In the general session, many case his- Jim Morrison and Hal Hunt Lecturer Craig Olmsted monitoring was essential, and the stringent required maximum movement was extremely low. Technical committees had to submit proposals for special project fund- ing December 1, and the final selections for funding will be announced in March. tories were close to home, such as Michael Atwood’s presentation on investigating, repairing and transferring loads from timber piles beneath Boston’s oldest build- ings. Atwood works for Haley & Aldrich, as do Rebecca Higgins and Lee Vanzler, who spoke about the challenges presented by the top-down construction at the water- front Atlantic Wharf project, close to the conference site. Malcolm Drilling engineers gave an overview on secant piles, singling out two difficult projects, one the 90 ft (27 m) deep water conveyance Vargas Shaft near San Francisco. From farther afield, other presentations addressed foundation work beneath London’s metro and other crowd- ed urban environments. An unusual project in Turkey, the Izmet Bay Bridge, built in a highly seismic zone with a Puild Operate Transfer contract. Fugro Consultants engi- neers described the challenging project. Vargas Shaft (photo courtesy of Sue Bednarz, copyright by Jabobs Associates) The Difficulties of Innovation Keynote speaker David Thomps on, Ha l e y & Aldrich, offered an overview of Boston’s Central Artery project, pointing out many innovations in foundation engineering that were included over the years. The project broke ground in 1991, after years of planning and investigations, and opened in 2007, after years of controversy and con- tention. However, con- tractors and engineers solved the challenges of a major project in an urban environment by employing or expanding on new construction techniques. Some relatively new technologies were applied at much larger scales. Among them were slurry walls, ground freezing and deep soil mixing. Thompson singled out the immense cofferdam at the site, 250 ft (76.2 m) in diameter, with 13 ft (3.9 m) thick walls and 90 ft (27.4 m) deep. Ironically, a conference Keynote Speaker David Thompson, Haley & Aldrich panel discussion elicited contrasting views about introducing innovation in construction. Represen- tatives from a variety of construction entities, con- tractors, subcontractors engineering firms, including lawyers for such firms, focused on the obstacles to innovation. Charlie Buuk, of Turner Construction, said that “inserting innovation is too hard,” and asked “why do it?” Banks are wary, he said, and contracting for the public sector is “not easy.” Brian Sweeney of Haley & Aldrich countered saying there are clients “open to innovation, adding that many innovations come from specialty subcontractors. You have to figure out if your client is risk-tolerant or not.” Nino Catalano, who is a specialty subcontractor and consultant, said it is “the destiny of subs to get their brains picked.” Peter Nicholson, a consultant in the audience, said contractors have often educated owners about new techniques, and Drew Floyd, Moretrench, offered a recent positive example of an owner who accepted risk with a new tieback technique from overseas. Design/assist projects can offer a way to “get the trades into the process earlier,” suggested Buuk, who summarized the discussion by saying that the today’s “spread sheet mentality mili- tates against innovation.” Panelists Michael Haley, Brian Sweeney, (both from Haley & Aldrich) and Charles Buuk, of Turner Construction, discuss the difficulties of innovation in foundation construction DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JAN/FEB 2012 • 17
