Accuracy of Pile Load Test

[nhb11]

Our company was asked to monitor and document two axial compression and two axial tensile load tests on auger pressure grouted displacement piles. The two compression piles were fitted w/ strain gages at select locations and all the piles were loaded per quick test method A (no reloading). The piles were not loaded to failure due to the test frame limiting capacity; but were loaded to sufficient capacity to ascertain a minimum embedment depth for the production piles. The strain gages were necessary due to overburden removal that would be required at a later date.

In our report, we stated that the piles were tested in accordance with the quick load methods presented in ASTM 1143 and 3689 and described all of the measurement devices and the details of the pile configuration, grout factors etc. We also included compressive data of the grout, the equipment calibration records etc. for all measurement devices.

Now we have been asked to 'certify the accuracy' of the test results.

It is my opinion that this is a ridiculous request. Can someone please explain to me how I can produce a statement that could 'certify the accuracy' of a load test? Or should I produce a statement at all to this effect?

 

[Ron]

Assuming you or someone in responsible charge in your organization will be signing/sealing the report, there is no need to provide further certification. Signing/sealing is a form of certification that does not need to be repeated by a separate certification document. Further, there are no real criteria for the accuracy of the test other than the measurement parameters, which you have covered.

Many states frown upon the issuance of separate statements of certification. Check your state law. Certifications are redundant to the engineering licensing process and only serve to increase your liability.

 

[PEinc]

Check also with your professional liability insurer about certifications. By certifying something, you may be stepping beyond the the normal standard of care. In my opinion, specs ask for certifications as a way to throw the responsibility to someone else. If you sealed a design, it should not need further certification. If you did not provide full-time inspection services, you should not certify it was built perfectly.

http://www.PeirceEngineering.com

 

[oldestguy]

i recall as an expert witness being asked something like: "Was your work done with the usual ordinary care that is required for these tests?".

You might send a short reply with such a statement, but no mention of accuracy or precision.

The words "ordinary care" seem to have some legal meaning to cover the average situation an engineer runs into.

A quote from another WEB site: "conformity to the reasonable business standards that prevail in a particular area for a particular business"

If you want to get more fussy, you need your lawyer to advise.

 

[apsix]

Taking it an absurd step further; next you will be asked to certify the validity of the certification for the accuracy of the test.

The original signed report should suffice.

 

[BigH]

Good advice above. I would say, if all your certifications are valid, the test was done in accordance with ASTM spec, that's all I would say.

 

[six06]

i would also include the Jack calibrations on the report. And as you guys says, the signature of a PE should be sufficient.

 

[PEinc]

I've been through this several times. The DOT job specs require the designer to write a letter "certifying" that the sheeting wall was built properly. Also, most projects now require special inspections. If you are not on the job getting PAID to do inspections, you should not be certifying anything.

http://www.PeirceEngineering.com

 

[nhb11]

Thanks to all.
This is what I expected to hear.

 

[Ron]

To add to oldestguy's post, the use of "ordinary" skill and care (when practicing under the same or similar conditions and in the same locale as other competent engineers in the profession) is all that is required of an engineer to meet the standard of care for his practice. Our standard of care does not require perfection, nor does it require certification of job-specific items.

The standard of care for engineers is routinely defined as: "That level of ordinary skill and care used by other competent engineers practicing under the same or similar conditions in the same locale".