Search Documents

Technically speaking, the concept of NDT sounds like the "magic bullet" when faced with a questionable drilled shaft. All the Contractor or Engineer needs to do is select an NDT method, apply it, understand the details and extent of the defect and determine whether it will impact the load carrying capacity of the shaft during it’s design life. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. NDT is a tool utilized to indirectly assess the condition of the completed drilled shaft. For the most effective interpretation, NDT data should be correlated with the subsurface information, visual observation, and detailed shaft installation records. The basis for acceptance or rejection of drilled shafts should not be solely based on NDT. The parties responsible for specifying, interpreting and using the NDT results must understand the capabilities and limitations of the method to be utilized, in conjunction with the relevant subsurface conditions of the site, before selecting and specifying a system and acting on the results. This is necessary so that an appropriate NDT method can be specified and contracted. In this manner the results and roles of the responsible parties can be clearly defined.

Jan 1, 2004

By Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Md Habibur Rahman

The properties of all natural soil deposits are highly variable, and they are rarely homogeneous. Cone penetration tests (CPT) were used to assess the site variability, which was then incorporated into the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of pile foundations. Data from six project sites with multiple CPT tests conducted at various locations were collected for this research. The semi-variogram was used to assess the spatial variability of CPT data (corrected tip resistance, qt) for each location. For each location, the coefficient of variation due to spatial variability (COVR,spatial) was calculated. From COVR,spatial and COVR,method, the total coefficient of variation (COVR,total) for each site was calculated, which was then used to calibrate the resistance factors (ϕspatial, ϕtotal) for use in LRFD pile foundation design. The findings of this study demonstrated the importance of using site variability in LRFD pile design. For sites with lower site variability than the design method (i.e., COVR, spatial < COVR, method), the value of the COVR, total will be decreased, and hence the resistance factors (ϕspatial or ϕtotal) will be increased (credit), and vice versa.

Sep 8, 2021

By Franz-Werner Gerressen

As alternative energy industries pick up speed internationally, and as government regulation and restriction limit the use of impact hammers due to environmental limitation from construction induced noise during pile driving operations, unconventional solutions for more complex offshore foundation installations have become a necessity. Manufacturers and equipment suppliers race to develop alternative techniques to accommodate for offshore foundation construction in various soil conditions and at greater water depth. The FLYDRILL, and the Seabed-Drill BSD are two innovative systems for the installation of offshore monopiles with reduced environmental impact

By Leonhard Weixler, Jean Wehbe, Gordian Ulrich, Franz-Werner Gerressen

"As alternative energy industries pick up speed internationally, and as government regulation and restriction limit the use of impact hammers due to environmental limitation from construction induced noise during pile driving operations, unconventional solutions for more complex offshore foundation installations have become a necessity. Manufacturers and equipment suppliers race to develop alternative techniques to accommodate for offshore foundation construction in various soil conditions and at greater water depth. The FLYDRILL, and the Seabed-Drill BSD are two innovative systems for the installation of offshore monopiles with reduced environmental impact.INTRODUCTIONThe FLYDRILL and the Seabed-Drill were born from techniques in the design and construction experiences gained from land based foundation drilling systems over the past 25 years. As the alternative energy industry ventures into uncharted territory of deeper water for offshore wind farms, fast current regions for tidal energy, and increasingly challenging soil conditions and project complexity, the advancement and development of new innovative equipment system and drilling techniques have become a necessity.The systems described herein show the development of the so called “FLY-Drill” system, and the all new “Seabed-Drilling” equipment applied at the first ever made job using a seabed drilling rig.FLY DRILLThe FLY DRILL method is a completely new concept for bored piling. The drilling unit with rotary head, Kelly bar, and drilling tool is suspended by the hoist rope of the base carrier crane. The hydraulic power for the drill unit is provided from the base crane.The drill head is fixed on the casing with a hydraulically operated clamping system during the drilling operation. When emptying the drilling tool, the clamp cylinders are opened and the complete unit is swung sideways."

Jan 1, 2017

By Edward Jacobsen, Patrick J. Lydon

"The ongoing expansion of the Oak Creek Power Plant in Oak Creek, Wisc., includes a tunnel bored in rock that connects to four vertical intake shafts approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) offshore in Lake Michigan. In 2004, Case Foundation Company was awarded a lump sum contract to install these intake shafts. In spite of delays that shortened the May to September construction season by up to 50%, four shafts and liner assemblies were drilled in 2005 and 2006. The shafts were connected to the tunnel in 2007 by mining upward to reach the lower portion of each liner and then removing its internal bulkheads so that lake water fl owed into the tunnel. The project is one of the largest private construction projects ever undertaken in Wisconsin. The expansion adds 1,230 megawatts of generation. In addition to the tunnel and offshore work, there will be 16 miles (26 km) of railroad track and 6 million cubic yards (4,600,000 m3) of earth work. The 27 ft (8.2 m) diameter tunnel, drilled some 150 ft (46 m) below the surface of Lake Michigan, originates onshore at a pump house. A structural slurry wall was constructed as the foundation for the pump house. The tunnel passes to the south near the current water intake before bearing east toward the new offshore intake shafts, which are 12 ft (3.6 m) diameter by 108 ft (33 m) long steel liner assemblies. These were grouted in place from approximately 3 ft (1 m) above the crown of the intake tunnel and then to 20 ft (6 m) below the lake bottom.Site GeologyOffshore. The plant site is north of the Racine-Milwaukee county line in an area affected by glacial activity. The soil conditions encountered at each shaft location were consistent, with noticeable variations occurring in the top of rock elevations that sloped downward from the innermost to the outermost shaft."

Jan 1, 2008

By Peter Deming

"PART 1 OF 2INTRODUCTIONSlurry trenches are the least cost hydraulic barrier available, if the excavated spoils can be recycled into backfill. As such, slurry trenches are constructed where possible, sometimes at high risk. Slurry trenches are also used to install biopolymer drainage trenches, which have a low safety factor because the biopolymer slurry weight is marginally greater than the weight of water. In marginal ground the construction risk falls to both the Owner who designs and asks for the construction, and the Contractor who manages the work and promises to complete the project successfully. This paper discusses design and construction of slurry trench barriers in marginally stable ground and where groundwater chemistry invokes the need for slurry management details to obtain proper backfill placement.As a designer, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers works for both Owners and Contractors. We are usually able to convince Owners of their responsibility for design detailing in order to obtain a working final product and to obtain reasonable bids from Contractors by disclosing construction needs and designing to reduce the contractor’s exposure. We often work for Contractors to produce designs which result in successful construction in projects where the Owner’s engineer places the responsibility of design and construction on the Contractor.This paper is intended to inform both Owner and Contractor audiences of resources which are available to reduce the risks of trench collapse in difficult ground conditions. We hope it serves this purpose.DESIGNSubsurface InvestigationsSubsurface conditions should be defined by borings focused on definition of the soil profile and soil design parameters. After general subsurface conditions are defined, barrier borings should be drilled along the final alignment.Definition of Soil Strength and CompactnessCompactness of sand and gravel strata should be defined with Standard Penetration Test N-values. The shear strength of cohesive materials should be defined by laboratory testing. Silt and fine sand strata with little cohesion should be investigated using mud rotary techniques to prevent disturbance. General strength characterization by soil layer should be used for analysis of trench wall stability."

Jan 1, 2006

By Jamey Rosen, Georgette Hlepas

Verticality data collected from panel and pile elements of seepage barrier walls describe the shape and position of those elements in three dimensions. These data are used to determine if a barrier wall is constructed as designed and if it meets the owner specifications with respect to tolerance (i.e., if each element is sufficiently close to vertical) and overlap (i.e., do adjacent elements overlap sufficiently to prevent leakage). Contractors use verticality data to confirm that their work matches the design, and owners use verticality data to verify the contractor’s work and confirm that specified criteria were met. Project Information Management Systems (PIMS) technology has been applied to the management, visualization, and analysis of verticality data. This paper will provide examples of how contractors and owners have used a PIMS to compile and synthesize data collected during excavations (e.g., from Cutter Soil Mixer and Hydromill drill rig telemetry), and from measurements of completed excavations (e.g., using the Koden ultrasonic tool), and used those data to model excavation geometry. We will present case studies of using these models to estimate backfill placement volumes, and to evaluate the verticality tolerance and overlap between elements.

Sep 8, 2021

By Patrick van der Schaaf

"During 2016, foundation piling works were completed to allow for the construction of a production and storage/handling terminal in Rotterdam. It is there that steel foundations will be produced for offshore wind farms and the oil and gas industry. Several Dutch contracting companies were involved in constructing: foundations for an assembly hall, a barge quay and a deep-sea quay wall. For the hall foundations, cast in situ concrete vibro piles were created. Open ended steel casing piles were also installed due to very high cone resistances which made it impossible to perform cast in situ piles in certain areas. The quay wall was constructed with open ended steel casing piles in combination with sheet piles. A deep-sea quay wall was also constructed to provide enough storage area for the offshore mono piles. This project was unique and challenging due to the use of different foundation technologies in challenging circumstances and soil conditions. This paper will give an insight into the Dutch use of varying foundation piling techniques for deep-sea quay wall constructions. It can be concluded that even experienced local contractors can be surprised by variations in soil conditions. It will also show how the contractors adapted to the difficult circumstances.PROJECT OUTLINEThe project consisted of a barge quay near the assembly hall with a length of 500 metres, width of 42 metres and a height of 35 metres, and a deep-sea quay wall 480 metres in length. This paper concentrates on the foundation works for the construction of the deep-sea quay wall. The construction of the deep-sea quay wall consisted of a combination of open ended steel casing piles with a diameter of Ø 1420 mm and a wall thickness varying between 21 and 23 mm. The lengths of the steel casing piles varied between 32 and 37 metres. Between the steel casing piles triple PU 28 sheet piles were installed with lengths varying between 26 and 29 metres. In the Netherlands, a combination of open ended steel piles and sheet piles is known as a “combi wall”. For the deep-sea quay wall a steel combi wall was shored with steel H- section profiles that were driven in a raked position whilst being injected with grout, so called MV-piles. The MV piles for this project consisted of steel HEB 600 sections with lengths from 52 up to 59 metres and were installed with angles varying between 42.5 and 47.5 degrees. For a detailed overview regarding the project specifications reference is made to table 1 which is presented below."

Jan 1, 1900

By Zia Zafir

"Levees in the central valley of California are primarily for flood control purposes and thus are subjected to infrequent hydraulic loading. The primary concern for these levees is their instability due to through and under seepage. Primary seepage control measures are seepage cutoff walls and/or seepage berms. The cutoff walls primarily consist of soil-bentonite (SB) slurry walls. The seepage berm could be a drainage blanket to allow the seepage with controlled exit gradient or an impervious layer to provide enough cover to protect any adverse effects of seepage in terms of sand boils. Although, Sacramento is an area of moderate seismic activity, levees protecting urban areas require assessment for the potential instability due to liquefaction and associated vertical and lateral deformations. In certain cases, the seismic deformations of the levee may not compromise the stability of the levees, but they may cause damage to the seepage control measures. Depending on the nature and extent of the damage, the mitigation measures may require limited or full replacement of the seepage control measures. This paper will provide a systematic assessment of these different types of seepage control measures under vertical and lateral deformations due to liquefaction and lateral spreading under seismic loadings.INTRODUCTIONThere are two broad categories of levees in Central California: levees that are subjected to continuous hydraulic loading such as delta levees and are called frequently loaded levees (FLL) and flood control levees that are subjected to seasonal or infrequent hydraulic loading, called infrequently loaded levees (ILL). This paper will focus on the seismic response of ILL. The probability of ILL experiencing an earthquake at the time of the design flood is very low. Therefore, consequences of seismic failure of flood control levees are only significant in terms of response time required to restore the level of flood protection provided by the levee before the next flood season. An example for this restoration is the restoration of the Pajaro River levees in Santa Cruz, California after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Nevertheless, failure of flood control levees due to a seismic event could result in loss of the entire levee and/or loss of freeboard. In addition, some of the seismic failure of ILL levees may result in loss of seepage control measures such as the soil-bentonite wall.The State of California State approved Senate Bill (SB) 5 in 2007 that mandates for 200-year flood protection to be the minimum level of protection for urban and urbanizing areas in Central California (Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley) by the year 2025. This legislation also requires that urban and urbanizing areas protected by Federal project levees cannot use adequate progress as a condition to approve development after 2025. SB 5 requires that the urban level of flood protection be consistent with criteria used or developed by DWR (Government Code § 65007(k)). To avoid delaying urgently needed flood protection, Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC, 2012) was developed."

Jan 1, 2016

By K. Rainer Massarsch

"Part 1 of 2 By K. Rainer Massarsch, Geo Engineering AB, Stockholm, SwedenINTRODUCTIONConstruction activities, such as driving of piles and sheet piles, soil compaction or excavation generate noise and vibrations. In populated areas these can have a negative impact on the environment, disturb inhabitants and, under unfavorable conditions, cause damage to buildings and installations. This condition is aggravated by the growing public awareness of environmental issues and the increasing use of vibration-sensitive electronic equipment and machinery in industry. In many countries, environmental regulations are enforced more stringently and limit or even prohibit the use of impact or vibratory hammers. This development has restricted the use of cost-effective foundation methods, such as driven and vibrated piles and sheet piles.Vibration problems are gaining importance in many European countries and extensive research has been performed during the past decade, especially with respect to traffic vibrations (Massarsch, 2004). Significant progress has been made owing to the availability of high-quality field measurements and an improved theoretical understanding of how vibrations are generated and transmitted through soil layers. These findings can also be applied to vibration problems associated with construction activities. However, this information is not yet appreciated by the geotechnical profession and even less by the construction industry.This paper discusses the effects of ground vibrations on the surrounding soil and on buildings, with particular emphasis on the different mechanisms of damage that may occur. Guidance is given on the elements which should be taken into account in an assessment of risks associated with piling projects. A simplified method is proposed for assessing the risk of settlements or strength loss in soil deposits. Limiting vibration levels are presented, based on the Swedish standard, which can be used to assess the risk of damage to buildings. Aconcept to predict ground vibrations caused by pile driving and the mechanisms which control the propagation of ground vibrations, will be presented in the second part of this paper."

Jan 1, 2004

By Andrew R. Klaetsch, Peter W. Deming

"The Washington Avenue tunnel in Kingston, NY was completed in 1912 to convey combined storm water and sanitary sewage. Over a mile in length, the tunnel was driven almost entirely in bedrock, with the exception of an approximately 170 foot long brick arch segment constructed in soil. About 90 years after the tunnel was put into service, persistent subsidence problems and sinkholes were observed in Washington Avenue above the shield-driven soil tunnel segment, eventually causing the important traffic thoroughfare to be closed. Subsequent tunnel inspections revealed a breach in the brick arch and a significant volume of fine soil within the tunnel. A two-phase remediation program was implemented to control seepage, reduce soil migration, and remedy sinkhole problems. The first phase included in-situ soil densification by vibratory pile probe driving to improve density in shallow sandy soil loosened by ground loss. The second phase included installation of a continuous soilcrete arch structure over and alongside the tunnel, extending to rock or compact glacial till and spanning the length of the soil tunnel segment. Overlapping vertical soilcrete columns were installed through interlayered sandy and clayey silt by jet grouting to form a continuous arch structure, using grout parameters verified by full scale field testing.PROJECT BACKGROUNDThe Washington Avenue tunnel in Kingston, NY (Figure 1) was completed in 1912 to convey combined storm water and sanitary sewage to Rondout Creek by the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York. The tunnel is over a mile in length and constructed primarily in rock. Contract documents indicate the tunnel was designed with a horseshoe shape at least 3 ft wide and 5.5 ft high."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ryan Sullivan, Lisa Smiley, Jewels Stover

The Westerly Storage Tunnel (WST) Project is part of Project Clean lake, the North East Ohio Regional Sewer Dist years. When completed in 2020, WST will be nearly 2 miles of 25-ft diameter tunnel 200-250 ft below ground. The storage tunnel will manage higher flow volumes, keeping stormwater out of the combined sewer system reducing overflow occurrences. Three deep shafts provide access to the tunnel at the tunnel boring machine (TBM) launch and retrieval sites, as well as a vent shaft. Support of excavation for the access shafts was constructed utilizing unreinforced concrete diaphragm walls. This innovative, value-engineered alternate design significantly reduced risks associated with conventional secant piles combined with a rib and liner plate system. Implementation of the diaphragm wall technology resulted in a water tight, continuous shaft keyed into rock. This case study examines the design, methodology, and installation challenges unique to each shaft, as well as the benefits of the final product to the overall project.

By Jochen Maurer, Dr. Christian Hoyme, Dr. Hans Regler

Currently, it is very difficult to obtain qualitative and quantitative information about the status and production process of a construction site. As a rule, companies depend on reports from on-site experts. There is no end-to-end digitalization due to the mobility of equipment and ever-changing locations. Equipment from different manufacturers, especially in special foundation engineering, is highly specialized. Any data collected by this equipment is recorded in proprietary formats and made available on the manufacturers' platforms. This exacerbates the situation, making simple analysis of performance indicators impossible. Most functions such as construction diaries, equipment utilization analyses, etc. are implemented only as standalone solutions. This does not allow for prompt visualization and intervention in critical process sequences because the construction site process is usually managed using a cost-based method. Furthermore, special foundation engineering requires a high level of expertise in an extremely wide range of construction processes. In this article, the results from a set of non-proprietary performance analysis tools are presented using numerous practical examples. Once a construction element is completed, the equipment data is immediately transferred to the platform using the latest cloud technology. Because the data is normalized, construction progress can be documented immediately, even for mixed equipment fleets. Bottlenecks can be immediately detected by visualizing the current performance of the production process, which is broken down into individual steps. Modern analyses of this equipment data improve quality, thereby providing better information about current performance. These sets of tools are essential for changing from the current monetary or cost-based method of process management to time- and bottleneck-oriented management. This makes it much easier to identify the critical path during projects. The article shows that processes can be documented and managed.

By Vijaya Bhushan Rao, Ali Semercioglu, Jason Redgers

Large diameter steel water tanks with high storage capacities impart heavy loads deep into the ground, generally requiring deep foundations to adequately support them. The use of ground improvement as a sustainable and cost effective alternative is tempting but the design of the foundations for such heavily loaded, thin-shelled structures have to meet several performance requirements such as bearing capacity, limiting the specified total settlements, typically limiting the radial differential settlement to 13mm over 10m along the circumference and dishing settlement from edge to center of 1/120 as per standard API 650 Appendix B as well as the mitigation of liquefaction induced settlement risk. Any inadequacy in the soil investigation, geotechnical design, or misrepresentation of stresses of the foundations may lead to serviceability compromise or potentially catastrophic failures. Therefore, the selection of the foundation is dependent on the availability of suitable ground report and the limitations imposed by operational requirements. Two such case studies are evaluated and compared in this paper, with tank diameters ranging from 41 to 106m in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, (KSA) which were founded on two types of soils and supported on deep foundations i.e., stone columns and bored cast-in-situ piles.

Oct 1, 2022

By Nino Catalano, Meeok Kim, Gordon Chen

"The design of the below grade structure of Brigham Building for the Future (BBF) included three different areas to provide power generation and medical facilities as well as a parking garage. The three areas are divided and bounded by 3 foot thick slurry walls. Because each area has different depths and functions, the excavation and construction of the below grade structure presented considerable design challenges. The intricate sequence of excavation and construction between the areas was numerically simulated using a finite element analysis to assess the behavior of the slurry wall and the retained soil. The slurry wall and the related bracing system were modeled as a linear elastic beam and truss element respectively while the soil behavior was simulated using a hardening soil model. The interaction between slurry wall and soil was facilitated by the implementation of an interface element in the numerical model. The design of bracing system to adequately support the slurry walls during the excavation was done based on the envelope of the numerical responses in stage analysis. Predicted lateral displacements of slurry walls were later compared with the field measuring data. The comparison indicated a close agreement.INTRODUCTIONBrigham Building for the Future (BBF) is located in the Brigham and Women’s Longwood medical campus of Boston. The building will serve, once completed, as a biomedical research center and clinical facility to carry out a commitment by Brigham and Women’s Hospital to be the most technologically advanced facility in the country.The 11 story building will also feature a roof garden. The below grade portion of the building has a footprint of 265 feet wide and 210 feet long and is divided into three areas, a 6 stories garage, a cogeneration plant, and an imaging center. BBF was designed and constructed to achieve LEED Gold certification and will have high efficiency and improved sustainability as a medical facility. Ground breaking was in May, 2013. Below grade construction was completed in April, 2014 and the entire building will be finished in late 2016.As shown in Figure 1, the garage area has the largest foot print, 265 feet wide and 125 feet long. The lowest floor of the garage is located about 70 feet below grade. The co-generation plant is about 190 feet wide and 85 long and 50 feet deep. The imagining center is the smallest among three areas. It is 75 feet wide and 85 feet long and 22 feet deep. The areas are separated and bounded by 3 feet thick slurry walls.The perimeter and inner slurry walls were designed to support column loads from the above grade structures, lateral soil pressures and earthquake loads as per the building’s permanent condition and requirement. However the contractor was required to design the temporary bracing and the reinforcement for the slurry walls to resist construction stage loadings."

Jan 1, 2017

By Racquel Nottingham, Marc Mastrantuono

Micropiles often provide a favourable solution for many deep foundation problems especially when significant site constraints such as confined construction sites or vibration limitations have been identified. Often the durability of buried steel elements are heavily scrutinized in order to effectively determine the rates of corrosion and methods to reduce this while still maintaining the structural integrity of the engineered solution. Practices such as sacrificial corrosion loss and the introduction of plastic sheaths have become the go-to methods of corrosion protection. Since the introduction of the micropile, other solutions have been developed, namely protection with an adequate grout encapsulation. This paper will explore corrosion protection of micropiles and the guidelines provided in the published codes and norms. Since few codes define the exact way to verify the durability of these micropiled structures, the existing data is presented and the analysis of grout encapsulation as an effective corrosion protection method is evaluated.

Oct 1, 2022

By Gerald Verbeek, David Tara

"When selecting an impact hammer to drive a particular pile, the decision is often based on local experience. In those cases, the contractor falls back on previous experience or draws on the experience of the hammer manufacturer to select the hammer that will be able to do the job. Obviously, a more scientific approach would be to perform a pile driving simulation using one of several commercially available software packages (e.g., GRLWEAP, AllWavePDP or PDPWave).However, this type of analysis requires quite a bit more effort. First, an accurate model of the pile driving process has to be developed, which includes a model of the soil profile at the job site and input into the analysis program. Then, the model must be analyzed to assess whether the combination of hammer, pile and soil model work.Over the years, numerous individuals and organizations have tried to develop something that would fit nicely in between these approaches: something more advanced than a gut feeling yet something that could be done on the back of an envelope; in other words, a “Goldilocks” approach — not too simple, not too complex, but just right.Screening Tool CriteriaThe goals of the approach are twofold: (1) select the appropriate impact hammer to drive an open toe steel pipe or H-pile, and (2) then use the model for the subsequent high strain dynamic testing (HSDT). The Goldilocks approach centers around five different criteria.1. Maximum Driving StressTo minimize the risk of damage, the maximum driving stresses are generally limited to 80 to 90% of the yield stress (fy) of the steel section. This approach does not consider issues such as hammer alignment, initial imperfections, denting and/or elastic buckling, and pile material fatigue history. However, even when these issues are not applicable, limiting average stresses to 0.9fy or even 0.8fy does not necessarily mitigate the risk of pile damage (Mostafa, 2011)."

Jan 1, 2017

By Hamed Layssi, Farid Moradi, Thomas Tingson

This paper describes the feasibility and pilot study of of using existing non-destructive testing solutions for evaluating structural integrity and mechanical performance of mass concrete foundations. This paper includes two pilot studies using well-known NDT methods (i.e., Crosshole Sonic Logging and seismic tomography) for new applications (i.e., NDT inspection of mass concrete foundations). In the first case, we will examine an existing mass concrete foundation block with internal cracking, which has negatively impacted the strength and stiffness of the foundation block. A combination of pulse velocity and 2D tomography was used to evaluate the structural integrity in the foundation block. In the second case, the quality and integrity of newly built mass foundations were evaluated using Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL). The methods are combined to locate potential sub-surface defects such as large voids and discontinuities. This paper aims to study the effectiveness of the NDT methods of Deep Foundations to assess the quality and structural integrity of new and existing mass foundations and explore the opportunity to extend the capabilities of these tests beyond their conventional use.

Sep 8, 2021

By Alexander Filotti, Richard Kalson

"In the last decade, the construction industry has witnessed significant changes in the project delivery systems and contractual relationships between the general contractors (GC) and Deep Foundation Specialty Contractors. The Deep Foundation industry, especially including industry specialty subcontractors, have experienced a significant increase in requests that project risks be transferred through contract documents to subcontractors and suppliers with a decrease in margins for the industry. GCs regularly revise their form subcontracts to take into account recent experiences/contractual trends and newly issued judicial precedent, an exercise that is less frequently undertaken by subcontractors and suppliers. These contradictory trends are at the base of the ethical analysis of subcontracts that comprises the subject matter of this paper. Using contracts as a risk management tool in order to mitigate the general contractor’s risks in the context of dynamic changes in the legislative environment will also be addressed. Furthermore, another possibility for risk mitigation for the industry is to actively promote the introduction of the latest technical developments into the contract documents.CONTRACTS’ ETHICSFor thousands of years, ethics have been a constant presence in our lives and have been debated by different branches of philosophy. In modern times, ethics in business started to be an imperative for the success of a globalized economy.“Ethics are standards by which one should act based on values. Values are code beliefs such as duty, honor, and integrity that motivate attitudes and actions.” (Rumbaugh 2004). Some of these values and actions have been carved in legislation in general and in business legislation in particular. More and more, unethical business practices (e.g., corruption) are identified as the root cause of poverty, underdevelopment, and war around the world. In the context of contract ethics, three aspects are of interest:•,Ethics of contract construction•,Ethics of contracting processes•,Ethics of risk allocation in contracts"

Jan 1, 2016

By John P. Turner, Benjamin J. Turner

"Tieback anchors are now used routinely for landslide stabilization in the USA and abroad. It is generally understood by design engineers that friction loss over the unbonded length of a tieback anchor is inherent to the system, and such loss is permitted as long as it does not exceed a certain threshold, typically 20 percent of the post-tensioning load. However, recent experience from projects utilizing tieback anchors with unbonded lengths in excess of 150 feet has demonstrated that this criterion may be difficult to achieve, particularly in certain ground conditions. Furthermore, anchor friction loss, even if below the 20-percent threshold, has important implications for the stability of the slope that are often ignored in practice. This paper presents the results of a study in which friction loss is quantified from load test data for projects in a variety of ground conditions by means of a “wobble coefficient.” Factors that may influence the wobble coefficient are examined, and recommendations for addressing this issue in practice are presented. A recent instrumented load-test program for a landslide stabilization project in Southern California is examined, demonstrating that with appropriate monitoring controls, uncertainty with regard to friction loss can be minimized. IntroductionSteel-strand tieback anchors have been used by the geotechnical community to support shoring systems for many decades, and more recently as a means to stabilize landslides. For strand encased in grease-filled plastic sheathing, which is intended to allow the strand to elongate freely, some load can still be transferred by friction between the strand and the grease and between the grease and sheathing. The sheathing then transfers load to the surrounding grout and, in the case of ground anchors, to the surrounding soil or rock. The resulting decrease in load over the length of the unbonded zone is known as “friction loss.”A widely used criterion for ground anchor acceptance based on load testing is that the measured anchor elongation must achieve a minimum value of 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation, or in other words the actual elongation can be up to 20 percent less than the theoretical value. This ensures that the majority of the load applied at the anchor head is reaching the bond zone behind the assumed failure surface, since load shed within the failure mass does not contribute to stability. This criterion acknowledges that friction loss is an inherent feature of the anchor system which cannot be eliminated completely, only minimized."

Jan 1, 2017