Ho Chi Minh Urban Railway Construction Project

Ben Thanh SuoiTien (Line 1)

Contract Package 1b: Civil (Underground Section from Km0+615 to Km2+360)
Third Party Verifiers Response to Contractors Submission
From: Mr. Dao Ngoc Vinh

Our ref: TVQT-KT-LINE1-PK1B-004

Chief of Third Party Verifier

Date: 25 Oct 2014

Third Party Verifier Consortium

To: Mr. Kaoru Yamane
Design Manager
Shimizu Maeda Joint Operation
SMJOs transmittal No: TRS-

Date Submitted:

TPV-00007

24 Oct 2014

Doc No. (Title): Respone to TPV comments (TVQT-KT-LINE1-PK1B-002):

Respone to TPV comments (TVQT-KT-LINE1-PK1B-002):
Appendix 1

No.

TPVs comment (22/10/2014)

Designers Reply (24/10/2014)

TPVs Conclusion (25 /10/2014)

Name of document which TPV comment on : Calculation sheet (Temporary Structural)

The following matters must be considered

together with the previous mentioned matters:

- In phase 2, interval between struts is 2.5m in - The difference in strut spacing between Special Order area and load of 75kN/m2 to both side in

The

Consultant

symmetrically applied a building

the calculation document but this is 4.0m in

Phase 2 area is due to different loading conditions. The vicinity of Case 2 of Special order. However,

the Drawing. On the other hand, this interval

Special Order area is mostly loaded by traffic load (junction). 3PVC only applied a similar load,

in Special order is 3.0m while foundation

Meanwhile, in Phase 2 area, two shallow-founded building exist, 75kN/m2, at only one side of section
Page1of10

Design

depth and surface load at section 3-3 of of

which give more load to diaphragm wall. Therefore, in order to 3-3 (this is asymmetrically model)

phase 2 and special order are similar. It is

accommodate bigger load, more strut is required to increase strut for checking. At section 4-4, 5-5,

requested that the Design Consultant shall

area (As) and consequently produce bigger spring value (please and 6-6, the applied loads are larger

check this difference. If there is no difference,

refer to below formula taken from DSRSC-Cut and Cover).

these numbers should be consistent.

than 75kN/m2. However, distance

from buildings to D-wall at section

3-3 (2m) is smaller than it in Case 2

of Special order (5m). Therefore,

interval between braces may smaller

as well.

The Design Consultant provided

the referring standard which is not in

English. It is requested that an

English version should be provided

for checking.

In calculation sheets, interval

between braces is 2.5m which is

understood

single braces. However, this interval

in the Drawing is 4.0m which is

as

understood

as

interval

interval

between

between

double braces. For such case, one

segment of the brace frame should

be

applying finite element method for

checking

modeled

stability.

Page2of10

then

bearing

analyzed

capacity

by

and

- The Design Consultant has not provided - Building dilapidation survey is ongoing. The building impact
3PVC agrees on the explanation
sufficient information for evaluating impact to
assessment and utility subsidence reports will be submitted that evaluating settlement impact to
neighbouring works during constructions.
neighboring constructions shall be
separately as per Tender Document Volume 4, Clause 28.
Impact level depends on foundation structure

developed in a separated document.

and construction dimension. Impact to pile-

3PVC will consider this document

foundation-construction

once

and

shadow-

received.

However,

in

foundation-construction are different. It is

calculation sheets for temporary

requested that the Design Consultant shall

structural which 3PVC received

provide sufficient information of neighbouring

contain

constructions and classify impact level by

construction

various construction types.

presenting foundation structure. The

model

for

neighboring

loads

without

Design Consultant should reconsider

this matter when analyzing impact to
buildings. For D-wall calculations,
construction foundation type such as
shallow

foundation

or

pile

foundation will affect to pressure on

the wall. Therefore, the Design
Consultant should clarify this matter
during considering D-wall.

- From the 3PVC point of view, method of

evaluating

impact

to

In our understanding, total, differential and relative settlements are

neighbouring

conventional and widely accepted methods for evaluating the

constructions based on soil surface settlement,

impact of construction works on surrounding buildings. These

which the Design Consultant applied, does not

parameters shall be used as input for building impact assessment.

In

modeling,

construction

settlement shall be settlement at

foundation

bottom

for

shallow

foundation. For pile foundation, on

Page3of10

reflect all impacts to construction. For

the other hand, settlement shall be

example,

evaluated

settlement of pipe system is settlement of

deformation. The design consultant

construction. The Design Consultant has not

has not presented pile foundation in

considered this sort of structure in the model.

the model so that there is no base for

The Design Consultant should check this

evaluating construction settlement.

for

pile-foundation-structure,

by

pile

element

matter.

settlement - The allowable settlement shown in table 3.1.1, page 2-64 of

3PVC has understood that
Temporary
Structural
Calculation
Sheets
was
developed
based
on
mentioned in Table 3.1.1, page 2-64 by the
allowable settlement mentioned in
Table
28.1,
Volume
4
of
Tender
Documents
in
consideration
of
Design Consultant? The Design Consultant
Design criteria by the Design
surrounding area. In addition, relative settlement parameter is
should provide referring standards to the

- What

is

base

for allowable

Consultant is construction allowable

3PVC as a base for checking these values.

introduced to assess the impact of construction to neighboring

According to the 3PVC, the impact level

buildings as it is one of the most important parameters according to

depends

Burland (see Appendix 1)

on

construction

structure

as

settlement. Therefore, settlement of

pile-foundation-construction

is

settlement of foundation but is not

mentioned above. In addtion, allowable

settlement of ground surface. For

settlement depends on construction structure

agreement

based on Annex E of Vietnamese standard

requested that the Design Consultant

TCVN

provided

settlement of reinforcement concrete structure

English which mentions allowable

is 10cm.

settlement for various foundation

10304:2014.

For

example,

total

on

evaluation,

referring

it

standard

is

in

types.

- The Design Consultant mentioned loads due - Please refer to our reply submitted to 3PV on 23 October 2014. For 3PVC received the explanation on
rd
to neighbouring contructions by sections in
example, building load and dimensions for section 3 is shown in 23 October, however the Design
Page4of10

Calculation sections table at page 1-3 of

Structure calculation of temporary and

base for loads. For example, how to

auxiliary constructions. However, the Design

calculate

Consultant

distance from building to D-wall. It

has

not

provided

basis

page 3-1-9 & 3-1-10.

for

load

of

75kN/m2,

calculating these values as well as specify

is

distributed areas of the load. For example,

Consultant need provides sufficient

how many meters does loading of 75kM/m2

input data for checking these values.

by Sai Gon Tourist Building which is 2.0m

Otherwise,

from D-wall distribute to?

responsible for input data.

View Hotel? According to Drawing CP1b-

shown in page 2-99 & 2-110 of Temporary Structural Calculation

CSS-TD-STOH-02004, this location is sub

Sheets. There was a mistake in Drawing CP1b-CSS-TD-STOH-

export-import company which contains 6

02004 where the previous building owners name (Sub Export

stories at the section. As a result, load name of

Import Company) is shown. We will revise this drawing

Opera View Hotel is not correct.

accordingly.

requested

that

3PVC

the

is

Design

not

in

- At section 4-4, 5-5, and 6-6, what is base for - The as-built drawings of Opera View Hotel were sent to 3PV on 23 ok
October 2014. Details of loading calculation for this building are
calculating loads of 162kN/m2 by Opera

3PVC received the explanation on

CP1b-CSS-TD- - Please refer to above reply to comment 6 and our responses dated
23rd October, however the Design
23 October 2014 for your perusal.
STOH-02004, Sai Gon Tourist Building

According

to

Drawing

Consultant has not clarified why

containing 5 stories causes a load of 75kN/m2

load of 5-story-building, 75kN/m2,

while Export-Import Company containing 6

is different from load of 6-story-

stories causes a load of 162kN/m. The 3PVC

believes that these numbers are not accurate

because a difference of one story causes

building, 162kN/m2.

Page5of10

Consultant has not shown relevant

double load. It is requested that the Design

Consultant shall clarify this matter. Providing

sufficient

information

of

neighbouring

constructions to the 3PVC is very important

for evaluating impact during construction.

- Models for calculating at section 3-3, 4-4, and - Please refer to our responses dated 23 October 2014 for your

5-5 have not presented sufficient surface

loads. The models only presented uniform

Please refer to 3PVCs response.

perusal.

load of 10kN/m2 but have not presented

neighbouring consutrction loads. The Design
Consultant should reconsider this.
- In model for calculating soil settlement, - It is expected that biggest ground/building settlement is associated
Agree on the explanation that the
Ground movement analysis by FEM, the
with biggest diaphragm wall deformation. Therefore, in our maximum settlement is caused by DDesign Consultant has not presented
calculation, only biggest diaphragm wall deformation case was wall deformation. The Design
settlement for each constrcution stage on the
used as input for calculation of building settlement by FEM
Consultant should point out in which

section. To accurately evaluate impact of

method.

construction

foundation construction to the neighbouring

constructions,

considered for each construction stage to

proposed suitabble solutions. The Design

Consultant should clarify settlment in each

the

evaluation

should

maximum

be

important

causing

deformation.
for

alternatives

selecting
for

It

the
is

support
different

construction stages. Therefore, it is

requested that the Design Consultant

construction stage.

provides settlement of ground and

deformation of D-wall for each stage

for evaluation.

Page6of10

stage

11 - Settlement of 19.7m at section 3-3 and 19.3m

at section 4-4 is not accurate because surface

load at section 4-4 (162kN) is double to which

Opera View Hotel (surface load for section 4-4), located 2m away
from D-Wall, therefore a mechanism of ground pressure
distribution occurred and decreased the distributed load to 68

at section 3-3 (75kN). The Design Consultant

kN/m2 (please refer to figure in page 1-5). Therefore, applied load

should check this matter.

for section 4-4 become smaller than surface load of section 3-3

12

Ok

and resulted in smaller settlement.

- The widths of section 4-4 on axial 16 and 17
as mentioned in Drawing CP1b-CSS-TDSTOH-02004 are different so that two
situations should be considered. The Design

- The section 4-4 (in 3PVs understanding) was subdivided into two

Ok

sections, 4-4 and 7-7. Detailed calculation for these two sections
has been provided to 3PV previously. Please refer to Permanent
Structural Calculation Sheet.

Consultant should reconsider this matter.

- It is requested that the Design Consultant shall
provide stability checking calculation at DWall foot to the 3PVC.

- It is requested that the Design Consultant shall

prepare report on pumping foundation water
during construction. This matter affects to
pore-water presure and should be consider in
settlement calculation for construction stages.

- Stability check is actually provided in Temporary Structural

Calculation Sheets. For example, for Section 3, it is shown in page
3-1-186 to page 3-1-192

- As explained previously in our reply dated 23 October 2014, Pumping

alternative
during
diaphragm wall is embedded in the Dc soil (impermeable layer), construction should be added to the
and closed to water (excavation is done after D-wall is closed), document.
there water ingress due to excavation and its consequences are
insignificant.

Name of document which TPV comment on : Drawing list

1

Base on tender documents for contract package - In principle SMJO does not change the design from tender stage

objection

to

Clients

1b Volume 6: Employers Drawings. It is

unless it is required by Client. Modification/refinement is only correction and supplementation

required to clarify some changes of Technical

made based on updated information from Employer such as soil

Page7of10

No

2s

design drawings than basic design drawings. For

parameter on Dc layer and seismic information (earthquake

example:

acceleration) in Ho Chi Minh City.

Width of foundation;

Distance from D-Wall to Kingpost;

Thickness of floor (BF1);

Some more details in section 1-1 to 7-7.

As a rule, regardless of any changes compared - Noted.

ok

to the basic design requires explanation. This is

a base for approving by the relevant authority.
Name of document which TPV comment on : TRS-TPV-00003 20141014 Inception Report and Others
1

- It is required to add

(k) the CAD and - Please refer to Inception Report for your information.

ok

Document Control procedures and (l) initial

station sizing on Inception Report

Beside 4 Japanese standards in TRS-TPV- - Some other applicable standards, codes and specification are Due

to insufficient

provided

00005 20141022, For the verification, it is

available at SMJO office (hard copies and in Japanese) for your standards, 3PVC will apply the

required to provide all applied standards. For

references. Due to copyright, they are not allowable for mass following

example:

sharing.

principals

consideration:

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

- Calculation components used

Commentary (Earth Structures: 01/2007);

in the equation was mentioned

DSRSC-ES

in Inception Report (with all

applying conditions), 3PVC

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary

(Shield

Tunnel:

will

12/2002);

use

these.

However,

accuracy of the equation is not

DSRSC-ST

in 3PVCs responsible.
Page8of10

for

- (Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary

(Steel-Concrete

- For

Hybrid

whose

equations are not mentioned

Structures: 12/2002); DSRSC-HS

in Inception Report and in

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

supplied standards in English

Commentary (Displacement Limits: 02/2006);

by the Design Consultant,

DSRSC-DL

3PVC has not any bases for

evaluation.

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary

(Urban

Mountain

It is found that some applied

Tunnel:

standards are not included in

05/2002); DSRSC-UT

Project applicable standard

- Maintenance Standards for Railway Structures

list. The Design Consultant

and Commentary (01/2007); MSRSC

should revise, check and add

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary
Earth

(Foundation

Retaining

Structures

Structures:

these standards to the list. In

and

addition,

06/2000);

(Steel-Concrete

Circular

Composite

BXD

structures: 07/2009); DSRSC-SC

- Specifications

For

Temporary

Structures

(JAPAN ROAD ASSOCIATION: 03/1999)

- STANDARD

foreign

Vietnam shall comply with

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary

applying

standards in construction in

DSRSC-FS

SPECIFICATIONS

FOR

TUNNELING -2006: Cut-and-Cover Tunnels

(Japan Society of Civil Engineers: JSCE:
07/2006)
-
Page9of10

calculations

No.

40/2009/TT-


Preparedby:

Approvedby:

TranVanTu

DaoNgocVinh

VuMinhTri

ChiefofThirdPartyVerifier

CivilEngineer

Date:25/10/2014

Date:25/10/2014

Page10of10