This has with reference to your trailing mail, we do not agree with your claim and allegation on AE.

Please find below our point wise reply to your concern.

 New/Reconstruction Box Culverts: All comments were incorporated, details & design checks of
Fly-back wall was provided, as desired, but latest comment says “increase the thickness of Wall
or provide return wall” without assigning any provision or specification. We had already
submitted all the calculation/compliance with final drawings at your office. Request you to
review and release the same.
AE reply: We have already approved new/reconstruction on 14/11/19, our recommendations for
approval has already been forwarded to TL at Lucknow. Copy of approved drawings was also forwarded
to Apco but due to some problem concern person could not get the mail, same has again been sent on
their personal mail.

 18 culverts which are proposed to be widened, were submitted after incorporating the
comments. As per code, if requirement of widening is less than 500m , widening is not
necessary. However in the interest of safety we provided minimum widening of 500mm, even
for the culverts which required less widening as per centre line. Now we have got instruction to
provide minimum 1000m of widening, which has no reference. It is also not practically possible
to shift the centre line at this point of time. You are requested to accept the same because it is
not having any technical or safety issue.

AE reply: Widening proposal is not OK, expansion gap between existing and widened portion has
been suggested. There will be relative settlement on account of two separate structure due to
unequal consolidation of founding strata and load not being shared by the existing structure.
We have never asked to provide 1.0m widening, rather we have asked that 500 mm widening on
both side may be avoided to save the dismantling of existing wing wall on at least one side by
slightly adjusting the centreline locally. For existing brick Arch culvert dismantling on both side
may further damaged the existing Arch and reduce its residual strength. Your proposal is not
only technical incorrect but uneconomical as well. Moreover required development length of
bar for 500 widened slab is not available. The jointing details of Top slab are not correct ,
already explained to your designer with sketch.
Plate-5 of IRC: SP-13 has been referred for wing/abutment PCC wall which is valid for an SBC of
16.5. No reinforcement details has been given for widened portion.