Geotechnical
Good foundations C
onstruction work in any environment presents a number of challenges, both to client and contractor, but perhaps none more so than that undertaken on or near to operational rail infrastructure. Indeed working close to electrified track has not been without incident for the geotechnical sector, as the 2003 collapsed piling rig on a Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) site demonstrated. In fact, it’s the desire of the rail company to maintain vital rail links during work that presents the biggest challenge and demands the most rigorous planning, including risk assessments by both client and piling contractor. Of course 'belt and braces' solutions immediately following the CTRL incident reassessed the site’s risk and subsequently enforced changes to working methods, such as the use of smaller and slower piling rigs. These changes not only bumped up costs, but also slowed down the piling process, neither of which are
good for any party.
Safety of course is paramount, and while lines down are inconvenient and costly, a toppled rig in the path of a high- speed train has much greater implications. However, moving forward, undertaking piling adjacent to a running line had to be examined in its entirety to establish a new standard of working, which would include proper risk assessment and the implementation of procedures and practices that would eliminate the need for possessions, yet facilitate a smooth and cost-effective running of the project. In the short term this approach brought about decisions pertaining to working methods that were made on an individual basis, calling upon Network Rail's engineers’ experience, which often varied.
A new standard for piling operations What was required was a new standard that would encompass all piling operations adjacent to the operational railway, from general requirements – off-
Jim De Waele, chairman of the Federation of Piling Specialists says members are not prepared to compromise on standards, especially safety, during tough times for all areas of construction
loading materials etc., through to the competency of personnel. Clearly this was an industry problem and the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS), representing most of the major piling and geotechnical specialist contractors in the UK, had to get involved in some form. Network Rail recognised this too and worked in partnership with the FPS, acknowledging that any industry problem should be tackled collaboratively with the industry body to which the problem relates. More importantly, solutions offered can often have quite wide-reaching ramifications for the industry and the technical input of the FPS would ensure that any suggested changes to working were practical, with alternative solutions offered that in no way compromised the core aim of the highest levels of safety.
As an industry body representing the vast proportion of its industry, the FPS could ensure that the solution or ‘new standard’ would work for the whole piling sector, without bias, as well as the
April 2013 Page 103
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204