embankment slope interface shall be shown in plan.