The Sail BCA Awards Write-Up-Final

The Sail @ Marina Bay
BCA DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SAFETY EXCELLENCE AWARDS 2009
1.0
SYNOPSIS Designed to resemble a sail sculpture created by the hands of nature, The Sail @ Marina Bay is a global waterfront landmark on Singapores skyline. Soaring 245 meters above sea level at the highest point, The Sail is the first residential development in the New Downtown and is Singapores tallest, and amongst the worlds top ten tallest, residential developments. Located at Marina Bay, the two towers stand at 70 storeys (Tower 1) and 63 storeys (Tower 2) with 1,111 units which offer panoramic views of the sea as well as seamless connectivity with direct underground access to the Raffles Place MRT station. The total site area is 9091m2 with a permissible GFA of 118,182m2. Construction began in 2005 and the project has obtained TOP in 2008 (except for an underground pedestrian link to the neighboring site).
There were several major challenges that the project team had to overcome for the successful completion of the project. These included developing a safe, rigid, buildable and functional structural system for the unique shape and slenderness of the towers. With aspects ratios (height to base width) exceeding 10, the two towers of The Sail @ Marina Bay are among the most slender skyscrapers in the world. For such slender structures, in addition to conventional considerations of strength and serviceability, dynamic structural behavior and occupant comfort criterions need to be evaluated and addressed. The presence of existing twin Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) subway tunnels at an angle of approximately 30 degrees through the southern portion of the site also presented challenges for the massing, foundation and substructure works. Added to this was the complexity posed by difficult sub-soil conditions which included extremely soft and deep layers of consolidating marine clay, underlain by variable strength bouldery clay.
Page 2

The above challenges were met with several innovative and safe engineering solutions as described in the subsequent parts of this report. The design philosophy for the project was based on taking a proactive approach to safety, i.e., taking responsibility for safety at the design stage. This approach allows safety and health hazards to be mitigated before a project reaches the physical construction site by considering not only the safe end-use but also safe constructability. 2.0 2.1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROCESSES AND SOLUTIONS EMPHASIZING SAFETY Innovative Features in Structural System and Materials to Address Project Specific Challenges and Risks.
2.1.1 Structural System for one of the Worlds Most Slender Skyscrapers Both Tower 1 and Tower 2, rising 245m and 219m, respectively, from Level 1, are not only tall but are also extremely slender with an aspect ratio of 10.9 for Tower 1 and 10.2 for Tower 2. The analysis and design of such tall and slender towers, classified as dynamic structures, requires detailed and careful considerations of both static and dynamic behavior to ensure that the building responses are within acceptable limits of drift and occupants comfort. In addition, second order (P-Delta) effects are highly magnified due to slenderness and needs careful attention. The challenge was to develop a structural system which provides the necessary rigidity and robustness for such slender and dynamic structures without compromising functionality. An innovative and elegant structural solution was adopted to meet the challenges as detailed below. Through collaboration with the architects, the residential units were arranged on either side of a central corridor across the transverse (shorter) building axis. This opened up the possibility to implement several long shear walls to run across the full depth of the floor plate with stiff coupling beams over the central corridor. These generally parallel shear walls were placed as dividing walls between residential units. Resistance to lateral loads under wind and earthquake is provided by a combination of these shear walls coupled with elevator shaft / stair case walls and perimeter moment-frame-tubes with closely spaced columns.
Page 3

Typical floor framing for both towers comprises composite floor slabs consisting of pre-cast pre-stressed concrete slabs and pre-cast internal beams with in-situ concrete topping. The floor slabs provide horizontal diaphragm action to transfer lateral loads from floors to the lateral-load-resisting elements. Tower 1 (Aspect Ratio: 10.9) Transverse Axis
Page 4

Tower 2 (Aspect Ratio: 10.2) Transverse Axis
The innovative framing systems effectiveness can best be judged through structural performance indicators, as tabulated below:
Structural Performance Indicators Fundamental Period (eigen-value analysis) T1 T2 Comparison with Code/Literature Recommendations Around 25% to 30% stiffer than comparable buildings with similar heights and mass (ASCE 7-05) Around 15 to 20 milli-g (Melbournes Criteria) height /500
6.4 secs
5.6 secs
Horizontal Building Acceleration Building Drift
14.1 milli-g
10.3 milli-g
height / 755
height / 1060
2.1.2 Incorporation of Seismic Design for the First Time in Singapore Due to the unique shape, height and slenderness of the towers it was decided by the developers and consultants team to introduce additional safety features in the design. Instead of any arbitrary enhancement of design loads, the consensus opinion was to implement seismic design for the development.
Page 5

The seismic design adopted for the project incorporates design to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC-97, USA). A moderate seismic zone (Zone 2A with a ground acceleration level of 0.15g) was selected for seismic design of the towers in recognition of Singapores distance from the Indo-Australian tectonic plates to the southwest and its exposure to secondary earthquake effects.
Designing for seismic forces provides a degree of robustness and strength far exceeding the requirements for other code specified lateral loads such as wind and notional loads. In addition to higher lateral forces, seismic design includes designing the buildings for ductility and toughness, i.e., the ability of the structure to sustain excursions in the non-linear range of response without critical decrease of strength. Key seismic design features include: Design for up to 60% higher lateral forces than corresponding from wind and notional loads.
Shear Wall Boundary Elements
Incorporation of Dynamic Structural Analysis which provides for more accurate reflection of building response based on mode shapes. Ends of Shear Walls designed and detailed with special Boundary Elements to resist repeated high magnitude stresses without loss of strength. Coupling Beams designed and detailed with diagonally oriented reinforcement to provide enhanced stiffness and energy dissipation.
Wall Coupling Beams Frame Members
Special design and detailing for Frame Members for added ductility to prevent risks of abrupt shear failure during earthquakes.
The Sail is the first project in Singapore to adopt seismic design as part of the structural design philosophy. While not a mandatory requirement in Singapore, the adoption of seismic design significantly improves safety and structural performance of the tall and slender towers. 2.1.3 Usage of Grade 80 Concrete for the First Time for a Building in Singapore The Sail is the first building project in Singapore wherein high strength Grade 80 concrete has been utilized. The Grade 80 concrete was utilized for the perimeter columns, the sizes of
Page 6

which were a major design challenge since they affected internal layout, usable floor area and views to the bay. The columns were therefore desired to be as small as possible. However, the sized needed to be adequate for resisting large seismic forces and minimizing differential shortening between vertical members. To overcome this challenge, Grade 80 concrete was decided to be used. This resulted in columns one third smaller in size compared to the size that would have been required for conventional Grade 60 concrete. Silica fume was used in the mix design as a partial replacement for cement in order to reduce the heat of hydration as well as to improve the strength of the concrete. A stringent quality control regime was implemented for the production of high strength concrete to achieve the desired concrete strength consistently.
While only limited use of Grade 80 concrete was allowed for project and for seismic design purposes only, the pioneering use of high strength concrete in buildings for the first time in Singapore has paved the way for more projects to benefit in future [e.g., smaller member sizes, more usable space, increase of construction speed (due to lesser reinforcement demand), less dead weight, etc.]. BCA has since allowed controlled use of high strength concrete following the success achieved in The Sail @ Marina Bay.
Page 7

2.1.4 Multi-Cellular Diaphragm Wall Retention System used for the First Time for a Building in Singapore: The construction of the 9m deep basement under T1 for the Underground Pedestrian Network (UPN) posed unique challenges due to the difficult ground conditions, i.e., reclaimed land with 6m to 8m of fill underlain by 25m of very soft marine clay. The close proximity to the MRT tunnels and a tight construction programme required a solution that avoided lateral struts and ground improvement works (e.g., JGP, DCM, etc). A conventional retention system such as a rectangular shaped and multi-level strutted Diaphragm Wall or CBP Wall system, with DCM / JGP layers below formation level, would have caused high lateral ground movements. This was considered a major safety risk given the close proximity of the site to the MRT tunnels and the adjoining ongoing construction works for the underground Combined Services Tunnel (CST). These challenges were addressed through an innovative design solution. This involved symmetrically arranged 32m diameter triple cellular, Peanut, diaphragm walls which allowed excavation to be carried out quicker, without multi-level struts and ground improvement works thereby leading to a safer, more constructible and highly efficient retention system. The entire design of the basement and foundation system was based on the key considerations of construction efficiency and safety. The adoption of the Peanut system saved around three months of excavation and basement construction time. The enhanced safety of the system was manifested in the minimal lateral movement of the Peanut which was around 10mm, compared to around 50mm that would have resulted from a conventional strutted retention system. The success of the adopted system was also reflected in the fact that no disruptions to MRT operations resulted from the basement excavation and construction of these mega towers just next door to the MRT tunnels.
Page 8

2.2
Design Solutions for Safe Construction, Buildability and Economy
2.2.1 Superstructure Framing System The superstructure framing system adopted not only addressed the critical structural challenges related to strength and stiffness demands for seismic design but also allowed safe and buildable construction. The adoption of a systematic and repetitive structural framing system with modular sizes allowed for safe, rapid and economical construction. Thicknesses and sizes for all walls, columns, beams and slabs were standardized with variations occurring with height over several zones. This allowed the contractor to adopt modular customized formwork for safe and buildable construction and achieve a floor-to-floor cycle time of only 5 days compared with industry standards of 7 to 10 days per floor.
2.2.2 Use of Hybrid Pre-Cast and In-Situ Construction The ultimate objective of using pre-cast structural components is to make the construction process practical. However, pre-cast concrete is not the only way to enhance productivity, buildability and quality. The key issue is project specific feasibility. Hybrid construction, i.e., a combination of pre-cast and in-situ elements can provide the right combination in which the speed and quality of precast is combined with the economy and robustness of in-situ to give high-quality structures constructed quickly and economically.
Page 9

For The Sail @ Marina Bay, the optimum hybrid construction comprises in-situ vertical elements and perimeter-tube-frame-beams while the floor slabs and internal floor beams are composite precast with in-situ topping. The choice of in-situ and pre-cast components was essentially dictated by weight and site logistic considerations. The adoption of semi pre-cast slabs and internal beams meant that the majority of the floor plate was free of conventional formwork, utilizing less wet concrete, less on-site labor and less loose reinforcement. This allowed a accelerated speed of construction, as reflected in the 5 day floor cycle time while achieving a structural CONQUAS score of 99.5 - one of the highest ever score achieved.
2.2.3 Foundation System The critical considerations for the design of the foundation system involved the close proximity of the MRT tunnels, heavy column and wall loads from the towers and soft ground conditions. To safeguard the safety and operation of the MRT tunnels, stringent ground movement requirements had to be met, with maximum overall resultant movements for the MRT tunnels not exceeding 15mm. The foundation piles for the towers and the podium were designed to minimize total and differential vertical ground movement to prevent vertical down-drag of the MRT tunnels. The tower foundation system generally comprises large diameter bored piles under Tower 2 and barrettes under Tower 1 (due to heavier loads). A thick pile raft under each tower ties the foundation elements together and ensures that differential settlements between individual shear walls and columns are kept to a minimum. The location of barrettes and bored piles were systematically arranged through numerous simulation runs to ensure that stress levels and settlements were within acceptable limits. All the foundation elements are designed to carry working loads through friction only with an appropriate safety factor. This was critical to limit the overall settlement of the towers. Base resistance of the piles was considered for overload conditions and prevention of block shear failure. TAM base grouting was adopted for the bases of all the barrettes and bored piles to mitigate soft toe concerns and increase safety. The final building settlement for both Towers at the end of construction was less than 10mm which is testament to the exceptional performance of the foundation system. The adopted design approach ensured not only the safety of the foundation system but also mitigated total and differential building settlement which is critical to the performance of such tall and slender towers.
Page 10

2.2.2
Construction over MRT Tunnels
While the towers were located away from the MRT tunnels, there was no option but to locate the podium over the MRT tunnels. The column grids and framing of the podium, which includes retail units on the ground floor, car parks on the upper floors and an environmental deck on the roof, are systematically arranged to maximize efficiency of usage. The columns over the MRT tunnels are then transferred through deep and rigid post-tensioned (PT) girders at ground level spaced at regular intervals to span across the tunnels. The transfer system was devised with safety of both the MRT operations and construction as prime considerations. Rigid PT Transfer Girders
2.3
Collaboration between Project Team Throughout the entire design and construction process, close collaboration was maintained between the project team. Some examples of such collaboration are detailed below.
2.3.1 Massing of the Towers The presence of the MRT tunnels at the south boundary of the site presented a unique challenge to locate the tall residential towers. The massing of the development was therefore devised through close collaboration with the Architect keeping safety and buildability as prime considerations within the constrained site conditions. The low rise podium was located above the MRT tunnels while the two high rise towers were positioned away from the tunnels. This allowed the heavy tower loads and their associated foundation system to be as far away from the MRT tunnels as possible thereby minimizing the possibility of down-drag forces and tilt of the MRT tunnels.
Page 11

Basement construction was avoided as much as possible except for the mandatory Underground Pedestrian Network (UPN) under Tower 1 linking the development to Raffles Place MRT station. Given the extremely poor sub-soil condition of the reclaimed land site, the minimization of basement construction greatly reduced construction risks and ground and tunnels movements associated with excavation in such soil conditions. 2.3.2 Arrangement of Shear Walls The close collaboration between the architect and structural engineer enabled the successful adoption of a structural system to address the challenges posed by the building height and slenderness without compromising functionality of design. This collaborative effort allowed the residential units to be planned on either side of a central corridor which addressed structural needs for long shear walls along the transverse axis of the towers without compromising the unhindered functionality of space and future flexibility essential for a luxury residential development. 2.3.3 Specification of Non-Structural Materials Since minimizing weight of the towers was a key issue for seismic design, the architect responded to the structural needs by adopting dry walls, in lieu of brick / block walls, for the majority of the internal non-structural partition walls. This, along with the adoption of glass external cladding, greatly assisted in making the structural framing more efficient with reduction in individual column and wall sizes / thicknesses of the order of 5% to 10%. The substitution of labor intensive brick / block works with simpler and more buildable dry wall and curtain wall construction also enhanced safety during construction. 2.3.4 Adoption of Grade 80 Concrete The understandable need of the architect to keep the perimeter columns as small as possible imposed severe restrictions. The columns are part of the perimeter tube frame which resists part of the large seismic forces. Several options were discussed amongst the consultants team including steel-concrete composite columns to cater for large seismic forces. However, evaluation of this option revealed that the critical 5 day floor cycle time planned by the contractor would be compromised due to the complexity of installing steel sections within the concrete columns. Through a collaborative effort initiated by the contractor, high strength Grade 80 concrete was used to overcome the difficulty. This allowed one-third smaller perimeter column sizes without additional site works complexity thereby leading to a 5 day floor cycle time during construction. This reflects the solution based collaborative approach of the entire project team. 2.4 Peer Review and Verification Tests
2.4.1 Peer Review: In addition to detailed internal review procedures, as part of Meinhardts in-house QA/QC for all projects, external Peer Reviews were carried out at several stage of the project from Concept to Detailed Design. The reviewers included
Page 12

Dr. Alfred Yee (Precast Design Consultants) - also involved in Concept Design. Dragages Singapore / Bouygues Construction / Socotec International. Prof Tam Chat Tim (NUS). Associate Prof Wong Kai Sing (NTU).
Dr Yee provided guidance on seismic design issues through his vast experience on the subject. Dragages / Bouygues / Socotec were involved in independent verification of the design through their own structural models. Three different structural models were independently formulated (two models using ETABS and the 3rd using HERCULE in France by Socotec) and results verified from each before Detailed Design. Prof Tam assisted with his guidance on high strength concrete matters. Prof Wong was involved in reviewing geotechnical aspects of the project, especially on the unique design considerations related to the peanut diaphragm wall. 2.4.2 Verification Tests: Wind Tunnel Tests For tall and slender buildings, limiting the building drift alone does not satisfy necessarily satisfy the conditions for meeting the occupants comfort criteria. Therefore in addition to controlling the inter-story drift to at least height/500, it is also necessary to control the peak acceleration under strong winds, which directly affects the comfort of the occupants. A 1:300 scale force balance wind tunnel study was carried out in a laboratory in Melbourne, Australia, by WindTech, to verify code prescribed wind forces and analytical building behaviour predictions. The wind tunnel results verified that building drifts under 50 year return period wind as well as accelerations under 5 and 10 year return period winds are all within the acceptable limits.
Page 13

T1 = 5.6s = h/1060 ah = 10.3 m-g
T1 = 6.4s =h/755 ah = 14.1 m-g
Foundation Load Tests Since foundation systems represent the single most critical component of building safety, a series of pile load tests were carried out to conclusively establish the foundation behavior. This included 3 numbers of Ultimate Load Tests, 6 numbers of Working Load Tests and 10 numbers of Dynamic Load Tests. The numbers of tests were generally twice the numbers recommended by BCA.
3.0
QUALITY APPROACH AND SOLUTIONS THAT EMPHASIZE SAFETY The groundwork for quality and safety was established right from the concept design of the project and carried through the schematic design, detailed design and construction documentation phases through close coordination with all project consultants. The adopted design went beyond the requirements of local codes and standards by incorporating enhanced robustness and rigidity in the form of seismic design and use of high strength concrete. The design fully complied with the requirements of two separate Codes of Practice, i.e., CP65 (BS8110) and UBC (ACI-318).
3.1
Comprehensive Design Analysis and Checks Detailed geotechnical site investigation was carried out to comprehensively map the soil profile of the site. Individual foundation pile and barrette lengths were established based on adjacent borehole information and subsequently verified at site during installation with high degree of accuracy.
Page 14

43 BHs Detailed 3-Dimensional Finite Element Modeling was carried out to establish building behavior and performance. Due to the elliptical shape of the towers, prevention of torsional or twisting responses of the towers was a major challenge. Torsional responses of a building may become the predominant vibration mode if the torsional natural frequency is close to either of the lowest translational natural frequency. Building habitants are much more sensitive to torsional or twisting motions as compared to translational motions. Numerous simulations were carried out to condition the building stiffness and mass properties in order to achieve translation in the first two modes and separate the torsional mode. The modeling was verified through different softwares. Three different structural models were independently formulated (two models using ETABS and the 3rd using HERCULE in France by Socotec) and results verified from each before Detailed Design. For the excavation works, 3D finite element softwares were used in the analysis to predict retention wall stresses and deflections along with water table drawdown, settlement and movement of adjoining MRT and CST structures. The major softwares used for analysis and design in the project included: ETABS (3-D building analysis and design) HERCULE (verification of 3-D building analysis) PLAXIS (Analysis of Diaphragm -Wall Retention System) WALLAP (Lateral Load Analysis of Piles/Barrettes) SAFE (Interaction Analysis of Piles/Barrettes and Pilecaps) RAPT (Element verification analysis and design).
Page 15

Mode 1 (Y-Axis)
Mode 2 (X-Axis)
Mode 3 (Torsion) T1 Modes Shapes
Tower 1 Stress Plots
Mode 1 (Y-Axis)
Mode 2 (X-Axis)
Mode 3 (Torsion)
Tower 2 Stress Plots
T2 Modes Shapes
Interaction Analysis for Barrettes / Piles and Pile-Caps
Page 16

PLAXIS FEM Modeling of Peanut D-Wall and MRT Tunnels
3.2
Project Specific Details and Specifications The structural details for the project were specifically done to comply with seismic detailing requirements. Comprehensive and customized Specifications to cover all aspects of construction to achieve the design intent formed part of contract documents. These included Specifications for General Works, Particular Works, Bored Piling, Diaphragm Wall, Excavation, Waterproofing, Basements, In-situ and Pre-cast Concreting, Pre-stressing, Steel Works, Pre-cast, Structural Steel, etc.
4.0 4.1
DESIGN FOR SAFE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Provisions of Safe Inspection / Maintenance of Building Elements after Completion The track supports for Building Maintenance Unit's (BMU) have been designed integrally with the structural framing at the roof which allows for easy maintenance and faade cleaning of the towers. The BMUs allow permanent and safe access for maintenance and cleaning of facades. Also most structural members are internally exposed and accessible allowing safe inspection and periodic maintenance, if required. The structural performance of the towers after completion is monitored through permanently installed sway measurement devices. Monthly measurements of building acceleration, frequency and displacement in response to major events like high wind and distant earthquakes are recorded and reviewed to monitor building performance.
Page 17

4.2
Design for Durability For all concrete in contact with ground, Portland Blast Furnace Cement (PBFC) Concrete, made with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFC), has been used to increase durability against chloride penetration, resistance to sulfate attack and minimize alkali-silica reaction. In addition to the above, waterproof-concrete with the waterproofing admixture, Penetron, (which is an integral crystalline capillary concrete waterproofing system) was used for basement construction. This reduces the risk of corrosion to reinforcement and ultimately produces a more durable concrete with minimal maintenance during the life-cycle of the buildings. All secondary steel structures, such as the architectural features at the roof of the towers, incorporate high zinc rich coating for corrosion protection.
Page 18

5.0
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY AND SAFETY Detailed risk analyses were carried out for the various stages of the construction process identifying the key risk issues and steps taken to control and mitigate the risks. Comprehensive instrumentation and monitoring were implemented to detect problems early and fully executable contingency plans were put in place.
5.1
QPs Design Management of Erection Methods, Construction Sequence and Temporary Works Construction methodology and sequences of all major temporary works were independently verified by the QP for suitability of the works and safety during construction. Some of the key items reviewed included: Comprehensive ground instrumentation monitoring during foundation and sub-structure works with defined Alert and Work Suspension Levels, monitoring of temporary D-Wall retention system, real time MRT tunnel monitoring throughout construction period, etc Installation methodologies for foundation elements, e.g., suitability of rigs to achieve required depths, density of bentonite stabilizing fluid, base grouting pressure and volume, etc. Method statements for installation of pre-cast slabs including design requirements during lifting and propping stages. Concrete placement and curing methods specially for Grade 80 concrete Formwork striking times and back-propping requirements for floors Optimum location for installation of tower cranes and design review of tower crane supports. Sequence of construction to avoid temporary unstable conditions Early completion of permanent stairs for usage during construction
5.2
QPs Supervision, Inspection Regime, QA/QC Plan Testing and Monitoring Programme For site supervision and control, two senior Resident Engineers and three Clerk-of-Works were stationed full time at site. In addition, during the foundation works, full-time geotechnical engineers verified soil layers and the founding level of each pile. All the appointed site staff had good construction and site supervision experience. Supervision of works was carried out in progressive and pre-emptive manner in tandem with the contractors team to ensure safety, quality and meeting progress targets. Regular site meetings were held with the contractor to review and eliminate safety issues prior to the work activities. Inspection, testing and monitoring were carried out through standardized checklists from Meinhardts ISO Manual. The checklists are comprehensive guides explaining
Page 19

roles and responsibilities of site staff procedures for work inspections for all structural works schedule and type of tests required monitoring and recording instrumentation and test records QA/QC of materials sources, material testing results, etc.
Structural specifications were issued to the resident site team and detailed briefings were conducted to ensure full compliance with specifications and drawings. Approved shop drawings were circulated to all relevant parties prior to construction and inspection was only allowed to be carried out based on approved drawings. The resident site staff reported any deviations from approved shop drawings and design changes due to site conditions were reviewed by QP (as well as AC) prior to implementation. The QP and resident site team conducted regular site meetings / walks to ensure QA/QC. The diligent effort by the contractor in conjunction with detailed supervision by the QP and the resident site team resulted in the project achieving a structural CONQUAS score of 99.5 one of the highest scores ever achieved.
Page 20

6.0 6.1
PUBLIC SAFETY Provision to Manage Safety and Clean Environment to Minimize Public Feedback Public safety and clean environment were managed through close collaboration with the contractor. A wide range of issues were covered including, Review of risk assessment for each stage of work. Proper and extensive site monitoring instrumentation for excavation works. Site utilization and layout during construction planned to prevent accidents from flow of traffic, pedestrian and equipment. Prevention of falling debris through safety screen to the external building envelope. Provision of site hoardings and temporary walk-ways. Providing water treatment tank to treat water before discharge to external drain. Constructing proper and effective silt traps to improve water quality before discharge to the public/external drain. Usage of silent generator sets to reduce noise pollution. Installation of noise and vibration monitoring meters. Proper management of construction debris by segregating into recyclable/non recyclable, organic waste. Providing washing bay at site to clean all vehicles before leaving site. Minimizing dust generation through regular water spraying
Page 21

6.2
Adoption of Structural Systems that Minimize Impact to Neighborhood during Construction The structural systems adopted for the project were all conceived to create minimum impact to the neighborhood during construction while addressing the projects needs and challenges. The adopted foundation and retention system utilized bored piles and diaphragm walls to minimize ground movement, noise and vibration during the works. Pre-cast and pre-fabricated construction was used wherever feasible, i.e., slabs, staircases and bathrooms. These, along with prefabricated rebar cages for walls, columns and beams and mesh rebars for slabs, reduced labor intensive site works thereby reducing noise, waste generation and site congestion. Generally no adverse comments were received from neighbors on the contractors efforts to maintain a safe, clean and pollution free environment.
Page 22

The Sail BCA Awards Write-Up-Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sail BCA Awards Write-Up-Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sail @ Marina Bay

BCA DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SAFETY EXCELLENCE AWARDS 2009

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

Tower 2 (Aspect Ratio: 10.2) Transverse Axis

Horizontal Building Acceleration Building Drift

The Sail @ Marina Bay

Wall Coupling Beams Frame Members

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

Design Solutions for Safe Construction, Buildability and Economy

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

Construction over MRT Tunnels

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

T1 = 5.6s = h/1060 ah = 10.3 m-g

T1 = 6.4s =h/755 ah = 14.1 m-g

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

Mode 3 (Torsion) T1 Modes Shapes

Tower 1 Stress Plots

Tower 2 Stress Plots

Interaction Analysis for Barrettes / Piles and Pile-Caps

The Sail @ Marina Bay

PLAXIS FEM Modeling of Peanut D-Wall and MRT Tunnels

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

The Sail @ Marina Bay

You might also like