PUERTO BAHIA DE COLOMBIA COMPANY OF URABA S.

A (PBCU)
Puerto Antioquia Project - Gulf of Uraba - Colombia
COMMENT RESOLUTION SHEET

CRS Ref. No: MAMH013C1- DES-COT-CRS-0296

CRS Rev. No: R- 0

To: COTEMA - CONSORCIO TERMINAL MARITIME ANTIOQUIA Overall Review/Comment Category Options:
Joint Venture formed by Termotécnica Coindustrial S.A.S. and Eiffage 1: Reviewed without comment
Genie Civil Marine S.A.S. 2: Reviewed with minor comments
Gulf of Uraba 3: Refused (fails to comply with the Contract)
Turbo - Antioquia - Colombia 4: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information’
5: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information', but
receiving comments
With reference to Clause 5.2 of the EPC Agreement and Article 3.7.4 of the
Transmittal Date: 9/11/2022 Employer’s Requirements
EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE Comment
CONTRACTOR's REPLIES / RESOLUTION
S.No Page Reference COMMENTS COMMENTS Category
10/11/2022 Status

208910-COTE-300-MSW-DWG-18460_B0 TRESTLE - IN SITU BEAM CB3-3-REINFORCEMENT 2

The drawing of the light pole is shown in the plan 208910-COTE-300-MSW-

Lighting pole support is not shown in this
1 DWG-18061 formwork and 208910-COTE-300-MSW-DWG-18060
drawing.
reinforcement.

The design of the Cap Beams are based on the AASHTO - LRFD 2017
specifications.

Combined shear and Torsion effects are carried out according to item
5.7.2 of the AASHTO specifications and this check is shown in section 6.1 -
"e" of Appendix A of calculation note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652
. The result of this analysis is that the effects of torsion can be omitted.
Therefore potential splices on stirrups can be used.
Splicing of stirrups reinforcement is not
On the other hand:
2 acceptable for torsion and integrity
• The use of the ACI/NSR10 for the design of the concrete deck of the
reinforcement as per ACI 318 §25,7,1,7.
trestle was rejected by OE, as these codes are not specific to bridges. The
use of the AASHTO was imposed.
• The recommendations given by ACI318 for torsion is not cumulative with
the AASHTO recommendations.
• The use of one piece stirrups is recommended by the ACI for members
specifically designed in torsion, which is not the case of the capping
beams. In addition, it is not feasible for high-elevation beams due to
construction issues.
.

Justify stirrups quantity with respect to

The justification is shown in section 6.1 - "e" of Appendix A of calculation
3 torsion verification in the corresponding
note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652.
calculation note.
Due to the slope of the roadway slab, the
distance between the top of concrete and
the upper layer of reinforcement is very
important. Please confirm whether
additionnal reinforcement will be
considered to avoid cracking.

It is confirmed, as indicated in the section 6.1 - "g" of Appendix A of

4
calculation note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652.

Approval of this drawing is pending

Noted: the corresponding calculation note was updated, issued, and then
5 resolution of the comments on the
approved in code 1.
corresponding calculation note.
Please justify that local compressive Verification of compressive stresses is shown:
stress at the crossing of prestressing
strands/passive reinforcement (in yellow
in the figure below) is below the concrete
capacity.

The anchorage length of the most extreme bar on the pile is 2296mm, this
length is greater than that required according to Table 5 of drawing 208910
- COTE - 000 - MSW - DWG - 14200 Rev B2 (L=1.3*1520 =1976mm).

Justify anchorage length of rebar n°1 at

7
extremity of the cap beam

1/4
 PUERTO BAHIA DE COLOMBIA COMPANY OF URABA S.A (PBCU)
Puerto Antioquia Project - Gulf of Uraba - Colombia
COMMENT RESOLUTION SHEET

CRS Ref. No: MAMH013C1- DES-COT-CRS-0296

CRS Rev. No: R- 0

To: COTEMA - CONSORCIO TERMINAL MARITIME ANTIOQUIA Overall Review/Comment Category Options:
Joint Venture formed by Termotécnica Coindustrial S.A.S. and Eiffage 1: Reviewed without comment
Genie Civil Marine S.A.S. 2: Reviewed with minor comments
Gulf of Uraba 3: Refused (fails to comply with the Contract)
Turbo - Antioquia - Colombia 4: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information’
5: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information', but
receiving comments
With reference to Clause 5.2 of the EPC Agreement and Article 3.7.4 of the
Transmittal Date: 9/11/2022 Employer’s Requirements
EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE Comment
CONTRACTOR's REPLIES / RESOLUTION
S.No Page Reference COMMENTS COMMENTS Category
10/11/2022 Status
The cap beam main longitudinal upper
reinforcement is significantly lower than
the top of the concrete surface due to the
slab superelevation, therefore the top slab
reinforcement will have greater stresses
than the cap beam reinforcement and
needs to be verified accordingly.

It is confirmed, as indicated in the section 6.1 - "g" of Appendix A of

8
calculation note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652

Some reinforcement of precast elements

9 should not be visible in Sections B, H, F
(vertical stirrups at beam side)
208910-COTE-300-MSW-DWG-18459_B0
Lighting pole support is not shown in this
10
drawing.
The drawing have been updated in revision B1.
TRESTLE - IN SITU BEAM CB3-2-REINFORCEMENT 2
The drawing of the light pole is shown in the plan 208910-COTE-300-MSW-
DWG-18061 formwork and 208910-COTE-300-MSW-DWG-18060
reinforcement.
The design of the Cap Beams are based on the AASHTO - LRFD 2017
specifications.

Combined shear and Torsion effects are carried out according to item
5.7.2 of the AASHTO specifications and this check is shown in section 6.1 -
"e" of Appendix A of calculation note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652
. The result of this analysis is that the effects of torsion can be omitted.
Therefore potential splices on stirrups can be used.
Splicing of stirrups reinforcement is not
On the other hand:
11 acceptable for torsion and integrity
• The use of the ACI/NSR10 for the design of the concrete deck of the
reinforcement as per ACI 318 §25,7,1,7.
trestle was rejected by OE, as these codes are not specific to bridges. The
use of the AASHTO was imposed.
• The recommendations given by ACI318 for torsion is not cumulative with
the AASHTO recommendations.
• The use of one piece stirrups is recommended by the ACI for members
specifically designed in torsion, which is not the case of the capping
beams. In addition, it is not feasible for high-elevation beams due to
construction issues.
.
Justify stirrups quantity with respect to
The justification is shown in section 6.1 - "e" of Appendix A of calculation
12 torsion verification in the corresponding
note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652.
calculation note.
The anchorage length of the most extreme bar on the pile is 2296mm, this
length is greater than that required according to Table 5 of drawing 208910
- COTE - 000 - MSW - DWG - 14200 Rev B2 (L=1.3*1520 =1976mm).

Justify anchorage length of rebar n°1 at

13
extremity of the cap beam

Approval of this drawing is pending

Noted: the corresponding calculation note was updated, issued, and then
14 resolution of the comments on the
approved in code 1.
corresponding calculation note.
The cap beam main longitudinal upper
reinforcement is significantly lower than
the top of the concrete surface due to the
slab superelevation, therefore the top slab
reinforcement will have greater stresses
than the cap beam reinforcement and
needs to be verified accordingly.
It is confirmed, as indicated in the section 6.1 - "g" of Appendix A of
15
calculation note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652.

2/4

CRS Ref. No: MAMH013C1- DES-COT-CRS-0296
CRS Rev. No: R- 0
To: COTEMA - CONSORCIO TERMINAL MARITIME ANTIOQUIA
Joint Venture formed by Termotécnica Coindustrial S.A.S. and Eiffage
Genie Civil Marine S.A.S.
Gulf of Uraba
Turbo - Antioquia - Colombia
Transmittal Date: 9/11/2022
EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE
S.No Page Reference COMMENTS
10/11/2022
Section F: horizontal stirrups are missing This is correct, due to the effective distribution width for the join shear
16
with respect to other sections.
Please justify that local compressive
stress at the crossing of prestressing
strands/passive reinforcement (in yellow
in the figure below) is below the concrete
capacity.
17
208910-COTE-300-MSW-DWG-18458_B0
Lighting pole support is not shown in this
18
drawing.
Splicing of stirrups reinforcement is not
19 acceptable for torsion and integrity
reinforcement as per ACI 318 §25,7,1,7.
Justify stirrups quantity with respect to
20 torsion verification in the corresponding
calculation note.
Justify anchorage length of rebar n°1 at
21
extremity of the cap beam
Approval of this drawing is pending
22 resolution of the comments on the
corresponding calculation note.
PUERTO BAHIA DE COLOMBIA COMPANY OF URABA S.A (PBCU)
Puerto Antioquia Project - Gulf of Uraba - Colombia
COMMENT RESOLUTION SHEET
Overall Review/Comment Category Options:
1: Reviewed without comment
2: Reviewed with minor comments
3: Refused (fails to comply with the Contract)
4: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information’
5: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information', but
receiving comments
With reference to Clause 5.2 of the EPC Agreement and Article 3.7.4 of the
Employer’s Requirements
EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE Comment
CONTRACTOR's REPLIES / RESOLUTION
COMMENTS Category
Status
analysis.
Verification of compressive stresses is shown:
TRESTLE - IN SITU BEAM CB3-1-REINFORCEMENT 2
The drawing of the light pole is shown in the plan 208910-COTE-300-MSW-
DWG-18061 formwork and 208910-COTE-300-MSW-DWG-18060
reinforcement.
The design of the Cap Beams are based on the AASHTO - LRFD 2017
specifications.
Combined shear and Torsion effects are carried out according to item
5.7.2 of the AASHTO specifications and this check is shown in section 6.1 -
"e" of Appendix A of calculation note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652
. The result of this analysis is that the effects of torsion can be omitted.
Therefore potential splices on stirrups can be used.
On the other hand:
• The use of the ACI/NSR10 for the design of the concrete deck of the
trestle was rejected by OE, as these codes are not specific to bridges. The
use of the AASHTO was imposed.
• The recommendations given by ACI318 for torsion is not cumulative with
the AASHTO recommendations.
• The use of one piece stirrups is recommended by the ACI for members
specifically designed in torsion, which is not the case of the capping
beams. In addition, it is not feasible for high-elevation beams due to
construction issues.
.
The justification is shown in section 6.1 - "e" of Appendix A of calculation
note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652.
The anchorage length of the most extreme bar on the pile is 2296mm, this
length is greater than that required according to Table 5 of drawing 208910
- COTE - 000 - MSW - DWG - 14200 Rev B2 (L=1.3*1520 =1976mm).
Noted: the corresponding calculation note was updated, issued, and then
approved in code 1.
3/4
 PUERTO BAHIA DE COLOMBIA COMPANY OF URABA S.A (PBCU)
Puerto Antioquia Project - Gulf of Uraba - Colombia
COMMENT RESOLUTION SHEET

CRS Ref. No: MAMH013C1- DES-COT-CRS-0296

CRS Rev. No: R- 0

To: COTEMA - CONSORCIO TERMINAL MARITIME ANTIOQUIA Overall Review/Comment Category Options:
Joint Venture formed by Termotécnica Coindustrial S.A.S. and Eiffage 1: Reviewed without comment
Genie Civil Marine S.A.S. 2: Reviewed with minor comments
Gulf of Uraba 3: Refused (fails to comply with the Contract)
Turbo - Antioquia - Colombia 4: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information’
5: Issued by the Contractor as 'for information', but
receiving comments
With reference to Clause 5.2 of the EPC Agreement and Article 3.7.4 of the
Transmittal Date: 9/11/2022 Employer’s Requirements
EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE EMPLOYER(S) / REPRESENTATIVE Comment
CONTRACTOR's REPLIES / RESOLUTION
S.No Page Reference COMMENTS COMMENTS Category
10/11/2022 Status
The cap beam main longitudinal upper
reinforcement is significantly lower than
the top of the concrete surface due to the
slab superelevation, therefore the top slab
reinforcement will have greater stresses
than the cap beam reinforcement and
needs to be verified accordingly.

It is confirmed, as indicated in the section 6.1 - "g" of Appendix A of

23
calculation note 208910-COTE-500-MSW-CAL-12652.

The lengths of item 10 AQ, AR, AS seem

too small too splice with prestressed
24 The drawing have been updated in revision B1.
strands of longitudinal beams according
to Section J. Please check.
Please justify that local compressive Verification of compressive stresses is shown:
stress at the crossing of prestressing
strands/passive reinforcement (in yellow
in the figure below) is below the concrete
capacity.

25

Some reinforcement is not in contact with

any transverse reinforcement
26 (perpendicular to the cap beam axis). For The drawing have been updated in revision B1.
example, items 1A/1B, see section H.

Revised by: Loïck MORISSEAU

Designation: Sr Structural Engineer
Approved for issuance by: Victor CLAVER HERVAS on behalf of the Employer

(Signature)
The revision, approval or signing of any minute or report performed by the OE shall in no case be construed as a waiver of the Employer toany of its rights under the Construction Contracts and will not eliminate any responsibilities of the Construction Contractors under the Construction Contracts and/or the
applicable laws.

4/4