±660kV 4000 MW HVDC Bipole Matiari Lahore Transmission Project
Sub-project 3 M-L HVDC Transmission Line
No. OE's Comments
General Comments:
For better understanding and quick reference, it is
recommended to include following sections in the
Geotechnical Investigation Report.
1 We will add those sections in next revised report.
a Executive Summary
b Conclusions
c Photographs of geotechnical investigations
As the geotechnical investigations were
conducted prior to mobilization of OE as well as
2 due to absence of signed laboratory test results,
the authenticity of geotechnical investigation
report shall remain the responsibly of CET.
Provision of granular fill / select fill or other soils
improvement techniques for weak ground
3 conditions and for soils having higher Plasticity
Index (PI) for deep GWT zone should be included soils improvement techniques will be carried out.
in the Geotechnical Investigation report.
Layout plan for transmission line towers along
4 with borehole locations shall be included in the
geotechnical investigation report.
The criteria for which drilling was planned and
executed along the Transmission line route shall
5 be included in the geotechnical report. Further,
the criteria for location of borehole selected for
specific reach
Detailed Design-Geotechnical Investigation Report-Section-1
Review & Comments Matrix
NTDC-OE Response after submission of
CET Reply NTDC-OE Response Rev-1 of Report and discussed on CET Reply during September 25, 2018 meeting
Septmeber 25, 2018
Comments incorporated but not in true
spirit. For executive summary only a new
heading of 'Executive Summary' is
inserted above section 1.5. CET agreed to include more photos in Rev-2 of
Agreed.
the report
Conclusions have been included.
Only few photographs are inserted.
Signed laboratory test results not included CET agreed to include signed laboratory test
We will add signed laboratory test result file in next
Noted. results from approved laboratory in Rev-2 of
revised report. in Revised report
the report
In this part of Section 1,no granular fill / select fill or other Agreed.
Not applicable
We will provide layout plan with borehole locations. Agreed. Comment incorporated Comment closed
CET ensure that they are responsible for
implementation of drilling criteria as
Drilling was planned and executed by Code for mentioned in Page 10 of the geotechnical
investigation of geotechnical engineering in China for Agreed, but CET will mention borehole investigation report Rev-1 at tower locations
Comment not incorporated
combined with relevant ASTM clauses. Location of criteria in the revised report. and if at any location the criteria is not met,
boreholes were exactly at the central of the Tower. CET will take up this during construction.
Comment Closed
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of
No. OE's Comments CET Reply NTDC-OE Response Rev-1 of Report and discussed on CET Reply during September 25, 2018 meeting
Septmeber 25, 2018

In line with Geotechnical Investigation Report,
CET has proposed typical bearing capacities
geotechnical design for the shallow foundation.
Although OE has no objection to typical design,
6 however, the typical bearing capacities and soil
classification presented in the ‘Contraction Design
report for Pad & Chimney Foundation Design
reports’ are not consistent with the geotechnical
investigation report.
The typical bearing capacities and soil classification
presented in the ‘Contraction Design report for Pad &
Chimney Foundation Design reports’ are comprehensively
determined by our structure discipline based on the
ultimate bearing capacities of each type of soil provided
in the geotechnical investigation report and their typical
soil classification.
The reply is not relevant as the structural
engineer should adopt the soil classification
and geotechnical design parameters
recommended in geotechnical investigation This comment will be catered for in CET will submit revised structural design report
report. revised structural design report. Therefore as per final approved geotechnical
comment closed. investigation report.
This discrepancy should be properly
addressed in the revised structural design
report.

It is not clear how CET will ensure the sub-strata
soil consistency (loose, soft etc.,) at those tower
7 locations where boreholes were not drilled. This
shortcoming shall be addressed in the revised
report.
After discussion it was recommended that This comment will be catered for during
Before we start investigate, we have made sure the tower all the tower foundations shall be inspected site supervision. Therefore comment
without drilling hole and its reference tower were at the Comment closed
by OE's site supervision team before
same geological unit, the layer fluctuation was little. closed.
concreting.

The proposed tower foundations are shallow

foundations with bearing capacity evaluated for a
depth of foundation of about 3.5m. In view of
8 shallow ground water table (0.4m to 4.7m),
extensive dewatering will be required. CET is
advised to revisit their decision of shallow
foundations.
The bearing capacity evaluated for a depth of 3.5m and
width of 4.0m of foundation ,structure discipline confirm Not Applicable as CET did not agree with Comment closed
the typical soil classification considered with ground Noted. OE's recommendations
water table, and choose the reasonable bearing capacity
and dewatering method.

On the basis of chemical analysis tests on soil and
water, recommendations for type of cement
9 should be included in the report for use of
structural engineer in design.
Recommendations for type of cement not
Cement type will be added into Section 4.4 in next revised Agreed. incorporated. Although a new section CET to ensure use of relevant cement type in
report. (Section 2.3.4) is inserted that a 4000 psi concrete as per ASTM C-150 for each exposure
concrete will be used. class defined in ACI-318-14 at each tower
locations during implementation.

Comment closed.

Although pile capacity curve has been

Recommendations for full scale and working load geotechnical investigation report, but the final decision when pile load test are not planned.
10 tests on pile should be included in in the
geotechnical investigation report.
OE do not agree. If the piles are to be provided but pile load recommendations CET agreed to conduct pile load tests at
designed with pile load test, then in line not incorporated. It is important that CET appropriate locations to be finalized by
with design code requirements, Factor of has now proposed 52 pile foundations in geotechnical designers. CET will also submit
We recommend the type of foundation for each tower in Safety (FoS) are lower while FoS are higher comparison with 2 in earlier version of the separate document for pile load test locations
report. Such number of pile necessitates for review of OE for pile design finalization.
shall be made by structural engineers, and they will give Therefore, the recommendations for pile pile load test.
the recommendations for full scale and working load tests load test shall be finalized in the CET will also include recommendation for pile
on pile if it was needed. geotechnical investigation report. However, The pile capacities seems to be on higher load test in Rev-2 of geotechnical investigation
OE advice pile load test should be done or side for the sub-surface soil encountered report.
authentic reference pile load test performed with shallow GWT. Further Factor of
in the nearby transmission line. Safety not mentioned to evaluate Comment closed.
Allowable pile capacity.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of
No. OE's Comments CET Reply NTDC-OE Response Rev-1 of Report and discussed on CET Reply during September 25, 2018 meeting
Septmeber 25, 2018

Laboratory tests results reports such as, Sieve

analysis, Hydrometer analysis, Atterberg limits,
11
direct shear and chemical tests etc., should be
included in the geotechnical investigation report.
Signed laboratory test results not included CET agreed to include signed laboratory test
In Annex 2 Soil test results in main Geotechnical CET already agreed to include signed
results from approved laboratory in Rev-2 of
investigation report. laboratory test results vide comment No. 2. in Revised report the report

It is surprising for OE to observe that all the No action taken, however comment can
boreholes, either it is of 10m depth or 30m We will confirm the drilling date again and correct the
12 Noted. be closed considering that it is CET's Comment closed
depth, were completed in a single day time date if it was wrong. responsibility
period.
Specific Comments for Geotechnical Investigations:

Table 1.7-1 of Geotechnical Investigation Report,

Number of boreholes using percussion drilling
13 mentioned shows 57 boreholes while Annex-3 We will correct that in next revised report. Agreed. Comment incorporated Comment closed
has 56 boreholes. This discrepancy should be
corrected.

As we mentioned in the Geotechnical Investigation

Table 1.7-1 of Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Number of 37 undisturbed samples collected for
14 evaluation of geotechnical design parameters for
313 km transmission line and 50km electrode line
seems less.
Report, this report is only for
If electrode line is not included in this
G0026~G0043,G0050~G0058,G0076~G0213. It is about
section and then write-up on page 1 of the Comment incorporated Comment closed
73km. Other towers in section 1 are in the plan of route
report should be corrected.
change.
The electrode line is not contained in this report.

As we mentioned in the Geotechnical Investigation

Report, this report is only for
Table 1.7-1 & 1.7-2 of Geotechnical Investigation G0026~G0043,G0050~G0058,G0076~G0213, So in
Geotechnical Investigation Report and Annex 3 we only
Report, Number of SPTs, undisturbed & disturbed gave the workload about above towers. G0001-G0025,
as well as water samples, drilling depth (total Noted but it is prime responsibility of CET to Comment not incorporated CET will correct these in Rev-2 of the
15 footage) and number of laboratory tests (indoor G0044-G0049 and G0059-G0075 are located at the submit correct documents to OE. geotechnical investigation report
tests) are not consistent with Annex-2-Summary diverted section, since they are located at the same
geological unit with the non-diverted section towers ,to
of Lab Test Results and Annex-3-Borehole Logs ensure efficient statistical samples, we use all the lab test
results for Statistics , So we gave all the lab test results.
(we give a statement in section 1.8)
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of
No. OE's Comments CET Reply NTDC-OE Response Rev-1 of Report and discussed on CET Reply during September 25, 2018 meeting
Septmeber 25, 2018

Complete Consolidation test results not

Table 1.7-2 of Geotechnical Investigation Report, yet incorporated. As a result, OE is finding
the table shows that 35 number of consolidation it difficult to review the allowable bearing
test were performed. capacity of saturated cohesive soils (silt & CET will now consider consolidation settlement
However, their results are either not included in silty clay). Nevertheless, OE made an parameters and re-evaluate bearing capacity
the report or in Annex-2 or these are not effort and collected geotechnical for silty clay and silt. The recommended
performed. Both these tests are very important investigation reports from Sukkar Multan bearing capacity shall be lower of shear,
parameters in evaluation of bearing capacity and Motorway which is very close to HVDC. OE immediate settlement and consolidation
16 settlement analysis for fine grained soils (silty clay We will correct the discrepancy in next revised report. Agreed. then performed an independent settlement criteria in Rev-2 of geotechnical
etc.). It is also worthy to mention that, only direct consolidation settlement analysis for investigation report.
shear were performed on undisturbed samples shallow foundations. The result indicates
(UDS) irrespective of type of sample. As a that settlement exceeds permissible CET will also include complete parameters for
standard geotechnical practice, direct shear tests settlement of 25mm for soft silty clays & consolidation test in Annex-2 in Rev-2 of
are applicable on granular soils (sands) while silt. This implies that allowable bearing geotechnical investigation report.
unconfined compression tests are valid for capacity of cohesive soils is on higher side
cohesive soils. and needs careful review of bearing
capacity of saturated silt & clay by CET.

Tables 1.8-1 & 9.2 of Geotechnical Investigation

17 Report, it is recommended to include references we will add references in next revised report. Agreed. Comment incorporated Comment closed
to these tables.

Section 1.6 of Geotechnical Investigation Report,
borehole depth range of 10-12m and 12-15m is
18 not consistent with depth shown in Table 1.7-1-
Site Survey Workload depth, which should be
corrected.
Survey depth for tower is mostly from 10-15m, but when
pile foundation would be used for the tower , we carried CET will correct these in Rev-2 of the
out a deep hole, what’s more, it is necessary to carry out Agreed. Comment not incorporated geotechnical investigation report
deep hole at intervals to clarify the stratigraphic change .
We will add this content in next revised report.

This is not always the case. The way forward

Table 2.3.2-3 of Geotechnical Investigation for this is that CET will either conduct
Report, all the chemical tests of soil samples were According to our engineering experience , normally the chemical tests on previously preserved soil CET did not confirm that they will CET confirmed that they will undertake further
conducted at 1m depth while the proposed depth aggressivity of soils would get less along with the position samples or collect new sample and
19 undertake further chemical tests on soil & chemical tests on soil and submit the result to
of foundation is 3.5m. M/s CET should evaluate deepens. undertake chemical tests on soil & water
chemical aggressivity of soils at other depth and in vicinity of foundation depth. water OE for review.
ranges.
CET agreed to do that.

Section 3.1, CET mentioned their constraint that

they could not take undisturbed samples in soft According to our exploration results the soft silty clay in This aspect will now be taken care during This comment will be catered for during
silty clay. This is accepted but then CET should
20 have conducted SPT as closer interval in such type route section 1 is all above the bottom of foundation foundation inspection as agreed vide site supervision. Therefore comment Comment closed
(depth is less than 3.5m). comment No. 7. closed.
of strata for use in bearing capacity and
settlement analysis which was not done.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of
No. OE's Comments CET Reply NTDC-OE Response Rev-1 of Report and discussed on CET Reply during September 25, 2018 meeting
Septmeber 25, 2018

Table 3.1 of Geotechnical Investigation Report,

21 the parameters for sand/silty fine sand is missing We will add this content in next revised report. Agreed. Comment incorporated Comment closed
in the report.

Table 3.2 Results of SPT & Table 3.3.1-1 SPT

Statistics of Geotechnical Investigation Report, CET will correct these in Rev-2 of the
22 We will correct in next revised report. Agreed. Comment not incorporated
SPT blow count cannot be in decimals. It should geotechnical investigation report
be corrected.

Table 3.3.1-1 SPT Statistics of Geotechnical

Investigation Report, this table does not seems to
be consistent with ‘Table of Engineering
23
Geological Condition for Tower’ of Annex-1
delineating summary of design parameters. This
should be corrected.
Table 3.3.1-1 SPT Statistics are only used for Meyerhof CET already agreed to revise Annex-1 vide
(25mm)allowable bearing capacity calculation, In Annex-1, comment 24. This comment will be cater for Comment incorporated
Comment closed
the Ultimate bearing capacity is calculated from Terzaghi in lieu of that comment so that there is no
Theory. inconsistency in report & Annex-1.

It is required that recommended allowable

bearing capacity, similar to the one presented in
Table 3.3.3-1 of Geotechnical Investigation Report
24 as ‘fa’, should be included in Annex-1 along with We will add this content in next revised report. Agreed. Comment incorporated Comment closed
allowable bearing capacities from Terzaghi Theory
and Meyerhoff. This is mandatory for selection of
foundation types for each tower location..

CET agreed to conduct pile load tests at

appropriate locations to be finalized by
geotechnical designers. CET will also submit
The pile capacity value mentioned in Table
Table 3.3.4 of Geotechnical Investigation Report, separate document for pile load test locations
3.3.4 cannot be for a range of 15-30m. The
the capacity of pile foundation has been Below the Table 3.3.4, there is a Note, meaning the pile for review of OE for pile design finalization.
best way is to present pile capacity curve for Same as comment No. 10
25 presented without pile lengths. As a result, OE is length is 15-30 m. But the exact length of the pile shall be specific diameters.
unable to review allowable pile capacity. The pile decided by structural engineer. CET will also include recommendation for pile
length should be included in the said table. load test in Rev-2 of geotechnical investigation
CET agreed. report.

Comment closed.

CET agreed to correct borehole designation in

Agreed. However, it was also agreed in joint Comment incorporated but there is minor Annex-1.
Annex-1, Tower type should also be included in problem of borehole designation.
meeting that foundation type should also be
Annex-1. Further, back-span distances between We will add this content in next revised report. CET will again check the foundation type in
26 included in Annex-1.
each tower and borehole should also be included Further, it is not clear which criteria is Annex-1 especially considering the
in Annex-1. used to decided shallow and deep consolidation settlement of silty clay and silt
CET agreed. foundations. and then finalize the foundation type i.e., pile
foundation or shallow foundation.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of
No. OE's Comments CET Reply NTDC-OE Response Rev-1 of Report and discussed on CET Reply during September 25, 2018 meeting
Septmeber 25, 2018

OE feels CET misunderstood the soil

Annex-2, Soil classification according to Unified
Soil Classification system is neither provided in
27
the geotechnical investigation report nor in the
Annex-2, which should be included.
Typical soil classification was confirmed by our structure
discipline in China, based on ultimate bearing capacities
of each type soil, hydro-geological conditions etc..
classification. OE wants that in Annex-2, CET
should include soil classification as per
Unified Soil Classification system (USCS)
such as CL, ML, SM, SW SP etc.
CET agreed.
Complete consolidation test data not CET will provide complete consolidation test
incorporated. Or include sign laboratory data in Annex-2 and also include signed
test data. laboratory test results.

Annex-3, the borehole logs which is most

important component of a geotechnical
investigation report, is deficient of information
and nowhere meet quality of international
standards. A few examples are; CET will incorporate missing information in
a Depth of Standard penetration tests (SPTs) We will add the depth value, and details of samples to the Comments incorporated, however, few are Rev-2 of the geotechnical investigation report.
28 performed is not mentioned in the borehole logs. logs. Agreed. still missing
Further, blow count details observed at site to The SPT value is in the “test result ” form. CET will also correct the ground elevation
calculate SPT given in borehole as negative value.
value is missing. b Details of Undisturbed
&Disturbed (SPT)soil samples and water samples
are not mentioned in the borehole logs. Drilling
method, not mentioned in the borehole logs.

Annex-3, although depth of SPTs is not mentioned

in boreholes logs, however, after quick look it was
observed that SPTs are generally conducted at 1.5 Most of the holes , the first SPT is start at 1.5m or 2.0m, in
to 2m interval or even higher. Further, SPT is
missing is upper horizon in some of the boreholes atryfew holes when the silt clay was exposed , we need to
29 best to take UDS, maybe several times, So the first SPT Not applicable Comment closed
(e.g. T49, T71, T114, T126) which are the load may get a little deep, but it is also near the foundation
bearing stratum. This is not in accordance with depth.
general practice, and should have been done at
close interval especially in upper sub-soil
horizon.

Annex-3, the dates mentioned in two borehole
logs i.e., T196 & T201 is August 15, 2015. This is
30 inconsistent with dates mentioned in Section 1.8
of the Geotechnical Investigation Report-Volume
1.
That is because the boundary change between route
Section 1 and route Section 2, a few drilling holes were
belong to Section 2(finished in 2015 ) before. Same as comment No. 15. Comment incorporated
We will add another statement for this in the next revised
report.

As we mentioned in the Geotechnical Investigation

Annex-3 and Geotechnical Investigation Report, it Report, this report is only for
31 is not clear which boreholes were drilled for main G0026~G0043,G0050~G0058,G0076~G0213, all the Same as comment No. 15. Comment incorporated Comment closed
transmission line and electrode line. drilling holes are for the main route.
Electrode line part is not contained in this report.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of
No. OE's Comments CET Reply NTDC-OE Response Rev-1 of Report and discussed on CET Reply during September 25, 2018 meeting
Septmeber 25, 2018

As we mentioned in the Geotechnical Investigation

Annex-3, Borehole logs for holes G2, G5, T24, T26, Report, this report is only for
T28 for which laboratory testing is carried out as sufficient statistical samples we use all the labTo
G0026~G0043,G0050~G0058,G0076~G0213. ensure
32 results Same as comment No. 15. Comment incorporated Comment closed
test
shown in Annex-2 are missing. for statistics , So we gave all the lab test results.
(we have given a statement in section 1.8)

Specific Comments for Earth Conductivity & Soil Resistivity:

33 Please provide the copy of Assignment Book
The Earth Resistivity Values between Tower No.
G0198 to G0213 are very high and unbelievable.
34
Please locate the areas and also recheck these
high values.
Conclusions of the Joint Meeting dated September 4, 2018
We will provide the copy of assignment book in next CET intimated that the assignment book in a
Agreed. Assignment book not provided
revised report. contract between their design team and CET
and its in Chinese language. There is no
benefit. OE agreed and comment is closed.
The mentioned towers are in the desert , the earth
resistivity values in desert are commonly high and all the Agreed. Not applicable
data is actual measurement result.
Comment closed

Based on the detailed discussion in a joint meeting of NTDC, OE & CET dated September 4, 2018, following actions were agreed upon;
1. CET shall revise geotechnical investigation reports for all the sections and incorporate above comments and submit to NTDC/OE for review.
2. The foundation design report for Pad & Chimney cannot be reviewed till the finalization and approval of geotechnical investigation reports.
3. Typical foundation design shall based upon soil profiles extracted from final geotechnical investigation reports.
4. During the meeting, confirmation of cement type for HVDC transmission from Section/Lot-1 to Section/Lot-8 was also discussed However, it was agreed that OE will able to review these after submission of revised geotechnical investigation reports.
 ore Transmission Project
mission Line
tion Report-Section-1
atrix

NTDC-OE Response after submission of CET Reply during Face to face

Meeting of October 09, 2018
Rev-2 of Report meeting

Comment incorporated, however, Correct CET agreed to incorporate this

Submission date and Report Revision
Number should be included in the Report. in Rev-3 of the Report

CET agreed to provide an

Comment incorporated, however, OE
needs to check with NTDC about
approved laboratory issue.
undertaking to NTDC that
they take complete
responsibility of laboratory
testing conducted at DECON
and SAFE laboratories.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of CET Reply during Face to face
Meeting of October 09, 2018
Rev-2 of Report meeting

CET agreed to analyse the soil

type encountered, pile
Comment incorporated. However, CET will foundation loaction to be
submit pile load test proposal to OE for finalized by structural
review. engineer and then submit pile
load test location planning
report for review of OE.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of CET Reply during Face to face
Meeting of October 09, 2018
Rev-2 of Report meeting

CET agreed to provide an

Comment incorporated, however, OE
needs to eheck with NTDC about
approved laboratory issue.
undertaking to NTDC that
they take complete
responsibility of laboratory
testing conducted at DECON
and SAFE laboratories.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of CET Reply during Face to face
Meeting of October 09, 2018
Rev-2 of Report meeting

CET agreed to consider

CET has not considered consolidation
settlement in evaluation of bearing
capacity.
consolidation settlement in
evaluation of bearing capacity
of very soft to firm silty clay
and silt and revise the report
(Rev-3)

CET has included three

CET will submit additional chemical test
results to OE for review.
additional chemical test
results on soil sample.
However, they will take up
this issue again durinng
construction.
 NTDC-OE Response after submission of CET Reply during Face to face
Meeting of October 09, 2018
Rev-2 of Report meeting

Comment incoporated

CET agreed to analyse the soil

type encountered, pile
Comment incorporated. However, CET will foundation loaction to be
submit pile load test proposal to OE for finalized by structural
review. engineer and then submit pile
load test location planning
report for review of OE.

CET explained that they have

Comment not incoporated
also considered local survey
including feedback from
residents about ground water
table etc. Therefore, they
have made different
designation.

OE accepted CET argument.

 NTDC-OE Response after submission of CET Reply during Face to face
Meeting of October 09, 2018
Rev-2 of Report meeting

Comment incorporated

CET stated that they are using

Comment not incoporated
different datum such as UTM
& WGS84 that is why ground
elevations some of the
boreholes show negative
value. Being a survey issue,
OE feels this is CET
responsibility and comment is
closed.
NTDC-OE Response after submission of CET Reply during Face to face
Meeting of October 09, 2018
Rev-2 of Report meeting