Home
> Uncategorized > SITE BOUNDARIES AND INTERFACES WITH ADJACENT PHASES
SITE BOUNDARIES AND INTERFACES WITH ADJACENT PHASES
I have been struck by the interface between our site and the adjacent phases, in fact it was my overriding first impression on attachment. The interface issues have featured in my reports and my daily routine involves a great deal of liaison and de-confliction with adjacent sites. We have recently been constructing some temporary plinths atop a permanent structure that Phase 3 temporary bridge will sit upon and whilst conducting a pre-pour check I thought the following photo perfectly illustrates these interface issues.
- The photo is taken looking eastward along the permanent structure (Halo Road).
- This road will provide access to Ph 1 (Carillion) for residents when the development is occupied later this year.
- Ph 3 (Bouygues UK) temporary bridge structure connects to this permanent structure (hence the plinths)
- Ph 2 (Skanska) are excavating their basement levels.
- Temporary Props have been installed in order to transfer the loads to the secant pile wall.
- Construction sequencing for Ph 3 still has to be confirmed in order to excavate basement levels on ‘our side’ of the secant wall.
- Just visible is the heating pipes that run from an M&E plant in Ph 2 across all phases to Ph 1.
As I have said previously, this is not the most technically challenging work nevertheless it is fascinating and a solid education for myself.
Categories: Uncategorized
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Really interesting, and something I suffered with on my site. Not sure on your set up but the procurement at my site meant that designs were completed by different principal designers, and very loosely de-conflicted. This meant plenty of headaches as PCs came to install utilities in the ‘correct’ design location only to find that the phase before had also installed utilities in the same space. I guess mitigated if all three phases are designed by the same company, or a robust design QA process / BIM modelling is in place. Any of that sort of stuff happening? You’ll probably get good technical stuff later so I wouldn’t worry too much, and there’s probably more than you think any way. (Especially if prompted by the Oracle!)
In theory BuroHappold sit as principal designer over all phases but the construction sequencing (with different drivers for the different phases) clearly has a huge effect – evidenced by Skanska’s props!
Lots of BIM planning in place with our company offering some good CPD training however I would not want to be an M&E engineer in the basements for the exact reasons you state!
Technically there is plenty of meaty stuff and I am over-simplifying for the sake of a blog. However, occasionally I read others’ posts with a hint of jealousy.
Sounds very similar to the interface issues we are facing Rich. To a certain extent everything E&M related is interfaced with the civil structure; the designers are also coming from very different points much as they are on your site.
Crossrail has an over-arching 3D model will all designers inputting into it. However, unfortunately this makes that file so large that it cannot be opened in less than half a morning and only the biggest design consultancies have the computing firepower to use it. Crossrail are so worried about version control that they only allow access to the model from terminals in the head office at Canary Wharf… not the station sites.
The upshot of all this is that all effective interfacing in the installation phase is done the old-school way: walking the sites and marking up drawings with signatures. And buying coffees to get our cables routed the way we want them.
Does JPA have a ‘main contractor coffee allowance’ function?