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

TPVs comment (22/10/2014)

Designers Reply (24/10/2014)

TPVs Conclusion (25 /10/2014)

o.
Name of document which TPV comment on : Calculation sheet (Temporary Structural)
The following matters must be considered

The

together with the previous mentioned matters:

1

Design

Consultant

symmetrically applied a building

- 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 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,

Page 1 of 10

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

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, and

requested that the Design Consultant shall

area (As) and consequently produce bigger spring value (please

6-6, the applied loads are larger than

check this difference. If there is no difference,

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

75kN/m2. However, distance from

these numbers should be consistent.

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

as

interval

between

single braces. However, this interval

in the Drawing is 4.0m which is
understood

as

interval

between

double braces. For such case, one

segment of the brace frame should
be

modeled

then

analyzed

by

applying finite element method for

checking

Page 2 of 10

bearing

capacity

and

stability.

- The Design Consultant has not provided

sufficient information for evaluating impact to
neighbouring works during constructions.
Impact level depends on foundation structure

- Building dilapidation survey is ongoing. The building impact

assessment and utility subsidence reports will be submitted
separately as per Tender Document Volume 4, Clause 28.

3PVC agrees on the explanation

that evaluating settlement impact to
neighboring constructions shall be
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

neighbouring

constructions based on soil surface settlement,

- In our understanding, total, differential and relative settlements are

conventional and widely accepted methods for evaluating the
impact of construction works on surrounding buildings. These
Page 3 of 10

In

modeling,

construction

settlement shall be settlement at

which the Design Consultant applied, does not

parameters shall be used as input for building impact assessment.

foundation

bottom

for

shallow

reflect all impacts to construction. For

foundation. For pile foundation, on

example,

the other hand, settlement shall be

for

pile-foundation-structure,

settlement of pipe system is settlement of

evaluated

construction. The Design Consultant has not

deformation. The design consultant

considered this sort of structure in the model.

has not presented pile foundation in

The Design Consultant should check this

the model so that there is no base for

matter.

evaluating construction settlement.

by

pile

element

4
- What

is base for allowable

settlement

mentioned in Table 3.1.1, page 2-64 by the

Design Consultant? The Design Consultant
should provide referring standards to the
3PVC as a base for checking these values.
According to the 3PVC, the impact level
depends

on

construction

structure

as

mentioned above. In addtion, allowable

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

Temporary Structural Calculation Sheets was developed based on

3PVC

has

understood

that

Table 28.1, Volume 4 of Tender Documents in consideration of

allowable settlement mentioned in

surrounding area. In addition, relative settlement parameter is

Design

introduced to assess the impact of construction to neighboring

Consultant is construction allowable

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

settlement. Therefore, settlement of

Burland (see Appendix 1)

pile-foundation-construction

criteria

by

the

Design

is

settlement of foundation but is not

settlement depends on construction structure

settlement of ground surface. For

based on Annex E of Vietnamese standard

agreement

TCVN

requested that the Design Consultant

10304:2014.

For

example,

total

on

evaluation,

it

is

settlement of reinforcement concrete structure

provided

is 10cm.

English which mentions allowable

referring

standard

in

settlement for various foundation

types.

5
- The Design Consultant mentioned loads due

- Please refer to our reply submitted to 3PV on 23 October 2014. For

Page 4 of 10

to neighbouring contructions by sections in

example, building load and dimensions for section 3 is shown in

3PVC received the explanation on

Calculation sections table at page 1-3 of

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

23rd October, however the Design

Structure calculation of temporary and

Consultant has not shown relevant

auxiliary constructions. However, the Design

base for loads. For example, how to

Consultant

calculate

has

not

provided

basis

for

load

of

75kN/m2,

calculating these values as well as specify

distance from building to D-wall. It

distributed areas of the load. For example,

is

how many meters does loading of 75kM/m2

Consultant need provides sufficient

by Sai Gon Tourist Building which is 2.0m

input data for checking these values.

from D-wall distribute to?

Otherwise,

requested

that

3PVC

the

is

Design

not

in

responsible for input data.

- 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

calculating loads of 162kN/m2 by Opera

October 2014. Details of loading calculation for this building are

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.

ok

7
-

According to Drawing CP1b-CSS-TD-STOH02004, Sai Gon Tourist Building containing 5

- Please refer to above reply to comment 6 and our responses dated

23 October 2014 for your perusal.

23rd October, however the Design

stories causes a load of 75kN/m2 while

Export-Import

Company

containing

3PVC received the explanation on

Consultant has not clarified why

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

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

is different from load of 6-story-

believes that these numbers are not accurate

Page 5 of 10

because a difference of one story causes

building, 162kN/m2.

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.
8
- Models for calculating at section 3-3, 4-4, and
5-5 have not presented sufficient surface
loads. The models only presented uniform

- Please refer to our responses dated 23 October 2014 for your

perusal.

Please refer to 3PVCs response.

load of 10kN/m2 but have not presented

neighbouring consutrction loads. The Design
9

Consultant should reconsider this.

- In model for calculating soil settlement,
Ground movement analysis by FEM, the
Design

Consultant

has

not

presented

settlement for each constrcution stage on the

section. To accurately evaluate impact of
foundation construction to the neighbouring
constructions,

the

evaluation

should

- It is expected that biggest ground/building settlement is associated

with biggest diaphragm wall deformation. Therefore, in our

Agree on the explanation that the

calculation, only biggest diaphragm wall deformation case was

maximum settlement is caused by D-

used as input for calculation of building settlement by FEM

wall

method.

Consultant should point out in which

deformation.

construction

be

stage

The

Design

causing

considered for each construction stage to

maximum

proposed suitabble solutions. The Design

important

Consultant should clarify settlment in each

alternatives for different construction

construction stage.

stages. Therefore, it is requested that

the

for

Design

settlement

Page 6 of 10

deformation.
selecting

Consultant
of

It

the
is

support

provides

ground

and

11

deformation of D-wall for each stage

for evaluation.

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

at section 4-4 is not accurate because surface

Opera View Hotel (surface load for section 4-4), located 2m away

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

from D-Wall, therefore a mechanism of ground pressure

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

distribution occurred and decreased the distributed load to 68

should check this matter.

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

Ok

for section 4-4 become smaller than surface load of section 3-3
12

and resulted in smaller settlement.

- The widths of section 4-4 on axial 16 and 17

as mentioned in Drawing CP1b-CSS-TD-

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

STOH-02004 are different so that two

sections, 4-4 and 7-7. Detailed calculation for these two sections

situations should be considered. The Design

has been provided to 3PV previously. Please refer to Permanent

Consultant should reconsider this matter.

Structural Calculation Sheet.

Ok

- It is requested that the Design Consultant shall

provide stability checking calculation at D-

- Stability check is actually provided in Temporary Structural

Wall foot to the 3PVC.

Calculation Sheets. For example, for Section 3, it is shown in page

3-1-186 to page 3-1-192

- It is requested that the Design Consultant shall

prepare report on pumping foundation water

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

during construction. This matter affects to

diaphragm wall is embedded in the Dc soil (impermeable layer),

pore-water presure and should be consider in

and closed to water (excavation is done after D-wall is closed),

settlement calculation for construction stages.

there water ingress due to excavation and its consequences are

Pumping

alternative

during

construction should be added to the

document.

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
Page 7 of 10

No

objection

to

Clients

1b Volume 6: Employers Drawings. It is required

unless it is required by Client. Modification/refinement is only

to clarify some changes of Technical design

made based on updated information from Employer such as soil

drawings than basic design drawings. For

parameter on Dc layer and seismic information (earthquake

example:

acceleration) in Ho Chi Minh City.

correction and supplementation

- Width of foundation;
- Distance from D-Wall to Kingpost;
- Thickness of floor (BF1);
- Some more details in section 1-1 to 7-7.
2

As a rule, regardless of any changes compared

to the basic design requires explanation. This is

- Noted.

ok

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.

consideration:

principals

for

- 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);
Page 8 of 10

use

these.

However,

DSRSC-ST

accuracy of the equation is not

in 3PVCs responsible.

- (Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary

(Steel-Concrete

Hybrid

- For

Structures: 12/2002); DSRSC-HS

calculations

whose

equations are not mentioned in

Inception

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Report

and

in

Commentary (Displacement Limits: 02/2006);

supplied standards in English

DSRSC-DL

by the Design Consultant,

3PVC has not any bases for

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary

(Urban

Mountain

evaluation.

Tunnel:

It is found that some applied

05/2002); DSRSC-UT

standards are not included in

- Maintenance Standards for Railway Structures

Project applicable standard

and Commentary (01/2007); MSRSC

list. The Design Consultant

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary
Earth

(Foundation

Retaining

Structures

Structures:

should revise, check and add

and

these standards to the list. In

06/2000);

addition,

DSRSC-FS
(Steel-Concrete

Vietnam shall comply with

Composite

Circular

structures: 07/2009); DSRSC-SC

- Specifications

For

Temporary

BXD
Structures

(JAPAN ROAD ASSOCIATION: 03/1999)

- STANDARD

SPECIFICATIONS

foreign

standards in construction in

- Design Standards for Railway Structures and

Commentary

applying

FOR

TUNNELING -2006: Cut-and-Cover Tunnels

(Japan Society of Civil Engineers: JSCE:
07/2006)
Page 9 of 10

No.

40/2009/TT-

-
Prepared by:

Approved by:

Tran Van Tu

Dao Ngoc Vinh

Vu Minh Tri

Chief of Third Party Verifier

Civil Engineer

Date: 25 /10/2014
Date: 25 /10/2014

Page 10 of 10