Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

PROJECT ALAR

No 38455160

Recommendation :

Document Reference: Design Report for Shoring Works REPORT NO: ACC/PAHD/DR/SS-03 Date Received: 3 August 2018 Received From : Ammico

Recommendation : A - Consented to, Authorised to proceed, B - Consented to, subject to comments, C - Rejected, Not Consented, resubmit, work may not proceed

Comment Type : NCR - Non-compliance with mandatory Standards, Specifications OBS - Observation of minor items (typographical error, incorrect cross-reference), RFA - Request for Additional Information, NOTE - Observation of perceived design issue

No. Reference Comment Comment Type Contractor's Response Comment Rev01 Contractor's Response Rev01 Status Comments Rev02 Contractor's Response Rev02 Comments Rev03

The proposed TOW levels by the designer were variable from


+2.1m to +1.1m QNHD. Hence, Ammico conducted the tender
design accordingly. However, it has been highlighted from the
Top of shoring wall (TOW) differs from WSP enabling works operation team that the diaphragm wall top levels shall be
package which notes TOW as +2.1m QNHD. Provide reason or same for the ease of installation unless there is no specific
1 Section 2.0 instruction from others regarding this change. The tender NCR reason. This is the standard practice at sites. Hence, we have Noted. CLOSED
design received and reviewed by WSP showed TOW as +2.1m reviewed several parameters such as the existing levels, set-
QNHD. back dimensions, adequate open-cut height with suitable
slope, etc and determine an optimum level. This level is +1.8m
QNHD. The FEM analyzes are based on this level along with
the stability of slope portion above +1.8m QNHD
As the TOW levels were variable during the tender stage, there
All shoring sections as per WSP enabling works package to be were more sections to be analyzed. However, right now 3
2 Section 2.0 NCR Noted. CLOSED
evaluated as done so in the tender design report. sections is sufficient based on the existing ground level, TOW
and excavation levels.
As the soil parameters were conservatively interpreted by Contractor shall use parameters that he is deemed to be
Ammico and the proposed shoring is for short term, reduction satisfied with. The Contractor has undertaken his initial
at the wall stifnesss have not been considered. Howvere, the assessment based on conservative parameters and should
Wall stiffness shall be reduced to account for creep and
3 Section 4.0 OBS revised deign is based on the reduction at the wall stifness continue to do so if he is of the opinion such parameters The revised design is based on 70% EI CLOSED Closed.
relaxation as per CIRIA C580 recommendations.
along with the soil parameters intrepreted by WSP. The reflect the encountered ground conditions. With regards to
differences between the designs are stated at the atatched creep, 70% EI shall be considered as per CIRIA C580 for short
comparison table. term (temporary) conditions.
WSP calculations have shown higher deflections and straining
actions than those presented. Provide plaxis files for review. In The design is revised based on Eurocode 7. The comparison is
4 Section 8.0 NOTE Models to be revised as per Comment 8 below. Noted and amended CLOSED
addition, higher deflections and straining actions were reported as attached
in the tender design report.
5 Section 8.0 Define the abbreviations SS and ES. RFA SS = soil side & ES = excavation side Noted. CLOSED
As per comment 4, increased reinforcement was provided in The design is revised based on Eurocode 7. The comparison is
6 Section 8.0 NOTE Models to be revised as per Comment 8 below. Noted and amended CLOSED
the tender design report. as attached

Phase 2 will need to have the displacements reset (in


deformation control parameters) from previous stage as
the surcharge is the original soil load and not something
that is applied. As such, the construction surcharge of
All models have been revised in as per the
In the models provided, a fixed line displacement is modelled 20kPa should not be considered in Phase 1. In addition,
The slope and diaphragm analyzes are separated to be able to consultant's recommendations. Slop load is
Similar to comment 4, WSP calculations has shown lower factor The design is revised based on Eurocode 7. The comparison is for the cut excavation and hence the FoS is not accurately the top of borehole should be same as Dwall top as the
7 Section 9.0 OBS determine the exact FoS of shoring wall. The slope is applied CLOSED applied as a uniform varying load in Closed.
of safety. as attached assessed. In addition, this reduces the top of wall movement additional heave created by the removal of this soil
as surcharge load to the diaphragm wall analyze. accordance with slope inclination as a
which is not correct. Revise all models. cluster is having an impact on the results. Sec 3 given
separate stage in the Plaxis models .
that it has higher surcharge loads should encounter
higher straining actions, however the heave from the
removal of soil cluster is impacting on the results. Revise
all models.

This is incorrect. Refer to below images which has been


extracted from the provided Sec3 model at Phase 3 stage.
There is no water pressure actin behind the wall when looking
at the interface results. When drawing phreatic lines in Plaxis
behind wall, they can only be horizontal or inclined and not
It appears the groundwater has been modelled to run down
vertical. In this case, there is no need to draw the vertical The water pressure is applied with interpolate function to
along the Dwall as shown by the phreatic line which is incorrect. The water line is constant at behind the shoring and there is
8 Annexure 3 OBS phreatic line. In addition, the pore pressures below the wall the sections. Water pressure diagram are available at the CLOSED Closed.
This will result in reduced water pressures acting on the wall. no reduction at the water pressure.
are unlikely to be affected as shown in 2nd image below. For annexures
Provide water pressure output.
this it is recommended that interpolation function (on soil
clusters to wall toe) is used, eitherwise for phreatic lines a
steady state model is more appropriate. Please revise all
models. This will result in higher deflections and straining
actions.

Confirm groundwater level on excavated side has been reduced


9 Additional to 1.0m below excavation level as required by the Project OBS Confirmed Closed. CLOSED
Specifications.
1 of 2
PROJECT ALAR
No 38455160

Recommendation :

Document Reference: Design Report for Shoring Works REPORT NO: ACC/PAHD/DR/SS-03 Date Received: 3 August 2018 Received From : Ammico

Recommendation : A - Consented to, Authorised to proceed, B - Consented to, subject to comments, C - Rejected, Not Consented, resubmit, work may not proceed

Comment Type : NCR - Non-compliance with mandatory Standards, Specifications OBS - Observation of minor items (typographical error, incorrect cross-reference), RFA - Request for Additional Information, NOTE - Observation of perceived design issue

No. Reference Comment Comment Type Contractor's Response Comment Rev01 Contractor's Response Rev01 Status Comments Rev02 Contractor's Response Rev02 Comments Rev03

10 Additional Provide FoS calculations for hydraulic failure. RFA Already provided (please see annexure 4) Closed. CLOSED
The design was performed using the old BS-8100 Standard. As
per Project Specifications, the shoring design shall be in
11 Section 8.0 and Annex-5 NCR The design is revised based on Eurocode 7. Closed. CLOSED
accordance with QCS (2014) which requires consideration of
ULS and SLS in line with EN1997-1:2004.
As the tender design was based on C40 grade concrete and
The concrete grade proposed (C40) is not compliant with the
12 Section 8.0 and Annex-5 NCR the tender is accepted with this criteria, our final design is also Noted. CLOSED
Project Specifications as C50.
based on C40 grade concrete.
Weight used in Dwall plate is incorrect. Recommend to follow
13 Additional OBS Noted and amended CLOSED Closed.
Plaxis guidance as per below.

14 Additional RFA Provide all SLS, DA1C1 and DA1C2 Plaxis models. Noted. CLOSED closed
The unrealistic heave on excavated side is having a great
impact on the wall behaviour. It is recommended that the
depth of analysis is revised as per below. A bottom layer As per reccomendations, model boundaries
of 1/2a can revised with higher stiffness of 3*E as a are revised and a stiff layer with higher
15 CLOSED small strain value. Incorporating this change along with stiffness (3E) has been introduced at Closed.
comment 7, the bending moments for Sec 3 DA1C1 bottom of model. Sketch illustrating the
increases to 950kNm (including 1.35 factor). Revise all models boundary is attached.
models. Also a more realistic deflection profile would be
encountered for Sec 1.

Reviewed By: Authorised By:

Name Karim Boualem Date: 05/08/2018 Name Isaac Coker Date: 05/08/2018
Alberto Bautista

Contractor's Response By:

Name Date: Name Date

2 of 2