Coarse grained soils behave differently than fine grained soils. What is the primary soil property responsible for the different engineering behavior of coarse versus fine grained soils, and why is it important?

A 0.8-km concrete lined canal carries a discharge of 1.20 m³/s. Determine the head loss along the channel if the width is 2 m and the flow depth is at 1.2 m. Assume n = 0.018

Determine the lightest section W14 available to carry a service dead load of 150 kips and a service live load of 250 kips. The effective length of the column about both axes is 15 ft. Use A992 steel. (10 points)

Fact Situation:

You are the Senior Project Manager for Wackinsmack, Inc., the general contractor on the prime contract for the construction of a new waste water treatment plant for Dimwit County DPW. The Contract Price has grown to $115 million after Dimwit made adjustments to the scope of the Work and issued the appropriate Change Orders. Wackinsmack’s contract with Dimwit is based on the ConsensusDOCs, CD 200, “Owner/Prime Contractor” Form.

You have successfully negotiated the subcontract with Acme Mechanical, Inc. for $41 million, for the mechanical work, which does not include dewatering, and which provides for Wackinsmack to give lifting services for Acme at no cost. Acme has executed the subcontract, ConsensusDOCs, CD 750, “Prime/Subcontractor Subcontract.” In general, Acme’s subcontract consists of Wackinsmack’s standard subcontract form (ConsensusDOC CD 750) and is “complete, per plans and specifications” for the mechanical work on the Project, except for the exclusions you’ve negotiated, as identified above.

Over the course of construction, a number of events occur, which have caused Wackinsmack and its subcontractors extra cost and time to complete the work affected by the events.

In addition to the undisputed contract adjustments, Dimwit County has issued a number of additional Change Orders, which have provided for specific cost and time adjustments for certain items of changed work, and upon which Wackinsmack has “signed off.”   Where appropriate, Wackinsmack has “passed down” Change Orders to its subcontractors affected by the changes. As issued, the Dimwit Change Orders all contain language to the effect that the Change Order represents a complete and final resolution of all costs and time affects associated with the change, including direct and indirect costs.

Dimwit has refused to issue Change Orders for other work, claimed to be “extra” by Wackinsmack. Included in the pile of refused change orders, are two “Field Directives” issued by Dimwit’s Engineer (Ithinkican Engineering Consultants, Inc.) which the Owner feels are not changes to the Contract’s scope; a claim for Differing Site Conditions (DSC), which Dimit says Wackinsmack should have known about when bidding; and, the discovery of hazardous “contamination” in the excess excavated soil materials which has to be trucked off the site and disposed of in a Class II landfill (which Dimwit feels is Wackinsmack’s contractual responsibility).

The accumulation of changes, including those for which Dimwit has not agreed, has resulted in delays to the project. Wackinsmack failed to achieve Substantial Completion of the work by the Contract End Date (as adjusted by approved change orders). As a result Dimwit has assessed liquidated damages against Wackinsmack for late completion. Wackinsmack has, in turn, assessed Acme for 35.6% of the liquidated damages, based on Acme’s proportionate share of the prime contract price (ie. $41 million/$115 million).

One of the disputed Work Orders involves the direction by Ithinkican, to relocate a significant portion of the process piping (work performed by Acme) to avoid conflicts with other elements of the mechanical systems. Ithinkican has advised Dimwit that this work was part of the contractor’s “methods and means” responsibility and is not an extra. Ithinkican feels that since Acme has BIM capability it was up to Acme to identify conflicts (ie. clashes) in the piping system. Acme made the changes, and performed the work, and now claims $350,000 in extra costs and delay (which is yet to be determined because of the myriad of other changes, some approved, and others not approved).

The DSC conditions involved conflicts with existing underground utility lines (the County’s sanitary and storm sewer lines, and the main power feeds to the site, provided by Detroit Edison). The utility lines were not shown in their actual locations on the contract drawings and as a result, conflicted with excavation on the site. In some instances, the utilities had to be relocated to avoid the conflicts. In the case of the Edison lines, which are buried, they weren’t shown at all on the contract documents. Ithinkican and Dimwit defend against the claim by arguing that Wackinsmack failed in its duty to visit and inspect the site prior to the bidding, and if there were irregularities in the drawings then Wackinsmack should have notified the Engineer and Owner in writing of the problems, prior to submitting bids. Because Wackinsmack failed to do those things, its claims have been waived.

As to the hazardous materials contaminating the site soils (the contamination was not disclosed by the contract documents) Ithinkican and Dimwit defend on the basis that ownership of excess materials on the site “is the contractor’s” and that the contractor is obligated to remove and dispose of the excess material in a legal manner. Accordingly, Dimwit has refused to issue a change order for the disposal of the contaminated soils because the Contract requires Wackinsmack to remove and dispose of it. Thus, Wackinsmack should have made provisions to dispose of the hazardous materials at a Class II landfill as part of its bid. It is noted that the contamination was caused by Dimwit’s disposal, on site, of contaminated ash from the incinerator before construction started . The incinerated ash looks like fine grained brown sand and was intermixed with the existing “clean” soils on site.

You may assume that Wackinsmack conducted a pre-bid inspection of the site; attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting; and, submitted written notices of the differing site conditions and hazardous materials. No formal written notice was submitted regarding the pipe conflicts, however, because of the significant changes that had to be made, Acme, Wackinsmack, Ithinkican and the Owner’s representatives had a number of meetings to discuss the conflicts and work out plans to avoid them. Subsequently, shop drawings were submitted, showing the adjustments, and approved by Ithinkican.

QUESTIONS

1.          As to the Work Order issued by Ithinkican to relocate some of the process piping, (15                  Points)

1.         Does the Work Order constitute an Interim Directed Change (Contract Change                              Directive) under the terms of the Contract? If so, why? (3 Points)

2.         Under the terms of the Contract, what are the pricing mechanisms for paying for                           changed work in the absence of a price agreement? (3 Points)

3.         If Wackinsmack feels that the Work Order involves the performance of extra                                 work ,what obligation does Wackinsmack have to provide notice? (3 Points)

4.         In accordance with Wackinsmack’s contract with Dimwit, if notice is required,                              how is it to be given and to who is it to be given? (3 Points)

5.          Under the circumstances of this situation, is Wackinsmack required to provide                               notice? Why or Why Not? (3 Points)

Use a ven-diagram to compare and contrast asphalt cutbacks and emulsions. Be sure to address what they’re made of, how they work, the types of applications they’re used for, safety, environmental concerns, and cost. Section 9.1, 9.72 and 9.73 in your book may be helpful for this question.

Cutbacks and Emulsions

Quantity take-off problem: A capital improvement project requires the installation of a property line fence along the 250 -ft northern boundary line. The decorative aluminum fence is constructed of posts spaced at 10-ft center to center and an ornate picket infill panel between two posts. Given the material costs below, the cost for the construction of the fence is most nearly:

a. $65,771.25

b. $66,461.60

c. $68,402.10

d. $71, 065.58

Material costs:

Aluminum posts: $645.35 each

Ironworker: $78/hr

Picket infill panel: $1,985.50 each

Placed concrete $498.00/cy

A CAT 834 (power-shift, wheel-type) dozer is used in a pushing operation. The dozer is equipped with a straight blade. The material is in a loose stock pile and weighs 80 pcf in the bank state. It is estimated that the material will swell 4 % from bank to loose state. The center-of-mass-to center of mass pushing is 250 ft on a 0% grade. The operators have average skill and the job will be performed in normal conditions. Job efficiency can be assumed to be equivalent to a 55-min hour. Calculate the direct cost (DC) of the proposed earthmoving operation in dollars per bcy. The normal O & O cost for these machines is $86.00 per hour and the operator’s wage is $12.50 per hour plus 35% for fringes, insurance, worker’s compensation, and so on. Assume that the dozer will have a 0.39 coefficient of traction*.

* For wheel-type dozer and coefficient of traction less than 0.40, decrease production by 4% per 0.01 decrease below 0.40.

Describe the two-way factorial ANOVA for independent means (i.e., factorial between-subjects ANOVA): What is the purpose of factorial ANOVA, what are independent or “unrelated” means, and what types of predictor/independent and outcome/dependent variables are required?

If you visit a construction site, which quality aspects should you check with respect to structural concrete?

As a Construction engineer and the project is ongoing!