W

SAMWOH READY MIX PTE LTD

25E Sungei Kadut Street 1
Singapore 729333
Tel: 62697288 Fax: 63682886




Report on Investigation into Incident Reported By
Project ConsuItant at PunggoI West C37



Project TitIe : HDB BuiIding Works at PunggoI West C37
Main Contractor : TeambuiId Engineering and Construction Pte Ltd

Prepared by,


____________________
Dr Tan Jun Yew, Senior
Technical Manager
Checked by,


____________________

Acknowledged by,


____________________

Samwoh Ready Mix Pte Ltd Teambuild Engineering and
Construction Pte Ltd
LBW Consultants LLP
(Concrete supplier) (Main Contractor) (Project Consultant)




Date : 16 May 2014
Our Ref. : SWRMPL/2014/0067/JY

W

1. Background
This report contains an investigation into an incident report submitted by project consultant
dated 21 April 2014 at HDB project @ Punggol West C37.
The report alleged that on 02 April 2014, the site RTO noted the addition of water into the
concrete by Samwoh during concrete casting at Block 227B, Pile G40-1. He immediately
rejected the concrete truck and sent it back. Samwoh Ready Mix Pte Ltd was requested to
submit an investigation report to explain the incident.
A site meeting was held on 16 May in the presence of the main contractor, RTO, project
consultant, and HDB management representatives where the incident was reenacted on
site by the driver. This investigation report describes the actions taken in the investigation,
details on the findings, action to be taken and conclusion drawn from the investigation.

2. Findings
2.1 nterview with driver and site personnel
nterviews were conducted with the driver and site personnel on site to understand the
details of the incident. The sequence of events based on the driver and site workers'
explanation are as follows:
(i) On 02 April 2014 at approximately 3pm, truck driver no. 973 delivered concrete
to the site with D/N C214/005033 and proceeded to the casting location upon
completion of slump check.
(ii) After discharging of about 1m3, the flow of concrete was found to be not as
smooth as it should be. The driver then came down from the truck cabin and
tried to assist. t was found that the location that was slowing the flow was in
the discharge chute (refer to Photo 1). t is possible that the main contractor's
workers carrying out the discharging may not have rotated the mixer drum
sufficiently.
(iii) Two other site workers were there at the time. The driver requested the site
workers to divert the chute away from the pile and attempted to clear the choke
location by washing it down with a small amount of water. t is noted that the
water sprayed onto the chute does not flow into the mixer drum.
(iv) At this point, the RTO saw the driver's action from behind the mixer truck. His
position was about 7-8 meters away to the left of the truck (refer to Photo 2).
He came over and rejected the concrete and asked the driver to leave the site.






W

2.2 Re-enactment of the incident
The driver was asked to re-enact the incident in order to demonstrate how he sprayed the
water. Photo 1 showed the position of the hopper and the water hose. The driver
maintained that he had pointed the water hose onto the discharge chute to clear the choke
location. He confirmed that the water was not directed into the mixer drum even after
repeated questioning.
The driver also reiterated that the position of the discharge chute was turned to the left,
which means that the water does not flow into the bored pile being cast at the time.


W t




,
t




d
>



W


W ZdK

3. RemediaI Action
Our investigation found that the driver's sole intention was to clear some blockage on the
chute. We took into account the driver's initiative to request the help of site workers to turn
the chute to the left away from the bored pile before spraying the water. This has been
confirmed by the site workers. The position of spraying below the hopper also means that
the water does not flow into the mixer drum.
t was established with certainty and with RTO's agreement that no concrete from the truck
was discharged into the bored pile thereafter. Thus the bored pile has not been affected by
this incident.


4. Preventive Action
Samwoh is fully committed to produce and supply good quality concrete to her customers.
Stringent checks are in place at every step of the processes to ensure the concrete meets
the customers' expectations. Our company has very stringent measures to deal with
quality of the concrete during delivery, such as:
(i) A strict policy and penalty for worker or driver who took actions that may
jeopardize the quality of the concrete. A worker who is found to commit this act
will be fined the full load of the concrete and subject to removal from the
company.
ZdK
D



W

(ii) By default, there are two hoses that come with a mixer drum. One hose goes to
the mixer drum hopper and is meant to be used only during emergency to
prevent hardening of concrete in the drum in the event of traffic accident or
breakdown. We have taken the initiative to remove this hose when we took
delivery of our trucks to prevent such incident from happening. Note: the other
default hose located at the bottom of the mixer drum was retained for the
purpose of washing off residue concrete from the chute after casting in order to
comply with NEA requirement.
(iii) n view of the incident, the driver was given a stern warning for this episode. f
the need arise where water is really necessary, the site RTO shall first be
consulted at all times.

5. ConcIusion
Samwoh takes great pride in its quality and is fully committed to supplying good quality
concrete to her customers. We have in place stringent checks to ensure quality is not
compromised at every step of the processes including delivery. Any worker or driver who
is found to disregard our quality policy will be dealt with accordingly.
n this case, our investigation confirmed that the driver's intention is not to mishandle the
concrete. We conclude that the above incident arose due to a sequence of events that led
to the misunderstanding of the driver's intention. This conclusion is based on a few salient
points as below:
(i) There are two other workers on site whose testimony matches that of the
driver's.
(ii) The driver has good track record and is adamant that he did not add water into
the concrete. He is able to give a consistent version of event.
(iii) The RTO conceded that from where he was standing, there was blind spot and
he had limited view of the position of the driver's hand during the incident.
(iv) There was no other evidence to confirm that the driver has made the offence.

Nevertheless, we have given the driver a stern warning for this episode. Toolbox meeting
was held to reinforce the quality commitment required from all workers and drivers.