Project Title: Strategic Food Storage Facilities (SFSF)

Contractor: Al Jaber Engineering

Subject: Response to the comments received on 07 November 2017 with Reference
No. NPP/0085/LT/JEC/2017/0098

Item No NPP Comments IDC Response

Infrastructure Development Consultancy (IDC) a specialist Geotechnical, Structural and Heavy Civil
Engineering Consultant has been tasked to be the Consultant for the geotechnical and substructure
aspects of the Project. IDC involvement with the project commenced late December 2017.
The responses below are provided based on knowledge of the data available at the time of tender, the site
investigation work carried out since commencement of Contract as well as the ground improvement
undertaken.
The responses are also intended to give clear indication to HPP of the roadmap in relation with the ground
related aspects of the Project.

1. Page 3 / 23 item 1.1 2ND paragraph

Explain how the nature of ground has been The scope and extent of the CPT
assessed and anticipated to perform High Energy and borehole investigations was
Dynamic compaction. Provide the Geotechnical based on experience from
designer preliminary assessment report with
previous projects at Hamad Port
recommendations
it had been anticipated that a
high energy dynamic compaction
would improve the ground
conditions for the purposes of
the project. Due to this
assumption two stage Cone
1(a) Penetration Test (CPT) was
planned, namely pre and post
compaction.

The tender stage data as well as

data from above has been
analysed and reported in
Assessment Report.
Additional investigation was
carried out post Assessment
Report.

Please refer to all the relevant Geotechnical Please refer to the response to
reports which have been provided as a part of Item above.
NPP 0085 tender document. Geotechnical Design
1(b) The tender stage data reviewed
Engineer is to described the Subsurface condition
and used is given in the
and justify the need of Ground improvement with
Assessment Report.
High Energy dynamic compaction method.

1(c) As mentioned that Ground improvement by High This approach was based on the
Energy Dynamic compaction shall be carried out experienced gained from other
after phase -1 of Ground investigation works while projects at Hamad Port.
this activity is ongoing parallel to phase

Responses to HPP Comments – Strategic Food Security Facilities 30 April 2018 1 of 6

 Item No NPP Comments IDC Response
-1. Please justify your modus operandi.

2. Page 3 / 23 item 1.2 Scope Of Work

The below quoted statement in the scope of work is It is considered that the method
not clear: statement will include the types
of investigative work to be
“This Method Statement outlines the detailed
carried out as per standard
measures and minimize and mitigate the
method statement.
Geotechnical Investigation Works for the foundation
design of all building, roads and parking areas for The statement made in previous
Strategic Food Storage facility in accord as below:” version of the Method Statement
is misplaced.
Please elaborate on how this method statement
shall minimize the geotechnical investigation for
foundation design of all building and structures.
2(a) Please include the following items in the list:
 Oil Storage Tank
 Silos
 Sugar Refinery
 Heavy Duty pavement
 Processing areas for oil and rice
 Utility structures
 Conveyors etc.

Phase-1 (a): The initial boreholes were

 Justify the depth of boreholes of 12 m
 As mentioned in 2nd paragraph, Boreholes
were determined according to topographic
2(b)
survey and matching with the design
consultant requirement.
 Please provide references of
consultant requirement
constructed to correlate with the
CPTs.
The CPTs could only penetrate
the superficial materials which
extends to about 12.0 m below
existing ground level.
design

Phase-1 (b) to be read as “Carrying out of in-situ Noted.

2(c) testing as per table-1 page 15/23

Phase-2 (a) “depth of borehole shall be 30m” – At some stage the JEC team had
Please justify large difference in borehole depths in realized that deep foundations
phase 1 & 2 were to be used for some
structures.
2(d) There is a balance to be struck
between number and length of
piles. Piles longer than 25.0 m
are not economical and therefore
the borehole depth of 30.0 m.

2(e) Phase-2 (b) to be read as “Carrying out of in-situ Noted.

testing and laboratory testing as per table-2 page

Responses to HPP Comments – Strategic Food Security Facilities 30 April 2018 2 of 6

 Item No NPP Comments IDC Response
16/23

Phase-2 (b & e): item “b” and “e” are not clear. The Method Statement has been
2(f) Please clarify. revised.

Phase-2 (4): Only summary of factual report is not Noted.

2(g) acceptable. AJE is to submit both factual and
interpretive reports as prepared by the Consultant.

3 Page 4 / 23 - Item 1.2 Phase -2 (4)

2nd Bullet point: Please provide reference of The Method Statement has been
3(a) the Soils and Foundation Procedure Manual revised.

3rd Bullet point: please provide the reference of The Method Statement has been
3(b) Guideline for review of Geotechnical Reports and revised.
preliminary plans and specifications.

4 Page 15 / 23 Table 1
ASTM 4380: Soil Unit Weight:
 Soil unit weight varies with reference to The Method Statement has been
4(a)
soil strata type and depth. Please specify revised.
the locations and depth for taking sample
ASTM Cl27: Soil Specific Gravity:
 Soil specific gravity varies with
The Method Statement has been
4(b) reference to soil strata type and depth.
revised.
Please specify the locations and depth
for taking sample
Existing Ground Water & Seasonal high The Method Statement has been
ground water elevation (Test Standard revised.
"SHWT")
 Please specify the standard method / test
4(c)
reference for measuring Existing and
seasonal ground water elevation.
 Also specify location, frequency and over
all duration for taking observations.
Water Table readings The Method Statement has been
revised.
 Please specify the standard method / test
reference for measuring water table
4(d) reading.
 Also specify location, frequency and over
all duration for taking observations.

4(e) ITEM N0.1 Soil Shear strength (Drained The Method Statement has been
condition and Saturated case) revised.
 Please specify / refer test method as per
BS 1377 Part-7.as there are many test
methods are available in BS 1377-7 for
Soil Shear strength test.
 Please mention the location and method

Responses to HPP Comments – Strategic Food Security Facilities 30 April 2018 3 of 6

 Item No NPP Comments IDC Response
of taking sample from the site.
 As per the table-t the number of test to be
performed is 25 nos. Please confirm

Consolidation parameters ASTM D2435 The Method Statement has been

revised.
 Please specify the location and depth of
4(f) taking sample.
 Please specify the test method (as per
ASTM 02435) to be performed?

Cohesion ASTM D4767 The Method Statement has been

revised.
The test reference i.e. ATM 04767 consolidated
undrained triaxial compression test is for
4(g)
cohesive soils. 25 nos.test shall be per formed
as indicated in the table. Please confirm the
number of tests to be performed.

Modulus of subgrade reaction ASTM D1196 The Method Statement has been
revised.
 Please specify the diameter of the plate
to be used and provide justifications.
4(h)
 As per the table, 25 nos. tests shall be
performed. Please confirm the quantity
as well as the locations.

ASTM D4428: Seismic site classification and The Method Statement has been
corresponding recommended response revised.
spectra for both period and displacement.
 This test is ln-situ (onsite) test. The
scope of work as described in item 1.2
4(i) does not covers this test. If AJE is
intending to do this test, please describe
in the scope of Geotechnical works.
 As per the table 25 nos. tests shall be
performed. Please confirm the quantity
as well as the locations.

5 Page 16 / 23 Table 2
Horizontal, Earthquake coefficient in Earth The Method Statement has been
pressure. Test standard reference revised.
"Mononope Okabe Method of Underground
5(a) Building structure"
 This method provides a design
calculation method not test method.

Liquefaction potential assessment reference The Method Statement has been

AASHTO revised.
5(b)
 This is a method of assessment not a test
method.

Responses to HPP Comments – Strategic Food Security Facilities 30 April 2018 4 of 6

 Item No NPP Comments IDC Response
ITEM N0.1: Soil Lateral stiffness /lateral soil The Method Statement has been
resistance and allowable lateral load for all revised.
feasible foundation alternatives.
5(c)
 Please specify which specific test to be
performed as per BS 1377 part - 7?

ITEM NO.1: Liquefaction potential to be The Method Statement has been

assessed per the current LRFD Design revised.
specification or equivalent safety factor
 Please note that the above reference is
5(d) neither an in-situ testing nor Laboratory
testing. This is only a method if
assessment and to be out of scope of this
Method Statement for Geotechnical
Investigation Works.

ITEM N0.3 The Method Statement has been

revised.
 Test description is out of scope of the
5(e) subject Method statement. A separate
method statement shall be required for
this activity as per the approved pile
specification.
6. Page 17 / 23 Table 2
ITEM N0.4 The Method Statement has been
revised.
6(a)  Please specify the depth and location of 18
nos. trial pits for in-situ CBR Testing

ITEM NOS. 7 & 8 The Method Statement has been

revised.
6(b)  Environmental scope for soil Baseline
should be a separate submission.

Appendix-B: Drawings attached showing The Method Statement has been

locations of SPT and CPT to be agreed and revised.
7 validated by the Design Consultant. We do not
see any evidence on the attached drawings.

8 Appendix-C: Program The Method Statement has been

revised.
 Please elaborate the program as per the
phases as described in the item 1.2 of the
Scope of works
 Furnish Laboratory test program.
 Activity Post Compaction Test: what type
of test to be performed? Not indicated in
the item 1.2 of the scope of works.
 Activity "Submittal of Geotechnical Report
to Client": Please expand / elaborate this
activity as follows:
I. Submission of Factual Geotechnical

Responses to HPP Comments – Strategic Food Security Facilities 30 April 2018 5 of 6

 Item No NPP Comments IDC Response
Report to client and approval.
II. Submission of Interpretive
Geotechnical Report to client and
approval.

Other Comments: Please attach The Method Statement has been

Soil/Rock/water sampling and testing plan. revised.
9
Dust suppression and mitigation activities to be
confirmed.

Responses to HPP Comments – Strategic Food Security Facilities 30 April 2018 6 of 6