Introducing new patent pending helical tip

Join the discussion here!

I am excited to announce that my team and I have developed a new tip for piles that help with a common problem we have had here in Arizona soils.  Getting piles past shallow cemented and or other surficial hard soils to reach required minimum depth.  FSI and I have applied for a patent as co-inventors.

See the video below.

ICC Standards are doing more harm than good for residential applications (Part 2)

Join the discussion here!

In July of this year I posted a blog regarding ICC requirements and residential permits, read previous blog here.  In that blog I posted some difficulties with ICC regulation and residential permits. Specifically that the requirement of soil borings and its reverse effect on helping homeowners.

On smaller residential projects the requirement soil tests are expensive and burdensome especially on small projects. A two pile project might cost $3000 and the soil boring typically costs more than that. This has an effect of discouraging the homeowner for making the decision to do any work at all because it is so burdensome. I have had many home owners cancel the project because of this.

How is this better? They now are doing nothing or finding a contractor to do it without permits.

If this procedure produced any substantial benefit that would protect homeowners I might agree that it is worth the cost. However I don’t believe that is the case. Let’s look at the facts.

1. I think we are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. How many failures have occurred as a result of a lack of soil information on lightly loaded structures? Does  anybody know that information? I certainly have not heard of any cases. As far as I know there has been very little failures as a result borings not being performed. It is possible that with some pile systems that are less robustly engineered that there have been some failures. However I am not arguing to abandon the ICC testing and verification altogether. Only the requirement for soil boring.
2. In residential applications the factors of safety are so high that the soil information almost becomes irrelevant. (usually 6:1 or more) Helical and push pile products return soil information that can verify the load carrying capacity at each installation, making soil verification much less relevant. In fact each pile installation can be viewed as a mini pile load test which in most engineer’s eyes is more reliable than calculations from soil borings.
3. On commercial projects with heavy loads and more complicated loads soil borings provide helpful information to simulate and determine which pile is best suited for the application. On almost all residential projects that information will not change the design of the pile because the pile is so overdesigned for residential loads. So in essence we are going through an exercise that has no effect on the installation pile or procedure.
4. Because of the above noted issues and the fact that most installers understand these issues intuitively, the overwhelming majority of pile installations on residential projects are done without borings, totally ignoring the ICC’s requirement. If this is the case, then what kind of precedent is this setting up in the industry where a requirement is universally ignored?

So why does this unneeded and unhelpful and counterproductive acquirement continue? Partially I think because it was built into the code by structural engineers who have less of the comprehensive knowledge of geotechnical factors. The IBC section 1810 calls for all deep foundation products to have soil borings. This is because originally deep foundation products were things like caissons and micro piles that do not return soil information or any verification of their carrying capacity. When helical piles were brought into the code, no one could convince the ICC that it was not needed at least in a lightly loaded structure.    

Because of this when code officials read the IBC codes and ICC ESR’s for helical piles, the lack of understanding is transferred to municipalities who chose to enforce the code as written to protect themselves from potential lawsuits, even though I don’t think there have been any structural failures to speak of let alone suits as a result.

Critical thinking, cost/benefit, and big picture thinking seem to be absent from this whole process and everyone wants to simply point to the poorly thought out precedents that have no real world justification,  to justify a lack of thoughtful responses.

Team Build Golf Mixer Nets Great Cross Section from the Construction Industry

Join the discussion here!

Our participants and sponsors for the event on November 13^th at the Legacy resort. The group ranged from the very good to beginners and in between.

Our Group a the Legacy Performance Center where we each received personalized tips for each of our various levels of performance.

Bob Brown: Arizona Foundation Solutions

Steve Leon: Car Wrap AZ

Robert Hernandez: Jones Concrete

Diane Eisenbacher: Caruso Turley Scott

Erin Conoway: Side Plate

Tres Warner : Starling Madison Lofquist.

 After some tips from the pros, it was time to head out on the course to put that new and improved swing to the test.

Sham Investigations Part II: More smoke and mirrors

Join the discussion here!

As more homeowners are starting to realize the advantages of having a foundation inspection that is scientific, objective, and thorough, using industry standards, and engineering oversight, the industry is struggling to adapt to these expectations.

I received a phone call the other day from a distraught homeowner. Lets call her Mary. Mary shares a common wall with her neighbor. Like her neighbor, she noticed signs of foundation movement…. Cracks in drywall, sloped floors, and door and windows out of square. A month or so earlier we completed one of our engineered foundation investigations on her common wall neighbor, and Mary  was impressed with the report and felt like she needed to have her foundation investigated as well.  

This is where Mary gets a little sideways. She logically assumed that she could get something comparable from another foundation repair contractor and thus get in effect a 2^nd opinion for both properties. So she had paid for an investigation and waited.

To her chagrin, (according to Mary) a representative showed up and delivered a quote to have geotechnical borings done on her property for $4500. That’s it. Nothing more. I have the greatest respect and admiration for geotechnical engineers and value their input on almost daily basis. But this is not the place to start on a foundation investigation.

According to the Foundation Performance Association and the Texas Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers, there are 3 basic levels of a foundation assessment. In short they are:

.                             A. Visual look around and observation of key critical factors (see the document for those factors)

                   B.  Manometer survey, damage map, aerial photos, tilt and deflection analysis (as the main items)

                                C. Full investigation including borings, petrogrphical analysis, Review of all available records and 

                    reports and many more in-depth items.

Level C is usually reserved for legal or insurance cases. Level A is basically to see if there is anything worth investigating.  Level B is where most of the work is done.

Because helical and push piles return soil information that is valuable feedback on soil properties, borings have a limited value on lightly loaded structures as long as the safety factors are high enough to compensate for uncertainty (say like 6 to 1) . Sometimes borings can help with diagnosis when the data on a level B investigation is contradictory, confusing the interpretation. This is fairly rare. From my experience maybe .5% of the time. (1 in 200). 

I hope that the industry in general learns to conduct scientific investigations that are objective, and thorough, using industry standards, and engineering oversight. Even if it means they become better competitors. In the meantime know what you are getting before you pay for it.

Historic Prescott Courthouse Restoration

Join the discussion here!

Bob,

I am writing to thank you for the excellent work that Arizona Foundation Solutions performed this year on the repair and stabilization of the Yavapai County Courthouse granite stairs. The building will be 100 years old next year and the clock has been  turned back by your crews. To be able to lift these solid granite stairs back into their original position and stabilize them is an impressive feat.  –Bill Otwell, Project Architect

Last year Arizona Foundation Solutions helped restore the Historic Prescott Courthouse. Built in 1916 it is one of the few buildings on the Historic National Register. This restoration required innovative engineering and coordination between the Architect, Engineer and Arizona Foundation Solutions.

The mission was to raise all 4 of the giant stairs, landings, and attached stone walls at each entrance. They had sunk several inches, putting the granite stone steps and granite walls at risk from being damaged and also creating trip hazards. As it turns out all four of these staircases and landings were built on top of the debris of the Famous Whiskey Row Fire of-------. This created a difficult environment to encapsulate and pressurize the soils to raise the structure back to its functioning elevation.

This remodel was required to be done 100% at night due to the fact the courthouse still functions at the counties main courtroom complex. This complicated the already innovative work in that any engineering adjustments would be required to be done by field personnel or wait until morning when no work could be done at the same time. We were told that if we disturbed the court rooms we could be held in contempt of court….. I don’t think they were kidding.

Much of the work was under the steps with low working heights and limited access and tight working conditions. 288 push piles were chosen over helical piles because of their versatility and ability to be installed in very tight access areas including a very low working areas using Foundation Supportworks low profile driving and lifting stands.

The west steps presented a monumental challenge as the weight of the structure included later additions of restrooms that could not have been accurately estimated from the information ahead of time. We lifted with the hydraulic cylinders simultaneously and grouted. The crews pumped grout for about 2 weeks every night with the pressures remaining steady but the structure lifting only marginally. We concluded that the grout was finding new voids in the debris as we continued to apply pressure. Gradually through a series of nightly lifts, allowing the grout from the previous night to harden, the structure was raised using a thixotropic admixture to facilitate blocking of voids.

The project was completed on time and under budget with none of the granite steps or giant blocks being damaged during the process.