Cost Comparison Engage Report Final Version PDF

Foundation Construction Cost Comparison: Helical Pile, Driven Pile, and CIP Pile
Prepared by:
Chaojue Yi and Ming Lu
Hole School of Construction
University of Alberta
Prepared For:
Almita Piling Inc.
December 23th, 2015
1
1 Table of Contents
2 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... - 4 -
3 1.1 Research Background...................................................................................................................... - 4 -
4 1.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ - 5 -
5 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... - 7 -
6 2.1 Problem Definition .......................................................................................................................... - 7 -
7 2.2 Project Information ......................................................................................................................... - 7 -
8 2.3 Methodology................................................................................................................................... - 7 -
9 2.4 Data Collected ................................................................................................................................. - 7 -
10 2.5 Assumptions Made ......................................................................................................................... - 8 -
11 2.6 Findings ........................................................................................................................................... - 8 -
12 3. PROJECT SELECTION ............................................................................................................................ - 14 -
13 4. ENGINEERING DESIGNS OF THE THREE PILE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... - 16 -
14 5. PILE INSTALLATION OPERATIONS OF THE THREE PILE SYSTEMS ........................................................ - 18 -
15 5.1 Helical Pile Installation Process..................................................................................................... - 18 -
16 5.2 Driven Pile Installation Process ..................................................................................................... - 20 -
17 5.3 CIP Piles Installation Process ......................................................................................................... - 22 -
18 6. DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................................................. - 24 -
19 6.1 Factorized Activity Duration ......................................................................................................... - 24 -
20 6.2 Cost Rate ....................................................................................................................................... - 25 -
21 6.3 Resource Requirement ................................................................................................................. - 26 -
22 7. SIMULATION MODEL CONSTRUCTION................................................................................................ - 27 -
23 7.1 Simulation Engine ......................................................................................................................... - 27 -
24 7.2 Non-productive Time and Performance Index ............................................................................. - 27 -
25 7.2.1 PI Value for Helical Pile .......................................................................................................... - 27 -
26 7.2.2 PI Value for Driven Pile .......................................................................................................... - 28 -
27 7.2.3 PI Value for CIP Pile ................................................................................................................ - 28 -
28 7.3 Simulation Model and Simulation Results .................................................................................... - 29 -
29 7.3.1. Simulation Model for Helical Pile Installation ....................................................................... - 29 -
30 7.3.2. Simulation Model for Driven Pile Installation ....................................................................... - 30 -
-1-
31 7.3.3 Simulation Model for CIP Pile Installation ............................................................................. - 30 -
32 8. COST ESTIMATION .............................................................................................................................. - 31 -
33 8.1 Cost Estimation for Helical Pile ..................................................................................................... - 31 -
34 8.1.1 Material Cost for Helical Pile .................................................................................................. - 31 -
35 8.1.2 Labor and Equipment Charge-out Rate for Helical Pile ......................................................... - 31 -
36 8.1.3 Shipping Cost for Helical Pile.................................................................................................. - 32 -
37 8.1.4 Project Total Duration and Separate Activity Durations for Helical Pile Installation............. - 33 -
38 8.1.5 Detailed Cost Estimation of Duration Related Cost for Helical Pile ....................................... - 34 -
39 8.1.6 Total Cost for Helical Pile ....................................................................................................... - 35 -
40 8.2 Cost Estimation for Driven Pile ..................................................................................................... - 35 -
41 8.2.1 Material Cost for Driven Pile .................................................................................................. - 35 -
42 8.2.2 Labor and Equipment Charge-out Rate for Driven Pile ......................................................... - 36 -
43 8.2.3 Shipping Cost for Driven Pile .................................................................................................. - 37 -
44 8.2.4 Project Total Duration for Driven Pile Installation ................................................................. - 38 -
45 8.2.5 Detailed Cost Estimation of Duration Related Cost for Driven Pile ....................................... - 39 -
46 8.2.6 Total Cost for Driven Pile ....................................................................................................... - 40 -
47 8.3 Cost Estimation for CIP Pile ........................................................................................................... - 41 -
48 8.3.1 Basic Instructions ................................................................................................................... - 41 -
49 8.3.2 Material Cost for CIP Pile ....................................................................................................... - 41 -
50 8.3.3 Labor and Equipment Charge-out Rate for CIP Pile ............................................................... - 43 -
51 8.2.4 Shipping Cost for CIP Pile ....................................................................................................... - 44 -
52 8.3.5 Project Total Duration for CIP Pile Installation ...................................................................... - 46 -
53 8.3.6 Detailed Cost Estimation of Duration Related Cost for CIP Pile............................................. - 46 -
54 8.3.7 Total Cost for CIP Pile ............................................................................................................. - 47 -
55 9. COST COMPARISON AND RISK ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ - 49 -
56 9.1 Cost Comparison with Key Performance Index (KPI) .................................................................... - 49 -
57 9.2 Contingency Analysis .................................................................................................................... - 51 -
58 9.2.1 Contingency Analysis for helical Pile ...................................................................................... - 51 -
59 9.2.2 Contingency Analysis for Driven Pile...................................................................................... - 52 -
60 9.2.3 Contingency Analysis for CIP Pile ........................................................................................... - 54 -
-2-
61 10. CROSS VALIDATION ........................................................................................................................... - 56 -
62 10.1 Productivity Cross Checking ........................................................................................................ - 56 -
63 10.2 Performance Index (PI) Cross Checking ...................................................................................... - 57 -
64 10.3 Bid Price Cross Checking ............................................................................................................. - 57 -
65 10.3.1 Bid Price Cross Checking for Helical Pile .............................................................................. - 57 -
66 10.3.2 Bid Price Cross Checking for Driven Pile .............................................................................. - 58 -
67 10.3.3 Bid Price Cross Checking for CIP Pile .................................................................................... - 58 -
68 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... - 59 -
69 12. FOLLOW-UP IN NEAR FUTURE .......................................................................................................... - 60 -
70 11.1 Statistics Based Cost Estimation ................................................................................................. - 60 -
71 11.2 Installation Speed Investigation based on Data Logger .............................................................. - 60 -
72 11.3 Contingency Analysis .................................................................................................................. - 60 -
73 11.4 Onsite Mobilization Investigation ............................................................................................... - 60 -
74 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... - 61 -
75 REFERENCE .............................................................................................................................................. - 61 -
76 Appendix A: Questionnaire for Helical Pile ............................................................................................. - 63 -
77 Appendix B: Questionnaire for Driven Pile ............................................................................................. - 66 -
78 Appendix C: Questionnaire for CIP Pile................................................................................................... - 70 -
79 Appendix D: Site Layout and Pile Distribution ............................................................................................ 74
80 Appendix E: Design Loads ........................................................................................................................... 75
81 Appendix F: Screw Pile Installation Approval Procedure ............................................................................ 76
82 Appendix G: Simulation Model for Three Pile Systems .............................................................................. 77
83
84
-3-
85 1. INTRODUCTION
86 1.1 Research Background

87 Almita Piling (Almita) is Canada’s leading solution provider of engineered screw pile design,
88 fabrication, and installation. This prestigious company constantly seeks new ways to create
89 screw pile solutions and R&D plays an integral role in developing innovative designs and
90 processes. Almita continually researches and discovers new applications for their products
91 together with the manufacturing of tools for the installation of torque driven piles and anchors.
92 As a geotechnical foundation designer and constructor, Almita is interested in optimizing
93 foundation designs to meet client expectations on three variables: technical performance, cost,
94 and schedule. Therefore, Almita is interested in a comparative analysis with the simulation of
95 three different foundation systems, helical piles, driven steel piles, and CIP piles.
96 (1) Screw piles (helical piles)

97 This is a steel screw-in piling and ground anchoring system used for building deep foundations.
98 The pile or anchors shaft is manufactured using varying sizes of tubular hollow sections. Helical
99 steel plates are welded to the pile shaft as per the pile design subject to the intended ground
100 conditions. Helices can be press-formed to a specified pitch (i.e. the distance between threads.
101 With each complete rotation of the screw, it goes in or out a distance equal to its pitch.) or
102 simply consist of flat plates welded at a specified pitch to the pile's shaft.
103 (2) Driven piles
104 They are usually pre-fabricated in shop and driven or hammered into ground in field by
105 application of heavy-duty pile-driving equipment. Driven piles can be made of steel or precast
106 concrete. Common practice is to drive tubes or shells fitted with driving shoes into ground;
107 afterwards, the tubes or shells are filled with concrete.
108 (3) CIP piles
109 They are usually fabricated on site by manually or mechanically excavating a hole (bore) at
110 designated location, diameter and depth as per design. The bored hole wall is commonly retained
111 by a tubular steel casing during excavation. A steel reinforcement cage (usually fabricated on site)
112 is hoisted into the hole, followed by placing the concrete into the hole (vibrated simultaneously),
113 and curing. The pile installation process finishes with the pulling out of the steel casing wall.
114
-4-
115
116 (1) Helical Pile (2) Driven Pile (3) CIP Pile
117 Fig1. Three Pile Systems
118 Almita is interested in collaborating with Dr. Ming Lu’s team (PI, NSERC Engage Grant,
119 Associate Professor at the University of Alberta) to look into the cost and schedule performances
120 for each of the three foundation systems, keeping technical performance constant. A PhD student
121 at U of A (Eason Chaojue Yi), who has suitable engineering background and necessary skills,
122 has been assigned as leading researcher to work out this project under direct supervision of PI
123 and engineers and managers at Almita. Another PhD student at U of A (Cherry Chaoyu Zheng)
124 together with a research assistant (Tareq Hasan) worked closely with Eason as a team to provide
125 consistent support in running this project.
126 1.2 Literature Review

127 A foundation basically acts as the load transfer media from the superstructure to the underlying
128 soil or rock. The loads transmitted by the foundation to the underlying soil must not cause soil
129 shear failure or damaging settlement of the superstructure. From the perspective of engineering,
130 different pile foundation systems can provide feasible alternatives to fulfill the same purpose (i.e.
131 reaching identical loading requirements in identical soil conditions), but markedly differ in
132 constructability, cost and schedule. Consequently, it is essential to systematically consider
133 various foundation types and to select the optimum alternative based on the superstructure
134 requirements along with the subsurface conditions and also economy (Samtani & Nowatzki,
135 2006).
136 In general, the final choice of the type of pile for any job is dictated by the following factors: (1)
137 structural details (type, location) and loadings; (2) subsurface conditions, (3) probable
138 performance of the foundation, (4) knowledge of the site and its environment; (5) pile materials
139 and durability; (6) safety, and (7) economy (Peck et al, 1974; Tomlinson & Woodward, 2008).
140 As per AASHTO (2012), a potential foundation solution may appear to be the most economical
141 from purely a design perspective, but may not be the most economical if limitations on
142 construction activities are fully considered. However, the availability of local engineering and
143 construction expertise, availability of materials and equipment, environmental limitations, costs
-5-
144 for both materials, materials handling and crew installation (including associated substructure
145 costs such as pile cap or sub-superstructure connections) need to be considered in a
146 comprehensive comparison.
147
-6-
148 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
149 2.1 Problem Definition

150 Knowing the total project cost and duration of the whole piling installation process of different
151 pile systems is (1) the pivotal step to optimize pile installation operation; (2) the foundation for
152 bidding and planning related decision making, and (3) the cornerstone to succeed in the
153 competitive piling market. As a geotechnical foundation designer and constructor, Almita is
154 interested in a comparative analysis of three different foundation systems: helical piles, driven
155 steel piles and concrete-in-place bored piles in terms of cost and duration, keeping technical
156 performance parameters constant. To assist Almita in figuring out the difference among their key
157 product – helical pile, and other two major competitive piling systems – driven pile and CIP pile,
158 in terms of the total project cost and duration, PI’s research group at the University of Alberta
159 has made cost and schedule comparison of each of the three foundation systems named above,
160 keeping technical performance constant.
161 2.2 Project Information

162 A power substation project located in High River City (60km south of Calgary), which is feasible
163 for the application of the defined three pile systems, is selected as the base for comparison. The
164 soil type is reported as Glacial Till distributed in three layers; water table is 2m average below
165 the surface; the site is a rectangular area at 181m x 135m with a total of 336 pile spots distributed
166 on site; the project is scheduled to be executed from April to August which indicates the weather
167 is temperate without frozen zones; loads are also calculated and attached in Appendix. Therefore,
168 on the basis of categories mentioned above, the engineering designs for three pile systems are
169 professionally outputted and shown in subsequent chapters.
170 2.3 Methodology

171 The evaluation of the cost efficiency of helical pile system against alternative pile system is
172 conducted by a systematic research scheme designed by the U of A research team with the
173 assistance from Almita engineers. Questionnaire based survey and simulation technique served
174 as main methodologies to collect information and perform quantitative research. Project scenario
175 definition and Engineering scenario definition serves as a preface for making questionnaire
176 because the soil profile, distances to available resources, weather condition, and other relevant
177 factors may vary with high possibility from project to project. The research process is devised to
178 undergo a 6 months period for project selecting, design drawing, field data collecting, data
179 analyzing, simulation model building, and result analyses and report writing. The overview of
180 the methodology is shown in Figure 3.
181 2.4 Data Collected

182 Questionnaire survey method was employed as the effective means to collect critical data and
183 information from professional field engineers by tapping into their experiences and expertise.
184 The data collection process lasted for two months and the feedback were valuable. Other data
-7-
185 collection methods such as telephone interview, site interview and online benchmarking database
186 complements in building the final database. The collected data basically includes: (1) cost data
187 for material, labor, equipment and various other indirect costs; (2) duration for each defined
188 activity decomposed from the whole installation process of each pile system and (3) resources
189 required (type and quantity), i.e. crews (labor, equipment). All the data were compiled and
190 analyzed in Excel Sheet.
191 2.5 Assumptions Made

192 To fulfill the goal of cost comparison among three competitive pile systems based on
193 Questionnaire and Computer Simulation, the following assumptions are made in this research:
194
195 (1) The professionals were carefully screened and selected so they completed the questionnaire
196 individually and independently based on their experiences. No weights were assigned to the
197 individuals in terms of working experience as the assignment of weights would also be biased
198 and of a subjective nature.
199 (2) The data are largely collected based on the feedback from the questionnaire respondents; the
200 cognitive bias of the respondents that is believed to insignificant is not considered in this
201 research.
202 (3) The engineering designs of the three pile system are done with the assistance of professional
203 designers in Almita with details predefined such as loads, underground water table, time
204 constraints on construction, underground soil profile (soil properties, depths of different layers)
205 and etc.
206 2.6 Findings

207 Detailed cost estimation is based on inputs including (1) collected cost rate and cost data for
208 crews and materials (2) project duration data resulting from computer-based detailed operations
209 simulation models, and (3) project required resource quantities as per common practice in the
210 field by a typical Alberta contractor. The total project cost for each pile system was derived in
211 connection with particular design specifications. Then, cost comparison was made among the
212 three pile systems in regard to each key cost component. The results showed that helical pile
213 system has the lowest total cost among the three pile systems in the defined project settings due
214 in a large part to high installation efficiency. Detailed cost estimation and comparison will be
215 illustrated and presented in subsequent chapters.
216
217 Table 1 Result Delivery
Pile Type Proj. Dur. Total Cost per Cost per
(d) Cost($) Pile ($/pile) meter ($/m)
Helical Pile 29 892,968 2188.65 305.50
Driven Pile 32 1,089,585 2837.46 328.98
CIP Pile 53 1,305,974 3886.83 583.02
218
-8-
Bid Price (Helical Pile)
906.6K
1
887.1K
0.9
884.3K
0.8
881.8K
0.7
879.4K
Percentiles
0.6
877.9K
0.5
876.4K
0.4
875.1K
0.3
873.3K
0.2
871.0K
0.1
863.0K
0
863041 867886 872731 877576 882421 887266 892111 896956 901801 906646
Total Costs($)
219
220 Fig2 (1). Bid Price Range for Helical Pile
221
Bid Price (Driven Pile)

1.12M
1
1.092M
0.9
1.088M
0.8
1.086M
0.7
1.084M
Percentiles
0.6
1.083M
0.5
1.081M
0.4
1.079M
0.3
1.077M
0.2
1.075M
0.1
1.06
0 M
1060037 1070037 1080037 1090037 1100037 1110037 1120037
Total Costs($)
222
223 Fig2 (2). Bid Price Range for Driven Pile
-9-
Bid Price (CIP Pile) 1.424M
1
1.352M
0.9
1.336M
0.8
1.315M
0.7
1.305M
Percentiles
0.6 1.293M
0.5
1.282M
0.4
1.272M
0.3
1.267M
0.2
1.261M
0.1
1.245M
0
1245558 1265558 1285558 1305558 1325558 1345558 1365558 1385558 1405558
Total Cost($)
224
225 Fig2 (3). Bid Price Range for CIP Pile
226 Fig2 . Bid Price Range of Three Pile Systems
227
Installation Time (Helical Pile)

30.6D
1
29.1D
0.9
28.9D
0.8
28.7D
0.7
28.6D
Percentiles
0.6
28.4D
0.5
28.3D
0.4
28.2D
0.3
28.1D
0.2
27.9D
0.1
27.3D
0
27.3 27.7 28.1 28.5 28.9 29.3 29.7 30.1 30.5
Total Project Duration (days)
228
229 Fig3 (1). Installation Time Range for Helical Pile
230
- 10 -
Installation Time (Driven Pile)
33.8D
1
32.1D
0.9
31.8D
0.8
31.7D
0.7
31.6D
Percentiles
0.6
31.4D
0.5
31.4D
0.4
31.2D
0.3
31.1D
0.2
31.0D
0.1
30.0D
0
30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 32.5 33.0 33.5
231
232 Fig3 (2). Installation Time Range for Driven Pile
233
234
Installation Time (CIP Pile)

58.9D
1
55.3D
0.9
54.5D
0.8
53.4D
0.7
52.9D
Percentiles
0.6
52.3D
0.5
51.7D
0.4
51.3D
0.3
51.0D
0.2
50.7D
0.1 49.9D
0
49.9 50.9 51.9 52.9 53.9 54.9 55.9 56.9 57.9 58.9

235
236 Fig3 (3). Installation Time Range for CIP Pile
237 Fig3. Installation Time Range of Three Pile Systems
238
- 11 -
239
240 Fig4. Bid Price Comparison of Three Pile Systems
- 12 -
START
GENERALIZE “PROJECT PROJECT POOL

SCENARIOS”
NO
FEASIBLE FOR THREE

NO
PILE SYSTEMS?
YES
1. LOADS
GENERALIZE 2. STRUCTURE LAYOUT REPORT TO CHIEF
“ENGINEERING 3. LATERAL LOADS ENGINEER FOR APPLICABLE?
SCENARIOS” 4. UNDERGROUND WATER TABLE EXAMINATION
5. SOIL PROFILE
YES
DESIGN DATABASE
NO
GENERALIZE
OPERATION STEPS AND
“ENGINEERING SURVEY AND SITE VISIT APPLICABLE?
DRAWINGS
SCENARIOS”
YES
OPERATION
DATABASE
QUESTIONNAIRE
SURVEY
ACTIVITY INSTALLATION RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY

COST RATE
TIME REQUIREMENT ESTIMATION
NO
DATABASE
SUFFICIENT?
YES
YES REFER TO
MISSING
BENCHMARKING
IMPORTANT
DATABASE OR OTHER
DATA?
OPEN SOURCES
NO
ANALYZE AND CALCULATE BASED

SET UP SIMULATION
ON COLLECTED DATA FOR
MODELS
SIMULATION MODEL INPUTS
SET UP SIMULATION SET UP SIMULATION

MODELS MODELS
OUTPUT: INSTALLATION
TIME AND
PRODUCTIVITY
THREE-STEPPED
VALIDATION
NO
OUTPUTS MEET
EXPECTATIONS?
COST COMPARISON WITH

OUTPUTTED DATA AND
COLLECTED COST RATES
YES
END
241
242 Fig5. Flowchart of the Proposed Methodology
- 13 -
243 3. PROJECT SELECTION
244 Project scenario is selected from the project database containing four major categories of
245 foundation system engineering: (1) distributed foundation engineering (e.g. foundations for
246 power transmission towers); (2) centralized foundation engineering (e.g. oil sands upgrader
247 foundation); (3) remote site location with limited access to construction materials and means
248 (such as concrete plant, trucks, haul roads) and (4) urban site location with easy access to
249 construction materials and means.
250
251 The defined project has the flexibility to apply any design option in the predefined three pile
252 systems. Through brainstorming with Almita engineers, the project scenario was finalized as a
253 power substation project, shown in Figure 6.
254
255
256 Fig6. Power Substation project in Alberta
257
258 (1) Steel Pile (driven or helix depend on soil) (2) Helical Piles (Group)
- 14 -
259
260 (3) Concrete Piles (with pier)
261 Fig7. Three Pile Systems for Power Substation
262
- 15 -
263 4. ENGINEERING DESIGNS OF THE THREE PILE SYSTEMS
264 The design of the three pile systems was done by Almita engineers with full design
265 specifications as follows:
266 (1) Location
267 The site is located 10 km East of High River City, 70km south from Calgary, 360km from
268 Edmonton.
269
270 Fig8. Site Location
271 (2) Soil Type
272 The soil is mostly Glacial Till, stratified as such:
273 Layer 1 – 0-2.0m Sand or Glacial Till Friction Angle = 26 degrees
274 Layer 2 – 2.0-4.5m Glacial Till Shear Strength = 45 kPa
275 Layer 3 – 4.5-20.0 m Glacial Till Shear Strength = 105 kPa
276
277 (3) Site Layout and Pile Distribution (See details in Appendix D)
278 The site is a rectangular area at 181m x 135m. A total of 336 pile spots are distributed on site.
279
280 (4) Loads (See details in Appendix E)
281 Loads include vertical loads, horizontal loads and moment on each pile spot, which are designed
282 by structural engineers and summarized in Appendix E. The pile configuration designs for three
283 pile systems are dependent on the load table.
284
285 (5) Underground water table
286 Ground Water: 2.0m
287 (6) Weather
288 Summer, temperate with clear skies, no frozen zones.
289 (7) Engineering Design
290 On the basis of soil profile (soil properties, depths of different layers), structural loads, limits on
291 total and differential settlements, underground water table, and time constraints on construction
292 (freeze and thaw effect), the engineering designs for three pile systems are professionally
293 specified in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, as follows:
294
295
- 16 -
296 Table 2. Engineering Design for Helical Piles
Pile Type Pile Geometry Qty Notes
8 5/8”(.322) x 20’ [3/4” x 20”]

P1 72
QTY. 72
10 3/4”(.365) x 25’ [3/4” x
P2 182
24”] QTY. 182
12 3/4”(0.375) x 25’ [1” x 30”]
P3 30
QTY. 30
16”(.375) x 20’ [1” x 30”]
P4 20
QTY. 20
20”(.375) x 30’ [1” x 30” x
P5 8
30”] QTY. 8
12 3/4”(.375) x 30’ [1” x 30” x Group Piles with 4 in a group. 24 spots
P6 96
30”] QTY. 96 (B5-B10, B101-B106, B141-B146, B229-B234)
297
298 Table 3. Engineering Design for Driven Piles
Pile Type Pile Diameter Wall Thickness Pile Length
Qty Notes
(inch) (inch) (m)
P1 10.695 0.365 8.5 8
P2 12.75 0.375 8.5 102
P3 12.75 0.375 12.5 8
P4 12.75 0.5 8.5 40
P5 16 0.375 8.5 126
P6 16 0.5 8.5 4
P7 20 0.375 10.5 8
P8 20 0.5 8.5 16
Group Piles with 3 in a group. 24 spots
P9 12.75 0.5 16.5 72 (B5-B10, B101-B106, B141-B146,
B229-B234)
299 Note: The pile length is the order length; the embedment depth is Pile length – 1.5m
300 Table 4. Engineering Design for CIP Piles

Pile Type Concrete Pile Size Length(m) Qty Notes
400 mm w/5 20M
P1 6 8
Bars
500 mm w/8 20M
P2 6 226
Bars
P3 8 8
600 mm w/11 20M
P4 6 46
Bars
P5 11 8
700 mm w/14 20M
P6 6 16
bars
1000 mm w/20 (B5-B10, B101-B106, B141-B146, B229-
P7 13 24
30M Bars B234)
301
- 17 -
302 5. PILE INSTALLATION OPERATIONS OF THE THREE PILE SYSTEMS
303 5.1 Helical Pile Installation Process

304
305 The installation steps are as follows:
306 (1) Mobilization, equipment rig up, and on-site material receiving.
307 (2) Screw pile pickup/delivery to/from onsite lay-down area to pile location with a loader.
308 (3) Excavator drives insertion of the pile.
309 (4) The swamper then inserts pins in place & key locks each pin.
310 (5) Loader continues to bring piles from lay-down location to the locations of the planned work
311 day piles.
312 (6) Swamper positions pile over location.
313 (7) Swamper measures the pile for verticality and horizontal location.
314 (8) Excavator installs the pile.
315 (9) Field pile monitor records torque readings and pile information such as embedment depth,
316 time of start, time of finish, etc. of the pile.
317 (10) Swamper unbolts the pile.
318 (11) Welder completes the pile cutoff.
319
320 If Extension piece is needed:
321
322 (12) Loader positions extension section for excavator insertion.
323 (13) Swamper inserts pins in place & key locks each pin for the extension section this time.
324 (14) Welder fully welds extension section to the pile while.
325 (15) Swamper checks and ensures extension section for verticality.
326 (16) Excavator completes installation of the extension section to the specified design embedment
327 or torque, whichever is achieved first.
328 (17) Field pile monitor records torque readings and pile information such as embedment depth,
329 time of start, time of finish, etc. of the extension section.
330 (18) Swamper unbolts extension section.
331 (19) Welder completes the pile cutoff.
332
333 Note: Field laborers, called swampers are required to assist in installation from start to finish.
334 The loader’s responsible for performing activities such as pile delivery and assisting excavator
335 drive insertion. The excavator is responsible for the major installation task. The installation
336 process has 11 major activities which are depicted in Fig. 1 Note that the activity for delivery of
337 material from laydown to pile location is excluded in Fig. 1 as it is understood that in order for
338 installation to occur, materials must be delivered and readily available to field crews.
339
340
341
342
343
344
- 18 -
1. Excavator drive insertion 2. The Swamper assists in 3. The excavator screw in the
and connection to the pile verticality measurement pile to the designated depth.
and aligns the pile to
location horizontally.
4. The swamper unbolts the 5 Welder completes pile 6. Excavator drives insertion
pile from the excavator. head cutoff of the extension section.
7. Welder then fully welds 8. The excavator installs 9. The swamper unbolts the
the extension section to the the extension section to the extension section
lead. required design depth or
torque, whichever is
achieved first.
10. welder completes pile 11. Clean up the area and

head cutoff move to the next location
345 Fig9: Helical Pile Installation Procedure
- 19 -
346 5.2 Driven Pile Installation Process
347
348 (1) Material and tooling is positioned near driving rig for safe and efficient connection and
349 hoisting. Ensure positive hook-up (slings with shackles or clamps, double wrapped slings with
350 pipe tabs, etc.)
351 (2) Swamper to identify pile location by identifying pile pin and communicating the location to
352 the driving rig operator to record.
353 (3) Rig up pipe pile using a positive hook-up.
354 (4) Hoist the pile into the leads/hammer.
355 (5) Leadman aligns pile inside the helmet and lowers the helmet around the pile.
356 (6) While lowering one line at a time, both the pile and hammer lines are lowered until the
357 weight of the hammer is resting on the pile and the pile tip is resting on the ground, ensure top of
358 pile doesn't leave confines of the helmet.
359 (7) The leads and pile are checked for plumb and location before the full weight of the hammer is
360 placed on the pile.
361 (8) Pile driving commences, driving the pile to the required depth ensuring that hammer is
362 operating at the required energy.
363 (9) Remove the rigging from the pile once driving has stopped.
364 (10) Complete the rough pile cut off or prepare to splice the pile to facilitate further driving
365
366 If splice:
367
368 (11) Swamper to direct the loader to location and set the splice section within reach of the
369 hoisting crane.
370 (12) Rig up pipe pile using a positive hook-up
371 (13) Hoist the pile section to the vertical position and swing the pipe over the recently installed
372 bottom section.
373 (14) The welder and swamper align the splice with the bottom section and tacks the pile in place.
374 (15) Once tacking is complete the crane rigging can be disconnected from the pile and the
375 welding can be completed.
376 (16) Continue to drive the pile until the refusal criteria (when the energy of the hammer blow no
377 longer causes penetration.) is met or you reach practical refusal.
378
379 If cut off:.
380
381 Cut off happens after (10) or (16):
382 (17) Surveyor to mark pile cut off elevation on piles.
383 (18) 150mm above the final pile cut off elevation.
384 (19) Ensure the cut off section is mechanically supported and lowered to the ground for any
385 sections that cannot be safely lowered to the ground by hand.
386 (20) Surveyor to complete the pile as-built.
387 (21) Clean up the area and move to the next location.
388
- 20 -
1. Rig up pipe pile using a 2. Hoist the pile into the 3. Leadman aligns pile in
positive hook-up. leads/hammer. position and swamper checks for
plumb and location before the
full weight of the hammer is
placed on the pile.
4. Drive the pile to the required 5. Rig up splice section using 6. Hoist the splicel section to the
depth then remove the rigging. a positive hook-up vertical position and swing the
pipe over the recently installed
bottom section.
7. The welder and swamper 8. Once tacking is complete 9. Continue to drive the pile
align the splice with the the crane rigging can be until the refusal criteria is met or
bottom section and tacks the disconnected from the pile reach practical refusal.
pile in place. and the welding can be
completed
10. Surveyor to mark pile cut 11. Clean up the area and
off elevation on piles and move to the next location
welder completes the pile cut
off
- 21 -
389 Fig10: Driven Pile Installation Procedure
390 5.3 CIP Piles Installation Process

391 Construction steps have to be defined accurately to build the simulation models for the piling
392 process. Figure 10 shows the detailed construction steps of the piling process starting from the
393 axis adjustment to concrete pouring and finish the pile. The construction steps can be
394 summarized as follows:
395 1. Equipment rig up and preparation;
396 2. Start drilling and pushing the casings into the ground with the rotary drive and attached
397 oscillator to the design depth;
398 3. Install reinforcement cage with the auxiliary winch of the drill rig into the bore stabilized by
399 the casings;
400 4. Erect the concrete pouring tool (pump truck with extended pipe) with crane, and into the cased
401 borehole;
402 5. Pouring the concrete;
403 6. Extract the casing with the rotary drive during concreting (with the oscillator);
404 7. Finishing
405
2. Drill and push the casings into the
1. Adjust the axis and hauling to drilling
ground with the rotary drive and attached
place
oscillator
4. Erect the concrete pouring tool (pump

3. Install reinforcement cage with the
truck with extended pipe) with crane, and
auxiliary winch of the drill rig into the
into the cased borehole, then pour the
bore stabilized by the casings
concrete
- 22 -
5. Extract the casing with the rotary drive
6. Finishing
during concreting (with the oscillator)
406 Fig11: CIP Pile Installation Procedure

407
408
- 23 -
409 6. DATA COLLECTION
410 Questionnaire was customized to collect data from contractors who are specialists in construction
411 and design of the three pile systems, respectively. The questionnaire was used to collect the
412 piling process cycle time, productivity, cost rate, resource requirement and qualitative data for
413 certain project settings. Reviewers were asked to provide information based on the given project
414 setting based on their experiences of encountering similar scenarios in the past. Accordingly,
415 each questionnaire represents a full set of information. In addition to the questionnaire, direct
416 data collection--site interviews and site visits to fill data forms was also used to collect
417 supplementary data. Including questionnaire collected on site, a total of 30 questionnaires were
418 issued (10 for each pile system). The number of replies was 12 out of 30 questionnaires with a
419 reply percent of 40%. Among the 12 replies, 8 replies were collected for helical piles, 2 were
420 collected for driven pile, and 2 were collected for CIP pile. Though limited feedback were
421 collected for driven pile and CIP pile, the field engineers who helped fill in the questionnaire are
422 of over 15 years field installation experience and the data were more reliable than a larger sample
423 size buy representing replies from novices or less experienced engineers.
424 6.1 Factorized Activity Duration

425 According to defined pile installation process aforementioned, the whole pile installation process
426 of the three pile systems are factorized into activities shown in Appendix A, Appendix B and
427 Appendix C. The individuals completed the questionnaire independently entering their
428 experiences of minimum, average, and maximum times (in minutes) for each defined pile
429 installation activity. No weights were assigned to the individuals as the assignment of weights
430 would also be biased and of a subjective nature. Each of the individuals has worked on multiple
431 projects and possesses different skill sets thus providing a broader range of variation in the data.
432 The minimum, average, and maximum times of each activity were averaged and a statistical
433 distribution probability density function (Beta family) was fitted as input models for simulation.
434
435 A Beta distribution was used in that the performance of an activity has a minimum that can be
436 represented asymptotically in a mathematical form (i.e. there is a limit to how quickly a certain
437 activity can be completed), however, maximums do not have such finite values as different
438 conditions may compound particular situations, thus, the severity of each delay may profoundly
439 differ according to inputs from different experts. The Beta distribution attains greater probability
440 densities around the average and modes with a longer tail towards the maximum. A classical
441 method named Visual Interactive Beta Estimation System (VIBES) created by AbouRizk et al
442 (1994) was utilized to fit the beta distribution. According to VIBES, four activity-time
443 characteristics (i.e. Min, Max, Mode and 75th percentile time) were used to determine the
444 parameters of the unique beta probability density function (PDF). As defined by Wilson, a factor
445 of 1.2 is best used to relate the mode of the activity time to 75th percentile time (Fente et al
446 2000). An example is illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 12.
447
448 Table 5: Input data for VIBES method
Activity Ratio Min(min) Mode(min) Max(min) 75th percentile(min)
Locate Pile 1.2 1 1.94 5.75 2.33
449
- 24 -
450
451 Fig12. Probability density function for inputted beta distribution
452 6.2 Cost Rate

453 1. Questionnaire
454 According to standard pile installation crew make-up and the defined project settings and
455 descriptions (e.g. location, project size, season and etc.), cost rate tables containing labor,
456 equipment and material were made and integrated into questionnaire (for helical pile, provided
457 directly by Almita), shown in Appendix B and Appendix C. Note all the cost rates are charge-out
458 rate. Respondents are free to add and delete items listed in the table by their experience and
459 expertise. For confidentiality concerns, charge-out rate collected might be normalized prior to
460 publication of this report.
461 2. RSMeans
462 RSMeans is North America’s leading supplier of construction cost information services.
463 RSMeans offers reliable cost data that is locally relevant, accurate and up-to-date. For costs
464 missing because of sensitive issue or other reasons, the U of A research team searched and
465 obtained reliable data from this open commercial cost information service (average contractor,
466 average job conditions).
467 3. Interview
- 25 -
468 For miscellaneous cost data that are neither included in the questionnaire nor available in
469 RSMeans, telephone interview of Alberta industry partners of the research team was conducted.
470 6.3 Resource Requirement

471 According to the defined project settings and descriptions (e.g. location, project size, season and
472 etc.), and the defined crew categories from “Cost Rate”, shown in Appendix B and Appendix C.
473 Questionnaire respondents are required to define the quantities of each crew category for the
474 specified project settings. This step was also done through site interview and telephone interview
475 in order to further refine the data on quantities, aimed to reflect realistic situations to the largest
476 extent. All the finally defined crew categories and corresponding quantities are compiled up into
477 tables in subsequent cost estimation chapters.
478
- 26 -
479 7. SIMULATION MODEL CONSTRUCTION
480 7.1 Simulation Engine

481 The simulation engine that has been used in this research is SYMPHONY.NET version 4.0
482 developed by CEM U of A in house. For more information regarding this program, the reader is
483 referred to AbouRizk and Yasser (2001). This program uses different elements that represent
484 each construction process activity. The elements of SYMPHONY.NET that are used to model
485 and simulate piling process activities are shown in article AbouRizk and Yasser 2001. The piling
486 process models design are explained in detail in following section
487 7.2 Non-productive Time and Performance Index

488 Time consumption by activities commonly seen in the installation process such as warming up
489 the equipment in the morning, equipment onsite mobilization from location to location, greasing,
490 oiling, tea and coffee breaks, rest room breaks, etc. are defined as non-productive time.
491 According to Zayed & Halpin 2004, performance index (PI) which can be taken as the ratio
492 between the average productivity performance (realistic with delays) and the maximum
493 productivity performance (ideal without delays), accounting for the effect of various delays in
494 the field upon crew productivity. PI is similar to the commonly applied time efficiency factor
495 (the rule of thumb is to apply 45- min hour) in construction estimating. The simulation based
496 productivity and duration calculation models also consider effects of non-productive factors by
497 defining input models prior to simulation and dynamically determining waiting, idling times and
498 various delays based on the logic built into the simulation model during simulation. In this study,
499 PIs were determined for different pile systems through simulation and questionnaire-based
500 techniques, respectively. The PI is calculated by two output values from the simulation model,
501 namely the mean value of daily output (quantity of pile / day representing crew average
502 performance in field) and the maximum value of daily output (quantity of pile / day representing
503 crew ideal performance in field), as shown in Eq.(1). By calculating the quotient of mean value
504 over maximum value of daily output, the PI value can be calculated.
505
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡
Performance Index (PI) =
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 (1)
506 The PI values are calculated as 0.880, 0.873, 0.856 for helical piles, driven piles and CIP piles
507 respectively as shown below.
508 7.2.1 PI Value for Helical Pile
509 For helical piles, the mean value of daily output from simulation model denotes the most likely
510 case scenario that would happen in real world installation. Similarly, the maximum value of daily
511 output from simulation model denotes the expected (or ideal) case scenario. Therefore, by
512 calculating the quotient of mean value over maximum value of daily output (i.e. mean over ideal),
513 the PI value could be calculated.
- 27 -
514 The average value and maximum value of daily output from simulation model is 15.832
515 piles/day and 18 piles/day as shown in Figure 13. Then, by adopting Eq.(1), the PI value from
516 simulation model is calculated as 15.832/ 18 = 0.880.
517
518 Fig13. Productivity Result from Simulation (Helical Pile)
519 7.2.2 PI Value for Driven Pile
520 For driven piles, the PI value could be calculated as above helical pile PI calculation process.
521 The average value and maximum value of daily output from simulation model is 13.092
522 piles/day and 15 piles/day as shown in Figure 14. Then, the PI value from simulation model is
523 calculated as 13.092 / 15 = 0.873.
524
525 Fig14. Productivity Result from Simulation (Driven Pile)
526 7.2.3 PI Value for CIP Pile
527 For CIP piles, the PI value could be calculated as above helical pile PI calculation process. The
528 average value and maximum value of daily output from simulation model is 6.849 piles/day and
- 28 -
529 8 piles/day as shown in Figure 15. Then, the PI value from simulation model is calculated as
530 6.849 / 8 = 0.856.
531
532 Fig15. Productivity Result from Simulation (CIP Pile)
533 7.3 Simulation Model and Simulation Results

534 Simulation model for each pile installation process is set up and shown in Appendix G. General
535 instructions for simulation model of each pile system are stated in subsequent sessions.
536 7.3.1. Simulation Model for Helical Pile Installation

537 The simulation was broken into three main components, rig-up, installation of design pile pieces,
538 and installation of extension sections.
539
540 The rig up component symbolized that only after rig up is completed could the installation
541 process start. The secondary component is the main component modeled to install the lead
542 section with consideration of various possibility followed by Helical Pile Installation Approval
543 Procedure attached in appendix F. The third component in this experiment was the installation of
544 extension sections to locations where extension pieces were required by engineers. This activity
545 ran as a concurrent activity to the main, however, both the main and third activity can only be
546 performed after the rig up process is complete.
547
548 Note: (1) the loader starts to deliver piles to while equipment starts rigging up. The pile delivery
549 proceeds concurrently with pile installation. (2) Once screwed to designated depth and unbolted,
550 the excavator will move on to next spot for installation while welders finish pile cut-off
551 procedure and surveyor finishes survey. (3) if capacity check or pre-drill is required, it will
552 happen concurrently with installation process.
553
554
- 29 -
555 7.3.2. Simulation Model for Driven Pile Installation
556 Similar to helical pile, the simulation was broken into three main components, rig-up, installation
557 of design pile pieces, and installation of slice.
558
560 process start. The secondary component is main component modeled to install the main section
561 defined in the operation process chapter together with onsite contingencies added with the
562 consent of field engineers. The third component in this experiment was the installation of slice to
563 locations where slices were required by engineers. In order to determine the average daily output
564 of driven pile installation in defined project scenario, the simulation simulates installation
565 process for 1000 times. The Symphony model is depicted in Figure 12.
566
567 Note: (1) the loader starts to deliver piles to while equipment starts rigging up. The pile delivery
568 proceeds concurrently with pile installation. (2) Once driven to designated depth and
569 disconnected, the crane will move on to next spot for installation while welders finish pile cut-off
570 procedure and surveyor finishes survey. (3) if capacity check or pre-drill is required, it will
571 happen concurrently with installation process.
572 7.3.3 Simulation Model for CIP Pile Installation
573 Due to the character of CIP pile installation, the simulation was broken into two main
574 components, rig-up and pile installation.
575
577 process starts. The “pile installation” component is main component modeled to install CIP pile
578 defined in the operation process chapter together with onsite contingencies added with the
579 consent of field engineers.
580 Note, the installation process of CIP pile is relatively “linear” without much concurrent work.
581 The drill machine will not be available for next pile until the casing is withdrawn by casing
582 oscillator. Thus, the installation time for CIP pile is much longer than helical pile and driven pile.
583
- 30 -
584 8. COST ESTIMATION
585 8.1 Cost Estimation for Helical Pile
586 8.1.1 Material Cost for Helical Pile
587 The Unit prices of each kind of pile configuration are provided by Almita. By simply multiplying
588 the unit price and designed quantity takeoff of respective pile type and then sum them up, the
589 total material cost can be obtained.
590
591 Table 6: Pile Material Cost
Pile Type Pile Geometry Quantity Unit Price Total
8 5/8”(.322) x 20’
P1 72 $ 570 $ 41,040
[3/4” x 20”] QTY. 72
10 3/4”(.365) x 25’
P2 182 $ 990 $ 180,180
[3/4” x 24”] QTY. 182
12 3/4”(0.375) x 25’
P3 30 $ 1,260 $ 37,800
[1” x 30”] QTY. 30
16”(.375) x 20’ [1” x
P4 20 $ 1,300 $ 26,000
30”] QTY. 20
20”(.375) x 30’ [1” x
P5 8 $ 2,123 $ 16,984
30” x 30”] QTY. 8
12 3/4”(.375) x 30’ [1”
P6 96 $ 1,730 $ 166,080
x 30” x 30”] QTY. 96
408 $468,084
592 8.1.2 Labor and Equipment Charge-out Rate for Helical Pile
593 The charge-out rate of labor and equipment is important for the duration-dependent cost
594 estimation, and they are all provided by Almita.
595
596 Table 7: Personnel Charge-out Rate
Category Qty Rate (hourly) Notes
Construction Manager
1 $147
(w/ truck)
Supervisor (w/ truck) 1 $147
Install Equip.
1 $93
Operator
Loader Operator 1 $77
Swamper 2 $62
Welder 2 $100
Survey Crew 1 $316 Third Party on a 5/2 shift
Pre drill 1 $777 When pre-drill needed
Field QA/QC 1 $62
597
- 31 -
598 NOTE:
599 (1) Above Charge-out rates are Hourly rates based on 10/5 Shift
600 (2) Orientation = $65.00/man/hour, Assume every onsite crew must undergo 3 hours
601 orientation.
602 (3) Survey Crew is assumed to conduct the survey (Torque, elevation, location deviation and
603 etc.) at beginning and finishing of piling installation process, so their working hours are
604 averaged to 2 hours per day for cost estimation purposes.
605 (4) No third party welders involved.
606 Table 8: Equipment Charge-out Rate (Provided by Almita)

70K 25 Ft Reach 1 $265 For pile length under 25’ (P1&P4)
156K 33 Ft Reach 1 $425 For pile length over 25’ (25’ included)
Komatsu Loader 1 $125
Crew Truck 2 $27
Drill Rig 1 $100 When pre-drill needed
53 ft Step Deck Tri-axle $205(operator
1 Container included
Trailer included)
607 8.1.3 Shipping Cost for Helical Pile

608 The shipping cost for helical pile is based on (1) shipping distance (2) shipping capacity and
609 spaces. The detailed calculation process are shown in Table 9 and corresponding notes.
610 Table 9: Helical Pile Shipping Specifications

Pile Type Pile Geometry Qty Qty/Load Notes
8 5/8”(.322) x 20’ [3/4”
P1 72 96
x 20”] QTY. 72
10 3/4”(.365) x 25’
P2 182 55
[3/4” x 24”] QTY. 182
12 3/4”(0.375) x 25’
P3 30 43 Qty/Load is
[1” x 30”] QTY. 30
Calculated from Almita’s
16”(.375) x 20’ [1” x
P4 20 42 Shipping Calculator
30”] QTY. 20
20”(.375) x 30’ [1” x
P5 8 23
30” x 30”] QTY. 8
12 3/4”(.375) x 30’ [1”
P6 96 33
x 30” x 30”] QTY. 96
611 Note:
612 (1) Distance: Ponoka to High River, 260 km via Highway
613 (2) Use 53 ft Step Deck Tri-axle Trailer (Load Capacity is 60,000 lb, 53’ in length, 8 1/2’ in
614 width)
615 (3) The total duration for transportation trip is 3 hours x 2 (round trip) + 1 hour loading + 1 hour
616 unloading + 1 hour rest time +1 hour contingency = 10 hours
- 32 -
617 (4) Trip numbers are estimated as 72/96+182/55+30/43+20/42+8/23+96/33= 8.48 round to 9
618 trips
619
620 Thus total transportation fee is estimated as 9 x $205/h x 10 h = $ 18,450
621 8.1.4 Project Total Duration and Separate Activity Durations for Helical Pile Installation
622 The duration of the total project duration from the simulation model is estimated as 259 hours
623 given the PI of 0.88 (13670 min/0.880 = 15534 min = 258.9 hours). Consider full working days
624 and it would be 260 hours. Convert to work days based on 10/5 shift is 26 days. Since different
625 sizes of installation machine are used for different pile type (i.e. 70K 25 Ft Reach for P1-P4;
626 156K 33 Ft Reach for P5 and P6), the installation duration for different types of Reach is
627 characterized separately as shown in Figure 18. The installation duration for 70K 25 Ft Reach is
628 estimated as 180 hours (9563 min/0.880 = 10,667 min = 180.11 hours). The installation duration
629 for 156K 33 Ft Reach is estimated as 80 hours (4215 min/0.880 = 4789.77 min = 79.82 hours).
630
631 (1) Total Project Duration: Most likely 26 d, Ideal Scenario 25 d, Worst Scenario 29 d.
632
633
634 (2) Installation Duration for 70K 25 Ft Reach (3) Installation Duration for 156K 33 Ft Reach
635 Most likely 18 d, Ideal Scenario 17 d, Worst Most likely 8 d, Ideal Scenario 7 d, Worst
636 Scenario 20 d. Scenario 9 d.
637 Fig16. Helical Pile Installation Durations
- 33 -
638 8.1.5 Detailed Cost Estimation of Duration Related Cost for Helical Pile
639
640 Personnel Costs:
Construction Manager (w/ truck): 260 hr @ $147/hr = $38,220

Supervisor (w/ truck): 260 hr @ $147/hr = $38,220
Install Equip. Operator: 260 hr @ $93/hr = $24,180
Loader Operator: 260 hr @ $75/hr = $19,500
Swamper: 260 hr @ $62/hr x 2 = $32,240
Welder: 260 hr @ $100/hr x 2 = $52,000
Survey Crew: 26 d x 2 hr/d @ $316/hr = $16,432
Field QA/QC 260 hr @ $62/hr = $16,120
Total cost = $236,912
641
642 Equipment Costs:
70K 25 Ft Reach: 180 hr @ $265/hr = $47,700

156K 33 Ft Reach: 80 hr @ $425/hr = $34,000
Komatsu Loader: 260 hr @ $125/hr = $32,500
Crew Truck: 260 hr @ $27/hr x 2 = $14,040
643 Other Direct Costs:
Orientation: $65.00/man/hour x 3 hours x 10 = $12,432

Drill Rig: 16 hr @ $100/hr = $1,600
Barricades, signs, signals = $1,000
Stand by: 30 hours @ $810/hr = $24,300
644 *Important Note*: On top of the 26 working days estimated, 10% of total duration is estimated
645 as standby time of the whole crew for situations which are out of the scope of the current
646 simulation model (like applying permit, extremely bad weather and etc.) Thus, the standby time
647 for helical pile installation is 26 x 10% = 2.6 round to 3 days. The crew standby rate is $810/hour.
- 34 -
648 8.1.6 Total Cost for Helical Pile
649 The total cost for Installation of helical piles can be simply calculated by summing up each
650 cost components as below:
651 Sum Total:
Material Cost = $468,084

Shipping Cost = $18,450
Labor Cost = $236,912
Equipment Cost = $128,240
Other Direct Cost = $41,282
Total = $892,968
652 8.2 Cost Estimation for Driven Pile

653 8.2.1 Material Cost for Driven Pile
654 The Unit prices of steel price for fabricating the steel driven pile are provided by a local driven
655 pile company. Then the unit price of each pile configuration is calculated by multiplying the steel
656 weight (calculated by metal calculator) by steel unit price. By simply multiplying the unit price
657 and designed quantity takeoff of respective pile type and then sum them up, the total material
658 cost and be obtained.
659
660 Table 10: Pile Material Cost
Pile Diameter Wall Thickness Pile Length Qty Unit Price Total
(inch) (inch) (m)
10.75 0.365 8.5 8 $ 655 $ 5,243
12.75 0.375 8.5 102 $ 803 $ 81,877
12.75 0.375 12.5 8 $ 1,180 $ 9,442
12.75 0.5 8.5 40 $ 1,059 $ 42,363
16 0.375 8.5 126 $ 1,013 $ 127,671
16 0.5 8.5 4 $ 1,340 $ 5,361
20 0.375 10.5 8 $ 1,572 $ 12,579
20 0.5 8.5 16 $ 1,686 $ 26,977
12.75 0.5 16.5 72 $ 2,056 $ 148,039
384 $459,552
661
662 Note:
663 (1) Use $0.5 per pound for pipe pricing (provided by Keller Foundation).
- 35 -
664 (2) Metal calculator, which is a simple on-line calculator for various configurations of metal, is
665 used for pile weight calculation, shown in Figure 17.
666
667 Fig17. Metal Calculator (Onlinemetals Caculator 2015)
668 8.2.2 Labor and Equipment Charge-out Rate for Driven Pile
669 The charge-out rate of labor and equipment is important for the duration related cost estimation,
670 and they are all collected from experienced field engineers largely by Questionnaire together
671 with site interview, telephone interview and online benchmarking open source.
672 Table 11: Personnel Charge-out Rate (Provided by competing company)

Supervisor (w/ truck) 1 $135
Install Equip.
1 $95
Operator
Loader Operator 1 $75
Swamper 1 $65
Rigger 2 $65
Welder 2 $92
Construction
1 $122
Manager(w/ truck)
Survey Crew 1 $370 Third Party on a 5/2 shift
When pre-drill needed (Based
Pre drill 1 $777
on Almita’s rate)
Field QA/QC 1 $62 Based on Almita’s rate
673
- 36 -
674 NOTE:
677 orientation.
678 (3) Survey Crew is assumed to conduct the survey at beginning and finishing of piling
679 installation process, so their working hours are averaged to 2 hours per day for cost
680 estimation purposes.
682 Table 12: Equipment Charge-out Rate (Provided by competing company)

100 Ton Crane 1 $380.15 Installation Equipment
Hydraulic Lead 1 $51.25 Installation Equipment
Hydraulic Hammer 1 $45.75 Installation Equipment
Helmet 1 $27 Installation Equipment
Loader (Volvo L120) 1 $163.75 Supporting Equipment
1 Pickup Truck, 4 x 4, 3/4 Ton,
Crew Truck 2 $23.15
$185.24/d
Drill Rig 1 $100 Installation Equipment
When pre-drill needed where
Hydrovac 1 $777 underground pipe lines exist
(Based on Almita’s rate)
Manlift 1 $45 Supporting Equipment
53 ft Step Deck Tri- $205(operator
1 Container included
axle Trailer included)
683
684 8.2.3 Shipping Cost for Driven Pile

685 The shipping cost for driven pile is based on (1) shipping distance (2) shipping capacity per trip
686 and (3) the total number pile to be shipped. The detailed calculation process are shown in Table
687 13 and corresponding notes.
688 Table 13: Driven Pile Shipping Specifications

Pile Wall Pile
Diameter Thickness Length Qty Qty/Load Note
(inch) (inch) (m)
10.695 0.365 8.5 8 56
Qty/Load is Calculated
12.75 0.375 8.5 102 46
from Shipping
12.75 0.375 12.5 8 30
Calculator adapted
12.75 0.5 8.5 40 33
16 0.375 8.5 126 34 from Almita’s
16 0.5 8.5 4 26
- 37 -
20 0.375 10.5 8 22
20 0.5 8.5 16 21
12.75 0.5 16.5 72 17
689
690 Note:
691 (1) Driven piles are mostly manufactured in China or SEA, and shipped via sea cans to
692 Vancouver BC.
693 (2) Distance: Vancouver to High River, 1100 km via Highway
695 width)
696 (4) The total duration for transportation trip is 14 hours x 2 (round trip)+ 1 hour loading + 1 hour
697 unloading + 2 hour rest time + 2 hour contingency = 34 hours
698 (5) Trip numbers are estimated as 8/56+102/46+8/30+40/33+126/34+4/26+8/22+16/21+72/17=

699 13.059 round to 14
700 Thus total transportation fee is estimated as 14 x $205/h x 34h= $ 97,580
701 8.2.4 Project Total Duration for Driven Pile Installation

702 The duration of the total project duration from the simulation model is estimated as 290 hours,
703 applying 0.87 PI. (14992 min/0.873 = 17172.96 min = 286.21 hours). Based on 10/5 shift, it is
704 equivalent to 29 work days.
- 38 -
705
706 Fig18. Driven Pile Installation Duration: Most likely 33 d, Ideal Scenario 28 d, Worst Scenario
707 41 d.
708 8.2.5 Detailed Cost Estimation of Duration Related Cost for Driven Pile

Construction manager: 290 hr @ $122/hr = $35,380
Install Equip. Operator: 290 hr @ $95/hr = $27,550
Swamper: 290 hr @ $62/hr = $17,980
Rigger: 290 hr @ $62/hr x 2 = $35,960
Welder: 290 hr @ $92/hr x 2 = $53,360
Field QA/QC 290 hr @ $62/hr = $17,980
100 Ton Crane: 290 hr @ $380.15/hr = $110,244

Hydraulic Lead: 290 hr @ $51.25/hr = $14,863
- 39 -
Hydraulic Hammer: 290 hr @ $45.75/hr = $13,268
Helmet: 290 hr @ $27/hr = $7,830
Loader (Volvo L120): 290 hr @ $123.75/hr = $35,888
Crew Truck: 290 hr @ $23.15/hr x 2 = $12,644
Manlift: 290 hr @$45/hr = $13,050
711
712 Other Overhead Costs:
Orientation: $65.00/man/hour x 3 hours x 10 = $1950

Predrill: 16 hr @ $777/hr = $12,432
Hydrovac: 8 hr @ $777/hr = $ 6,216
Pile Cushion: 4 @ $100/ ea = $400
Hammer Cushion: 4 @ $100/ ea = $1,500
Barricades, signs, signals 370 hr @ $23.15/hr x 2 = $1,000
Stand by: 30 hours @ $1020/hr = $30,600
716 for Thus, the standby time for helical pile installation is 29 x 10% = 2.9 round to 3 days. The
717 standby rate is estimated according to the ratio derived from helical pile standby rate, which is
718 810/ 1400 = 60%, then the standby rate of driven pile installation is 1700*60% = $1020/hour
719 8.2.6 Total Cost for Driven Pile

720 The total cost for Installation of driven piles can be simply calculated by summing up each
721 cost components as below:
722 Sum Total:

Shipping Cost = $ 97,580
- 40 -
Other Overhead Cost = $54,098
Total: = $1,089,585
723 8.3 Cost Estimation for CIP Pile

724 8.3.1 Basic Instructions
725 The installation of CIP pile is based on the following assumption:
726 (1) Casing is necessary to reduce water from contamination of concrete;
727 (2) Casing is to be installed with drilling simultaneously and extracted once concrete is poured
728 by attached casing oscillator;
729
730 (3) Reinforcement cage is hanged and placed with the auxiliary winch of the drill rig into the
731 bore stabilized by the casings
732
733 (4) Crane will help with hanging the concrete pump boom (or pipe) to pour the concrete;
734 (5) No bells are considered in this study;
735 (6) Note the earth is to be piled up on site by the loader (no move off).
736 8.3.2 Material Cost for CIP Pile
737 The unit prices of steel and concrete are provided by Almita. Then the unit price of each pile
738 configuration is calculated through conducting detailed cost estimation process by calculating
739 steel cost and concrete cost, respectively. By simply multiplying the unit price and designed
740 quantity takeoff of respective pile type and then sum them up, the total material cost and be
741 obtained. The detailed calculation process is attached in this section.
742
743 Table 14: CIP Pile Material Cost
Steel Concrete Unit
Concrete Pile Size Length(m) Qty Total Cost
Cost Cost Cost
400 mm w/ 5 20M Bars 6 8 $135 $187 $323 $2,576
500 mm w/ 8 20M Bars 6 226 $203 $292 $496 $111,870
8 8 $270 $390 $660 $5,280
600 mm w/ 11 20M Bars 6 46 $272 $423 $695 $31,954
11 8 $479 $750 $1,229 $9,835
700 mm w/ 14 20M bars 6 16 $322 $575 $897 $14,351
1000 mm w/ 20 30M bars 13 24 $270 $2,500 $2,770 $66,480
Grand Total 336 $242,346
744 Note (1) Use $1.00/ft for 20M rebar, $2.25/ft for 30M rebar
- 41 -
745 (2) Rebar cage be tied up by 10M rebar rings (15M for “1000 mm w/ 20 30M bars”) at the
746 space of 1’. The price for 10M rebar is $0.45/ft and 15M @ $0.695/ft.
747 (3) The cost of concrete is $250/m3 for the summer time including transportation.
748 (4) The iron labors rate is $79.55/hr (RSmeans 2014 Calgary) and 3 ironman are employed
749 to manufacture the rebar cage at onsite shop.
750 Thus, Total cost for “400 mm with 5 20M Bars; 6m” is:
Main rebars: 5 x 19.685 ft x $1/ft (20M bars) = $98.425

Tied rebars: 20 x $0.45/ft x 4.12ft (perimeter) = $37.08
Concrete: $250/m3 x 0.695 m3 (Volume w/o rebar) = $187.5
Total cost = $323.00
751
752 Total cost for “500 mm with 8 20M Bars; 6m” is:
Main rebars: 8 x 19.685 ft x $1/ft (20M bars) = $157.48

753
754 Total cost for “500 mm with 8 20M Bars; 8m” is:
Main rebars: 8 x 26.24ft x $1/ft (20M bars) = $209.92

Concrete: $250/m3 x 1.56 m3 (Volume w/o rebar) = $390
Total cost = $660
755
756 Total cost for “600 mm w/ 11 20M Bars; 6m” is:
Main rebars: 11 x 19.685ft x $1/ft (20M bars)

= $216.53
- 42 -
757 Total cost for “600 mm w/ 11 20M Bars; 11m” is:
Main rebars: 11 x 36ft x $1/ft (20M bars)

= $396
758
759 Total cost for “700 mm w/ 14 20M bars; 6m” is:
Main rebars: 14 x 19.685ft x $1/ft (20M bars)

= $275.59
760
761 Total cost for “1000 mm w/ 20 30M bars; 13m” is:
Main rebars: 20 x 42.65ft x $2.25/ft (30M bars)

= $209.92
Concrete: $250/m3 x 10 m3 (Volume w/o rebar) = $2,500
Total cost = $2,770
762
763 8.3.3 Labor and Equipment Charge-out Rate for CIP Pile
764 The charge-out rate of labor and equipment is important for the duration related cost estimation,
765 and they are all collected from experienced field engineers largely by Questionnaire together
766 with site interview, telephone interview and online benchmarking open source.
767 Table 15: Personnel Charge-out Rate (Provided by competing company)

Supervisor (w/ truck) 1 125
Crane Operator 1 94
Loader Operator 1 82
Skid Steer Operator 1 65
Drilling & Casing Operator 1 95
Pump Truck Operator 1 82
- 43 -
Rigger 1 65
Swamper 1 62
Foreman 1 105
Manufacture rebar cage
Iron man 3 80
onsite
Concrete Testing&Inspection 1 120 From Almita’s rate
768 NOTE:
771 orientation.
772 (3) Survey Crew is assumed to conduct the survey at beginning and finishing of piling
773 installation process, so their working hours are averaged to 2 hours per day for cost
774 estimation purposes.
776 Table 16: Equipment Charge-out Rate (Provided by competing company)

Drilling & Casing Machine 1 525 Installation Equipment, shell included
25 Ton Crane 1 105 From RSmeans, Installation Equipment
Concrete Pump Truck, 110’ Boom 1 128 From RSmeans, Installation Equipment
Skid Steer (Wacker SW24-RDL) 1 100
Loader (Cat 950K) 1 150
Supervisor Truck 1 27
Crew Truck 2 27
777
778 8.2.4 Shipping Cost for CIP Pile

779 The shipping cost for CIP pile in this research accounts for steel rebar only. The concrete
780 shipping cost is included in concrete price. The shipping cost for steel rebar is mainly based on
781 (1) shipping distance (2) shipping capacity per trip and (3) the total amount of steel rebar to be
782 shipped. The detailed calculation process is given below.
783 Total weight of the main rebar:
400 mm with 5 20M Bars; 6m: 5 x 8 x 6m x 2.355 kg/m = 565.2 kg

500 mm with 8 20M Bars; 6m: 8 x 226 x 6m x 2.355 kg/m = 25547.04 kg
500 mm with 8 20M Bars; 8m: 8 x 8 x 8m x 2.355 kg/m w/o rebar) = 1205.76 kg
600 mm w/ 11 20M Bars; 6m: 11 x 46 x 6m x 2.355 kg/m = 7149.78 kg
600 mm w/ 11 20M Bars; 11m 11 x 8 x 11m x 2.355 kg/m = 2279.64 kg
- 44 -
700 mm w/ 14 20M bars; 6m 14 x 16 x 6m x 2.355 kg/m = 3165.12 kg
1000 mm w/ 20 30M bars; 13m 20 x 24 x 13m x 5.495kg/m = 34288.8 kg
Total = 74201 kg
784
785 Total weight of the tied rebar:
400 mm, 10M; 6m: 1.256m x 8 x 20 x 0.6985 kg/m = 157.75 kg

500 mm 10M; 6m: 1.57m x 226 x 20 x 0.6985 kg/m = 5570.674 kg
500 mm 10M; 8m: 1.57m x 8 x 26 x 0.6985 kg/m = 256.34 kg
600 mm 10M; 6m: 1.88m x 46 x 20 x 0.6985 kg/m = 1357.73 kg
600 mm 10M; 11m: 1.88m x 8 x 36 x 0.6985 kg/m = 425.03 kg
700 mm 10M; 6m 2.20m x 16 x 20 x 0.6985 kg/m = 552.64 kg
1000 mm 15M; 13m: 3.14m x 24 x 46 x 1.570 kg/m = 5442.49 kg
Total = 13762 kg
786
The total weight of rebar is 74201 kg +13762 kg = 87,963 kg = 193925.22 lb

193,925.22 lb / 60,000 lb/trip = 3.142 round to = 4 trips
total transportation fee is estimated as 4 x $205/h x 5h = $ 4,100
787
788 Note:
789 (1) Steel rebars are manufactured in Calgary.
790 (2) Distance: Calgary to High River, 70 km via Highway
792 width)
793 (4) The total duration for transportation trip is 1 hours x 2 (round trip)+ 1 hour loading + 1 hour
794 unloading + 0.5 hour rest time + 0.5 h contingency= 5 hours
795 (5) Linear mass density of 20M rebar is 2.355 kg/m, 30M rebar is 5.495kg/m, 10M rebar is
796 0.6985kg/m, and 15M rebar is 1.570kg/m.
- 45 -
797 8.3.5 Project Total Duration for CIP Pile Installation
798 The duration of the total project duration from the simulation model is estimated as 460 hours,
799 applying PI of 0.856 (23581 min/0.856 = 27547.89 min = 459.13 hours). Converting to days
800 based on 10/5 shift is 46 days.
801
802 Fig19. CIP Pile Installation Duration: Most likely 46 d, Ideal Scenario 44 d, Worst Scenario 52 d.
803 8.3.6 Detailed Cost Estimation of Duration Related Cost for CIP Pile
805 Table 17: Rebar Cage Fabrication Time
Concrete Pile Size Length(m) Fabrication Duration(min)
400 mm with 5 20M Bars 6 60

500 mm with 8 20M Bars 6 70
8 80
600 mm with 11 20M Bars 6 100
11 240
700 mm with 14 20M bars 6 150
1000 mm with 20 30M bars 13 300
Total Time 552 hours
806

Foreman: 460 hr @ $105/hr = $48,300
Drilling & Casing. Operator: 460 hr @ $95/hr = $43,700
- 46 -
Skid Steer Operator: 460 hr @ $65/hr = $29,900
Swamper: 460 hr @ $62/hr = $28,520
Rigger: 460 hr @ $65/hr = $29,900
Pump Truck Operator: 460 hr @ $82/hr = $37,720
Concrete Testing&Inspection 460 hr @ $120/hr = $55,200
Iron man: 552 hr @ $80/hr x 3 = $132,480
Drilling & Casing Machine: 460 hr @ $510/hr = $234,600

25 Ton Crane: 460 hr @ $105/hr = $48,300
Concrete Pump Truck, 110’ Boom: 460 hr @ $128/hr = $58,880
Skid Steer: 460 hr @ $100/hr = $46,000
Loader (Cat 950K): 460 hr @ $120/hr = $55,200
Crew Truck: 460 hr @ $23.15/hr x 2 = $21,298
808 Other Direct Costs:
Orientation: $65.00/man/hour x 3 hours x 10 = $1950

Barricades, signs, signals = $1,000
Stand by: 70 hours @ $1200/hr = $84,000
812 for Thus, the standby time for helical pile installation is 46 x 15% = 2.9 round to 3 days. The
813 standby rate is estimated according to the ratio derived from helical pile standby rate, which is
814 810/ 1400 = 60%, then the standby rate of driven pile installation is 2000*60% = $1200/hour
815 8.3.7 Total Cost for CIP Pile

816 The total cost for Installation of CIP piles can be simply calculated by summing up each cost
817 components as below:
818
- 47 -
819 Sum Total:

Shipping Cost = $4,100
Other Direct Cost = $86,950
Total = $1,305,974
820
821
- 48 -
822 9. COST COMPARISON AND RISK ANALYSIS
823 9.1 Cost Comparison with Key Performance Index (KPI)

824 Based on the simulation outputs and cost calculations above, cost comparison is made among
825 different pile systems in six breakdown categories: Material Cost, Labor Cost, Equipment Cost,
826 Shipping Cost, Other Direct Cost, and Total Cost. The estimated project duration is also given
827 alongside (by factoring in simulation-produced average, simulated PI, and estimated standby
828 time). Among the three different pile systems designed and installed for the defined power
829 substation project near High River City, Helical pile has the lowest installation cost, being the
830 cheapest of the three. Driven pile has the highest installation cost. Further, the comparison and
831 cost analysis can be conducted with each category consisting of the total cost, shown in Table 18.
832
833 Table 18: Cost Comparison of the Three Pile Systems
Pile Type Material Shipping Labor Equipment Other Proj. Total
Cost($) Cost($) Cost($) Cost($) Overhead Dur. Cost($)
Cost($) (d)
Helical Pile 468,084 18,450 236,912 128,240 41,282 29 892,968
Driven Pile 459,552 97,580 270,570 207,785 64,698 32 1,089,585
CIP Pile 242,346 4,100 508,300 464,278 54,098 53 1,305,974
834
835 Being the lowest in total cost, helical pile system has the highest material cost for the reason that
836 the piles are made of steel and the quantity required for helical pile in this particular project is the
837 most among the three. However, due to the more efficient installation method, helical pile has
838 the lowest installation time, thus arriving at the lowest costs combining labor and equipment.
839 Unlike driven piles that require shipping from Vancouver BC, helical pile has its own
840 manufacturing shops in Ponoka, thus significantly reducing the shipping cost compared with
841 driven piles. The material cost for driven pile is similar with that of helical pile but different in
842 labor and equipment. On one hand, the project lasts 3 workdays longer than helical piles. On the
843 other hand, the equipment requirement for driven pile is more than helical pile. Having
844 summarized that, driven pile system has the higher cost than helical pile. As for CIP piles,
845 though cheapest in material cost because concrete cost rate is much lower than steel, this pile
846 system has the longest duration in installation which leads to highest in labor and equipment
847 costs. It consumes much more time than helical pile because the installation process for CIP pile
848 is relatively straight that the drill machine (with oscillator attached) can have access to next pile
849 spot only after the casing is withdrawn. In addition, CIP pile cannot be installed on rainy days
850 which also add standby time. Therefore, as is analyzed and outputted, for this power substation
851 project, CIP pile has no advantage over other two pile systems both in cost and time.
852 To offer more insight into cost comparison, the cost per pile and cost per meter are calculated as
853 shown in Table 19, further visualized in Figure 20 and Figure 21. As expected that helical pile
854 has the lowest cost rate in both “cost per pile” and “cost per meter”, then we can conclude that
- 49 -
855 helical pile is the most suitable pile system in regards to both cost and schedule in constructing
856 this large-sized power substation project as per the defined engineering settings.
857 Table 19: Cost Comparison of the Three Pile Systems

Total Cost per Pile Cost per meter
Pile Type Quantity
Length(m) ($) ($)
Helical 408 2,923 2188.65 305.50
Pile
Driven 384 3,312 2837.46 328.98
Pile
CIP Pile 336 2,240 3886.83 583.02
858
Cost per Pile ($/ea)

5,000.00
3886.83
4,000.00
2837.46
3,000.00
2188.647059
Cost($)
Helical Pile
2,000.00
Driven Pile
1,000.00
CIP Pile
0.00
Helical Pile Driven Pile CIP Pile
Three Pile Systems

859
860 Fig20. Comparison of Cost per Pile
Cost per Meter ($/m)

700.00
583.02
600.00
500.00
Cost($)
400.00 305.50 328.98

Helical Pile
300.00
200.00 Driven Pile
100.00 CIP Pile

0.00
Helical Pile Driven Pile CIP Pile
Three Pile Systems

861
862 Fig21. Comparison of Cost per Meter
- 50 -
863 9.2 Contingency Analysis
864 How to estimate contingency is part of an overall risk management strategy. It is a financial
865 reserve to cater for perceived risks and uncertainties (Baccarini 2004). In the construction
866 domain, it is not uncommon that project cost overruns (Ali 2003). Therefore, cost contingency
867 should be included in the total budget so that the budget can represent the total financial
868 commitment for the owner. If the contingency is too high it might lose competitiveness in the bid
869 pool; if too low it may put the contractor at adverse situations (e.g. financial loss). Knowing that
870 the estimation of cost contingency and its adequacy is of vital importance to construction
871 projects, the contingency is calculated and shown in this research for reference. Contingency of
872 the estimated project duration is also given alongside (by factoring in simulation-produced
873 average, simulated PI, and estimated standby time).
874 9.2.1 Contingency Analysis for helical Pile

875 The contingency is calculated in a sequence of percentiles of time or cost values resulting from
876 simulation, showing the range of duration and total cost. It is shown in Table 20 that the total
877 duration range from 27.3 days to 30.6 days and the total cost range from $863,041 to $906,648.
878 The duration range and bid price range for helical pile are further converted to intuitive charts
879 shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23 respectively. Note these figures are also shown in Executive
880 Summary.
881 Table 20: Range Calculation for Helical Pile

0.880 PI Converted standby Total Total
Percentiles Values(min)
added to days days days Cost($)
0 13110 14897.7 24.8 2.5 27.3 863041
0.10 13400 15227.3 25.4 2.5 27.9 870994
0.20 13485 15323.9 25.5 2.6 28.1 873325
0.30 13549 15396.6 25.7 2.6 28.2 875081
0.40 13598 15452.3 25.8 2.6 28.3 876425
0.50 13653 15514.8 25.9 2.6 28.4 877933
0.60 13708 15577.3 26.0 2.6 28.6 879441
0.70 13796 15677.3 26.1 2.6 28.7 881855
0.80 13885 15778.4 26.3 2.6 28.9 884296
0.90 13989 15896.6 26.5 2.6 29.1 887148
1.00 14700 16704.5 27.8 2.8 30.6 906648
882
- 51 -
Bid Price (Helical Pile)
906.6K
1
887.1K
0.9
884.3K
0.8
881.8K
0.7
879.4K
Percentiles
0.6
877.9K
0.5
0.4 876.4K
875.1K
0.3
873.3K
0.2
871.0K
0.1
863.0K
0
863041 867886 872731 877576 882421 887266 892111 896956 901801 906646
Total Costs($)
883
884 Fig22. Bid Price Range for Helical Pile

885
Installation Time (Helical Pile)

30.6D
1
29.1D
0.9
28.9D
0.8
28.7D
0.7
28.6D
Percentiles
0.6
28.4D
0.5
28.3D
0.4
28.2D
0.3
28.1D
0.2
27.9D
0.1
27.3D
0
27.3 27.7 28.1 28.5 28.9 29.3 29.7 30.1 30.5

886
887 Fig23. Installation Time Range for Helical Pile
888 9.2.2 Contingency Analysis for Driven Pile
889 The contingency is calculated in a sequence of percentiles, showing the range of duration and
890 total cost. It is shown in Table 21 that the total duration range from 30.0 days to 33.8 days and
891 the total cost range from $1,060,037 to $1,120,319. The duration range and bid price range for
892 driven pile are further converted to intuitive charts shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25
893 respectively. Note these figures are also shown in Executive Summary.
- 52 -
894 Table 21: Range Calculation for Driven Pile
0.873 PI Converted to standby Total Total
added days days days Cost($)
0 14300 16380.3 27.3 2.7 30.0 1060037
0.10 14760 16907.2 28.2 2.8 31.0 1075443
0.20 14815 16970.2 28.3 2.8 31.1 1077285
0.30 14878 17042.4 28.4 2.8 31.2 1079394
0.40 14929 17100.8 28.5 2.9 31.4 1081102
0.50 14975 17153.5 28.6 2.9 31.4 1082643
0.60 15028 17214.2 28.7 2.9 31.6 1084418
0.70 15081 17274.9 28.8 2.9 31.7 1086193
0.80 15141 17343.6 28.9 2.9 31.8 1088202
0.90 15265 17485.7 29.1 2.9 32.1 1092355
1.00 16100 18442.2 30.7 3.1 33.8 1120319
895
Bid Price (Driven Pile)

1.12M
1
1.092M
0.9
1.088M
0.8
1.086M
0.7
1.084M
Percentiles
0.6
1.083M
0.5
1.081M
0.4
1.079M
0.3
1.077M
0.2
1.075M
0.1
1.06M
0
1060037 1070037 1080037 1090037 1100037 1110037 1120037
Total Costs($)
896
897 Fig24. Bid Price Range for Driven Pile

898
- 53 -
Installation Time (Driven Pile)
33.8D
1
32.1D
0.9
31.8D
0.8
31.7D
0.7
31.6D
Percentiles
0.6
31.4D
0.5
31.4D
0.4
31.2D
0.3
31.1D
0.2
31.0D
0.1
30.0D
0
30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5 32.0 32.5 33.0 33.5

899
900 Fig25. Installation Time Range for Driven Pile
901
902 9.2.3 Contingency Analysis for CIP Pile

903 The contingency is calculated in a sequence of increasing percentile, showing the range of
904 duration and total cost. It is shown in Table 22 that the total duration range from 49.9 days to
905 58.9 days and the total cost range from $1,245,558 to $1,424,242. The duration range and bid
906 price range for CIP pile are further converted to intuitive charts shown in Figure 25 and Figure
907 26 respectively. Note these figures are also shown in Executive Summary.
908 Table 22: Range Calculation for CIP Pile

0.856 PI Converted to standby Total Total
added days days days Cost($)
0 22300 26051.4 43.4 6.5 49.9 1245558
0.10 22635 26442.8 44.1 6.6 50.7 1260523
0.20 22784 26616.8 44.4 6.7 51.0 1267179
0.30 22896 26747.7 44.6 6.7 51.3 1272182
0.40 23110 26997.7 45.0 6.7 51.7 1281742
0.50 23357 27286.2 45.5 6.8 52.3 1292775
0.60 23633 27608.6 46.0 6.9 52.9 1305105
0.70 23854 27866.8 46.4 7.0 53.4 1314977
0.80 24331 28424.1 47.4 7.1 54.5 1336285
0.90 24685 28837.6 48.1 7.2 55.3 1352098
1.00 26300 30724.3 51.2 7.7 58.9 1424242
- 54 -
Bid Price (CIP Pile) 1.424M
1
1.352M
0.9
1.336M
0.8
1.315M
0.7
1.305M
Percentiles
0.6 1.293M
0.5
1.282M
0.4
1.272M
0.3
1.267M
0.2
1.261M
0.1
1.245M
0
1245558 1265558 1285558 1305558 1325558 1345558 1365558 1385558 1405558
Total Cost($)
909
910 Fig26. Bid Price Range for CIP Pile

911
Installation Time (CIP Pile)

58.9D
1
55.3D
0.9
54.5D
0.8
53.4D
0.7
52.9D
Percentiles
0.6
52.3D
0.5
51.7D
0.4
51.3D
0.3
51.0D
0.2
50.7D
0.1 49.9D
0
49.9 50.9 51.9 52.9 53.9 54.9 55.9 56.9 57.9 58.9

912
913 Fig27. Installation Time Range for CIP Pile
914
- 55 -
915 10. CROSS VALIDATION
916 Validation is crucial to prove the effectiveness in outputting high quality results from the simulation
917 models. A three-step validation process has been conducted in this research: (1) Productivity cross
918 checking; (2) Performance Index cross checking; and (3) Bid price cross checking. The validation steps
919 are illustrated with detailed process in subsequent sections.
920 10.1 Productivity Cross Checking

921 The results of the simulation experiment were compared with the experts' opinion on the average
922 daily production given the project scenario so as to check the validity of the simulation model. If
923 the model provides close numbers to the collected data, it is valid and can be used to represent
924 this process in the real world. To determine exactly how far the simulation model predicted
925 results from the collected data, a validation factor (Zayed and Halpin, 2004) has to be calculated
926 for each data point. The validation factor is calculated by the following equation:
927
928 VF = PMR / CP (2)
929 Where: VF = Validation Factor;
930 PMR = Productivity Model Result
931 CP = Collected Productivity.
932 Note, the closer the validation factor to 1, the better fitness of the simulation results. The
933 percentage of fitness is calculated as follow:
934
(2 − 𝑉𝐹) ∗ 100% 𝑖𝑓 𝑉𝐹 > 1
935 𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠(%) = { (3)
𝑉𝐹 ∗ 100% 𝑖𝑓 𝑉𝐹 ≤ 1
936 The collected productivity data for respective pile system are averaged to be CPavg, aiming to
937 provide with an averaged percentage of fitness for each pile system. The daily output for helical
938 pile is obtained by simulation in session 7.2.1 shown Figure 12, being 15.832 piles /day. The
939 daily output for driven pile is obtained by simulation in session 7.2.2 shown Figure 13, being
940 13.092 piles /day. And, the daily output for CIP pile is obtained by simulation in session 7.2.3
941 shown Figure 14, being 6.849 piles /day. The models output an average of 86%, 97% and 86%
942 fitness for helical pile, driven pile and CIP pile accordingly, as shown in Table 23. The research
943 team also reported the result back to the engineers who provided these productivity predictions,
944 and they confirmed the outputted productivity is within reasonable range when considering it as
945 averaged daily output while including all the delay factors.
946
947 Table 23: Validation for Three Pile Systems by Average Productivity
Helical Driven CIP Note
PMR(piles/d) 15.832 13.092 6.849 Averaged from simulation model
CPavg (piles/d) 13.875 13.5 6.0 Averaged from experts’ predictions
VF 1.14 0.97 1.14
Fitness (%) 86% 97% 86%
949
- 56 -
950 10.2 Performance Index (PI) Cross Checking
951 With the help of experienced domain experts, PIs valued at 0.70, 0.75 and 0.80 were estimated to
952 CIP pile, Driven Pile and Helical pile respectively for cross checking purpose. This session is to
953 cross check the PI value derived from domain experts’ knowledge and simulation output.
954 In reality, the PI value equals to the realistic (average) daily output over the ideal (maximum)
955 daily output. The PI for respective pile system calculated in session 7.2 is compared with
956 collected PIs, as shown below:
957 Table 24: Validation for Three Pile Systems by Performance Index
Pile Type Helical Driven CIP
PI (outputted from simulation model) 0.880 0.873 0.856
PI (collected from domain experts) 0.8 0.75 0.70
VF 0.91 0.86 0.82
Quality Good Fair Fair
958
959 Using the validation factor (VF) concept in previous session, the VFs for helical pile and driven
960 pile are 0.91, which is relatively good. For Driven pile and CIP pile, the VF is 0.86 and 0.81,
961 which is fair. The PIs results from simulation model are concisely higher (i.e. helical: 0.88 vs.
962 0.8; driven: 0.873 vs. 0.75; CIP: 0.856 vs. 0.70) than those values estimated by experts,
963 indicating further room for improvement on input data and model sufficiency. The simulated PI
964 values for respective pile systems are more optimistic on productivity performance likely
965 because some factors have not been considered in the model yet while others not being
966 sufficiently represented due to limited data available (e.g. resource transit, interruptions due to
967 equipment, weather, labor, material, and management delays). However, current simulated PI
968 values is close to expected benchmarks and deemed applicable in follow-up cost estimation,
969 schedule comparison analysis.
970 10.3 Bid Price Cross Checking

971 In this session, rough bid prices for respective pile system were collected from professional field
972 engineers or experienced estimators in order to test the quality of simulation outputs and cost
973 estimation accuracy.
974 10.3.1 Bid Price Cross Checking for Helical Pile

975 According to Quote data provided by Almita, the total bid price (cap excluded) is $852,308. Note,
976 the total bid price in the Quote excludes contingency. By assigning an average 5% contingency
977 of the total bid price for rough estimation purpose, the result is very close to the simulation-based
978 total price estimate (ranging from $863,041 to $906,648).
- 57 -
979 10.3.2 Bid Price Cross Checking for Driven Pile
980 According to two cost estimating experts from local construction contractors, the estimated total
981 bid price is $1,040,000 and $1,020,000, respectively, including mobilization, labor, equipment,
982 materials and markup. Note that the price excludes subcontractors such as survey, weld testing,
983 material inspection, and predrilling. As such, the simulation-produced average total price from
984 this study, which is $1,089,585 is very close to experts’ estimation.
985 10.3.3 Bid Price Cross Checking for CIP Pile

986 According to two professional cost estimating experts from local construction contractors, the
987 total bid price is estimated as $750,000 and $ 1,529,700, respectively, including labor, equipment,
988 material, mobilization, risks, and markup. The first estimate (roughly estimated by field engineer
989 based on experience) is far from the simulation output while the second one (relatively
990 accurately estimated by professional estimator by following detailed bidding procedures) is
991 much closer. To a certain extent, this shows that even experienced engineers (or estimators) can
992 raise a wide range of cost estimate given the identical project and design information. In short,
993 the large gap justifies the need to develop scientific approaches to estimate costs for foundation
994 engineering based on detailed quantitative analysis.
995 The bid price comparison together with the estimates given by experts are summarized in Figure
996 28. Note this figure is also shown in Executive Summary.
997
998 Fig28. Bid Price Comparison of Three Pile Systems

999
- 58 -
1000 CONCLUSION
1001 This research has introduced a comprehensive cost and contingency estimating method based on
1002 simulation for cost comparison among three typical pile systems in Alberta, Canada. By fully
1003 engaging Almita engineers, the “project scenarios” and “design scenarios” were designed by
1004 considering three different foundation systems: helical pile, driven pile and CIP pile.
1005 Experience-based exquisitely devised questionnaires in regarding to three pile systems were
1006 distributed to and collected from field engineers in respective pile construction domains. The
1007 collected data from questionnaire feedback were addressed and analyzed in scientific techniques
1008 with theoretical foundations introduced in the report. A SYMPHONY engine driven simulation
1009 system was adopted and three simulation models in regard to the three pile installation processes
1010 were established. Then the addressed questionnaire collected data were coded into respective
1011 model as inputs. By running simulation model in a Monte Carlo fashion, total project duration,
1012 daily output and other important results can be outputted. Finally, by summing up collected cost
1013 rate, required resources, performance index, and outputted duration, the cost and contingency
1014 estimation of each pile system and further the cost comparison of the three pile systems were
1015 done accordingly. It is concluded that helical pile system could save both budget and time in
1016 comparison with the other two in typical power substation project.
1017 To assist in Amita in comparing the economic benefits of the three pile systems in a more
1018 comprehensive and inclusive fashion, further improvements of the research reported will be
1019 worthy to be pursued, as follows:
1020 (1) The data in this research are mostly collected from experience of experts. Though it can own
1021 certain reliability when relatively large database is acquired, it is still has the shortcomings of
1022 expert system such as cognitive bias, estimation accuracy, expert experience and etc. As the cost
1023 estimation cannot be detached from the cost data and duration, it is foreseen that there is a need
1024 to improve the reliability of the mentioned in order to achieve more accurate and convincing
1025 comparison results.
1026 (2) The performance indexes assigned to simulation model accounting for the non-productive
1027 time have some discrepancy from results estimated directly by field engineers. Since the
1028 situation may vary from site to site, it is urgent to develop an analytical method to scientifically
1029 measure this pivotal index to further improve estimation accuracy.
1030 (3) The scope of this cost comparison is established on the basis of defined project scenarios and
1031 designed scenarios. It is projected that a more complete “project scenario database” and
1032 “engineering scenario” database could be integrated to make the comparison more
1033 comprehensive.
1034
- 59 -
1035 12. FOLLOW-UP IN NEAR FUTURE
1036 11.1 Statistics Based Cost Estimation

1037 Currently, the input data on activity time, progress rate still rely on domain expert experience.
1038 Instead, we can apply data-driven cost estimation based on available historical data that Almita
1039 has carried in helical pile installation. This allows for setting up data mining programs in the
1040 form of user-friendly application computer tools to link all the factors relating to the problem for
1041 building and evaluating the much desired "what-if" scenarios in terms of piling foundation
1042 engineering.
1043 11.2 Installation Speed Investigation based on Data Logger

1044 Therefore, it is evidenced in previous research that a relationship among (1) torque, (2)
1045 installation time, (3) soil layer, and (4) depth may exist in certain patterns. As the Torque-Time-
1046 Depth database is abundant due to the application of data logger, torque behavior in different soil
1047 layers in different depth is anticipated to be extractable from historical data logger data. The U of
1048 A research could attempt to explore the possibility to extract the potential correlations among
1049 variables to output the installation speed in different soil layers of different pile configurations,
1050 thus better estimating the pile installation time.
1051 11.3 Contingency Analysis

1052 Contingency has not yet characterized analytically in the process of pile installation. Because of
1053 the unknown nature of underground conditions such as soil layers, soil types, hard rocks and
1054 hazardous geological conditions, the company may be at risks if these contingency is poorly
1055 estimated. Since allowing for contingency in association with unknown subsurface conditions
1056 would have a major impact on the total bid price of pile installation project, the measurement and
1057 quantification the unknown based on statistical and analytical methodologies could be defined as
1058 an important research objective in follow-up research.
1059 11.4 Onsite Mobilization Investigation

1060 Time or price risk quantification is now insufficient in treating equipment transit between
1061 different pile locations, multiple crew concurrent workflows in site layout, and visual verification
1062 of the construction processes such as using 2D icon animation. It is anticipated that analytical
1063 techniques with consideration of detailed equipment transit (i.e. routes, directions, sequence)
1064 with various onsite constraints (i.e. reserved area, impassable area, and site management) can be
1065 proposed to give analytical insight to detailed cost estimation.
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
- 60 -
1071
1072 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1073 This project is substantially funded by a NSERC Engage grant in partnership with Almita Piling
1074 Ltd. (Engage Grant 479602 2015 entitled "Cost Analyses of Pile Foundation Systems based on
1075 Engineering Design and Construction Method")
1076 We express our sincere gratitude to Bill Baillie, Baocheng Li, David Watmough and Mohamed
1077 Abdelaziz from Amita Piling Inc., who provided unreserved help and insightful inputs
1078 throughout this research.
1079 We also sincerely thank Mike Garland, Patrick Long, David Baker, Paul Patenaude, Steve
1080 Burroughs from Amita Piling Inc.; Jason Lim, Justin Bekkers from Keller Foundations; and
1081 Doug Zieber, DeLorey Shane from Jacobs Canada Inc., who are site managers and
1082 superintendents with years of valuable installation experience, for sharing field experiences in
1083 pile installation and providing valuable insight information, and data in this research.
1084 Tim McLaughlin, Estimator, Ledcor Contractors Ltd., is acknowledged for his kind help in
1085 providing professional estimations for cross-checking purposes.
1086 REFERENCE
1087 [1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2012),
1088 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units (6th Edition), 2012.
1089
1090 [2] AbouRizk, S.M., Halpin, D. W., and Wilson J. R. 1991. “Visual interactive fitting of beta
1091 distributions.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 117(4): 589-
1092 605.
1093
1094 [3] Fente J, Schexnayder C, Knutson K. 2000. “Defining a probability distribution function for
1095 construction simulation [J]”. Journal of construction engineering and management, 126(3):
1096 234-241.
1097
1098 [4] Peck R.B., Hanson W.E., Thornburn T.H., Foundation Engineering, Text book, 2nd Edition,
1099 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN: 978-0-471-67585-3, 1974.
1100
1101 [5] Samtani N. C.Nowatzki E. A., Soils and Foundations Reference Manual – Volume II,
1102 Publication No. FHWA NHI-06-089, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
1103 Administration December, 2006.
1104
1105 [6] Tomlinson M, Woodward J., Pile Design and Construction Practice, Text book, 5th Edition,
1106 Taylor & Francis, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, USA, 2008.
- 61 -
1107
1108 [7] Zayed, Tarek M., and Daniel W. Halpin. 2004. "Simulation as a tool for pile productivity
1109 assessment." Journal of construction engineering and management 130.3: 394-404.
1110
1111 [8] Zayed, Tarek M., and Daniel W. Halpin. 2001. "Construction I: Simulation of Bored Pile
1112 Construction." In Proceedings of the 33nd conference on Winter simulation, pp. 1495-1503.
1113 IEEE Computer Society.
1114
1115 [9] Baccarini, David. 2004. Estimating project cost contingency - a model and exploration of
1116 research questions, in Khosrowshahi, Farzad (ed), ARCOM 20th Annual Conference,
1117 September 2004, pp. 105-113. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh: Association of
1118 Researchers in Construction Management.
1119
1120 [10] Ali, Touran, “Probabilistic cost estimating with subjective correlations,” J. Constr. Eng.
1121 Manag., vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 58–71, 2003
1122
1123 [11] ONLINEMETALS.COM, Version 2014, 1848 Westlake Ave N, Suite A, Seattle, WA
1124 98109. http://www.onlinemetals.com/calculator.cfm
1125
- 62 -
1126 Appendix A: Questionnaire for Helical Pile
1127 Dear Almita engineers,
1128 Thank you very much for your time on this questionnaire!
1129 Helical piles are widely used in Alberta as an alternative for traditional deep foundation engineering
1130 systems such as concrete cast-in-place (CIP) piles and driven steel piles. However, the installation of a
1131 helical pile is complicated from various aspects, by which exert great challenge for the project estimators
1132 to evaluate cost, duration and productivity. With a lack of research in this field, this study attempts to
1133 propose a scientific model from perspective of operations and logistics in construction with the
1134 application of simulation method to calculate operation productivity and duration. To proceed this
1135 research, firstly, U of A research team defined particular project scenario and engineering scenarios. Then
1136 a breakdown process has been conducted to factor the installation process. A total of 10 activities related
1137 to the particularly-designed helical pile foundation project were defined through breakdown procedure.
1138 We expect your kind offer us the duration data of each activity defined based on your experience and
1139 expertise. I promise a strict confidentiality for your information and the feedback information, and I
1140 ensure that this questionnaire will not be used for any other purposes except academic research.
1141 Thanks again for your kind support and cooperation. If you have any questions about the
1142 questionnaire content, you can feel free to contact. At the same time, I also look forward to more
1143 communication and interaction with you about the helical pile construction know-how.
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153 Questionnaire maker: Chaojue Yi (Eason)
1154 Contact Info: chaojue@ualberta.ca

1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
- 63 -
1165 A. Project Information
1166
1167 The following are the designed project settings for your information.
1168 Project Location: 10 km East of High River Project Type: Power Substation
1169 Piling Machine Type: EX Piling Machine Power: 40k – 150k
1170 Soil Type: Glacial Till (Cohesive) Season: Summer
1171 Frost Depth: 2.0m Ground Water: 2.0m
Helix Helix
Pile Type Shaft Diameter Pile length Helix Spacing
Number Diameter
P1 8 5/8” 20’ 1 N/A 20’’
P2 10 3/4” 25’ 1 N/A 24’’
P3 12 3/4” 25’ 1 N/A 30’’
P4 16” 20’ 1 N/A 30’’
P5 20” 30’ 2 2.4’ 30’’
P6 12 3/4” 30’ 2 2.4’ 30’’
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
- 64 -
1178 B. Basic Information
1179 1、Your company’s classification：
1180 x Contractor a Consultant Owner University professors or researcher
1181 2、Your work duration： s

a
1182 6 months 3-5syears 5-10 years 10-20 years 20+ years
1183 3、Your position：
1184 Junior Senior Superintendent Project Manger

1185
1186 C. Activity Information
1187 The following are the 10 defined activities. Please try to estimate the minimum, most probable, and
1188 maximum time that each activity can be accomplished according to factors as such: site layout,
1189 underground unknown condition, mechanical problem, rework, design changes, weather, experience
1190 (human factor), onsite management and etc.
Times(minutes)
Activity
Most
Minimum Maximum
Probable
1.Equipment Rig up
2.Screw pile pickup/delivery
Distance of 0-100m
Distance of 100-200m
3. Bolt
4. Level up and locate pile in position
P1: 8 5/8” x 20’ [3/4” x 20”]
P2: 10 3/4”x 25’ [3/4” x 24”]
5. Screw in P3: 12 3/4” x 25’ [1” x 30”]
Lead P4: 16” x 20’ [1” x 30”]
Section P5: 20”x 30’ [1” x 30” x 30”]
P6: 12 3/4” x 30’ [1” x 30” x
30”]
6. Unbolt
7. Record man recorded torque readings
8. Screw in extension section (10’)
9. Welder completes the pile cut off
Cap Plate (4pinholes)
10. Cap
installation
What is the daily output? (piles/day)
1191
- 65 -
1192 Appendix B: Questionnaire for Driven Pile
1193 Dear engineers,
1194
1196
1197 Driven piles are widely used in Alberta as a traditional deep foundation engineering system. However, the
1198 installation of a driven pile is complicated from various aspects, by which exert great challenge for the
1199 project estimators to evaluate cost, duration and productivity. With a lack of research in this field, this
1200 study attempts to propose a scientific model from perspective of operations and logistics in construction
1201 with the application of simulation method to calculate operation productivity and duration. To proceed
1202 this research, firstly, U of A research team defined particular project scenario and engineering scenarios.
1203 Then a breakdown process has been conducted to factor the installation process. A total of 8 activities
1204 related to the particularly-designed driven pile foundation project were defined through breakdown
1205 procedure.
1206
1207
1211
1212
1215 communication and interaction with you about the driven pile construction know-how.
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
- 66 -
1241 The following are the designed project settings for your information.
1242
1244
1246
1248
1250
Shaft Diameter Pile length
Pile Type
(inch) (m)
P1 10.695 8.5
P2 12.75 8.5
P3 12.75 12.5
P4 16 8.5
P5 20 10.5
P6 20 8.5
P7 12.75 16.5
1251
1252 Note: The pile length is the order length, the embedment depth is Pile length – 1.5m
1253
1254
1255
- 67 -

a

1263
1266 maximum duration that each activity can be accomplished according to factors as such: site layout,
1269
Times(minutes)
Activity Most
Minimum Maximum
Probable
1. Rig up pipe pile using a positive hook-up.
2. Hoist the pile into the leads/hammer.

3. Leadman aligns pile in position and swamper
checks for plumb and location before the full
weight of the hammer is placed on the pile.
P1: 10.695 inch D with 8.5m
length
P2: 12.75 inch D with 8.5m length
4. Drive in P3: 16 inch D with 8.5m length

P4: 20 inch D with 8.5m length
P5: 12.75 inch D with 12.5m length
P6: 20 inch D with 10.5 length
P7: 20 inch D with 16.5 length
5. The welder and swamper align the splice with
the bottom section and tacks the pile in place
6. Fully welded
7. Drive the splice section until the refusal criteria
is met or reach practical refusal.
8. Surveyor to mark pile cut off elevation on piles
- 68 -
and welder completes the pile cut off
1270 D. Resource Requirement Table.
1271 Please help identify the common quantity of each resource needed in this project (384 piles to be
1272 constructed, middle-sized power substation), feel free to add missing resources.
1273
Resource Quantity Hourly Rate
(approximate)
Supervisor (w/ truck)
Install Equip. Operator
Loader Operator
Rigger
Welder
Lead Hand
Survey Crew
Field QA/QC
100 Ton Crane (Driven)
Loader
Crew Truck
Manlift
……
1274
1275
- 69 -
1276 Appendix C: Questionnaire for CIP Pile
1277 Dear engineers:
1279 CIP piles are widely used in Alberta as a traditional deep foundation engineering system. However, the
1280 installation of a CIP pile is complicated from various aspects, by which exert great challenge for the
1281 project estimators to evaluate cost, duration and productivity. With a lack of research in this field, this
1282 study attempts to propose a scientific model from perspective of operations and logistics in construction
1283 with the application of simulation method to calculate operation productivity and duration. To proceed
1284 this research, firstly, U of A research team defined particular project scenario and engineering scenarios.
1285 Then a breakdown process has been conducted to factor the installation process. A total of 8 activities
1286 related to the particularly-designed CIP pile foundation project were defined through breakdown
1287 procedure.
1293 communication and interaction with you about the CIP pile construction know-how.
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302

1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
- 70 -
1318 The following are the designed project settings for your information

1323
Shaft Diameter Pile length
Pile Type Rebar Size
(mm) (m)
P1 400 6 20M
P2 500 6 20M
P3 500 8 20M
P4 600 6 20M
P5 600 11 20M
P6 700 6 20M
P7 1000 13 30M
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
- 71 -

a

1336
1339 maximum duration that each activity can be accomplished according to factors as such: site layout,
Times(minutes)
Activity Most
Minimum Maximum
Probable
1.Equipment Rig up
2.Rebar cage pickup/delivery

Distance of 0-100m
3. Positioning the Piling Machine

P1: 400mm D with 6m length
4. Drill in
4. Reinforcing Steel Cage Positioning
5. Positioning the Tools for Concrete Pouring
6. Concrete Pouring
7. Extract casing
8. Finishing
- 72 -
1342 D. Resource Requirement Table.

1343 Please help identify the common quantity of each resource needed in this project (336 piles to be
1344 construction, middle-sized power substation)
1345
Resource Quantity Hourly Rate
Supervisor (w/ truck)
Crane Operator
Loader Operator
D & C Operator
Rigger
Swamper
Foreman
Survey Crew
Field QA/QC
Drilling & Casing Machine
Crane
Concrete Pump Truck
Loader
Skid Steer
Supervisor Truck
Crew Truck
……
1346
1347
- 73 -
Appendix D: Site Layout and Pile Distribution
Fig D.1. Pile Layout of the Power Substation Project
74
Appendix E: Design Loads
Fig E.1. Loads for Pile Designs
75
Appendix F: Screw Pile Installation Approval Procedure
INSTALL START
YES YES VERIFY PILE YES

90%-100% ALMITA
MINIMUM TORQUE LOCATION
DESIGN INSTALL START ENGINEERING END
CRITERIA IS WITHIN PLACEMENT
EMBEDMENT APPROVAL
TOLERANCE
NO NO
EVALUATE NO ADD PILE EXTENSION LATERAL YES

YES
PILE REACHED CHANGE OF PILE UNTIL MIN TORQUE CAPACITY
MINIMUM TYPE IS ACHIEVED CHECK
EMBEDMENT
CRITERIA
YES NO
NO ENGINEER TO ENGINEER TO
PROPOSE NEW PILE PROPOSE NEW PILE
TYPE THROUGH RFI TYPE THROUGH RFI
YES MIN YES YES
VERTICAL
EVALUATE EMBEDMENT
CAPACITY
PRE-DRILL REACHED AFTER
CHECK
PRE-DRILL
RFI
RFI
DISPOSITION
NO DISPOSITION
NO
NO
EVALUATE RFI
RFI
REMOVING DISPOSITION
DISPOSITION
TOP HELIX
ALMITA
ALMITA
ENGINEER TO PROPOSE ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
REMEDIAL/APPROPRIATE APPROVAL
APPROVAL
SOLUTION THROUGH RFI
REMOVE TOP HELIX. RE-INSTALL PILE
AS PER NEW INSTALLATION CRITERIA TO
BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER. RE-START END
END
PILE APPROVAL PROCEDURE
RFI
DISPOSITION
WORK TO BE
DONE AS PER
RFI DISPOSITION
ALMITA
ENGINEERING
APPROVAL
END
Fig F.1. Screw Pile Installation Approval Procedure
76
Appendix G: Simulation Model for Three Pile Systems
Fig G.1. Symphony model for Helical Pile Installation Process
77
Fig G.2. Symphony model for Driven Pile Installation Process
78
Fig G.3. Symphony model for CIP Pile Installation Process
79

Cost Comparison Engage Report Final Version PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost Comparison Engage Report Final Version PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundation Construction Cost Comparison: Helical Pile, Driven Pile, and CIP Pile

Chaojue Yi and Ming Lu

Hole School of Construction

Almita Piling Inc.

December 23th, 2015

86 1.1 Research Background

96 (1) Screw piles (helical piles)

117 Fig1. Three Pile Systems

126 1.2 Literature Review

149 2.1 Problem Definition

161 2.2 Project Information

170 2.3 Methodology

181 2.4 Data Collected

191 2.5 Assumptions Made

206 2.6 Findings

Bid Price (Driven Pile)

Installation Time (Helical Pile)

Installation Time (CIP Pile)

Total Project Duration (days)

GENERALIZE “PROJECT PROJECT POOL

FEASIBLE FOR THREE

ACTIVITY INSTALLATION RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY

ANALYZE AND CALCULATE BASED

SET UP SIMULATION SET UP SIMULATION

COST COMPARISON WITH

8 5/8”(.322) x 20’ [3/4” x 20”]

300 Table 4. Engineering Design for CIP Piles

303 5.1 Helical Pile Installation Process

10. welder completes pile 11. Clean up the area and

345 Fig9: Helical Pile Installation Procedure

390 5.3 CIP Piles Installation Process

4. Erect the concrete pouring tool (pump

406 Fig11: CIP Pile Installation Procedure

424 6.1 Factorized Activity Duration

451 Fig12. Probability density function for inputted beta distribution

452 6.2 Cost Rate

470 6.3 Resource Requirement

480 7.1 Simulation Engine

487 7.2 Non-productive Time and Performance Index

533 7.3 Simulation Model and Simulation Results

536 7.3.1. Simulation Model for Helical Pile Installation

606 Table 8: Equipment Charge-out Rate (Provided by Almita)

607 8.1.3 Shipping Cost for Helical Pile

610 Table 9: Helical Pile Shipping Specifications

640 Personnel Costs:

Construction Manager (w/ truck): 260 hr @ $147/hr = $38,220

642 Equipment Costs:

70K 25 Ft Reach: 180 hr @ $265/hr = $47,700

Orientation: $65.00/man/hour x 3 hours x 10 = $12,432

651 Sum Total:

Material Cost = $468,084

652 8.2 Cost Estimation for Driven Pile

667 Fig17. Metal Calculator (Onlinemetals Caculator 2015)

672 Table 11: Personnel Charge-out Rate (Provided by competing company)

682 Table 12: Equipment Charge-out Rate (Provided by competing company)

684 8.2.3 Shipping Cost for Driven Pile

688 Table 13: Driven Pile Shipping Specifications

693 (2) Distance: Vancouver to High River, 1100 km via Highway

698 (5) Trip numbers are estimated as 8/56+102/46+8/30+40/33+126/34+4/26+8/22+16/21+72/17=

700 Thus total transportation fee is estimated as 14 x $205/h x 34h= $ 97,580

701 8.2.4 Project Total Duration for Driven Pile Installation

Supervisor (w/ truck): 290 hr @ $135/hr = $39,150

100 Ton Crane: 290 hr @ $380.15/hr = $110,244