Dear Sir

On 23/12/15 and 24/12/15 I had a detail discussion with PD (Mr.Nurujjaman) regarding the submission of Revised
Boiler piling drawing. I had explained him that the chiness vendor (NEPC) had submitted only the output results
using their owned software (PKPM) which is not available with others. Now, before doing the analysis the civil
designer needs the following

1) Approved GA and layout of boiler

2) Approved loading details per leg from the boiler supplier

Presently I presume that the chiness designer had the above (may be approved by BPDB) as an input before start
of civil design.

They have designed the entire boiler foundation in their PKPM software for the analysis of

a) Check against vertical compression of pile

b) Pile settlement calculation
c) Shear check for the pile cap
d) Calculation of reinforcement for pile cap
e) Check against uplift of the pile
f) Check against the lateral thrust on the pile
g) Pile structural design

These analysis and design calculation they had done using their own software and they didn’t submit the same for
our review. What they had given is only output drawing of pile and a document having title (“Submission of
Revised Piles Drawings for Boil Area”). But this document does not contain any calculation. General information
like specification no., chiness software used ( not staad which we have ), earthquake and geological information,
material information etc.
Furthermore everywhere upon testing, the capacity of the pile (pile type P1 and capacity 270 Mt) had not
achieved.

The probable reason may be the following

A) The property of soil, field test and lab test done during Geotechnical Investigation was not correct

and/or

B) The capacity of the pile assessed in design was overestimated (normally in IS codes we are assessing the
capacity of pile from static formula using the reports from geotechnical investigation). This static design
they have not submitted.

and/or

C) There is no problem in design , but during construction may be due to lack of final bentonite wash the pile
bore collapse and a loose concrete mix with collapsed soil formed at the bottom and upon loading it crash
and pile settled before arising the final load during testing.
Now, they had submitted a new revised drawing showing additional pile in the boiler area Again no detail
calculation had submitted. I spoke to their Construction head at site (Mr. Lee) and PD of BPDB (Mr. Nurujjaman)
regarding this. Mr. Lee told that their designer stationed at Chain and using their software PKPM only they had
analyzed in their China design institute. Even they told that this can be shown and discussed during the design
review meeting at Chaina only.

I explained the situation to Mr.Nurujjaman (PD) and he agreed that without any detail we cannot give our
approval. Simultaneously he is also worried that the design review meeting will be held from 15/1 to 28/1 and the
progress will be hampered greatly.

Thus he told to write like previous that they may start the pile at their own risk and cost. Principally I agreed on the
same as because without getting satisfied STEAG will not give any design approval (thus both BPDB and STEAG are
safe) but EPC contractor may proceed for the progress at his own interest.

I am proposing the following rider. Please provide your kind opinion on this

“The contractor may proceed at his own risk and cost to continue the piling work. The final approval will be given
upon submission, discussion, review and satisfaction for all analysis, design, necessary calculation required by
BPDB and STEAG. All responsibility will be lies to the EPC contactor.”

Please correct the rider as per your comment.

Mobile number of Mr. Nurujjaman – (+8801777794200)

Regards

Avijit Dey