Geotech Involvement throughout design - IMO, IT SUCKS. 8

[motorbiketocrank]

Ok, I may be venting a little here but bear with me.

I "work" (haha) for a federal agency. We do our own geotech designs for building construction but we also review lots of AE designs. Typical project construction costs are in the 50 - 100 mil range, sometimes several hundred mil. Most buildings are on the order of a few stories - probably maxing out around 10 stories.

The biggest continual problem I see in the industry is lack of geotech involvement throughout the design process. Typically, the geotech will do a report at or before concept design stage and then they are completely left out of the rest of the project. The prime AE then "implements" the report. Of course they move the building, increase the loads, combine footings, add basements and violate just about all assumptions of the geotech report. The earthwork specs are then done by the civil/site designer who typically knows nothing about materials/compaction, etc and completely misses important criteria. Plus they will run deep utilities right next to footings, put footings near elevator pits way above the pit floor, use cohesive backfill where granular material has been assumed for lateral earth pressures. The structural notes usually refer to the geotech report for construction guidance.....which of course is ridiculous because the plans and specs govern construction, not a design report. It goes on and on.

Sometimes we, as reviewers, catch these items (usually causing re-design and project delays). Other times they are not caught and result in poor construction and claims. Of course when this happens, the prime AE points the finger at the geotech and the geotech points to the limitations paragraph of his report and blames the prime AE.

In the end this hurts everyone and makes the profession look bad. I put a lot of blame on the prime AE's because they are often being irresponsible in order to save a few bucks (usually because the salesmen project managers are running the show and don't know crap about design and the related risks). But I also think the geotechs sometimes don't protest enough. They just say.....we'll, I put a paragraph in my report that I should be involved and so I can't worry what happens after that. I really think there needs to be more pressure put on the AE's that the geotech "Must" be involved in reviewing and signing off that the plans and specs meet geotechnical criteria. As a reviewer I can push this to some extent for my particular agency, but I still see it as an industry problem.

Any thoughts.....recommendations on how the system can be improved?

 

[JAE]

Well, I'm not sure about the government projects but in more private sector areas the owners many times don't want the geotechs to do more than give them a $3000 report (sometimes $1,200).

As a structural engineer, we generally do follow the reports to the letter, sometimes incorporating the recommendations directly into our general notes on the plans.

As for on-going participation, I would agree it would be better. On major projects we should be sending copies of our designs over to the geotech to review prior to bidding. We just don't on many smaller projects. On larger projects we should.

 

[Ron]

geobdg...I've had the benefit of seeing this one from both sides (geotech and structural) and both you and JAE are correct. Lack of geotechnical involvement during the design and construction causes all sorts of problems.

One problem with changing this is exactly what JAE noted....many owners and architects just want a report. They don't want consultation, they don't want involvement....just a report. I view the geotechnical report as the beginning to middle stage of geotechnical involvement.

Unfortunately, many geotechs view themselves as "subservient" to the design process. They are not. They should carry a much higher stature on projects and should conduct themselves so. They have to assert themselves to get the respect of the design team....they are often unwilling to do that. They will provide testing services as an adjunct to the geotech services, but will not often have involvement as a consulting engineer in the design/construction process. Bad move.

I am currently working on a failure investigation of a structure adjacent to a mid-rise structure. Structural distress was caused to the adjacent structure because of two things....lack of an adequate geotechnical investigation and report; and lack of coordinated involvement among the design team...including the geotech. In this case, the whole design team missed the boat! It involved a deep excavation in dune sands within 10 feet of the existing structure.....no one on the design team thought that was important enough to control from a design standpoint (they left it to "means and methods" of the contractor), and there was no geotechnical involvement after the construction started.

 

[dik]

I generally forward a copy of the completed structural/foundation drawings to the geotekkie for review. In addition I stipulate that foundations be reviewed by a competent geotechnical consultant.

If I do a project without a geotech report (and it happens), I stipulate that the Contractor, through the owner, has to confirm that the design assumptions are correct.

Dik

 

[molerat2210]

It's not always that gloomy. I feel like I get to follow my county bridge jobs, water and sewer, and govt infrastructure projects through construction as the GER. It's building projects where geotechs often are treated as a service provider.

To Dik: Foundation design w/o geo report = presription for change orders and does not meet chapter 18 of IBC. Placing burden on contractor is bad practice (they are contractors not engineers). You are responsible for reducing the value of our profession!

If geotechs do thier job right then our cost is much less than the change orders, structure failures and maintenance problems if we are not there.

 

[jdgengineer]

molerat2210 -- My firm also does work without a geotech in SOME instances. These instances relate typically to only minor residential additions / remodels (never a new house). The local building departments often do not require geotechs for this work, and often it is tough to convince the arch/owner to hire one. Although, we do always pitch the idea for the geotech, it's often not our final say. In the event we don't use a geotech we plaster our drawings with language that we recommend a geotech and our drawings are based on assuming average Class 5 soil conditions. Perhaps Dik is working on similar size projects?

For a typical job with a geotech we typically have a working relationship with the geotech. We'll read the report and incorporate all of their recommendations. Any "optional" recommendations in the report we always seek advice from the arch/owner if they want to incorporate them. Our drawings directly reference the geotech and have a big bold note boxed on the foundation plan that tells the contractor the investigation requirements from the geotech. We also provide our drawings to the geotech for review prior to obtaining building permit.

So I don't think there is always a big disconnect between the final design and the geotech recommendations...

 

[ukengineer58]

i get the same. a report commisioned by the client with no engineer involvement and no ongoing dialogue. mainly because client procurement depts. want a one off fixed fee. recently we were asked for our spec for report then they ignored it and provided us with load of boreholes. thats it.
another geotech on another job was described as hard work because he was visiting site and making recomendations. unbelievable.

 

[ckman]

@geobdg - I believe that EOR is the key person who is responsible for design and construction phase. EOR requires to have client and geotech or whoever is on the line, to agree and work for the successful completion of the project.

I normally ask the PM to have the client retain services of the geotech firm to inspect the founding level after excavation, to confirm that the bearing surface matches with the geotechnical assumptions and recommendations. Client can not ignore the structural recommendations, if they do, they become someway responsible for any subsequent fault.

Our design notes always call for the contractor to refer to geotech report and follow the recommendations on exacavation, backfill, shoring design, groundwater control, bedrock elevation etc.

Geotech firm peer reviewing the design and drawing could work well on some areas - namely, to verify the bearing capacity considered in the design, excavation slope, dewatering requirement, protection of adjoining structure, etc. This could be a good QA measure.

At the end of the day, EOR requires to take the responsibility of the design and construction. If requires, EOR needs to coordinate and get the service of the concerned persons before issuing the drawing for tender/construction. Afterall, he has to sign off and issue record drawings.

 

[dik]

molerat... I agree... I prefer to have geotechnical reports, but often it is beyond my control...

It's not often an issue for extras to contract in these environs... mostly laclustrine clay for about 40'... and there is little change... but, because it can be an issue, I specifically state that confirmation of the design assumptions is between the Contractor and client... what they do with it is their problem.

One of my upcoming projects has a slightly different wrinkle... the client has asked if a geotech report is required and I stated that it should be undertaken... if a client asks... from a liability point of view, he has determined that a report is essential.

Now he is wondering if a report of 15 years ago (time, for me, doesn't have much bearing) for a portion of the site half a mile away is adequate... so we'll see where that goes...

Dik

 

[motorbiketocrank]

JAE - So you let an owner dictate the level of required engineering analysis? If an owner came to you and said "I want you to design my building but I'll only pay you to consider dead loads" would you do it?

Ron - I agree with your thoughts. AE's often "just want a report". That's my problem with them. They do this either to save money or because they just don't understand how a geotech report is developed and how their changes as design progresses can invalidate the entire geotech analysis.

In a perfect world the geotechs, knowing the problems that can arise, would just not accept a scope of work that didn't involve review of the final plans. But of course this isn't realistic because people need the work. That's why I think it needs to somehow be required by codes. All the other design disciplines have to stamp the final drawings....something similar should be required for geotech.

dik - If the work you're referring to is very lightly loaded residential construction (like jdgengineer discussed) then I won't argue your point (and ignore the rest of my comment). For anything else, I'd strongly disagree. You'll make unsupported geotechnical design assumptions? Would you say "I'm going to assume snow loads without any analysis and tell the contractor and owner to verify it......what they do with it is their problem"? And what would you say if a geotech agreed to do a foundation design but since the owner didn't want to pay for a structural engineer the geotech made guesses/assumptions on the structural loads and then said the owner and contractor should verify them. Then said "well, it was beyond my control". There are big problems with stating things such as bearing capacity and telling an owner/contractor to verify. Most often, in ignorance, they will hire a geotech testing firm to do shallow probes with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, etc in footing excavations. This absolutely does not verify what is an acceptable bearing pressure (otherwise we'd never do borings and would design skyscrapers by DCP to a foot deep).

ckman - referring the contractor to the geotechnical report is a big problem. Certainly they can review the report but contractors do not construct things based on a report. Could you with a straight face not include structural drawings and put a note saying "construct the building in accordance with the structural design report"? The geotechnical requirements absolutely must be fully incorporated into the plans and specs. The project must be able to be completely constructed without the contractor looking at any report. Referring to the report is simply a way to try to shift responsibility and have a false sense of security (may not be your intent but that's what it does).

I know I'm sounding critical here and my intent is not to attack people. But some of these comments reinforce the problems that I'm seeing. I'm also not criticizing all AE's, etc. I've seen some awesome projects with great geotech reports and good coordination. It's just that the problems of poor coordination and geotech involvement arise frequently.

 

[dik]

Geobdg:

Some clients outright refuse... not many, but some... and, in a few instances, I've insisted that this work be undertaken... If I'm not comfortable with the work, I simply won't do it.

I value a good geotech report, but the truth is that sometimes (not often, but often enough) they aren't forthcoming... and almost none of the work I've done is related to single family residential construction...

Dik

 

[JAE]

geobdg, No problem - didn't take your comments as an attack.

I think many times engineers (all disciplines) get rather weak in our business sense and our ability to insist on good practices.

What I see happening over time with geotechs (and with structural engineers to a degree) is bidding for services and coming in very low. I just don't see how some geotechs can send a crew out for drilling, classify and analyze the soils, test the samples, and write a 20 to 30 page report for $1,200.00.

 

[Ron]

JAE...you hit the nail on the head. Bidding is killing our profession...across the board. We just turned down an opportunity to provide services to a municipality because their selection process was not qualifications based.

geobdg...Incorporating the geotechnical recommendations into the project documents is not as easy as you might think. There is a professional disconnect that sometimes just doesn't get resolved. Just as other professionals don't understand the geotechnical implications, the geotech doesn't always understand the implications of their recommendations on the other professions. Coordination and communication are key in the design stage.

 

[GeoPaveTraffic]

I agree with much of what has been said here, in particular what JAE posted last about bidding of services being the root of the problem.

That said, Geotechnical Engineers are to blame as much or more than anyone else, "I've met the enemy and he is me!".

As a profession, not all firms and certainly not all engineers, will consistently provide pricing in response to requests for proposals. We will provide the bear minimum scope for the bear minimum price just to get work; and then complain about the scope not being adequate or our lack of later involvement in the project. We also produce reports that add very little real value to the project, in part because we didn't really do much in the field, laboratory or in the office. We took the last report we did, modified the project description and changed a handful of recommendations based on 20 minutes of analysis and sent the report out.

Now if this is a lightly loaded structure on a plain site, this report is probably adequate for the needs of the design team and owner. However, if the building has any real loads, there is significant cut/fill, or geohazards on the site; then the report is inadequate and we didn't add anything of value.

I don't know what the answer is. But blaming the problem on the owners and other branches of engineering is not the answer. If we are going to be a profession, then we have to police ourselves like other professions. That is not happening today and frankly, I don't see us having the will to do it in the future.

Mike Lambert

 

[Ron]

GPT...have to agree with you as well. Three holes in a cloud of dust.

I spent over 20 years of my career working with Geotechnical Engineers, as an adjunct structural/materials guy. I've done quite a few geotechnical investigations and reports, both as a staff engineer and as a principal engineer. Even ran a fairly busy geotechnical lab for about 5 years, in addition to many years in a construction materials lab/consulting position. While it is an interesting field and I've learned a lot from it, I just didn't want to practice it full time...besides, I don't mind going toe-to-toe with contractors...something that many of my geotech colleagues avoided.

I also agree that pricing can vary. Unfortunately engineers need to learn that to vary the price, you vary the scope...not the value of the engineering.

 

[JedClampett]

Our experience is close to JAE. We get new Geotechnical Reports for almost every major project (we do a lot of remodel work on the same sites, so we sometimes use the old reports), and I've trained my guys (I'm the "Department Head") to follow the reports to the letter. As a matter of fact, I (and the eingineers in my department) usually copy the reports, cut out the implementation instructions, change "may" to "shall" and give it to our word processor. We ask the Geotechnical Engineers questions, and sometimes have to prompt them on some issues, particularly settlement of adjoining structures.
I try to give the project to the Geotechnical Engineer for a final review. I miss it sometimes, but it's always my intent. We put it in their scope, so we might as well use them. Heck, it covers our backsides, if nothing else.
I think you need to demand better work from your engineers. You've got the checkbook. Point out to them that if they don't correctly utilize the Geotechnical Engineers, they're taking all the liability upon themselves.

 

[fel3]

When I work with architects I always recommend they include in their proposal some review time during design for the project geotech. Also, if the construction geotech will be a different firm, I also recommend they budget some review time during construction for their own geotech. I know some structural engineers who give the same advice.

Several of my recent projects had unusual or difficult site conditions. Having the geotech still under contract so that I and the structural could continue consulting with them and have them to review key parts of the plans and specs was crucial.

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[motorbiketocrank]

Thanks for the good feedback. I agree with most of what's being said. I agree that geotechs willing to offer a ridiculously cheap, subpar product hurts the profession. I agree that all sides (project managers, owners, structural, geotech) have a part in the problem.

I do think any "fix" would need to be led by the geotech industry and I think it would have to come through some code type requirements. Requiring that the geotech review the plans/specs and provide a statement that all geotech issues have been addressed and are adequately reflected in the plans/specs would help from various angles. It would ensure AE's/owners don't leave the geotech out and on the other hand would force geotechs to carefully review things because they know their reputations/licenses are on the line. (Again just like other disciplines that have to stamp the drawings).

While I can help force this sort of thing in my agency, it would be nice to see things improve industry wide.

 

[jdgengineer]

geobdg - where I am in California nearly ever jurisdiction requires that the geotechnical provide a "clean" letter of review stating that the plans follow the intent of their report. So there is hope for you...

 

[SuperSandman]

From my experience, its basically a cost issue. Ive been involved in small localized projects where the engineers and clients are constantly keeping in touch with regards to the design and construction of their projects. In most instances we are reimbursed for the extra time spent on projects after we have completed and submitted the original report. In some cases we are not reimbursed for the work and it causes some frustration.

With regards to the lack of geotechnical knowledge from the other parties involved, i had once asked a structural engineer for the proposed foundation dimensions and approximate loads (to carry out settlement checks)...and the guy replied to me asking me why i require that information because in his years (assumed to be decades) of structural experience the geotech never asked for such information and that he required my report first. So i wrote up a very generalised report and submitted and then i was bombarded with emails nit picking every section asking for me for more detail...and the guys asking for the information was not the so called "experienced engineer". Once again I had to do more work which was not paid for.

Also been involved in situations were the engineers practically ask us to design their foundations after we provide a geotech report, which we are not paid to do.

I personally feel that the geotech engineer and his report is simply a product which is purchased and left at that. But thats just my personal feeling about this subject.

Time and Money...