Hi Bramman We referred to DWA comments, appreciate you can get your engineer to look into the DWA comments

and do a recalculation to check on the rebars. Thank you CP -----Forwarded by Chuan Pey Chew/SLHT/Shangri-La on 03/03/2013 08:21 ----To: ChuanPey.Chew@shangri-la.com From: "deepal wickremasinhe" <deepaleng@gmail.com> Date: 03/02/2013 17:29 Cc: "Arzath Sajeer" <sajeerala@gmail.com> Subject: Re: SLHT - Structure Slab Value Engineering Proposal (See attached file: Section 3 minimum load 20120320.pdf) (See attached file: SLHT_GBlk.pdf) Dear Mr. Chew, Further to our discussion during the last design coordination meeting in Singapore, we wish to highlight the following. 1. We first commenced structural designs Ist July 2011. As at January 2013 we are getting revisions from Architects, with good intention of improving the design. The latest revisions of deletion of cross beams in two bay/four bay suites which make the slab panel single way. Also note the following discrepancies in the value engineering design loading. Finishes Load 3.0 kN/m2 not 2.0 kN/m2 Bed Room Imposed Load 2.5 kN/m2 not 2.0 kN/m2 as per the Shangri-La standards given to us. Please see the attached scan copy. In the submitted calculations for the two way panel in Guest Room block, It is considered all four sides continuous which is not the actual situation with 150mm drop in front and rear of the panel. It should be 2 long sides discontinuous and other 2 short sides are continuous. Based on the above the actual steel requirement As req=359 mm2. Please see the attached deflection calculations shows As req= 475mm2 which requires T12-225c/c against provided T12-200 c/c. 2. What we want to highlight to you is the worst case scenario should be 9.0 kN/m2 not 5.0 kN/m2 in the value engineering calculations. In the Shangri-La standards total imposed live load (inclusive of partitions) is 9.0 kN/m2. Please see the attached scan copy. If you suggest the partition load is 1.0 kN/m2. Please send us the confirmation in writing with Shangri-La management consent we will be too happy to change the same. 3/4. Regarding the curtailment of reinforcement in main building beams and guest blocks beams is a matter of opinion against yours and ours. It is not a structural requirement. If the contractors are proposing curtailment of bars they are welcome to do so and include in their shop drawings for our approval.

Regards Deepal

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, <ChuanPey.Chew@shangri-la.com> wrote: Hi Sajeer Please see our reply to your comments in red. Hope you can reconsider the VE proposal. For your information and comments please. Thank you Chuan Pey -----"Arzath Sajeer" <sajeerala@gmail.com> wrote: ----To: ChuanPey.Chew@shangri-la.com From: "Arzath Sajeer" <sajeerala@gmail.com> Date: 02/05/2013 21:50 Cc: "deepal wickremasinhe" <deepaleng@gmail.com>, Joe.Chan@shangri-la.com, linda.kwok@shangrila.com, bramman <bramman@aioc-lanka.com>, bernard_ho@wohhup.com Subject: Re: SLHT - Structure Slab Value Engineering Proposal Dear Mr.Chew, We studied the calculations submitted and our observations /comments are given below. 1. Guest Blocks Slab Panels Value engineering calculations are done considering the panel as a two way slab. It is not architecturally acceptable and the intermediate beam introduced in the value engineering design has been requested to be removed by the interior designers. Refer mail of HBA dated 24 th January 2013 addressed to Herbie of AIOC. Based on the discussions with the architects and the interior designers we have designed the guest room slab as as a single way slab for greater flexibility specially in positioning the partition walls. There is very little chance to have layout change to guest blocks and our opinion is very little chance to positioning of partitions on Guest blocks. Even as of now, there still chances to take into consideration in the design to make saving 2. Main Block Level 1 slab panels Regarding the main building Ball Room , value engineering design considering worst case scenario of 5kN/m2 is not adequte. Worst case scenario of loading should be for plant room and transformer room. The partition weight considered by us is much higher than 1kN/m2. The live load figures to be considered for the entire building design was forwarded to us by Shangri-La structural engineer Mr. Henry. Under normal circumstance on design, it is always be the case that plant room will be subjected to different loading as per the specification of the plant room requirement. It is unusual to use the plant room loading to design the whole Level 1 slab as a matter of opinion. please take note that Plant room load can be various from 5 Kpa (normal pump room) to 7.5 Kpa (for transformer room or chiller room). We do not see where is the norm.

3. Curtailment of top r/f in main building beams The value engineers have worked out the minimum requirement as 1206mm2 and 6T16 gives 1206mm2. In designs the good practice is to provide an additional percentage from the theoretical value. The next alternative size is 20mm. Considering 6T20 against 6T25 with the allowance for lapping, will reduce clear distance between the bars which will result poor quality compaction of concrete. it is just a matter of opinion. we are consider optimum design. This unnecessary allowance will results increased in terms of rebar Kg/m^2 ==> T16 against T20 will increase (both way to be considered) = (2.466-1.579) x 6 numbers of rebar x 2 (both way) /M^2 = 10.6 KG/M^2 (additional) ==> T16 against T25 will increase ( both way to be considered) = (3.854-1.579) x 6 numbers of rebar x 2 (both way)/M^2 = 27.5 KG/M^2 (additional)

4. Curtailment of top r/f in guest block beams There again the value engineers have considered the minimum requirement and provided the same which is not a good practice. Also the r/f detailing should be done to withstand the earthquakes as per the conditions stipulated by Society of Structural Engineers, Sri Lanka. Where minimum r/f percentage is greater than 0.2. If we use 16mm of curtailment bars, the rebar lapping reduce the clear spacing between the bars specially this beam being 225mm width. As per show example above, we still can use up one sizes of rebar but provide equivalent rebar area instead of up size with more rebar. We can achieve the same performance of rebar lapping without facing congestion as per comments from above. It doesn't deviate any design code requirement

Regards Sajeer

On 31 January 2013 08:54, <ChuanPey.Chew@shangri-la.com> wrote: Dear Sajeer Attached please find the Structure Slab Calculation Value Engineering proposal for Ball room areas, Guest Block Bed room areas & Main Building. With this VE, we are able to save approximate 70 tone of rebars. This is a big saving to us. Appreciate you can look into the calculation and give your professional advise, thanks you. Regards Chuan Pey