ToVP Update

/ / Published in Reports  /  


By Vilasini Devi Dasi

In the recent past, a concern regarding the ongoing construction of the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium in Sridham Mayapur was raised within our community. As a result, this led to a view by some devotees that the Main Temple Dome might be structurally unstable.

This issue was addressed in detail in a pre GBC meeting held in Mumbai on Oct 19th 2013, wherein the Structural Engineer, the Contractor and the Architect in presence of the TOVP Managing Director and Ex Site Supervisor had a comprehensive interface which elucidated upon the fact that the dome is absolutely sound. Its engineering design and current stage of construction is complying with all ISO regulations.

The view of the dome’s instability stemmed from raw information which trickled out of the routine channels of the construction team but lacked the proper context. The issue was predominantly about the construction methodology of the main dome, and not regarding its structural design.

Following is a communication between the TOVP and the GBCom, which further elaborates the issue.

To the GBCom Chairman,

Upon the request of Sadbhuja Prabhu, I, Vilasini devi dasi, (serving in the capacity of the head architect for the TOVP) have been asked to send you the pre GBC Meeting Minutes held on Oct 19th 2013 regarding the Dome Stability.

Following is a brief synopsis of the same:

1. The well-meaning concerns poised by Pundarik Govinda Prabhu regarding the dome and superstructure instability, stemmed from work- in- progress letters from Gammon. They (Gammon) undoubtedly agreed those letters to be redundant since appropriate action was already taken to satisfy their routine queries and that there was no truth to the accusations made.

2. The deliberation was to zero down on a construction methodology for pouring of the dome that would best suit a) the timeline and money of Gammon contract, b) increased stability during the construction period.

3. The Structural Consultant is one of the highly reputed professional in India and his designs are complying with all ISO regulations.

4. Gammon is the premier construction company currently, and are executing the work per ISO standards.

5. A follow up meeting on the above subject has taken place in Delhi on Fri, Oct 25th 2013 wherein further details were discussed between Structural Consultant, Architects and Gammon. The meeting touched upon the following points:

a. Casting of the first ring of the dome, will add maximum strength at the base, which will prove the safety of the dome DURING construction.

b. Use of tie bolts at the time of construction.

c. Jump form of shuttering to be adopted.

d. Gammon will revert to TOVP with a detailed proposal for concrete pouring, and its impacts if any on time and money.

Should there be any further questions, please feel free to contact me Vilasini dd (varsha108@gmail.com) or Sadbhuja dasa (sadbhuja.das@pamho.net)

Minutes of the meeting, October 19th 2013

Project Name:

Temple of the Vedic Planetarium, ISKCON, Mayapur.

Attendees:

ISKCON

Gauranga Das

Ananda Gopal Das

Pundarikaskha Govinda Das

ToVP

Sadbhuja Das Managing Director, TOVP

Vilasini DD Head Architect, TOVP

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT

B.B.Chaudhuri Structural Consultant, PDB

GAMMON INDIA LIMITED (GIL)

P.V. Prasanth COO -Building Division, GIL

Subhankar Sil Project Manager, GIL

Sameer Malvankar Dy. Manager, Engineering Department, GIL

Mukund Butala Sr. GM, Engineering Department, GIL

S. W. Deshpande Vice President, Engineering Department, GIL

Date:

19th October 2013

Venue:

Srila Prabhupada Conference Hall, ISKCON, Juhu

Items discussed:

S.No

Person / Topic

Discussion Points

PV Prashant

      1. Gammon serving as a contractor. Scope of work of a contractor is to study: a) GFC (Good for Construction) drawings, b) Detail Drawings and c) Specifications.

      2. After which Gammon’s Job Description: a) Create Methodology for execution of work b) Actual Site execution

      3. Ensure the building safety at construction phase

Dome

      1. Drawing from PDB given in full to Gammon to chalk out – Sequence of work, methodology, material

      2. Discussion with PDB whether to construct Dome:

        1. Ring wise

        2. Bottom to top

      1. Sequence is determined by resources – Manpower, equipment, finances, as per Mr. Prashant

Interface

Protocol of one-point interface

Subhankar Sil

        1. P V Prashant (Spokesperson ) will talk on behalf of Gammon

        2. Methodology of Construction proposed by Gammon was 1.2 m concrete per lift

        3. Mr. B.B Chaudhuri mentioned instead of 1.2 m go for 0.6 m concrete in two parts each

Result -> Increased (Time + Cost )

Govinda Das

  1. Letter from Butala on July 9th, 2013 – pt 1 and 3 – (Doubts about the ring, strengths, or column )

Answered by Prashant satisfactorily

Gauranga Das

    1. Question: Is load of dome easily taken by structure?

Mr. B.B.Chaudhuri

Presentation addressing above question:

      1. Expressing concerns that in spite of not been given the time of building design, the weights were considered and over calculated.

      2. Analysis of the building was done march 2010

      3. Lack of data – No data on Shikhar & Chandelier was available when designing began.

      4. March 2010 first set of the piling drawings were made and it was updated regularly

5. Shikhar Load: Inner load=300Kg/m

Outer Face: 800 Kg/m

Chandelier – 24 points- 2MTeach=48

Static Load: increases with rotating

The geometry is most important while designing the dome. All loads have been well considered.

Sadbhuja Das

      1. Besides, we have reduced the weight of the structure with carbon fiber chandelier, acoustic panels, GRCL

      2. The pressure gets fizzled out with the use of the rods inside

      3. Find out a balance for a win-win situation

      4. Meeting on 25th October, 2013 to sort out issues

Pundarik Govinda Das

      1. Doubts that Gammon is raising

      2. Lot of revision by PDB

3. Finishing works – doubts mentioned in letter

Subhankar Sil

Letter for design proof checking was drafted in consultation with Sri Pundari Govinda Das. He has asked this letter to convince ISKCON management for 3rd party checking which he had consent.

Pundarik Govinda Das

I had to do it because I wanted written concerns, not just verbal.

Gauranga Das

Question to Mr. B.B.Chaudhuri: Are loads considered for finishing works?

Mr. B.B.Chaudhuri

      1. My mandate – 1000 year life load factor to be used

      2. Steel skeleton has nothing to do with the structure. It is only to facilitate the geometry.

      3. Remove SS and no harm is done to the structure

Subhankar Sil

Contractor is the soft target in the event of mishap; hence we wanted to clear all apprehension.

Mr. P.V.Prashant

For activities during construction – I have to be extra safe

Mr. B.B.Chaudhuri

Dome concreting to be done in 600mm layer

Or

Dome concreting to be done in 1200mm layer with provision of tie rods

Climbing formwork to be used.

Sadbhuja Das

Details will be worked out with Gammon, Mr. B.B.Chaudhuri and Architects at Oct 25th Meeting.

Gauranga Das

      1. Mr. BB Choudhury is a Competent structural engineer

      2. Gammon – well executed job so far

      3. All are on the same page regarding safety

      4. Person designing is aware of our construction methodology

      5. Work out difference of opinions regarding details

      6. Although it may have few issues, Gammon is willing to work around

Pundarik Govinda Das

      1. Why adding drill anchor fasteners and bolting? Adding more rods and plates. 24-32 rods

      2. 50 level ring beam 750 x 750. Will take load of all columns. (Earlier drawing had 1200 depth.)

      3. Planetarium

      4. Breaking of staircases at dome level

      5. Finishing load on Kalash

      6. Auditorium RCC gallery: The team is not going for RCC gallery for auditorium

7. Staircase in Temple Hall: was asked to be broken

BB Chaudhari

  1. Anchor fasteners were used since at that stage of construction, we recommended it. – Situational

Vilasini dd

  1. Planetarium Auditorium Gallery not being RCC was a conscious decision.

  2. Planetarium projection equipment keeps getting updated every year. At the time of building completion, planetarium vendor will be finalized, thus theater details will correspond to vendor.

  3. Lightweight material to be used was a conclusive point made in Oct 2008 meeting.

Gauranga Das

  1. Some things are in writing and some oral. But Email by Mr. Butala on dated July 09, 2013 (Point No. 3) is now redundant, since action has already been taken.

24

Mr. Deshpande

  1. Clarified that the discussion with Gammon, B B Chaudhuri, and Gauranga Das till today were focused on the design compatibility with construction sequences, methodology proposed by Gammon.

  2. Mr. B B Chaudhuri vide his letter dated Aug 26,2013, confirmed that the designs of various structural component of dome including supporting members are safe and the height of pour need to be restricted to 0.6meter in place of 1.2 meter. Pour height related issues needs to be resolved in the next meeting to be held in New Delhi on 25.10.2013.

  3. The independent check by 3rd party will be a client’s call, in view of the above discussion.

Conclusions by the GBC:

    1. Gammon and Mr. B.B Chaudhuri write a letter mentioning the structural stability of the dome.

    2. Independent audit.

    3. Report of 25th October, 2013 to be sent to GBC – The height of the concrete slab for dome will be decided.

    4. Follow up of this issue could done by forming a committee consisting of 6 members (2 from TOVP, 2 from GBC, 2 from Subcommittee)

Palace of Gold - job description Project Manager
The glorious history of 40 years of devotion of the Bhaktivedanta Manor in pictures, year by year

What you can read next

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister issues “Best Translator Award” to Tamil BBT Editor
ISKCON Cida Dahi Festival – Bali 2019
Srirangam Sravana Kirtana Camp 2018

3 Comments to “ ToVP Update”

  1. Puskaraksa das says :
    Nov 17, 2013 at 10:50 am

    I am neither an architect, nor a construction engineer. Yet, as a manager, I could appreciate the concern to make sure that the structure would be strong enough to hold the dome. We all have heard of the resistance of materials and can understand that forces may apply in different directions… Thanks to the side aisles, lateral forces seem to be under control. Hence, remains the concern about vertical forces applied by the heavy dome.

    I also support the idea of getting the opinion of a third party, and external consultants. As a matter of fact we, as devotees, have to be aware of the “Peter Principle”, highlighting our “incompetence line” or the “limit of our competence” which may be overlooked on the basis of our being devotees, and all the more senior devotees…!

    Hence, we have to be humble enough to at least consult, and even contract when and if need be, with genuinely competent persons and/or companies, with a proven record, especially in the case of such a big construction, involving such large amounts of lakshmi.

    In this spirit and for your kind perusal, we may draw some inspiration from a couple extra large places of worship built in the recent years, around the world.

    The first one is the “Hassan II Mosque” in Casablanca, Morocco. It is the largest mosque in the country and the 7th largest in the world. Its minaret is the world’s tallest at 210 metres (689 ft). Completed in 1993, it was designed by Michel Pinseau and built by the reknown French building company Bouygues. The minaret is 60 stories high topped by a laser, the light from which is directed towards Mecca. The mosque stands on a promontory looking out to the Atlantic Ocean, the sea bed being visible through the glass floor of the building’s hall. The walls are of hand-crafted marble and the roof is retractable. A maximum of 105,000 worshippers can gather together for prayer: 25,000 inside the mosque hall and another 80,000 on the mosque’s outside grounds.

    The second example is “The Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro”, the administrative capital of CĂ´te d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast). The basilica was constructed between 1985 and 1989 at a cost of $300 million. The design of the dome and encircled plaza are clearly inspired by those of the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican City, although it is not an outright replica.

    …/…

  2. Puskaraksa das says :
    Nov 17, 2013 at 11:36 am

    …/…

    The Guinness World Records lists it as the largest church in the world, having surpassed the previous record holder, St. Peter’s Basilica, upon completion. It has an area of 30,000 sq metres (322,917 sq ft) and is 158 m (518 ft) high. However, it also includes a rectory and a villa (counted in the overall area), which are not strictly part of the church. It can accommodate 18,000 worshippers, compared to 60,000 for St. Peter’s.

    While designing it after the Vatican Basilica, Lebanese architect Pierre Fakhoury constructed the dome to be slightly lower than the Basilica of Saint Peter, but ornamented with a larger cross on top. The finished height is 158 metres (518 ft).[ The basilica is constructed with marble imported from Italy and is furnished with 7,000 square metres (75,000 sq ft) of contemporary stained glass from France.

    Columns are plentiful throughout the basilica but are not uniform in style; the smaller columns are there for structural reasons, while the bigger ones are decoration and contain elevators, rainwater evacuation from the roof and other building mechanical devices. There is enough space to seat 7,000 people in the nave, with standing room for an additional 11,000 people. Apart from the basilica are two identical buildings each serving as rectory and private papal villa, respectively. The Basilica was built by Dumez, another big French construction company.

    Thus, I would humbly suggest and advise the devotees in charge of the grand project of the “Temple of the Vedic Planetarium” to invite as a consultant, a Western reputed company having already built such a large construction, possibly or even preferably as a place of worship, which may facilitate the understanding of the spirit behind, as well as the knowledge of the specific constraints.

    Consulting with a reputed Western building company would also enable us to find some sort of protection from some possible collusion in between various Indian stakeholders, who may be tempted to take advantage of “Western money” (we may refer to the example of Srila Prabhupada’s struggle to build our Juhu Temple in that regard).

    Hoping this may help,
    I remain

    Your servant, in the service of Srila Prabhupada

    All glories to Sri-Sri Gour-Nitai

    Das dasanudasa
    Puskaraksa das

  3. pavana says :
    Nov 18, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    I think the TOVP update is very well structured and it systematically clarifies all the doubts which were raised with respect to the structural stability of the DOME. The TOVP team is confident and is well supported by reputed Structural consultant and the Contractor.

    I am particularly impressed by the following 6 points [ highlighted in the report S No. 19] which summarizes the whole issue :

    1. Mr. BB Choudhury is a Competent structural engineer
    2. Gammon – well executed job so far
    3. All are on the same page regarding safety
    4. Person designing is aware of our construction methodology
    5.Work out difference of opinions regarding details
    6.Although it may have few issues, Gammon is willing to work around

    From my experience of handling of big industrial projects, i can tell you any third party audit at this stage is a waste of time , money and energy and above all it will lead to more confusion.

    your servant,

    pavana nimai das