Search Documents

By J. O. Osterberg

The realities of foundation enginering are that the work never proceeds exactly as expected. The various reasons, exploration, design, construction, and legal are discussed. Case histories are presented with an analysis of why the projects did not turn out as expected and how the difficulties might have been avoided.

Jan 1, 2010

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

By Heinrich Majewski, Rob Jameson

"Careful review of site conditions and constraints is essential to select the appropriate shoring system for each project. Key evaluation criteria include the geotechnical profile, groundwater and environmental conditions, adjacent buildings and utilities, schedule and any project specific access or other constraints. Typical earth retention schemes range from rock or soil nail walls, through conventional anchored pile and lagging walls to deep internally braced cut-off systems. The Owner’s design team will often develop the conceptual approach under their design studies, and this is refined with Contractor input through Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build procurement. In downtown San Francisco, underground construction must accommodate a unique combination of variable fill, soil, rock and groundwater conditions, potential for severe seismic loadings, and constrained sites within a dense urban environment. The quarter square mile of San Francisco’s Transbay and Rincon Hill districts has seen repeated cycles of development, destruction and re-building through earthquakes and the economy, and has been intensely redeveloped over the last decade. Over 50 acres of this land has been reclaimed from the Bay since the Gold Rush and within 3 city blocks the bedrock slopes from over 250 FT depth below the fills up to outcrops over 100 FT above sea level. A series of project examples from within this small area illustrate how varied shoring systems have accommodated the highly variable subsurface conditions while offering best value in terms of cost, schedule and appropriate protection of adjacent facilities.INTRODUCTIONA walk of 3 blocks from Rincon Hill on San Francisco’s Harrison Street, north through the Transbay area to Mission Street will traverse an urban zone which has been reinvented twice within its 150 year history in response to major seismic events. This small area highlights the range of subsurface conditions and urban environments which are encountered and accommodated in shoring schemes throughout the city. This route down the north side of Rincon Hill overlies a steep bedrock slope, outcropping over 100 FT above sea level at its south end and dropping to over 250 FT below sea level at Mission Street. A complex overburden soil profile, shaped by seismic activity and changing sea-levels has created layered soils ranging from soft estuary muds, dense sandy strata and deep clay layers, in turn topped with urban fill, frequently contaminated with debris from the Great 1906 earthquake. This route runs parallel to, and 350 yards inland of, the San Francisco shoreline resulting in groundwater elevation close to sea level with almost limitless recharge within granular layers. On the higher slopes of Rincon Hill, groundwater is typically observed flowing on top of and periodically within the fractured bedrock formation. The Transbay and Rincon areas were developed early in the Gold Rush era of San Francisco. After destruction in the 1906 earthquake and fire, they became a transit gateway into the city throughout the 20th Century. Demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway in response to earthquake damage and social pressure has opened this large area to redevelopment within the last 20 years, creating a new commercial and residential hub for the city. In its latest wave of building, planners are developing taller structures with deeper basements, in turn creating new construction challenges. Selection of shoring systems appropriate for these developments requires detailed evaluation. The process must address both the rapid spatial changes in subsurface conditions and the constraints surrounding, and specific to, each site in order to define shoring performance requirements. This paper presents an overview of the subsurface conditions and land use development of the Transbay and Rincon Hill areas, with examples of the shoring systems selected to meet site-specific conditions and requirements. The projects cited range from soil nail wall"

Jan 1, 2017

By A. Lyndon

Combined loading tests are described to three 1.2m diameter cast-in-place bored piles, 12m long, formed through cohesionless material into stiff sandy clay. The maximum loading conditions imposed at the pile head were 2400 kN vertical, 160 kN lateral and 3120 kNm in bending, corresponding to twice the working load. Settlements, deflections and rotations of the piles were measured during the tests. An interesting finding which the test results suggest is that, in the short term, vertical movement had apparently no marked effect on lateral performance for piles working at design loadings.

Jan 1, 1989

By Rakam Lama Tamang, Michael J. Byle, Stephen Ernst

"For various reasons, dredging may become necessary in front of existing bulkhead walls, either for channel deepening or for environmental remediation of contaminated sediments. The removal of sediments at the base of bulkhead walls removes support for the toe of the wall that must be assessed. Evaluation of this impact can be problematic for aging bulkheads for which no design or construction records exist. This paper will address the steps that should be taken in investigation and analysis to assure proper assessment and means to address uncertainties and gaps in information. The steps include pre-investigation data review, field inspection, geotechnical and geophysical investigation tools, parametric analysis and design tools. Examples from several bulkhead assessment projects will be provided that include a variety of conditions and tools for application. The focus of the paper will be on the integration of technologies to assess bulkhead geometry, geotechnical properties and stability, structural safety and constructability issues with removal of support, and means of temporary and permanent stabilization for environmental applications.IntroductionBulkheads and quays have existed as long as there have been waterfront activities. Some of the earliest date back to 1200 B.C.E.(Raban, 1987), however in the United States few predate the eighteenth century. Most extant bulkhead structures, and all steel sheet pile bulkhead walls date from the early 20th century or later. These structures function to protect the shore from erosion, support landside activities, and serve as place to moor and offload vessels. Regardless of the age or usage of existing bulkheads, it is essential to assess and protect them if needed where removal of soils on the water side of the bulkheads is planned to dredging.Waterfront BulkheadsExisting bulkhead structures can be classified into two types: Cantilevered, and anchored. Cantilevered walls are completely supported by the soil on the water side, while anchored bulkheads are supported both by the soil on the water side and anchorage on the land side (Figure 1). Walls may be constructed of timber, steel, or concrete. Timber walls may be lagging with soldier piles, cribbing with soldier piles, or timber sheeted such as Wakefield walls (Figure 2). Steel bulkheads are most commonly constructed using sheet piling comprised of interlocking A or Z shapes, though some historic walls were constructed with flat sheets. Precast concrete sheet piling has also been used in construction of bulkhead walls. Anchorage may be provided by steel bars or tendons attached to deadmen, sheet piling, driven piles, or earth anchors."

Jan 1, 2017

By M. England

Test equipment has been developed to record automatically both the displacement of the pile head and the load applied during a conventional maintained load pile test. Some systems also have, in addition, been fitted with the facility for maintaining the applied load, as set by the operator, at very constant levels. The advantages are both commercial and technical, but a well trained operator has to be in attendance to control the test. Since typical test specifications in the UK require more than 19 hours to complete, it became inevitable that at least one equipment operator remained on site to expedite the test for its duration. Although electronic measurement and data logging of load tests may be more safe than previous direct observation of dial gauges. A single person remaining on a construction site alone is not to be recommended, even if they are just supervising the test. Further development of the testing system produced equipment which will perform the entire test specification as required without operator intervention. To achieve this, full automation is employed. The patented method particularly addresses the safety requirements and by using additional sensors, detects any uncharacteristic behaviour of the pile under test or of the reaction system and the equipment takes appropriate action in a controlled and safe manner. The quality of test data returned from these automated systems is a key element when analysing pile behaviour with models such as CEMSOLVE? and TIMESETTM. These analysis methods often indicate ground disturbance resulting from installation technique and have allowed pile design to be optimised using actual field data rather than theoretical considerations alone. An additional feature is remote access, this allows the data recorded to be transferred and the progress of the test to be viewed from practically any location. This permits experts to view the data 'live' and allows rapid diagnosis of any problems with the expected pile behaviour.

Jan 1, 2002

By Shane Baker

Cementation Foundations Skanska Ltd encountered many significant challenges in designing and constructing the foundations for the LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) tanks and associated structures at the Isle of Grain, Kent, UK. With LNG cargo ship levels fixed by the adjacent English Channel, the platform could not exceed critical thickness in order to achieve final grade level, so a safe and efficient working platform for construction equipment on extremely poor alluvial soils was designed and installed. The detailed pile design also required particular analysis of the pile group behaviour and considered seismic load cases not usually associated with UK pile design. Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles were the chosen foundation solution and design was verified through preliminary and working pile tests both axially and horizontally. Contaminated land and existing foundations from a previous oil terminal meant that removal of spoil was extremely costly so specific measures were taken to minimise the off-site disposal. The management of a package of general Civil Engineering in addition to the piling scope, coupled with an unrelenting production program has forced a raising of the bar for this foundation technique.

Jan 1, 2006

By Lance A. Roberts

Micropiles are commonly utilized for applications other than foundation retrofit. In bridges, for example, micropiles can serve as the permanent foundation elements or can be used in temporary support applications. In this paper, a case study on the use of micropiles for the 18th Street Expressway Bridge rehabilitation/repair project in Kansas City, Kansas is presented. In the project, micropiles were utilized for support of six temporary jacking structures, which allowed the bridge to be lifted while repairs were completed. A group of six micropiles was required to support each jacking structure. The required compressive service load per micropile was approximately 300 kips (1300 kN) and the settlement of the micropiles under the service load was to be limited to 0.5 in. (12.7 mm). Two field compression tests were conducted as part of the project. The field load test data was integrated within a soil-structure interaction capacity approach in order to analyze and permit the shortening of the design bond length for the production micropiles.

Jan 1, 2009

By Moritz Schleeh, Christian Moormann

Temporary working platforms are generally required in order to ensure that heavy construction machinery such as drilling and trench wall units, pile drivers, vehicle and crawler cranes can be set up safely at the site of operation. Considering all possible operating and loading conditions, especially on ground of low shear strength and stiffness, the design and construction of temporary mobile working platforms needs to be considered more as a serious engineering task than as a second order structure of minor relevance. Working platforms reinforced with one or several geosynthetic layers have proven to be especially effective with regard to stability, serviceability and durability but their design requests even more sophisticated approaches. Existing design models are often based on simplified assumptions and do not consider the complex interaction between construction machinery, working platform and subgrade. Non-monotonic loading as well as elastoplastic and time-variant deformation of cohesive subsoil can adversely affect the base layer system and the serviceability and stability of the construction machinery operating on it. In this context, there is a need for improvement of design approaches and their optimisation considering that there are no generally accepted design approaches or technical codes of practice available for the design of temporary working platforms. The present paper deals with the multifaceted and non-trivial interaction effects of working platforms investigated by model tests, field measurements and numerical simulations to develop a design approach that ensures a safe installation and operation of heavy plants on unstable ground.

May 1, 2022

By A. R. Dover

The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is a 6.92 kilometer (4.3 mile) long major toll bridge span that crosses the northern San Francisco Bay in a highly seismically active region. Tutor-Saliba / Koch / Tidewater JV was contracted by Caltrans to conduct a comprehensive seismic retrofit. The JV provided geotechnical planning and quality control services as described herein, under normal oversight by Caltrans. Part of the robust foundation retrofit design included the installation of 26 new, large diameter piles, including eleven 3.81 m (12.5 ft) diameter, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) marine piles that were drilled 9.15 m (30 ft) into the bedrock beneath the Bay, where the water depth ranged up to about 21.3 m (70 ft). These reinforced concrete-filled composite piles have a steel shell permanent casing from the bridge substructure pile cap through the water column and 30.5 to 39.6 meters (100 ft to 130 ft) of marine sediments to the top of rock. This paper discusses construction, inspection (ranging from the QA employed in the planning of the CIDH pile installation methods and equipment to the actual construction inspection required for the routine installation of the shafts), problems that were encountered during construction, and the solutions that were developed and implemented. Inspection, particularly with the usual difficulties in the marine environment, coupled with the difficult and complex bedrock conditions was particularly challenging, and ranged from non-destructive testing to "in-water, inshell" diver inspection. Similarly, the complexities of dealing with both the steel casing "riser" and the associated drilled shaft (rock socket) portion of these composite foundation elements created some unusual issues. The paper also presents important lessons learned from the project.

Jan 1, 2008

By Bernard H. Hertlein

Transportation system structures have come under very close scrutiny in the last couple of years, largely due to the damaging effects of disasters, both natural and man-made. In the Pacific northwest and California, earthquake risk is a major concern. In the central and eastern states barge impacts on bridge piers and docks are a big worry. In all cases of bridges over water and waterside structures, scour is a primary concern. Some of the results of this scrutiny have been changes in design and construction methods, and the introduction of more testing to supplement field inspection during construction, and throughout the service life of the structure. Future construction of bridges and docks will almost certainly see a continuing growth in these practices. Where foundations are concerned, particularly for bridges and waterside structures, many state and local authorities have started specifying drilled shafts rather than driven piles. Where the shafts must be constructed under water or slurry, visual inspection of most of the work is impossible, and one of several different Nondestructive Tests (NDT) is often specified. Contractors' experiences with these methods have varied considerably, and there is a great deal of controversy in the deep foundation industry over the reliability of NDT methods for assessing the integrity of foundation shafts or piles. The author has had more than 15 years of practice with the various NDT methods for deep foundations, on projects all over the US, particularly foundations for bridges and dock structures, and has developed an understanding of the "NDT controversy" as it has become known. In particular, experiences in the Pacific Northwest, California, and Alabama have illustrated the reasons for the controversy. This paper reviews these experiences, and suggests some steps that owners and contractors can take to reduce the risk of inconclusive or downright inaccurate test results.

Jan 1, 1998

The development of Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) piles started in the late 1940's when several projects were performed by Intrusion-Prepakt, Inc. utilizing various techniques to place the piling. On some projects, a grout pipe was placed down the augered hole after the auger was withdrawn, and structural grout was pumped into the hole until grout appeared at the surface, after which the grout pipe was withdrawn. In some instances coarse aggregate was placed after a grout pipe was in place, and then the grout was intruded into the coarse aggregate, making a pile using the preplaced concrete method. Another method of forming augered piles used a system of driving or drilling a grout pipe through soils adjacent to the auger once the auger was drilled to the bottom elevation. The tip of the grout pipe was placed in close proximity to the tip of the auger. As the auger was withdrawn, grout was pumped through the grout pipe filling the augered hole from the bottom. After grout was observed at the surface, the grout pipe was withdrawn. In 1951, a patent was applied for by Raymond Patterson describing the above techniques along with a technique for placement of grout using a hollow stem auger and a removable plug or lead bit at the tip of the auger. The expendable plug or lead bit was removed by using grout pressure. The patent was granted in 1956. Around this same time other augered piling con-tractors began operations under licensed arrangements.

Jan 1, 2003

By Derrick Dasenbrock

Two DFI committees independently organized two complimentary panel sessions for the recent American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Geo- Risk 2023 "Advances in Theory and Innovation in Practice" Conference in Arlington, Virginia, July 23-26. The Geo- Institute (GI) specialty conference welcomed more than 200 professionals and students interested in risk from around the world to the Washington, D.C., area for three full days of plenary keynote lectures, papers and no-paper sessions. The GI Risk Assessment and Management Technical Committee organized the event, which is the third in a series planned on a 6-year cycle. The previous two events were in 2011 in Atlanta and 2017 in Denver.

Sep 1, 2023

By Tariq B. Hamid

Deep excavation is commonly associated with construction of different deep below-grade structural elements (e.g., basement walls and slabs, tunnels, retaining walls, tanks, utilities, etc.) Deep Excavation Retaining Systems (DERS) are required when open cuts with safe slopes are not possible. Careful analysis, design, and planning of the DERS are required to provide safe below-grade construction and secure nearby structures from damaging effects that may result from the deep excavation. Selection and design of temporary or permanent DERS (e.g., soldier pile and lagging, sheet piling walls, secant pile walls, tie backs, etc.) can have significant impact on time, cost, and performance. In order to design DERS using conventional methods, it is necessary to obtain shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction (ø), and cohesion (c), of retained soils. Residual shear strength parameters (ø'res, c'res) obtained from drained direct shear tests and triaxial tests on saturated samples have been commonly used in practice for the analysis and design of DERS. However, there are cases where ground water table remains at or below the base of excavation during the design lifetime of DERS. In such cases, the soil above the ground water table is in an unsaturated state. Therefore, it is important to account for the unsaturated conditions of soils in order to optimize the design of DERS. This paper is focused on implementing the basic concepts of unsaturated soils mechanics including matric suction and soils-water characteristic curve (SWCC) to estimate design shear strength parameters of unsaturated soils (i.e., ø°, c', and ø') for the design of a cantilever sheet pile walls, a typical case of study of the DERS. The results of this study indicate that the determination of unsaturated soil strength shear strength parameters is simple. In addition, using unsaturated soil mechanics theories has an outstanding impact on the design of retaining systems.

Jan 1, 2006

By Diego Bellato

Production data recorded by special foundation rigs during construction activities at the site are commonly used for quality assurance / quality control procedures and, in particular, to prove that the installed foundation elements comply with the geometrical and quality requirements defined in the design specifications. Parameters such as crowd force, penetration/withdrawal rate, rotational speed etc. are usually presented in reports in the form of depth and/or time profiles. This type of protocols are already standard QA/QC solutions for ground improvement methods like deep soil mixing or jet-grouting, but they are quite rarely applied in combination with other techniques like diaphragm walls or Kelly drilling. In the latter cases, one of the main reasons behind this lack of site documentation is related to the difficulty in interpreting huge amount of data collected during the creation of single elements, which, in some cases, can last several days (not always in a row). In addition, the building sequence is often characterized by many alternated operations involving different movements of the rig and the use of different tools. In this context, the identification of specific construction activities based only on the mere exam of the time profiles of the recorded production parameters is extremely difficult. In this paper, the time profiles of production parameters obtained from a fully-cased Kelly drilling rig employed on a site in Karlsruhe (Germany) have been investigated and compared with a detailed series of activities deduced from a video filmed during installation. Typical time profile patterns associated to specific procedures have been identified by combining the different information available. The outcome of this study helped project engineers to automatize the recognition of activities directly from production data and led to an overall understanding and optimization of the construction process. INTRODUCTION The special foundation industry is characterized by the use of highly sophisticated machinery for the realization of geotechnical systems such as piled rafts, retaining walls and slabs for excavation pits, cut-off walls for levees and embankments or ground improvement solutions. Rigs can vary in size, weight, and power and can be provided with several drilling tools to cope with the different soil conditions (e.g. clay, sand, rock) and the different geometries of the elements to be built at the site (e.g. micro-piles, large- diameter bored piles, diaphragm walls, anchors). Due to the challenging construction procedures, various types of sensors have started to be mounted on the equipment in the last decades to monitor the behavior of some important machine parameters and to inform rig operators about the on-going process and the status of their devices.

Jan 1, 2019

By Steve Thoman

After the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) initiated an overview of the Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) and bridge seismic design practice in California. This overview is continuing under the direction of the Applied Technologies Council (ATC-32), to review and revise as necessary existing standards, performance criteria, specifications, and practices for design and construction of new bridge structures within California. The ATC-32 project began in August 1991 and is expected to be completed in 1995. Since 1990, Caltrans project-specific seismic criteria have been developed and implemented on the I-280 and I-480 projects in San Francisco. Caltrans and an independent seismic safety review panel continue to develop and implement these criteria on other projects. In 1991 and 1992, project-specific seismic criteria were used on the I-880 reconstruction project in Oakland. The seismic safety review panel considered the I-880 seismic design criteria a state-of-the-art methodology to ensure seismic safety against collapse of bridge structures subjected to a maximum credible seismic event. This paper highlights the 1992 "I-880 Reconstruction Project Seismic Design Criteria Review" report prepared by the Seismic Safety Review Panel and Caltrans Division of Structures and will compare pre-1989 BDS and AASHTO methodologies to the I-880 criteria.

Jan 1, 1996

By Lori A. Simpson

Mission Bay is a 300-acre reclaimed site in San Francisco, California, that is currently being redeveloped. Plans include new neighborhoods, parks, a new University of California, San Francisco, research and development campus, a biotechnology campus, and commercial office buildings. New infrastructure is being constructed throughout the site, consisting of utilities, pump stations, and roadways. Previously, Mission Bay was a part of the San Francisco Bay. Reclamation of the shallow bay coincided with the booming development in San Francisco in the 1880s and continued through 1920. Subsurface conditions are extremely variable throughout the site. The stratigraphy generally consists of 5 to 45 feet of fill, up to 140 feet of weak, compressible clay (?Bay Mud?), dense sand, stiff clay, and bedrock of the Franciscan Complex that has been encountered 5 to 210 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Geotechnical issues related to these subsurface conditions include liquefaction, lateral spreading, settlement, and adequate foundation support. This paper presents case studies of the geotechnical aspects of design and construction of several buildings in Mission Bay, highlighting the similarities and variability in the subsurface conditions and the different conclusions and solutions developed for each project. The case studies will include: 1) a building supported on steel H-piles where the depth to bearing varies from about 70 feet bgs in one half of the site to 165 feet bgs in the other half; 2) a building supported on precast, prestressed, concrete piles bearing in a thick, very dense sand layer; 3) a building with over 100 feet of Bay Mud supported on 120- to 180-foot-long PCPS concrete piles driven to bedrock adjacent to buildings supported on steel H-piles driven to bedrock; and 4) sites where auger pressure grouted displacement piles (APGD) and Tubex piles were installed. Case studies will include results of pile driving analyzer (PDA) testing and static pile loads tests, where performed.

Jan 1, 2006

By J. P. Welsh

Ground Modification construction is rapidly evolving in the United States. An assessment of the construction status of Ground Modification methods with their dates of introduction and general acceptance in the United States is summarized. Seven of these techniques are discussed in depth with short case histories; namely, Dynamic Deep Compaction, vibro-compaction, vibro-Replacement, chemical grouting, compaction grouting, slurry grouting and jet grouting. Additional case histories are presented to illustrate the trend of combining Ground Modification techniques to solve specific site problems.

Jan 1, 2010

By Barritt Lovelace

Collins Engineers has been researching and implementing the use of drones on Civil Engineering Projects since 2015. Applications include bridge inspection, asset management, mapping, construction site management and emergency response. Recently this technology was used to map and model construction sites with deep foundations to verify and quantify designs. The ability to collect and use large amounts of data is transforming our world. Drone hardware and software is being used to capture and digitally replicate assets, giving owners unprecedented ability to visualize and manage their projects. Our teams help owners collect and process drone data into deliverables to be analyzed, annotated, stored, and shared. The use of drones can transform the way projects are managed and can improve project workflows. Data collected with drones can be processed into a digital twin of any project site or asset. This digital twin provides owners with a three-dimensional geometrically and geospatially accurate model. These models can be annotated and tagged with information that can be stored and shared locally or on cloud-based platforms. The data can be exported and used in a wide variety of CAD and GIS platforms. Goals When considering the use of UAS for several items need to be considered when establishing project goals. Safety Drones can be used to reduce job site safety risks in two ways. The first is that use of the drone can remove personnel from harm’s way. Surveyors and other project staff will traditionally walk the site to collect survey and other site information. These efforts can be replaced with the use of a drone eliminating much of the need for personnel to be on the job site itself which improves safety. The other way safety can be improved is that a digital model of a job site can be created on a daily or weekly basis that can be quickly analyzed for safety hazards. This analysis could be done remotely by safety officers to identify job site hazards which can then be corrected before injuries happen. Improved Deliverables Perhaps the most important reason to incorporate drones into project workflows it the ability to improve the project deliverables. Drones have the ability to quickly collect large amounts of high quality data which can be processed into orthomosaics, point clouds and 3D models that give engineers and project managers the information they need to make better decisions on design or project management.

Jan 1, 2019

1.1 The parties agree to submit all claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to, the interpretation, application or enforcement of this agreement, including dispute resolution procedures, to sequential mandatory discussion, mediation and arbitration for resolution of all disputes before, and as a condition precedent, to self-help, arbitration, judicial action or other remedies. This mandatory procedure will resolve each dispute within one-hundred (100) calendar days. Any deadline falling on a federal holiday or weekend will be the next working day. Breach of this disputes process shall constitute a material breach of contract for which the aggrieved party may recover all costs, including attorneys fees, interest and other expenses necessary to resolve the dispute through litigation. The obligation to discuss and then mediate and arbitrate covers all disputes arising from every aspect of the Project to be built by the owner, including, but not limited to, design, engineering, bonding, indemnification, labor, material and services, and the acts or omissions of any related party for whom a party to this agreement may stand responsible.

Jan 1, 1994