Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

While not something I am directly involved with on my site, I came across this method being used in the dressing of pile cages in a bid to save both money and time further down the line and thought it was worthy of a quick post.

The works here on the North Portal includes the construction of a “waterproof box” inside which the two Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) will be built and launched, followed by further construction to complete the portal structure to its final glory as depicted in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Artist Impression of the North Portal

In broad outline we are installing a Continuous Flight Auger (CFA)/bored secant pile horseshoe and then excavating to ~20m before pouring a base-slab to key in with the pile wall to provide that box which will hopefully keep the water out. (The open end of the horse shoe is to be closed off by means of a grout curtain, or using cutter soil mixing (CSM))

In order to facilitate that connection between base slab and wall, deal with uplift and ensure a waterproof structure, couplers are being installed in the secant pile cages to allow the tie in of rebar once we get to depth, see Fig 2.

Fig 2. Pile wall/base slab tie in (Auggy, age 5)

The 40mm bar and coupler can be seen below as well as the setting within the reinforcement cages;

Fig. 3 40mm Coupler

Fig. 4 Coupler set out

This might be how the cage is traditionally dressed before being set in the pile. The fun then begins once the excavation has reached depth and the couplers need to be located prior to establishing the base slab. Reminiscent of a game of pin the tail on the donkey, locating the couplers can be quite tricky, see Fig 5, and the hydro-demolition technique used quite expensive.

Fig 5. Find the Coupler

In order to avoid this the piling team have decided to used polystyrene and plywood to block out the area of the pile around the coupler. Adding a little bit of extra faff to the dressing of the cages will hopefully pay dividends when we get to depth in the excavation.

Fig. 6 Dressed cage

Fig 6. Dressed Cage

Fig 7. installation

I will let you know how it goes. Hopefully interesting and maybe useful for some, though I’m sure it is not the first time it has been done.

* On a side note the piles going in at the headwall of the portal are using Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) instead of steel reinforcement. This is to avoid unnecessary wear on the TBM cutting heads before they even start! (I hadn’t heard of that being done before)

This load-bearing architectural feature called a tree column is causing some problems.

tree column

Grout will be poured into the void shown in red after the base has been installed. The designer/ Mace/ architect combo are worried that there will be voids in the grout.

Suggestions so far have been:

a) To measure the volume of grout poured in.

b) A mock-up has bee created to test construction and finish. They are proposing to cut this in section to check the grout.

The client weren’t satisfied with Option a and option b is ok but doesn’t check the actual tree columns.

My idea is to do option A and then use electrical imaging on both the mock-up and final tree-columns. Is this feasible, can electrical imaging be used for this type of thing? or are there other alternatives?

E&M’s will remember the tricky task on our first project of trying to guess the population for a deployment before being able to even think of starting our Water and Wastewater calculations.  Gatwick currently has me looking over two sets of educated guesswork on a similar but altogether different issue.  How do you estimate the population of a corridor?

Read more…

Engagement with Institutions when Seconded Overseas

One of the attributes considered by all institutions during Professional Review is a candidate’s level of commitment to their respective institution.  UK based students are able to show their commitment through their attendance at institution events and engagement with wider institution activities.  Though all the institutions have an overseas presence, the footprint of their overseas members and events is often vast and spread across entire continents.  This hampers the ability of overseas students to effectively connect with their institutions and limits their exposure to valuable personal and professional development opportunities.

This blog post will explore how to successfully engage with your institutions when deployed overseas and the developmental opportunities I have found during my short tenure in the USA.

Recommendations 

For the benefit of all, current and future overseas students are advised to note the following recommendations:

• Contact your institution’s international representative.
• Blog about your own experience.

Additionally, the Professional Engineering Wing is invited to note the following recommendations:

• A centralised list of international institution contacts should be established and disseminated to future overseas students.
• The Chief Instructor should meet with Dr. Peter Goodwin during his next visit to the US and potentially discuss the opportunity of PET students working closely with UMCES beforehand.

First Contact 

I initially reached out to the ICE delegate for the USA to try and identify what ICE activities and events are run in the US.  Whilst I received some useful information he was unable to provide me with anything of substance.  Success came when I reached out to Deborah Oyelaja, ICE’s International Administrator.  Deborah maintains a database with the location and contact details of all ICE members located overseas.  Using her database she was able to pass my details onto all the ICE members on her books living in the vicinity of Baltimore.  The vast majority of the ICE members she contacted on my behalf reached out to me and I have received invites to attend a wide variety of CPD activities across the North Atlantic Coast.

The ICE only has a formal presence in New York.  Their planned events and activities can be found on their webpage – www.iceusa.org.  The president of the ICE NYC society has invited me to attend their events, which occur quarterly.  Outside of NYC, a number of ICE members have volunteered to host myself during a visit to their in-country facilities.  They have also been kind enough to extend this invitation to the other PET Students, Cs and E&Ms, who are also located in the States.

CPD Opportunities 

Between NYC Society and the ICE members that have reached out to me, I have been invited to the following activities:

4 May 18            Visit Horn Point Laboratory, UMCES
5 May 18            IMET Open House
18 May 18          Lunch with US DoT representative.
21-22 May 18    Transport Research Board, Washington DC.
TBC Jun 18         ICE NYC Debate

Whilst not all of these activities may be as fruitful as others, making contact with professional engineers and world-leading academics will always be a worthwhile activity.

Horn Point Laboratory Visit – 4 May 18 

Dr. Peter Goodwin is a Chartered Civil Engineer and world-renowned expert in ecohydrology.  Currently the President of UMCES he is a key influencer in Maryland and was very eager for the other PET students and I, to visit Horn Point Laboratory.  On 4 May 18, the other 3 PET students in-country and I took him up on the offer to visit one of UMCES’s facilities.

One of the responsibilities of USACE is the maintenance of waterways for shipping operations.  For USACE Baltimore District this includes dredging to keep the waterways open, underwater construction of reefs and channels as well as the responsibility for the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.  UMCES are a key partner in this element of USACE’s mission and are consulted on the sustainability of dredging bay and the maintenance of the quality of the water.

Horn Point Laboratory is an oyster hatchery.  Oysters are key to maintaining the water quality of the bay through denitrification.  Each adult oyster can purify 115l of water per day.  Though the visit was largely focussed on how the laboratory operates the wider discussion into the environmental aspects of sustainability and the underwater civil engineering challenges of building and maintaining oyster beds were exceptionally beneficial.

Figure 1 – Heated Beds used to simulate spring and speed up the reproductive cycle of the Oysters.

Whilst the interest for a Civil Engineer was limited, the Electrical and Mechanical works were extensive and cutting edge.  Furthermore, the control system utilised to heat, feed and replace the water for the oysters was exceptionally intricate.

Dr. Goodwin and the other academics I met at the facility are exceptionally eager to host future visits and have extended their visits to UMCES remaining facilities.  From a ‘C’ perspective I feel the most valuable area to look further into would be the natural flood prevention measures which UMCES take the lead on.  For ‘E&Ms’, there is a huge scope of opportunities – UMCES are constantly investing in optimised their electrical and mechanical works, with most of their optimisation ideas coming directly from postgraduate Thesis work.

Figure 2 – Group Photo with Dr. Goodwin overlooking the Chesapeake Bay.

Dr. Goodwin has also invited me to attend some upcoming conferences with him over the summer in New Orleans and Panama – though I suspect I may have to pay for my flights to go this far afield for CPD.  He also is very eager to establish a permanent relationship between UMCES and PEW, one of which I feel would be of great benefit.

Summary

Though Horn Point Laboratory didn’t prove to be the opportunity I had hoped from a purist Civil Engineering point of view, it was still an exceptionally valuable visit.  From a Chartered Professional Review perspective, I have shown my willingness to engage with the ICE and gained some valuable sustainability and environmental knowledge that I would not have otherwise acquired.

I feel the opportunity for PEW students to work closely with UMCES is an excellent one, particularly for E&Ms.  Not only might it yield an excellent opportunity to produce an engaging TMR or Thesis but it also ties into the wider defence engagement mission which is a component for ensuring this valuable attachment to USACE is maintained.

Useful Contacts

The ICE’s International Administrator contacted all the ICE members listed as being located in North Eastern USA and made my initial introduction to them all.  I wholeheartedly advise all ICE members seconded abroad to contact Deborah.

Deborah Oyelaja
ICE International Administrator
Email:    deborah.oyelaja@ice.org.uk
Tel:        +44 (0) 20 7665 2130

Dr. Peter Goodwin is the president of UMCES, his Biography is located here and more information on UMCES can be found on their website – www.umces.edu.  I feel Dr. Goodwin is a valuable contact and recommend trying to establish a permanent relationship with his organisation.

Dr. Peter Goodwin CEng
President of UMCES
Email:    pgoodwin@umces.edu
Tel:        +1-410-221-2000

Abbreviations

UMCES                University of Maryland Centre of Environmental Science
IMET                    Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology
DoT                      Department of Transport
NYC                      New York City
USACE                 United States Army Corps of Engineers

Hello all,

For TMR 1 I am writing on the use of digital project management and communication systems as I have seen them in Multiplex compared to how a “power user” would use them compared to how I  have seen/done project management and communication in the military.

To give a very quick overview if you have no idea what I’m taking about, Multiplex uses a system called Aconex which is a cloud based project management system providing a full audit trail across all project stakeholders. Once anything has been uploaded or sent it is there as a permanent record to aid in future understanding of evolution of design, contract negotiations, dispute resolutions, etc… It works fully in the cloud with only a web browser needed for access but also has powerful mobile apps which allows site based personnel to access current documents, send RFIs, log defects and respond to/create messages.

Aconex have a short sales video which describes what they do far better than I can in this very short blog, which hopefully works below.

What I don’t know is what other systems are out there and what the UK construction industry uses, so I’m asking for your help. In the comments below could I get you to let me know what systems your projects are using and give me an idea on how they are being used. Thanks all.

Once complete I will put up a summary of my TMR so you can see what my conclusion was and if there is utility for future military projects we will be involved in.

1. Introduction. As this is my first blog I should give some background on my attachment. I am currently working at Buckingham Palace as part of the Reservicing Programme which aims to replace all the E&M services for the site over a 10 period. The programme is split down into 2 year projects with the first being ‘High Priority Works’ (HPW) which covers the majority of basement services, new boilers, new generators, new switchboards replacing the primary LV cables and LTHW pipes. The following projects are then 2 years per wing of the palace to replace the services from each wings plant room through to the end fixtures and fittings. We are currently constructing all the preliminary works for the programme by refurbishing office space and accommodation to use a decant space for the other wings so they can be vacated. My focus has been on the HPW and while I am doing work assisting the Design Director and Construction Director in the Programme Management Office (PMO) my golden thread through the placement is as Deputy Project Manager for HPW. In that capacity my most recent work has been reviewing and signing off the designs for HPW as part of the ongoing tender process and problem solving issues that we can see on the horizon. One such issue is the finding of asbestos in a key area.

2. Asbestos Issue. As you might expect the palace is full of asbestos as it is an old building and the last major refurbishment happened throughout the 1960’s. For the most part this is well managed and the asbestos areas are clearly identified. One area that had not been counted on was the quadrangle tunnels which run inside the square in the middle on the palace and have much of the cabling and LTHW pipes.

3. My role has been to lead on this issue for the PMO and investigate what options the Palace has. I am then to pull together the PMO, Royal Household Property Section (which conducts the facilities management and business a usual engineering) and the Principal Designer (WSP) to find a solution which has the least impact on the running of the palace and the project budget/timeline.

4. In clearing the asbestos to allow both routine maintence and the replacement of services tunnel I have proposed two options. It can be done as pre-works before HPW in Aug-Nov 2018 approx or during HPW in Mar-May 2019 approx. Both solutions are technically possible. Of note the asbestos specialist has identified that to strip the lagging of the pipes they must be cold due to the requirements of the HSE. By clearing earlier there will be a significant reduction in heating and hot water to the East Wing over this time period which must be mitigated as the Palace will accept no disruption to normal business.

5. Option A – Clear ASAP. In this option the East Wing’s centrally supplied heating and DHW will be stopped for a period likely to be 2-3 months. The feed to Calorifers A, C and D will be via a temporary pipe. This temporary pipe could feed through the quadrangle at surface level or external to the building to the South. The effects of stopping LTHW and DHW to the East Wing can be mitigated by the following methods.

1. Using immersion heaters.
2. Installing point of use hot water heaters for taps, showers.
3. Using plug in temporary heaters.

Figure 1. Showing Option A

1. Option B – Clear on HPW. In this option HPW will continue as planned with no access allowed into the quadrangle tunnel. The first time HPW will need to access the tunnel is likely to be in early 2019. The same work as Option A will be required to bypass the South Quadrangle tunnel with temporary pipework. By this point the following will have already occurred.
   1. The boilers will have been fully replaced.
   2. The connection pipe between Calorifiers D and E will have been replaced with a larger pipe.
   3. A lightwell connection from the boilers to Calorifier A will have been made to bypass the LTHW primary ring.

Figure 2. Showing Option B

1. Areas for investigation. I’ll let you all know how I get on. For the moment my areas for further investigation are as follows.
   1. How can Option A’s effects be mitigated on the East and North Wing through immersion heaters and point of use heaters?
   2. What is the best route for South Wing Temporary Pipework in Options A & B?
   3. What is the best type of temporary pipework (I’m looking at Victaulic Joints)?
   4. Investigate a variation to both options to use a temporary boiler in the garden.
   5. What heating and DHW can be currently transmitted to the North Wing via the link and is this enough for a Summer/Autumn Load?

Introduction

I’m currently on Phase 2 of the course in Sunny Australia. Hi.

I am working on ‘the Wynyard Project’ which involves building a new 32 floor tower over an underground rail station whilst renovating two neighbouring, heritage buildings.

Figure 1 – Wynyard Project architectural render

This wonderful story is about a risk I encountered when looking at demolition plans for 285 George St building (one of the two heritage renovations).

285 George St (figure 2) is a building originally constructed for use by Peapes Tailors but was then altered in the 70s as it was converted into offices.  Substantial renovation is required to turn the building into modern office and retail space. Additionally, the building does not currently meet seismic codes or fire regs therefore vast structural alterations are required.

Figure 2 – 285 George St heritage building

The Plan

Demolition and structural investigations are happening concurrently and therefore it is important to identify risk and alter the demolition plans as we go.

In essence, the current demolition plan is to remove some roof structures, create penetrations through the building (for new fire stair, risers etc), demolish all internal fit-out, amend floor structures, and amend openings.

The Risk

I was asked to look at the material load-out for the staging of the planned demolition and as doing so, many risks popped up. In particular, I was concerned with the removal of Slab on Ground, George St level Slab and Wynyard Lane Level Slab (see figure 3, 4 & 5 (bottom left area of each)).

Figure 3 – Section prior to demolition

Figure 4 – Section post demolition

Figure 5 – Section post demolition with new slabs constructed

I believe the removal of the slabs causes several risks (the two major ones being the extended effective length of the columns and reduced number of ‘props’ for the external wall). Here I will concentrate on the risk at the Wynyard lane external wall:

Figure 6 – Risk

I think this gives me two risks within this scenario (Agree?):

1. Slide at the toe once slab on ground is removed. Therefore a hinge within the wall at level 1 will also be developed.
2. If the foundation holds the toe then bending and shear stresses in the span of the wall will increase when the Wynyard lane and George st level slabs are removed (same forces left to right (Ka), reduced force right to left (slab restraints) = higher bending and shear stresses in the wall)

Is it really a risk?

Structural investigations are underway and no results yet received therefore some large assumptions must be made at this stage (when the results are complete, a structural consultant (Robert Bird Group) will assess the issue and design any temp works required). I have attempted a very crude calculation to see whether it is a substantial risk. I have thrown in some deliberate mistakes to enhance the learning experience for us all…

Figure 7 – Crude Calcs 1

Figure 8 – Crude Calcs continued

Solutions?

Any ideas to mitigate the temporary (figure 4) and permeant (figure 5) risk?

Temp steel props during construction and permanently beef up the wall (reduces floor space/less money)?