Workshop Hosted by the Texas Chapter of the PDCA 2

“ WHAT PILEDRIVERS WISH EVERYONE KNEW”

A WORKSHOP HOSTED BY THE TEXAS CHAPTER OF THE PDCA

Van E. Komurka, P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE, ([email protected]) of Wagner Komurka Geotechnical Group, Inc. (“WKG²”) and frequent technical contributor to the PDCA, will present and facilitate a workshop hosted by the Texas Chapter of the PDCA. The workshop is intended to increase the use of driven piles in the Texas Chapter area through education, communication, and by addressing specific concerns of the Chapter’s members. Outcomes of the Chapter workshop may include:

 Educating design engineers, structural engineers, geotechnical engineers, design/build team members, government representatives, and large repeat-use owners (e.g., DOTs, utilities, petroleum producers, refineries, etc.) on the benefits of driven piles.  Communicating state-of-the-art design, testing, and installation methods.  Addressing concerns and objections contractors routinely face in their local markets.

Texas Chapter members are encouraged to identify challenges faced in their driven- pile market. Interested members should then directly, or through the local chapter president, contact Van regarding desired workshop content, who will then tailor a program which addresses these pre-identified concerns. Chapter members should invite and bring (potentially as the member’s guests) parties who would benefit from the educational opportunity, and gain a better understanding of the benefits of driven piles. The workshop is intended to be relatively informal, providing the atmosphere and time for interactive discussion among all parties.

The following questions are provided as thought-starters to aid in identifying what the workshop’s content might include or address relative to Texas Chapter members’ concerns:

 What objections are there to the increased use of driven piles?  What is stopping driven piles from being used on more projects?  What aspects/information about pile-driving contracting (your practice) needs to be better understood? Who needs to better understand it?  What misunderstandings/misinformation about pile-driving contracting (your practice) needs clarification? Who needs it clarified?  Are there aspects which unnecessarily increase the contractor’s risk, or the amount of contingencies a contractor has to carry in their bid?  Are there aspects which unnecessarily increase the cost of driven piles?  What support would help driven piles gain market share?  How can PDCA resources best be disseminated to those who could benefit from them? Workshop Hosted by the Texas Chapter of the PDCA 2  What specifically did you have in mind the last time you thought: “Boy, that driven pile project sure could have used some help!”?  If you’ve seen one or more of Van’s presentations, would this workshop benefit from having some of that material repeated? If so, what?

Examples of some specific concerns/challenges which might be identified and addressed (and which might bring other challenges not listed here to mind):

 Inappropriate pile test programs o Too little testing o Too much testing o The wrong type of testing o Not enough time allowed in the contract to perform adequate testing o Static load tests performed as proof tests, not run to geotechnical plunging failure o Restrikes’ inability to mobilize pile capacity  Selection of an inappropriate pile type  Selection of an inappropriate pile section, leading to an unbalanced design (piles can carry much more load structurally than geotechnically, or vice versa)  Inappropriate use of set-up o Set-up ignored completely o Set-up underestimated o Set-up ineffectively tested for . Too soon after driving (set-up underestimated) . Too long after driving (unnecessary cost and time delay) . Pile capacity not mobilized when tested at some time after installation (set-up underestimated)  Inappropriate selection of allowable pile load (too small for large structures, too large for small structures, too small for pile section/geotechnical capacity)  Poorly written specifications o Unclear/inconsistent/confusing terminology o Inequitable risk borne by the contractor o Missing or unclear specifics related to bid price and risk allocation o Design aspects left to contractor  Unrealistic driving criteria o Required terminal blow counts too high, and/or required penetration distance at high blow counts too much, leading to inordinate risk of damage to equipment o Tight specification of required hammer, potentially reducing productivity  Vibration concerns o Unfounded vibration concerns (driven piles unnecessarily precluded) o Unquantified vibration limits o Unrealistic vibration limits o Onerous monitoring requirements  Non-cost-effective pile design (resulting in diminished market share) Workshop Hosted by the Texas Chapter of the PDCA 3 The value and success of this workshop depends largely on Texas Chapter member participation: what concerns you identify to address, and who you invite and bring to listen and learn, will determine the quality and benefit of the program. Let’s hear from you!