Approval Code Response Summary

Item Title √ Tick Remark

which
Applicable
To be Filled
by
Approver
Code
1 2 3
1 PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2 x
ESC2 Precast Concrete Structure System Design Report

Total x

Date: 11 Jan 2019

Reviewer Signature:

Alvin Leong
(DDC3)

Approver Signature:

James Stabler David Parks

(DDC3) (LDC)

Note: Code 1 – Accepted

Code 2 – Accepted with comments
Code 3 – Rejected

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 1 of 19
 DOCUMENT / DRAWING REVIEW REQUEST SHEET

Submission / Doc. / Dwg. Title* : ESC2 Precast Concrete Structure System Design Report
Doc. / Dwg. Reference No.* : PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2 Previous DRR No. : -
Doc. / Dwg. Rev.* : 00 TRM / LET Ref. No.* : SSP-MGKT-TRANSMIT-xx
Submission Date* : xx xxx 2019 Discipline : Structure
DRR Ref.* : SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx DRR Rev. No.* : 01
Reviewer(s)* : DDC3 Head of Department* :
Review Date* : 23 Oct 2019, 11 Jan 2019
*Compulsory

Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause

1 General comments for
Design
a. Refer to Attachment 1a, revise the title of report
b. Please make sure the design brief for the report is as per
ESC2 info not ESC3 proposed location. Refer markups
c. Please provide manual calculation validation to all in-
house spreadsheet. Review and approval of the precast
component design calculation can only be carried with the
validation check.
d. Please label all the appendix title cover
e. Please clarify on the required design tolerance for
installation considered and to be adopted in actual
construction
f. Please elaborate in technical terms the surface of precast
half slab and precast double wall face to receive concrete.
Method of preparation of surface in production shall be
stated
g. The precast specialist designer please confirm and
acknowledge that ancillary structure in KVMRT2 project
and for ESC2 are designed for seismic action. Thus, all
the member as well as connections
h. The precast specialist designer shall ensure all proposed
connection and the respective precast system are
a. Kindly refer the attached revised report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
b. Noted
c. Most of our spreadsheets are using RCC, We will submitted
Validation calculation for our In–house spreadsheet (refer Appendix 13
in the latest report).
d. Kindly refer the attached revised report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
e. Yes, we have considered some installation Tolerance in the Design
(Eg. We have allowed 50mm Tolerance in Ring wall connection to
Slab).
f. All our precast surface receiving fresh concrete will be “As Cast or As
Extruded” as stated in BS 8110 Part 1 Table 5.5.
g. Design load eg bending moment & shear extracted from the report
provided by DDC, all structural joints are design accordingly.
h. Please refer to attached report check for structural capacity and

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 2 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
designed to the equivalent Detail Design Consultant stability.
structural capacity and stability.
i. From all the design appendixes, it is not understood on i. Noted. We have updated the Table 6.2 in the report PJPT-JPT027-
the capacity of the precast system in comparison to IFC GB-ES2-R3A Page 20.
original design provision. Please provide a summary
showing the precast connection capacity compare to j. Noted. We have updated the Table 6.2 in the report PJPT-JPT027-
original connection capacity GB-ES2-R3A Page 20.
j. Please provide a summary of capacity on all the
connection/zone in which the effective depth changed k. Refer to Table 6.1 & Table 6.2 in the report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-
k. Missing Table 6.1 & 6.2 R3A Page 19&20
l. DDC3 Comments and Specialist Designer Response
shall be included as part of Appendix l. Refer to Appendix 11 report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A –
Comments from DDC3 & Specialist Designer Response
1
Reply on 20 Jan 2020 1
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020
a) Closed c. We have attached the Calculation in the latest Appendix 13 in 2
b) Closed 1
the report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3B
c) Missing double wall interface calculation validation check.
d) Closed 2
e. Please note that the Precast Plank top surface to cast in rebar
e) Noted on the 50mm tolerance. However, the offset of this 1
placed at site 25mm (please refer the calculation in page no
do not appear to be considered in design. Please clarify
35,36,51,52,66,67 in the latest report) 1
f) Closed
g) The IFC design requirement is moment joint for seismic j. We have attached the Calculation in the latest report PJPT-
action. We noted additional calculation and change of
JPT027-GB-ES2-R3B page no 21.
connection detail for staircase connection. Comment will
1
be in section of staircase. This comment considered
closed. 1
h) Closed 2
i) Closed
1
j) Missing summary for staircase
k) Closed 1
l) Closed

2 Section 3.2 a. Please refer to markups, review and revise the necessary a. Noted. Refer to Latest report and drawings 1
Precast component to tally with drawing or vice versa
summary
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020
a) Closed

3 Section 4.1 a. Table 4.1 on concrete mix design, please refer IFC as a. Refer the attached revised Table 4.2 in the report PJPT- 1
Structural Design well as comment on item 2 in Drawing DRR JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
Parameters b. Table 4.2, please state the stud/anchor material
properties b. Refer the attached revised Table 4.2 in the report PJPT-
c. Please confirm the properties of Mapei Patch 128. Please

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 3 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
confirm the key feature of the grout and clarify is the grout JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
non-shrinkage grout
d. Table 4.4, for concrete cover of continuous slab as per c. Please refer to Latest report, we have specified Non Shrink
IFC, minimum cover shall be 35mm grout with Strength >60mpa.

DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020 d. Noted.

a) Closed
b) Closed
c) Closed
d) Closed

4 Section 5.1 a. Please state and indicate that the design of the slab shall a. No axial compression being consider in the slab design.
Precast Half Slab based on normal slab design without any beneficial
contribution of axial compression forces. Tension force, if b. All joints designed for moment, Except Staircase Flight to mid
Connection
any, shall be considered landing.
b. Please note that all connection and joint and thus the
detailing shall be moment connection as per KVMRT2 c. There is no loss in effective depth, the section will act as one
Design requirement and original DDC IFC design intent. single elements due to composite action of the section. In
Please revise normal slab design no compression bar is required unless the
c. Please clarify why the staircase Mid landing precast plank section is heavily loaded/stress.
required to be 125mm that causes major loss of effective
depth at connection. Please revise to minimum d. Staircase flight is FFL; whereas, staircase landing could be
d. Please refer to comment in drawing DRR with respect to SFL. To be adjust at site.
finish level of staircase
e. Section 5.2.4, proposed detail not acceptable. Please e. Section 5.2.4 is updated as per IFC Details.
revise to IFC requirement
Reply on 20 Jan 2020
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020
a. We have updated the Design using RCC element design
a) Contradicting response. The design calculation clearly
shown that axial forces has been considered and it is instead of moment interaction spreadsheet. The results are 3
shown that capacity will be exceeded as shown the chart same and showed in the Appendix 1 page no
when there is no axial force. Please review and revise. 28,29,46,47,63,64 of latest report.
b) Relevant comment for staircase connection moved to 1
staircase section. This comment is closed.
c) Relevant comment for staircase connection moved to 1
staircase section. This comment is closed.
d) Noted. Please note the profile and finishing level and the
finishes shall obtained DDC1 architect approval. DDC3 1
comment on this matter is closed. 1
e) Closed

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 4 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
5 Section 5.3 a. Section 5.3.1, please justify the non-shrinkage grout is a. Wire mesh will be provided and grout together.
Precast Staircase able to adhere to a steel surface. Please state the defined
product with product catalogue. b. We have followed IFC requirement, refer to Table 4.4 in the
Connection
b. Please note that the structure requires 4hours fire rating latest report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
and the effective non-spalling effective concrete cover
thickness shall be defined c. Refer to Test Result from Suppliers to be furnished in future
c. Please note for item 4a and the grout material please
provide test results that the material is able to sustain the d. Figure 5.9 already design with moment connection, provided
fire rating. top rebar sufficient for sagging.
d. Please clarify how the connection shown in figure 5.9
achieve moment connection continuity e. Design calculation for seismic provided in the revised report
e. Section 5.3.2 Figure 5.10 & 5.11 shown the staircase and PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A page 87 based on seismic load
landing are designed with seating connection without any action on the stair-flight alone.
structural continuation. Please justify how is this proposed
Reply on 20 Jan 2020
connection able to sustain seismic action
a. Weld plate is only used as a temporary support and therefore
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020
will not require 4hrs fire rating. Couplers with rebar will be used 3
a) Figure 5.9 shown that the wire mesh is not edge to edge
and thus there will be extend the in which the grout will as double wall permanent support.
fail and easily spall off. Thus, result in loss of capacity if b. Refer the attached drawing which shows the cover thickness
the steel bracket is permanent support. Please define the
purpose. 3
e. Refer the attached revised report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3B,
b) Noted. However, drawing RED-008070 do not show the Page no 84,85.
cover thickness adopted. Please state to show 2
compliance and for setting out on site.
c) The contractor shall note the risk on any procurement of
any product without any data for review and for
compliance to KVMRT MSA Specification requirements. 1
DDC3 is not able to review at this stage for anything that
can only be provided in the future.
d) Noted the provision of T12-200 staggered bars for
seismic and continuity design. Comment closed.
3
e) Noted the design concept however the design calculation
is not acceptable as it considered only the self-weight.
Staircase is part of the escape route in any circumstances
that arise. The seismic design shall consist the total load
(DL, SDL, LL).

6 Appendix 1 a. Precast specialist designer has been informed previously a. Please refer the attached latest report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-
Precast half slab design - that all intermediate slab be designed as normal slab R3A Appendix 1
permanent stage without any beneficial contribution of axial compression
forces. b. Noted and updated accordingly. Please refer the attached
b. Please revise the design and to note that DDC design do report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
not group B5 to that of B4 to B1.
c. Please clarify is the 250mm double slab below Level B5 is c. We have updated the slab details for Double slab in the latest

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 5 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
to propose as precast system report and drawing.
d. Design calculation is showing the use of “R” type mild
steel reinforcement and in not compliance to original d. We have revised in the latest report to ‘T’ as per IFC
design requirement. Please revise requirement.
e. Please clarify is the crack width check is on at connection
of precast slab plank. If the check is at this connection. e. We have updated our calculation at the Plank Joint. Refer to
There is no loss of effective depth capture in the design. attached revised calculation Page 32,52 in the report PJPT-
Please revise. JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
f. Crack width check has no consideration of orientation as
well as the depth position of reinforcement. Please revise f. Coupler installation follow slab rebar.
and provide.
g. Missing crack width check nor calculation to provide g. We have updated our calculation at the Plank Joint. Refer to
equivalent IFC capacity at connection with loss of attached revised calculation Page 32,52 in the report PJPT-
effective depth. JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
h. Connection between ring wall to floor slab design check
are based on wrong rebar orientation & provision and h. Please Clarify further.
calculation is not acceptable. Design shall be revised to
i. Currently checked for the major direction bending Noted, we
IFC arrangement and check shall be carried out with
normal beam/slab design formula for integrated capacity have checked for both directions in the latest report.
at connection
j. Refer to the picture shown in SSP-H-PJPT-UNGW-ESC2-
i. State and show which direction the interface shear is
CNS- STS-000130-H01.
checked. Please note that there are always two direction
of shear/moment thus two shear flow design check. k. Refer attached revised drawing, we have followed the
j. Please provide actual precast half slab plank pictures to
orientation of reinforcement as per IFC.
show that the produce precast surface
k. Reinforcement anchorage of intermediate slab as well as l. Lattice girder is only serves in temporary condition, Not
its orientation shall be as per IFC and not as per necessary to comply 0.75 d spacing
proposed in drawing. Refer to IFC and revise accordingly
l. Lattice girder provision as interface shear link spacing is m. It’s not bent up bar, Shear link in the girder are inclined in an
more than 0.75d. Please revise. angle 82 to planks surface. We have included 82 degree
m. Interface shear link provision is provided in form of lattice inclination in the design.
girder where the links is in form of bent-up bar. However,
the calculation presented seems to suggest the design n. Our slab is composite slab with 0.15% interfacing steel as
remain carried out as per normal vertical link. Please stated in the BS 8110 part 1 and complies with BS En 13747.
provide validation to demonstrate bent-up bar design
n. With reference to bent-up bar, please provide check on o. Refer to the appendix 2, In the latest report we have checked
anchorage and bearing as per BS 3.3.5.7 and justify as the plank for moment due to Construction stage against the
necessary the design. provided reinforcement.
o. Referring to comment on Appendix 2 below, please
demonstrate that construction induced moment has been p. Bar provided in the table with length refer to drawing SSP-H-
captured as part of the check. PJPT-UNGW-ESC2-CNS- CRS-000100.
p. Please clearly indicate the link hook shape code to be
adopted for horizontal ties
3
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 6 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
a) Refer comment 4a above Reply on 20 Jan 2020 3
b) Noted the revised calculation. It was found that both Mx
and My were designed with similar effective depth. Please a. Refer the attached revised report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3B
review and revise or show that the design has been Appendix 1.
based the smallest effective depth that the presented
design will then be acceptable. b. We have taken into account of reduced effective depth in the
My compared to Mx. Please refer the attached revised report 1
c) Closed
d) Closed PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3B, Page no 28,29,46,47,63,64. 1
e) Closed 1
f) Noted the revised calculation relevant to item 6e. Closed h. The coupler orientation shall follow the IFC drawings.
g) Closed The couplers shown in the snapshot is only for illustration 1
h) This snapshot shown IFC part print on the required rebar purposes, not changing the orientation of the couplers. 3
orientation to permanent wall lining. Any change of
orientation is not acceptable The calculation has been validated using BS8110 formula.
The provided reinforcement was correct.
Refer the attached revised report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3B
Appendix 1.

. Please i. Based on DDC3 report we have identified the zero to

provide validation calculation using BS8110 beam/slab maximum moment length. Example: for B4-B1, the zero to
moment capacity design formula to demonstrate that the maximum moment is about 3 plate length shown in our report
calculation with moment capacity of F*Z is equivalent or page no 31&32. The plate in the model is 650mm therefore the
able to achieve the minimum BS8110 design formula length is 1950mm.
requirement. This comment is referring to page 37, 38,
53, 54, etc as example
i) Noted the revised calculation with both directions
checked. Please provide clarification with sketch on the 3
“length of zero to max moment length” that is most critical
input for interface shear check design. Please clarify the
value of “1950mm” to demonstrate that it is sufficient with
respect to IFC design framing support condition.
j) Noted and we deemed that the specialist assumption of
adopted surface condition as per BS8110 is meet with
1
proven proprietary supplier surface texture test data that
meet and achieve the condition for design. Comment
closed
k) Closed
1
l) Noted. This comment is closed unless comment in item 6i
is unjustified to demonstrate the calculation of interface 1
shear stress is based on correct length of zero to max
moment.
m) Noted the inclusion. Comment closed 1
n) Contradicting response to response in item 6i that lattice 1
girder only required for temporary condition. Since the
design required lattice girder for temporary works only.
Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 7 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments
Rev. / Clause
The lattice girder is still a structural element that the
stresses shall be within allowable range and the specialist
designer is to ensure of this condition is meeting.
Nevertheless, comment closed.
o) Response is irrelevant to comment. Temporary condition
induced additional construction stage bending moment for
proposed temporary formwork/proposing supporting
conditions. The permanent works calculation has only
been carried out IFC design forces and bending moment
without construction stage induced moment of the plank
under working condition and under wet concrete stage.
p) Drawing not found in drawing list or the submission.
Please review.
Responses Code
o. The plank is propped during construction stage and it supports
3
the self wt, wet concrete weight and construction live load and
transfer it to the temporary propping. We have checked for this
condition in the temporary stage check, refer the page no 71 in
the latest report. The reinforcement provided for the
permanent case is sufficient to withstand the moment due to
2
temporary stage.
The spacing of the temporary support (provided by DOKA)
was 1.0m, which is sufficient to withstand all construction.

p. Please clarify which drawing is not in the submission.

7 Appendix 2 a. The design check has been performed with Cube strength a. Noted We have check the plank based on 25mpa refer the
Precast half slab design - 40MPa for lifting and construction stage operation. No attached latest report, As stated in the drawing SSP-H-PJPT-
temporary stage information has been provided on demolding handling, UNGW-ESC2-CNS-GEN-000010-H01 ,De-molding strength is
stacking/transportation design check that is inconsistent 15 MPa and Minimum Installation Strength is 25Mpa
with Drawing general notes on the minimum strength of
handling and installation. Please provide detail method of b. We have checked the Construction stage includes load due to
statement of handle to justify the design intent and it has wet concrete, Selfwt, Construction load , Please refer to the
been stated clearly in drawings to only demould after Appendix 2 in the report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
40MPa strength has been achieved.
b. No check is performed to demonstrate on the services c. Refer to reply in b above.
stresses induced due to construction stage (self weight +
wet concrete + construction load) d. No locks in force, our plank are fully propped.
c. No check is performed to show that no crack will be
induced during handling operation e. Noted.
d. Please clarify how the lock-in forces during construction
stage has been considered and combined to full f. All slabs are fully propped in the temporary stage, thus no
permanent stage forces. The concept on which deflection.
component are designed to take the construction load
shall be stated in prior section clearly. g. Temporary stage crack width no governing the design, final
e. All handling comments applicable to all precast stage will govern the design and has been check.
component
f. Please carry out deflection check of the precast plank
during construction stable and post
construction/permanent stage on the final deflection value
to show compliance.
g. Precast half slab plank shall be checked for crack width
limitation to ensure KVMRT2 compliance and
serviceability stress taking full wet concrete plus

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 8 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
construction load. 1
Reply on 20 Jan 2020 3
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020
a) Closed
b) “Service stresses” refer to SLS stresses during handling b. The precast panels are cured under controlled environment
stage that may result in early stage cracking from and shall achieve minimum strength of 15MPa prior to
construction action and handling action. The design demolding, handling and stacking of precast panels. Lattice
checked only for ULS capacity limit. Please provide Girders with spacing of not more than 600mm are inserted into
justification and design check for SLS. The supplier and the half slab to ensure the structural integrity of the panel
the contractor shall take full responsibility and necessary during lifting and stacking.
remedial action on crack or damage induced due to
inadequate design check. The early stage cracking will In general, precast panels shall achieve at least 32MPa within
then result in additional cracking in permanent stage thus 7 days and ready to be transported to the construction site. 3
the above calculation will be invalidated should the
construction stage induced bending moment is not
All cracks and damages shall be minimized and controlled by
captured. 3
c) Refer comment on item 6b. The design check shall the precast suppliers and contractors.
involve serviceability (SLS) and ultimate (ULS) c. Refer to comment 6b
d) Contradicting response to report design brief, design
calculation, drawings that clearly shown it is not fully d. The lock in forces is not applicable for the internal slab.
supported and there is additional bending moment and There’s no additional bending moment and force induced. 1
forces induced. The specialist shall note own proposed During temporary stage, the slab is fully propped.
support is with bending span. 3
e) Closed The prop spacing is not more than 1m (DOKA & CICE)
f) Contradicting response to design calculation where The prop spacing is not more than 1.2m (JPTM) 3
clearly shown deflection and the allowable has been
exceeded. Design not acceptable. Please refer to relevant Snapshot from ES3, not ES2.
comment of item 6b, 6c, and 6d.
g) Response not acceptable. Refer comments above.
3
Demonstrate with calculation that there is “no governing”
and no crack will be induced for handling and construction
stages
h) The incorrect assumption and calculation are not
acceptable. The temporary case calculation simply
assumes all the bending moment has been taken by
lattice girder and it is incorrect and is not true and
impossible with lattice girder at 600mm c/c (Please refer
BS 8110 on how to design a tension reinforcement etc).
Scenario 1: All load will span and transfer in-between
lattice girder (thus plank under bending in this direction)
before the lattice girder able to span in major direction to
the proposed propping span. The designer shall be
reminded in which load transfer through the short span
first. Scenario 2: Prop is far, thus longer bending span in
direction of lattice girder, in what situation is the lattice

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 9 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
girder so stiff that it can virtually take all load without any
transfer. Please provide engineering design with
justifiable and sound design concept. The specialist
designer can adopt a plank setup with all maximum
support span and full wet concrete load & construction
load using simple plate element FE analysis to
understand the behavior and to prove that it is ZERO
stresses for plank and no LOCK-IN bending moment on
plank with lattice girder taken virtual all load.

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 10 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause

f. Refer to the attached report page no 73 . The deflection due to

temporary stage is within the limit.

g. Refer to comment 7b.

h. With reference to EN 13747:2005 the lattice girders spacing

are designed based guidance given in the clause 4.2.4.2.1.
Refer the attached snapshot. Furthermore we have checked
the stress due to plank spanning in secondary direction and
stress are with in limit. Refer page no in the latest report

8 Appendix 3 a. Please clarify on how the original IFC design intent on g. The starter bars drilled in using HILTI and U bars from the
Precast Staircase Design – continuity and boundary at connection can to be achieved precast plank lapped to the drill in bar is supporting 100% load;
Permanent stage by the propose only two single nos of small steel corbel. whereas the welding plate is for temporary support.
b. Inconsistent staircase design length “b” to drawing and to
original IFC design. h. Updated in the latest report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A.
c. Clarify what is the tensile capacity of corbel
d. Please justify the shear capacity of 50k adopted with i. Moment check for the steel angle plate included in the latest
reference to test results in Appendix 9 report.
e. Missing staircase nib design, bearing check, and shear

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 11 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
check j. Refer the attached R-Steel Catalogue in the Appendix 9, we
f. SSP-H-PJPT-UNGW-ESC2-CNS-RED-000240 please have adopted SBKL 200x200.
state the minimum required contact for bearing and
design accordingly. k. Please refer the attached revised report PJPT-JPT027-GB-
g. It is apparent that the proposed system is of non- ES2-R3A Page 85.
equivalent to capacity of original design intent and all
connections l. Noted, Updated in the latest drawing SSP-H-PJPT-UNGW-
ESC2-CNS-RED-000240-H02
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020 3
a) Detail in response contradicting to figure 5.9. Please m. All necessary checks have be carried out for the precast
review and clearly explain the concept is corbel for staircase for Ultimate limit state and serviceability.
permanent capacity or temporary supporting elements
only and this will affect comments in other section of Reply on 20 Jan 2020
1
staircase. No drilling bar and U-bar provision are found
b) Closed a. The welding plate is designed for temporary support and dowel 1
c) Closed. Noted the moment check for plate. Missing check bar (either using coupler or plant in) is used as permanent
for the capacity of the bracket as a whole in rotation. See support.
1
figure below. However, we noted that the adopted SBKL
200x200 is sufficient for the moment induced. Comment 1
closed. 1
g. We have checked the T12-200 staggered bars for the seismic
d) Closed
action and the calculation attached in the latest report page no
e) Closed
f) Closed 84. We have checked the T12-400 bars provided in the flight to 3
g) We noted the revised connection detail with the proposed mid landing for seismic and refer the calculation in the page no
T12-200 staggered (Effectively T12-100) please confirm 85.
this is adequate for seismic action. Also, for the T12-400
tie provision for landing to flight, pleaser revise the
calculation as per 5e above. Please confirm that the
corbel is for temporary condition to support the staircase
only. Thereafter, provide calculation to justify the shear
capacity of the T12-200 staggered bar is adequate to
support the staircase.

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 12 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause

9 Appendix 4 DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020 Reply on 20 Jan 2020

Precast Staircase Design – a) Refer all relevant comments in item 7 and comply.
b) Please confirm that staircase plank will only be demold
Temporary stage
with full cube strength of 40MPa as per design and state
clearly in drawings. Else, revise the calculation for actual
demolding and handling required strength.
c) For staircase flight, the check is for lifting hook only.
Check for the flight under handling stage including
demolding requirement is missing.
a. The precast panels are cured under controlled environment 3
and shall achieve minimum strength of 15MPa prior to 3
demolding, handling and stacking of precast panels. Lattice
Girders with spacing of not more than 600mm are inserted into
the half slab to ensure the structural integrity of the panel
during lifting and stacking. 3
In general, precast panels shall achieve at least 32MPa within
7 days and ready to be transported to the construction site.

All cracks and damages shall be minimized and controlled by

the precast suppliers and contractors

b. Refer 9a

c. Refer 9a

10 Appendix 5 a. Missing interface shear check and no composite action a. Refer to the attached report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
Precast Double Wall design design check. Please provide
b. Missing shear capacity check of wall at vertical ties where b. Refer to the attached report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A from
– permanent stage
effective depth is reduced. Please provide page 108.
c. Crack width design check shall be provided at all
calculation where the specialist designer reduced the c. Crack width check for the Double wall with reduced section is
effective depth of structure. incorporated in the latest report in the Appendix 5.
d. Design check was carried out for 1 reinforcement
orientation only. Please provide the horizontal d. (f&e) Please note in the report page 20, We have adopted your
reinforcement capacity design check. The wall are IFC reinforcement in the Precast Double wall. We have

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 13 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
required to design for moment in two direction as per submitted the calculation based on DDC3 analysis report to
original design. show composite action between plank and cast insitu infill. We
e. Referring to item 5d, please provide check to show the have provided calculation for secondary directional moment in
equivalent capacity provision across wall to wall parallel Appendix 5.
panel design
f. Please provide calculation of horizontal ties at all type of Reply on 20 Jan 2020
profile (L-shape, T-shape, parallel). Please label and state
clearly on the calculation page which is design for which a. We will use R6 bar for all the double wall Lattice girder. For
type. level B5-B6 – grider spacing 250mm, B3-B5 – Girder spacing
450mm, B0-B3 – Girder spacing 450mm. Please refer the
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020 3
attached report page no 93,98,102 and latest drawing.
a) Design calculation indicate that interface shear exceeded
the allowable ultimate horizontal shear stress (pg 105, b. The anchorage calculation for the horizontal confinement is
106) thus excess link is required. Two different double given in the page no 109 in the latest report.
wall provision are thus required for those of R6 (nominal)
and R8(excess shear link). Please provide reference to c. The thickness is updated as 300, and the crack width is within
which drawing that incorporate two different type for the the limit. Refer to the latest report page no 95,99,106.
respective level. Drawing CRS-005030 or STS-007040
shall state the provision of lattice girder type. Else,
confirm the most critical provision of R8 for all level of 3
double wall plank
b) Non provided. Comment is referring connection at
“vertical ties” = joint with change of effective depth.
Please justify how the confinement of continuous
horizontal reinforcement that is current not continuous at
ties location can be effectively compensate by the extend f. Yes, we have interpolated the T12-100(vertical dowel bar) as
of ties as well as the provision of ties at this location. The the joint reinforcement 3T16. Please note that T12-100 is
non-continuous horizontal bar within precast plank is not 2
calculated using reduced effective depth. Thus the 3T16 is
without appropriate lapping nor sufficient anchorage at
accounted for the reduced effective depth. For the horizontal
the edge of each double wall module (=location of ties)
c) Please review and confirm that the 400thk wall in page confinement please refer 10b. 1
100 and 125 are typo.
d) Please re-read the comment. The comment is referring to
joint and the ties loop location. We noted the horizontal 1
capacity calculation
e) Previous comment refer wall-to-wall joint. Refer part print 3
below for example.
f) Page 108, to 110 shown the vertical reinforcement
requirement at joint are based on interpolation of
reinforcement area that clearly do not take into account
the position of bar (effective depth) thus the capacity of
the wall at this location will not be equivalent to the
calculated capacity. In addition, at the same location the
outer face vertical reinforcement loses the horizontal
reinforcement confinement effect. Please justify how is

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 14 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
horizontal extend of the ties 400mm/2 = 200mm for each
size of each module of precast panel is adequate to
compensate the lose of capacity. The justification shall
refer to relevant literature or precast design reference or
code.

11 Appendix 6 DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020
Precast Double Wall design a) Refer all relevant comments in item 7 and comply.
b) Please confirm that double wall planks will only be
– temporary stage
demold with full cube strength of 40MPa as per design
and state clearly in drawings. Else, revise the calculation
for actual demolding and handling required strength.
c) For double wall, the check is for lifting hook only. Check
for the planks under handling stage including demolding
requirement is missing.
a. The precast panels are cured under controlled environment
and shall achieve minimum strength of 15MPa prior to
3
demolding, handling and stacking of precast panels. Lattice
Girders with spacing of not more than 450mm are inserted into 3
the double wall to ensure the structural integrity of the panel
during lifting and stacking.
3
In general, precast panels shall achieve at least 32MPa within
7 days and ready to be transported to the construction site.

All cracks and damages shall be minimized and controlled by

the precast suppliers and contractors.

b. Refer 11a

c. Refer 11a

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 15 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments
Rev. / Clause
12 Precast Solid Wall Design a) Please provide design to demonstrate the adequacy of
proposal. Refer also item 9 & 17 in Drawings DRR for
comments and requirement
b) Please note that RCW2 (200mm thick wall) is part of
structural framing as per IFC. Please provide equivalent
structural capacity and design requirement as well as the
connection of this wall.
DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020
a) Please carry out bending moment design as per BS8110
formula for bending moment of the wall
b) No justification nor calculation found. Welded plate
capacity with only one side connected is not acceptable
for RCW2. Please comply.
c) Welded plate capacity calculation is not found for non-
load bearing wall
d) The proposed anchor bracket or reinforcement dowel
spacing at 1000mm c/c may structurally adequate for
DDC3 acceptance (except RCW2 shall comply IFC
requirement). Please justify how shall it can be adequate
for DDC2 MEP required air/pressure tight for their shaft
without pressure drop. Any consequence of such
proposal shall acquire DDC2 MEP consent and approval.
The contractor and the specialist shall fully be responsible
for any inadequate of such proposal relating to MEP
requirement as the proposal may comply structural
capacity but not MEP requirement.
e) Refer all relevant comments in item 7 and comply.
f) Please confirm that precast solid wall planks will only be
demold with full cube strength of 40MPa as per design
and state clearly in drawings. Else, revise the calculation
for actual demolding and handling required strength.
g) For precast solid wall planks, the check is for lifting hook
only. Check for the planks under handling stage including
demolding requirement is missing.
13 Appendix 7 a. Incomplete appendix without test setup and loading detail.
Anchor Plate Test Results Proprietor detail design and capacity in both shear,
tension capacity in both SLS & ULS state is unable to be
verified. Deformation capacity is also not able to be
verified
Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01
Responses Code
a. We have attached the solid wall calculation in the page 126 of
the latest report.
B Refer to the attached revised report PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A
Page 20
Reply on 20 Jan 2020
3
a. We have updated the formula using BS 8110, please refer the
page no 126 in the latest report. 3
b. All precast panels are connected via both welding anchor 3
plates horizontally and starter bars vertically.
The spacing for both items are 1m.
The gaps are fully grouted with Non Shrink Grout. Please refer 3
page no 126-129 in the latest report.
c. Please refer the page no 126-129 in the latest report.
d. Grout of 200mm thick shall be sufficient to produce an airtight
environment for the shaft. MGKT ES2 shall confirm with the
M&E consultants and contractors, regarding to this matter.
e. The precast panels are cured under controlled environment
3
and shall achieve minimum strength of 15MPa prior to
demolding, handling and stacking of precast panels. Lattice 3
Girders with spacing of not more than 600mm are inserted into
the half slab to ensure the structural integrity of the panel
during lifting and stacking.
3
In general, precast panels shall achieve at least 32MPa within
7 days and ready to be transported to the construction site.
All cracks and damages shall be minimized and controlled by
the precast suppliers and contractors
f. Refer reply 12e
g. Refer reply 12e
a,b,c. Please refer the attached R-Steel Catalogue in the Latest report
PJPT-JPT027-GB-ES2-R3A appendix 7.
Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 16 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
b. The test also missing all the witness and proper
properties detail to shown that it is relevant to proposed
system
c. Please clarify on the test compliance to which code of
practice 1

DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020

a) Noted on the provision of the information. Design info is 1
acceptable. Comment closed
b) Please note the requirement of KVMRT project
requirement of Material Submission Approval (MSA).
Refer to item 5c above. Comment closed and MSA will be 1
reviewed separately under MSA submission procedure.
c) Refer to comment on item 13b. The proposed product
shall comply KVMRT MW Spec requirements through
MSA submission procedure. Contractor shall aware of
risk of procurement without approval of proposed
products.
14 Appendix 8 a. Please clarify exactly where HILTI post drill chemical a. All staircase landing connections to the walls, Slab to Ring wall
system is to be adopted for review. connection.

DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020 Reply on 20 Jan 2020

a) Please review the response with MGKT operation team. 2
DDC3 was informed that coupler system to be adopted. a. The coupler system will be adopted based on IFC drawings
b) Hilti design calculation in Appendix 10 is not acceptable. and wherever additional bar required we are going to use the
Only design calculation from HILTI Profis Rebar software Hilit Post rebar installation. 3
available as free is acceptable.
c) DDC3 will review the proposed system and required drill b. Please refer the Appendix 11 for the Hiliti Profis rebar
in length upon confirmation and re-design calculation with calculation for Staircase to Double wall connection, Double 2
HILTI Profis Rebar software slab B5 to ring wall connection

c. Noted we have checked the provided anchorage length in the

drawing is sufficient compare to the calculated anchorage in
Hilti profis rebar software. Please refer the revised Appendix
11 in the latest report.

15 Accidental Load a. Please advice is accidental load considered in design for a. Temporary supports shall be designed by Formwork designer
temporary construction stage if not how is the stability of submitted separately by precast installer. (Props shown in the
the system and accidental impact to the setup can be drawing are indicative)
ensured.

DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020

a) Noted that this will be under MGKT Temporary works 1
team responsibility to ensure adequacy of the proposal.
Comment closed.

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 17 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
16 Propping/Bracing/Temporary a. Please note it is contractor/specialist designer a. Temporary supports shall be designed by Formwork designer
Support detail and Handling responsibility to ensure, design, provision and endorse (if submitted separately by precast installer. (Props shown in the
Design necessary). DDC is only to ensure the impact due to drawing are indicative)
temporary works is properly captured as part of
permanent works design

DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020

Noted that this will be under MGKT Temporary works team 1
responsibility to ensure adequacy of the proposal. Comment
closed.
17 Staircase a. State the design intent of the finishing face with respect to a. Smooth surface.
architectural requirement

DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020

18 Workability, constructability
and integrity of the
constructed precast
components
Noted. The acceptance shall be under DDC1 & MRTC.
a. Justify on how the narrow precast double wall with infill of
160mm with lattice girder with proposed one-piece wall
height of up-to 6m can be constructed without honey
comb, concrete segregation, and ensure full
reinforcement bonding to the proposed precast
connection system of rebar/ties without gap to surface of
precast plank inner face.
b. Please justify and demonstrate the shrinkage as well as
differential shrinkage has been considered in the design
and no trace of shrinkage effect calculation is identified.
1
a. The concrete pour rate is advised to control to be less than
1.2m per hour, without poker. We are using Tremie 3 concrete
mix, contractor will take necessary actions to make sure the
concrete is not segregated & no honey comb.
b. Panels are casted in the controlled environment; differential
Shrinkage effects are negligible in our precast panels.

DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020 1

a) We noted the specialist response and assurance of the
method of constructability of the proposed designed
precast system. 2
b) Please provide calculation to justify shrinkage effects
under the shaft working environment and differential
concrete casting temporary is negligible and has no
impact of additional stresses induced to above designed
capacity and provision. “Controlled environment” is
undefined. Shrinkage and temperature effects are part of
composite design. Please note that it is the specialist
professional engineering responsibility to ensure
composite design of proposed system is adequate
19 MEP Openings & DDC3 Comments on 11 Jan 2020 Reply on 20 Jan 2020
Coordination a) The revise calculation does not show any MEP openings
has been considered and no clarification of how the a) . 3
additional reinforcing and trimmers bar as required for
original IFC design requirement can be incorporated and b) .

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 18 of 19
 Doc. / Dwg.
Item Reference No. and Comments Responses Code
Rev. / Clause
installed. c) . 3
b) Referring to 19a, especially for door, and louvre/access
opening, no equivalent provision has been found from d) Please refer the attached latest report Appendix 9 page no
drawings of precast double wall and precast solid wall 135. 3
c) Please provide calculation to show proposed precast
reinforcement is adequate.
3
d) Missing design for Beam B1 as per IFC requirement.
Layout drawings completely miss out Beam B1 and is
only showing the precast solid non-load bearing wall.
Beam B1 is part of slab to support non-load bearing wall.

20 Alternative Precast Design Please take note that for alternative precast design, the
specialist professional engineer is responsible for all
endorsement of all design and shall ensure compliance to
KVMRT Specification. The specialist consultant shall response
to any queries of MRTC shall there be any.

Note: Code 1 – Accepted

Code 2 – Accepted with comments
Code 3 – Rejected

Ref. No: SSP-GCAS-UNGW-ESC2-DRR-000xx Rev No: 01 Date Issued: 11 Jan 2019 Page 19 of 19