Seekh

Seekh Improvement #001 – Special Towers Framework (521)

Power T & D

Cables

Railways

Civil

Solar

Oil & Gas Pipelines

Timeline 1: 14 weeks of back-and-forth on what SEC asked at Rev 0. Timeline 3: Rev 4 converged with contract completion.

TIMELINES

TIMELINE 1 · Complied with SEC interpretation on the 4th cycle

KEC Stance

SEC Stance

• Multi-pier design +
• RQD averaging

Rev 0

13-Jan-26

Comments Rev 0

• Flags RQD avg +
• pile-length assumptions

• Defends RQD avg via
• geotech letter

Rev 1

~Feb

NOT COMPLIED

• Flags safety-case
• framing

• Regroups G1/G2;
• shear partial

Rev 2

~early-Mar

Partial

• Shear method
• still questioned

• Argues shear
• non-critical for OHTL

Rev 3

~early-Apr

NOT COMPLIED

• 2 items NOT COMPLIED
• — unfactored shear

• Redesigned w/
• FACTORED SHEAR

Rev 4

22-Apr-26

Pending approval

Awaiting decision

SITE EVENTS

4–5 Apr · Site cuts rebar at 1A/31 (bar-through-pile clash)

TIMELINE 2 Started Late

Contract start

6-Nov-2024

Rev 0 submitted

13-Jan-2026

~62 wks (~14 mo)

Rev 1 / 2 / 3

Feb–early-Apr

+~12 wks

Rev 4 filed

22-Apr-2026

~76 wks total

Contract completion

22-Apr-2026

⚠ same day

SEC COMMENTS (Rev 0) · complied at · days from comment receipt

SEC comment at Rev 0

Complied at

Days from receipt

RQD averaging — use POOREST borehole, not group-averaged (TES-P-122.06)

Rev 4 (22-Apr-26)

≈ 82 days

Unfactored shear on G1 + G2 — use FACTORED shear per ACI 318M

Rev 4 (22-Apr-26)

≈ 82 days

Pile-length assumptions need geotech-backed rework

Rev 2 (~early-Mar)

≈ 35 days

LESSONS

WHAT HAPPENED → CORRECTIVE ACTION

What happened on M521

Corrective action

Constructability

• ▸ Design identifies special towers at tower-spotting freeze
• ▸ Design reviews constructability on draft drawings (12-point)
• ▸ PM verifies Rev 0 before release

• Rev 0 → Rev 4 took 14 weeks
• Rev 4 converged on SEC's Rev 0 position.

▸ SEC's preferred interpretation in Rev 0 for special towers (explore AI use cases)

Foundation work on special towers began late

• ▸ Special towers tracked separately in Primavera P6
• ▸ Front-load special-tower foundations along with the suspension batch

No first-of-its-kind verification was run for F-AN3/SPL.

• ▸ BIM / digital-twin clash-check on cage geometry, or
• ▸ Full-scale rebar mockup (borrowed from oil & gas practice)

Site cut rebar at 1A/31

▸ Strengthen Quality process to flag non-conformances

CONSTRUCTABILITY

STEP 1 — IDENTIFY · which towers get the special track, and when we earmark them

FLAG AS SPECIAL IF ANY:

• ▸ F-AN3/SPL, F-DE, large-angle / "SPL" variant ▸ Deviation > 45° ▸ RQD < 25 in any critical layer, or rock interface < 3 m
• ▸ Non-spread foundation (pile / multi-pier / raft) ▸ First-of-its-kind ▸ Sabkha, wadi crossing, sloped ground

• EARMARK AT TOWER-SPOTTING FREEZE
• (Month 1–3) — when tower types are
• assigned in the schedule

STEP 2 — REVIEW · 12-point Constructability Checklist (signed item-by-item, pre-IFC)

1

Every bottom longitudinal bar crosses a pile footprint ← the 1A/31 miss

2

≥ 50 mm clear spacing between bars at pier edge

3

Top bars survive stub cutout without cutting

4

Development length Ld achievable at pier-to-pad

5

Bar bend points clear of stub flanges

6

Vibrator-diameter clearance between bars

7

Chair-bar spacing matches pile-cap depth

8

Temperature reinforcement in open pad area

9

Uplift-test pullout points accessible + instrumented

10

Formwork matches pier geometry; no reshaping at site

11

Construction sequence diagram shipped with drawing

12

No site cutting long-span bars (TES-P-122.06 · ACI 315/318)

STEP 3 — EXECUTE · post-earmark workflow - what we do after a tower is flagged

When

Action

AS-IS on M521 (what didn't happen)

Month 1

Design IDENTIFIES — flag at tower-spotting freeze; separate line in Primavera P6

F-AN3/SPL not earmarked; entered the special track late

Month 2

Design REVIEWS constructability — 12-point check on draft drawings

No constructability review; bar-through-pile on Rev 0 was not caught

Month 3–4

SUBMIT — Foundation Plan & Details to SEC (with risk-flag package)

Rev 0 for special towers filed 13-Jan-26, ~62 weeks (~14 months) after 6-Nov-24 kick-off

Month 5

PM VERIFIES Rev 0 — mandatory risk-flagging sheet signed

No single PM-owned verification; risks surfaced one revision at a time

Parallel

AMBITIOUS — BIM clash-check OR full-scale rebar mockup (first-of-its-kind)

Neither attempted; Stage D never run for F-AN3/SPL

Execution

Monthly Seekh review until first pile-cap poured; site changes auto-flag

1A/31 clash surfaced from the 1v1 on TSE release-risks — no NCR was raised

• Global Footprint in
• 110+ countries*

*Includes EPC and Supply

www.kecrpg.com

Follow us on:

TES-P-122.06 · TCS-P-122.05/.21 · TCS-Q-113.03 · ACI 318M · IEEE 691-2001 · ASTM D1586/D2113/D3689

BACK-UP

II. FOUNDATION DESIGN

SOW Cl 5.11 · TES-P-122.06 · ACI 318M

▸ Design per ACI 318M + TES-P-122.06 — torsion, uplift, compression, shear, moments

▸ Type: drilled pier / spread / rock anchor / rock pier / driven pile

▸ Grouped towers: use POOREST borehole — no averaging

▸ Top 1.0 m soil EXCLUDED from uplift / compression / lateral

▸ Spread footing FoS ≥ 1.5 on uplift; OLF per Table-2

▸ Sabkha: 13 mm permanent steel casing, rebar hot-dip galv

III. SOIL INVESTIGATION

SOW Cl 6.21

▸ COMPANY-approved geotech; start after prelim proposal approval

▸ Borehole at EACH tower; depth ≥ (pier + 3 m) OR 10 m

▸ ASTM D1586 (SPT) + D2113 (diamond core drilling)

▸ FoS ≥ 3 on ALL soil parameters; COMPANY interprets

▸ ≥3 boreholes with 2″ PVC piezometers, depth ≥3 m

IV. REINFORCEMENT

SOW Cl 6.03 · TCS-P-122.05 · TCS-P-122.21

▸ Reinforcement + tie wire per TCS-P-122.05 / TES-P-122.06

▸ Tie wire 1.5 mm, 2 wraps + twists; 2 separate spliced ties

▸ WWF per ASTM A496 / SASO 224; fy ≥ 240 MPa

▸ Stub-angle bond per TCS-P-122.21; coal-tar + mastic tape

▸ No site cutting long-span bars without design authority

V. PROTOTYPE UPLIFT TEST — PRE-CONSTRUCTION GATE

SOW Cl 5.12

▸ Full-scale test: 1 tangent + 1 heavy-angle, BEFORE production

▸ Prototype design gated on APPROVED soil report

▸ COMPANY witnesses; contractor pays access

▸ Jacks / load cells / dial gauges calibrated w/ COMPANY

▸ Per ASTM D-3689-90 quick-load method

VI. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL

SOW Cl 4.87 · 6.02 · 6.25

▸ Checklists define HOLD / WITNESS / SURVEILLANCE

▸ Pre-pour inspection mandatory; request → COMPANY

▸ Cover 85 ± 10 mm to tie outside; design 95 mm

▸ CIP concrete per TCS-Q-113.03 + TCS-P-122.05

▸ Inspection logbook; results stored / retrievable

KEY GATES — what stops the line if missed

cross-cuts the five sections

▸ No averaged RQD across grouped towers — use poorest

▸ Soil APPROVED before prototype design starts

▸ Uplift test (1 tangent + 1 heavy-angle) BEFORE production

▸ No long-span bar cutting without design authority

▸ Pre-pour HOLD request to COMPANY

▸ Drawings + material: only after IFC, certified + dated

GATE: no IFC, no material — until II–VI are signed off on project-specific soil data.

Plain-language meaning + source (ACI / TES-P / SOW clause) for every checkpoint. A synthesis, not a published list.

BACK-UP

1

Bottom longitudinal bar crosses a pile footprint

Every bottom longitudinal bar must be routed so its path crosses the footprint of at least one pile; otherwise the bar cannot transfer tower load and is structurally dead. The 1A/31 failure was bars exiting the pier edge without crossing a pile.

1A/31 failure mode itself

2

≥ 50 mm clear spacing between bars at pier edge

50 mm is the practical OHTL-foundation minimum because a 40–55 mm poker vibrator needs clearance to consolidate concrete between bars. Tighter = honeycombing = a hidden defect.

ACI 318 §25.2

3

Top bars survive the stub cutout without cutting

The top reinforcement mat has a cutout to let the vertical stub pass. Top bars near that cutout must be routed so they do not need to be cut at site; if cut, they lose structural function at the cutout zone.

ACI 315/318 · TES-P-122.06

4

Development length Ld achievable at pier-to-pad

At the transition from narrow pier to wide pad, bars change direction (L-hooks / 90° bends). Each bar must have enough straight length + bend to reach full Ld before termination; else the bar pulls out under load.

ACI 318 §25.4

5

Bar bend points clear of stub flanges

Tower stubs carry horizontal flange plates. A bar bend-radius arc must not clash with a flange; if it does, placement is impossible without shop-cutting the flange — 3D clash must be checked before drawing goes IFC.

Pre-IFC 3D clash check

6

Vibrator-diameter clearance between bars

Immersion concrete vibrators are ~50 mm diameter. Bars must allow vibrator insertion throughout the cage depth; congestion leaves un-vibrated concrete pockets — voids / capacity loss invisible from outside.

Site constructability

7

Chair-bar spacing matches pile-cap depth

Chair bars hold the upper mat at design elevation during the pour. Spacing must be calibrated to cap depth and steel weight — too wide = mat deflects and ends up at wrong elevation; too tight = congestion.

Rebar placement practice

8

Temperature reinforcement in open pad area

Large open concrete areas need nominal reinforcement to control cracking from thermal contraction + shrinkage, independent of structural load. Easy to miss in OHTL drawings because load concentrates at piers, not pad.

ACI 318 §24.4

9

Uplift-test pullout points accessible + instrumented

SOW §5.12 mandates a full-scale uplift test on one tangent + one heavy-angle prototype. The prototype must have physical anchor points for hydraulic jacks + dial gauges designed into the rebar layout — afterthought = drilled post-cure = compromised test.

SOW 24CO375 §5.12

10

Formwork matches pier geometry; no reshaping at site

Formwork must be fabricated to match design pier geometry exactly (tapered, multi-step). If site must cut / rework formwork to fit the drawing, dimensional accuracy of the finished concrete and rebar cover suffers.

Site constructability

11

Construction sequence diagram shipped with drawing

Shows order of operations: excavation → lean concrete → bottom mat → chair bars → top mat → stub setting → formwork → pour → cure. Without it, each crew interprets differently and sequence errors cascade into rebar conflicts like 1A/31.

Standard OHTL drawing practice

12

No site cutting of long-span bars

Longitudinal bars carry the primary structural load; cutting them at site without design authority is prohibited. If a bar does not fit, the drawing must be revised and re-approved before placement proceeds. This was the SEC-consultant flag at 1A/31.

TES-P-122.06 · ACI 315/318

The day-by-day scramble on the 1A/31 fix — back-up detail for the Timeline-1 story on the front page.

BACK-UP

TIMELINE 2 · Site + Jawda Track · April 2026

4–5 Apr

• Site cuts rebar 1A/31
• (bar-through-pile)

9 Apr

• Faisal (Technotran):
• service-moment justification

13–16 Apr

• Zafery chases Jawda
• 6× over 5 days

16 Apr

• Jawda letter issued —
• generic, needs rework

19 Apr

• 1v1 on TSE release-risks:
• 2 gridlocked, 2 retrofit

24 Apr

• Concrete pour scheduled
• (pending revised letter)

POSITIONS · KEC solution · SEC stance · why the Jawda letter needs a re-issue

• KEC SOLUTION (current path):
• ▸ 2-vs-2 fix split. 1A/31 + 1B/31 on site-cut + Faisal service-moment + revised Jawda letter.
• ▸ 1A/32 + 1B/32 on clean retrofit (+2.3 T extra rebar). Rev 4 with factored shear filed 22-Apr.
• SEC STANCE (consistent across 14 weeks):
• ▸ No unfactored shear on OHTL foundation reinforcement (ACI 318M).
• ▸ No averaged RQD where individual layers read 0 or < 10.
• ▸ No rebar cutting without Designer + Approved-Designer letter (TES-P-122.06).
• WHY THE 16-APR JAWDA LETTER NEEDS A RE-ISSUE:
• ▸ Generic scope — did not name all 4 locations. Did not address top-bar cutting at the stub.
• ▸ Wrong factor-of-safety framing. Needed further markup; still being closed as of 23-Apr.
• ▸ Revised letter to align with the 19-Apr 4-point site-feasibility proposal before the pour.