Review observations on HPC GAD drawings

Written by Team Highway Correspondence

Updated on:

Review observations on HPC GAD drawings

Content Brief:

Review observations on HPC GAD Drawings: This content pertains to the Review observations on Hume pipe culvert GAD drawings. These observations are made by the IE following the concessionaire’s submission of GAD drawings. The details and letters contain the following information:

  • HPC General Arrangement drawings submission.
  • Review observations on drawings.
  • The observations, including the clarification and justification needed on the following
  1. Slope protection measures with stone pitching.
  2. Length of head walls
  3. Skew lengths
  4. Additional length on service road portions
  • Provisional approval subject to variation between GFC and site data.
  • Finally, provide IE feedback in line with the review.

    Review observations on HPC GAD drawings

Case-1 Review observations and comments on HPC (Hume Pipe Culvert) GAD Drawings in various aspects

To

The Concessionaire

Subject: Submission of Drawings for Hume Pipe Culverts (7 No’s)-reg

Ref No: your letter submission

Dear Sir,

With reference to your submissions, we have reviewed as per Clause 12.3 of CA and please find our comments.

  1. Slope Protection with Stone Pitching shall be as per C.A of Schedule B, Clause 11.2(iv).
  2. Head walls Length was not shown in drawings and it shall be as per IRC SP 13-2002
  3. For HPC Km. 25+530 Service Road width was not considered on either side.
  4. Toe Protection shall be as per Technical Specification Clause 2504.4 of MORT&H.
  5. Note no 11 shall be clear for special construction methods where unsuitable soil encounter during excavation as per Technical Specification Clause 2903 of MORT&H
  6. For HPC Km. 52+845 Skew length was not considered. As per site condition it is a Skew Culvert.

This is for your information and compliance.

Thanking you,

Case-2: Approval Hume pipe culvert GAD drawings subject to certain conditions

To

The Concessionaire

Subject: Review of GFC Drawings for HPC (Hume Pipe Culverts)-reg

Ref: Submission of GFC drawings of HPC

Dear Sir,

Under the above cited subject and your above reference letter, the Drawings submitted, are being reviewed by us and we have got no objection in accepting the same following the compliances of under mentioned observation.

“If there is any variation between the GFC issued and the site data, then the same must be notified to us immediately, for further review” and follow Grouted stone pitching or apron instead of Dry stone pitching or apron which is shown in drawings in all Cross Drainage Structures.

Thanking you,

Case-3 Review observations and comments on Hume Pipe Culvert Working drawings

To

The Concessionaire

Subject: Submission of Design and Working Drawings of HP Culverts

Ref: Your letter submission

Dear Sir,

Please refer to your letters cited under reference above vide which you have forwarded the working drawings of HP Culverts as per the details given below:

Sl. No. Description Drawing No.
1 Hume pipe Culvert at km.10+100 STR/HPC/10+100
2 Hume pipe Culvert at km.15+200 STR/HPC/15+200
3 Hume pipe Culvert at km.20+600 STR/HPC/20+600

The above working drawings have been reviewed by our Sr. Bridge Engineer/Assistant Bridge Engineer and the following comments are offered;

  • In all above mentioned drawings, the grade of concrete for Head Wall have been shown as PCC M-15 instead of PCC M-20 as executed at Site.
  • PCC M-15 is being used at site for pipe bedding. However, compacted granular material has been shown in the drawing which needs correction.
  • The drawings of Pipe Culvert at Km 14+780 has been shown widening portion on LHS only. As per site condition, widening is required for both sides (LHS & RHS).
  • As per site for the Pipe Culvert at Km 11+080, U/S and D/S is on LHS and RHS respectively whereas U/S on RHS and D/S on LHS has been shown in the drawing.
  • As per the drawing (widening portion), PCC M-15 has been given up to 1 M and the remaining portion with compacted granular material whereas PCC M-15 was used throughout the widening portion at the site of HP Culverts as mentioned in Annexure-l.
  • To prevent the erosion, it is suggested to provide rigid apron instead of flexible apron here wever the pipes are given at the steep slope.
  • A comparative statement showing the details of GFC drawings and Contract drawings are also enclosed herewith at Annexure – 1 & Annexure-II for your kind information.
  • It is requested to advise EPC Contractor to submit the modified drawings accordingly.

Thanking you and assuring our best services at all times.

A Note to the Visitor on Review observations on HPC GAD Drawings

It is that a few important and mandatory aspects are only discussed herewith. Kindly note that the above review observations on Hume Pipe culvert HPC GAD Drawings are considered as examples. You may adopt the gist of the subject and change it to suit the current need. And before using this content in your letter draughting, you need to ensure the specific type of drawing, CA contractual conditions, and other aspects, etc.

Also read the Review observations on Major Bridge GAD Drawings and the Review observations on minor Bridge GAD Drawings.

You can find various sample draft formats for highway operation and maintenance correspondence.

 

FAQ’s related to Review observations on Review observations on HPC GAD Drawings

The team highway correspondence will update soon.

Leave a Comment