Project Execution Control

C H A P T E R

14 Project Execution Control 14.1 CONTROL STRATEGIES GENERAL 14.1.1 Project Execution Control Activities There are a number of project management and construction management techniques and strategies that can be applied to the design and construction of hydraulic gates. This chapter provides a brief overview of some of these. The detailed scope and discussion of project execution is provided in professional project management and construction management textbooks and classes. For example, a worldwide certification for project management is the project management professional (PMP). Construction management professionals have similar certification including the certified construction manager (CCM) in the United States. Some project and construction management control activities that directly apply to hydraulic gates include: • • • • • • • • •

managing hydraulic gate projects within an organization; execution, monitoring, and controlling the design and construction; project change control; developing a project charter; defining the scope and monitoring, and controlling the project scope; defining and sequencing project activities both in design and construction phase; developing and controlling the project schedule; estimating activity resources and durations; and estimating and budgeting and controlling project costs.

All of the above topics are important for a successful hydraulic gate project. For managing civil works projects such as fabrication and installation of hydraulic gates, waterway administrations aim to follow standard procedures. This leads to a clear, transparent, and just cooperation with contractors. USACE employees, for example, follow the guidance in the project management business process (PMBP) manual [1]. The manual is a guide focusing on the delivery of projects on time, within the budget constraints, as well as on meeting both customers’ expectations and public interests. The PMBP manual provides a framework to plan work, to manage time, people, and finances, to determine shortfalls, and to take corrective action before a crisis develops. Other waterway organizations have similar project management guidance. The PMBP distinguishes four basic project phases: • • • •

a a a a

project initiation phase, project planning phase, project execution and control phase, and project close-out phase.

The project initiation phase identifies the need for a project, assigns a manager, and enters the project into an electronic management database. A project example would be the need to replace a miter gate due to severe corrosion based on inspection criteria. The project first needs to be funded. Many times projects are competing against each other for limited funds so securing funding is necessary to start any project. USACE utilizes a computerized database to schedule, fund, and manage projects similar to other waterway organizations. The assignment of a project manager is another critical step. The project manager is then responsible for the complete execution of the project including establishing a project team and taking the lead in the project planning phase.

Lock Gates and Other Closures in Hydraulic Projects https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809264-4.00014-8

859

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

860

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

The project planning phase defines the project scope and customer requirements. This is also where the overall acquisition strategy is determined and a project team is appointed in a project management plan. The final delivery method and acquisition strategy should be based upon the project’s goals and objectives for budget, urgency, and functional and technical quality. For example, in the case of a severely corroded miter gate, there could be urgency to replace it and the acquisition strategy should reflect that. The acquisition strategy should consider using the most feasible delivery and contracting methods at the lowest sustainable cost [2]. The scope in this phase is reviewed for technical completeness, sound execution, and acquisition strategies, which can lead to refining or changing. It is important to define the scope early in a project as clearly as possible. Scope changes often result in cost overruns and missed schedules. The planning phase should include the entire spectrum of planning from inception of the project through delivery to the customer. The project execution and control phase as the name implies ensures there will be a project completed in accordance with the customer requirements. A challenge for many waterway organizations is to ensure that adequate funds are available to begin and also continue execution of the project. USACE projects sometimes have to be stopped due to lack of funding. This leads to missed schedules and cost overruns when trying to get the project back on track once additional funding is received. The project execution and control phase often includes review steps for quality control. Reviews are conducted accordingly to the risk level and project complexity. The USACE engineers follow the Engineering Circular [3] for project reviews. It requires formal reviews to ensure compliance with established policy principles and procedures. It also requires technical reviews of assumptions, methods, material used in analyses, alternatives evaluated, whether data is appropriate, and reasonableness of the results. The project close-out process is performed whenever projects or phases of projects, including specific activities, are completed or terminated. This includes physical and fiscal completion, asset transfer, contractor evaluations, transfer of operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals, as-built drawings, and specifications. The ultimate goal in this phase is to ensure that the completed products or services (like hydraulic gates or their coating renewals) are delivered to their owner per the plans and specifications.

14.1.2 In-House or Contracted Control There are a number of contract models available for both designing and constructing hydraulic gates. As noted, the overall acquisition strategy is set up during the project planning stage after the project scope is established. The vast majority of civil works projects and associated hydraulic gate projects by USACE are design-bid-build (DBB) discussed in Section 14.1.3. This contract model then requires a fundamental decision on whether the project design is going to be executed in-house or contracted to an architect-engineer (AE) firm. The contracting process and the control of this process is, however, always kept in-house by USACE. This is the case for both the design and construction phases of a project. Some waterway administrations in other countries already “contract the contracting” by letting private companies prepare nearly all required contract documents and also the execution of the project. The authors of this book caution against this trend. This approach virtually eliminates all oversight of a waterway administration over the project execution and essentially makes the organization a grant agency with no design or contracting capability. Assuming at least the contracting is entirely kept in-house, there are a number of factors that play a role in choosing whether the project design will be performed in-house or contracted. The first factor is the scope of the project and the capability in-house to perform the work. Often a workload analysis is done to determine the resource availability. Other factors include outsourcing percentage goals and the need to maintain a certain design competency level. The last point on maintaining competency is an important consideration. Waterway organizations should always maintain competency in their core missions. If all the design is contracted out, then they essentially become a “pass-through” organization. See also discussion in Section 15.8.3 for similar considerations regarding the maintenance. Another contracting approach is the design-build (DB) contract model discussed in Section 14.1.4. This model combines the design and construction of the project into a single contract. In that regard, it is important for waterway organizations to at least maintain control of the overall contracting process. Many building construction (“vertical construction”) projects today are executed using the DB contracting model. DB is often more suited to vertical construction since many facets of building construction are similar from project to project. That is not often the case for hydraulic gate projects where the design is often unique. It is important to ensure that DB construction projects for hydraulic gates clearly define program and project requirements, performance attributes, performance factors, submittal procedures, environmental restrictions, as well as other mandatory requirements. For DB contracts, the emphasis should be on performance criteria, in lieu of prescriptive criteria, to the extent practicable [4].

14.1 CONTROL STRATEGIES GENERAL

861

14.1.3 Design-Bid-Build Contract Model The most common contracting model for civil works projects within the USACE organization is the DBB model. This approach is commonly used for many hydraulic gate projects. The exception being some of the larger projects such as the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lake Borgne Surge Barrier in New Orleans discussed below. However, many other waterway organizations, for a variety of reasons, may employ the DB contract model instead. DBB simply means all the design is done first either with in-house staff or contracted. Once the design is completed and finalized, a tender or solicitation is issued for construction contractors to bid on. This leads to a separate construction contract or supply contract for the actual construction and/or delivery of the product. The biggest advantage to the DBB process is maintaining control of the design. The biggest disadvantage is the amount of time it takes to actually execute the project. There are several types of solicitations typically used in USACE and many other waterway organizations including: • • • • •

small business set asides for smaller projects; full and open solicitations (tenders) for larger contracts; requests for proposals (RFPs); lowest price solicitations or tenders; and supply contracts.

USACE has a number of contracting options and programs that are dedicated to small, sometimes disadvantaged businesses. This is often done for smaller dollar value products. Full and open solicitations are used for contracts that are open to all contractors. A request for proposals allows evaluation and analysis of the bid proposals which may be an advantage for hydraulic gate projects. The lowest price solicitation simply means the contract is awarded to the lowest price bidder. European waterway administrations also often practice the DBB contracting, although the numbers of such contracts decrease recently as the other, DB model becomes more popular, see discussion in the following subsection. The forms of the DBB contracts are in Europe similar to those in the United States, with as an exception that the small business set asides are less common. This has different reasons, some of them resulting from general tendencies to pull back from the active market policy. Both authors of this book see this, however, as a regrettable development. Another difference is that “set asides” are in Europe also practiced for medium size projects, and with other reasons than to support small business. The European term for this type of a solicitation is “tender with a pre-selection.” It can be applied to both limited and fully open tenders [5]. The latter is a two-stage procedure: open for qualifying for an invitation to bid in the first stage, and limited to a number of selected bidders in the second stage. The selection criteria can include requirements like a proven record of experience with a specific technology. For example, the tender for the new Lith Weir gate on the Meuse, as result of the 2009 damage further discussed in Chapter 16, was limited to three companies known to be capable of delivering good quality riveted structures: • Hollandia Infra B.V. in Krimpen a/d IJssel, the Netherlands; • BSB Staalbouw with Duyvis Machinefabriek B.V. in Zaanstad, the Netherlands; and • Victor Buyck Steel Construction N.V. in Eeklo, Belgium. The contract was awarded to the first of these companies based on the lowest price bid. Fig. 12.27 shows the new flap section of this gate, fabricated in riveted technology, shortly before its shipment to the site. At the time of writing this book, a DBB supply contract is executed for new miter gates in the Cannelton Lock on the Ohio River; and for new miter gates in the Upper Mississippi River locks and Illinois Waterway Locks in the United States. A supply contract in this case means that a gate fabricator constructs the gates and then delivers them to be installed by others. This includes the Upper Mississippi River Locks 2 through 10 miter gate replacement project. All these locks are 33.5 m wide and there are multiple supply contracts for the gates. Gate installation will be carried out by USACE in-house forces. The gates will be installed “in-the-wet” without dewatering the locks. The DBB contract model is ideal for this project since the new miter gates have fixed dimensions to replace the existing gates. The plans and specifications in such cases are usually very prescriptive and include “hard” requirements. On the upper Mississippi River, Locks 2 through 10, there are 10 similar locks built in the 1930s which have vertically framed miter gates ranging in height from 6 to 10 m, as shown in Table 14.1. Currently, these are all original gates which exceeded their service life and need to be replaced. A gate fabricator will build the miter gates in a shop as shown in Fig. 14.1. The repairs of these gates in the past were very costly, typically involving closing the lock, lifting the gate out, placing a spare gate, and then reversing the process

862

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

TABLE 14.1 Miter Gate Heights and Lifts for Locks 2 Through 10 Upper Mississippi River Lock no.

Height of upper gate (m)

Height of lower gate (m)

Lift (m)

2

8.2

9.1

3.6

3

7.6

9.1

2.4

4

6

7

2.1

5

6

7

2.7

5A

8.2

8.2

1.6

6

7

7.6

1.9

7

7

7.6

2.4

8

8.2

9.1

3.3

9

8.2

10

2.7

10

7.6

9.1

2.4

FIG. 14.1 Upper Mississippi River new miter gate in the shop. Photo: USACE.

for placing the repaired gate. The new miter gate supply contract foresees in maintenance-friendly design to standardize parts of the gate such that if one component is damaged, it could be easily replaced. While the individual components such as the top girder are welded subassemblies, their mutual connections are bolted to ease disassembly and reassembly. System interchangeability was also taken into account. By using the same top girder design for all 10 locks, spare components could be on hand for quick replacement without a delay for fabrication. Since this is a supply contract, specific requirements were included for the method of gate delivery. The miter gates were required to be transported vertically with the lifting lugs installed. A delivery procedure submittal included a detailed description of the transportation method, route to be used for delivery of the miter gate to the respective location, placement of the gate on the barge, stability computations of the barge and gate unit, and securing of the gate to the barge. A maximum of four gate leaves were allowed to be placed on a barge deck. The Cannelton Lock miter gates are redesigned for replacement of the original miter gates dating from 1962. A key consideration was interchangeability of modular components. The contracting model is similar to the Locks 2 through 10 models in that a supply contract is utilized to fabricate the miter gates and in-house forces will install the gates. The contractor will deliver the miter gates in a similar way as in the Locks 2 through 10 DBB contract, but to the USACE maintenance and repair station on the Ohio River instead of to the sites. The miter gates shall be completely assembled as delivered.

14.1 CONTROL STRATEGIES GENERAL

863

14.1.4 Design-Build Contract Model DB means a project delivery method that combines all or some portions of the design and construction phases of a project into a single contract. This can include design, right-of-way acquisition, regulatory permit approvals, utility relocation, and construction. The owner has to clearly define the standards and general specifications required to be followed in a project, and the design-builder works to satisfy those requirements [1]. The biggest advantage of the DB contract model is the expedited project delivery and streamlined design processes. For a hydraulic gate project that has a critical deadline and needs expedited delivery the DB contract is ideal. The biggest disadvantage to the DB model is the lack of control of the design by the owner. The DB contract model also has more risk for the contractor since there is no design other than functional requirements (also called performance requirements) to provide a price for bidding. USACE guidance for DB contracts is included in the regulation [2]. It is important before utilizing DB contract model to evaluate the functional and technical requirements of the project by answering key questions such as: • Can the project be fully or sufficiently defined, both functionally and technically, with a performance specification? • Are there significant special conditions that would apply to the project? For a hydraulic gate project this could be environmental or regulatory or real-estate concerns (see discussion below). • What is the construction industry’s ability or inability to provide the required design and construction? • What is the capability of industry to follow definitive hydraulic gate design requirements based on engineering manuals, engineering guidance, and standards or recently completed designs of similar projects? • What is the owner’s ability or inability to manage the acquisition and execution processes to ensure the required quality is achieved during design and construction? • Do time requirements, constraints, or objectives not allow time to develop a complete design prior to solicitation of a construction contract (DBB)? • Is fast-track design and construction allowed or desirable? If so, how would fast tracking affect cost and schedule, and what are the risks? • Is there more than one design solution available for one or several of the major project features? Are these alternative design solutions readily feasible and acceptable to all parties or is there primarily only one acceptable design solution for most major project features? The waterway administration or other contracting institution should determine if market conditions are stable enough not to excessively affect the pricing for materials, labor, and subcontracts. The waterway administration should also determine whether there are special technical or other aspects of the project that would preclude use of the DB method of delivery. Examples of such aspects are: • • • • •

environmental issues or requirements that include undefined conditions; issues that regulatory agencies will not resolve or will not issue permit(s) for without a full design being submitted; significant unknown environmental conditions associated with the project site; unfulfilled requirements for an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement; and proposed but unapproved resolutions of environmental issues;

According to Ref. [4], the DB contract can have one of three levels of performance criteria (“criteria” denoting here performances): nominal, partial, or full. This leads to the DB projects as follows: • Nominal criteria DB projects are typical and essentially represent an almost total performance specification approach; • Partial criteria DB projects include conceptual designs which indicate overall dimensions and any special requirements; • Full criteria DB projects represent a more prescriptive approach. At this point, the criteria begin to essentially resemble the traditional design of the DBB approach. Several of the largest hydraulic gate projects in recent years have been realized based on DB contracts. Examples are the rolling gates for the new Panama Canal locks and the GIWW West Closure Surge Barrier (see Fig. 3.130) in New Orleans. The New Orleans’ IHNC Lake Borgne Surge Barrier, discussed in Section 3.9.2, was also constructed in a DB contract. This was appropriate because of the complex design and accelerated construction schedule. The IHNC barrier consists of a concrete wall and three hydraulic gate structures. These gates include a sector gate, barge gate, and a vertical lift gate. The sector gate is shown in Figs. 3.133 and 3.136. The concrete barge gate is shown in Fig. 3.200. The vertical lift gate is depicted in Fig. 8.64. Fig. 14.2 shows the installation of the vertical lift gate. Note that the gate was installed before the construction of the lifting towers, which proved to be the fastest and most cost-efficient approach in this case.

864

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

FIG. 14.2 Installation of the Bayou Bienvenue vertical lift gate in IHNC, New Orleans. Photo USACE.

The preamble to the IHNC surge barrier solicitation [6] noted that much of the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina resulted from four breaches along the IHNC that devastated the lower ninth Ward and portions of St. Bernard and Orleans Parishes. The solicitation went on to note that USACE is acquiring the DB delivery of a line of defense that will provide hurricane protection from surges and waves at the 100-year level; and that USACE has no preconceived determination of the configuration of the IHNC project solution. The DB solicitation stated USACE encourages and expects innovation in both design and construction to maximize cost and schedule efficiencies. Some controlling dimensions, controlling elevations, and other requirements were identified in the solicitation; however, requirements were primarily performance and functional based to allow for innovation. DB contracts for hydraulic gates should be based on functional requirements to extent possible. As an example, some of the specific requirements for the gates in the New Orleans IHNC Surge Barrier solicitation included in the following [6]: • A navigation pass on Bayou Bienvenue shall be a minimum 17 m (56 ft) wide with a minimum depth elevation of
2.44 m (
8.0 ft). If replacing the existing Bayou Bienvenue gate, the navigation gate width and depth (560  120 ) and function shall be maintained. • A shallow-draft navigation pass for the GIWW shall be a minimum of 45.72 m (150 ft) wide with a minimum depth at elevation
4.88 m (
16.0 ft). • Hydraulic modeling shall be performed using numerical and/or physical models as required to prove all structures provide for safe navigation. • Permanent navigation passes to be equipped with gates shall be designed with a maximum opening time of 30 minutes and a maximum closing time of 30 minutes. • The structure(s) shall be able to be operated under direct and reverse heads. • Provide a means to record vessel impacts to control structures to enable identification of the vessel and date/time of impact [i.e., closed circuit television (CCTV) video recorder or monitoring system, or similar devices]. • All project features shall be able to withstand hydraulic loads to the top of the structure(s). • Provide cathodic protection on all steel structural systems. All embedded metals not fully covered by concrete must be 316 stainless steels or an approved substitute to meet a 50-year period of evaluation and low OMRR&R (operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement) costs. • Uncoated weathering steel is not acceptable for any use and paint systems must meet Corps criteria. • Structures including navigable gated structures, gates, levees, and floodwalls shall have a 100-year structure life. The costs of subsequent inspection and settlement lifts shall be scheduled in the O&M manual and the costs included in the O&M estimate for the feature.

14.1 CONTROL STRATEGIES GENERAL

865

• Structures shall be designed to survive a 0.2%-annual-chance (500-year) hurricane with only minor damage. Minor damage could entail small amounts of erosion or water damage to mechanical components. Critical flaws that would lead to a catastrophic failure of the protection during a 0.2%-annual-chance event are unacceptable. • Where required to have operable closure flood gates, equipment shall be operated by appropriate machinery (electrical, hydraulic, etc.). The primary electrical source for emergency closure shall be by an on-site generator backed up by a second generator. All equipment shall also be capable of operation by electricity supplied by the local utility. • Projects that minimize dewatering to maintain concrete or structural steel components are preferred over those that do require frequent and extensive dewatering. With this in mind the contractor shall design features that do not require dewatering to maintain, or the contractor shall demonstrate that any dewatering can be done at limited expense. In both the private sector and the public sector, an owner may at times pay a monetary “stipend” to encourage participation of highly qualified DB offerors. As the use of DB has increased, stipends can provide a means of encouraging better and more innovative solutions. USACE policy [2] generally approves the use of stipends on larger, more complex or unique projects with special features that entail significant upfront proposal preparation costs. It states that “payment of stipends can encourage participation on DB projects where creative design solutions are sought.” Many DB contracts related to hydraulic gate projects require the DB offeror to first prepare a design in order to bid the project. The solicitation for the New Orleans’ IHNC project [6] noted that the purpose of authorizing a stipend was to stimulate competition and innovation within the DB industry. Stipends should enhance the quality of competitive proposals. While they may offset some costs for proposal preparation, they should not pay for the total DB offeror’s cost to compete.

14.1.5 Other Contract Models Other contract models are also in use. A general tendency within waterway administrations and other public owners is to pass a growing number of project control activities to the industry. This proceeds with controversies and complications, and the authors of this book are generally critical about it, but it continues to prevail. There are already contract models in use such as “design, build, and maintain” and even “design, build, maintain, and finance.” The latter (DBFM) is, for example, applied in a number of new lock projects in the Netherlands. A DBFM contract is an agreement between, in this case, a waterway administration and a consortium of private companies, in which the consortium obliges itself to provide a certain function, for example, smooth and safe ship passage, during a long period of time; and the waterway administration only controls whether the function is provided as agreed and pays for it. All the risks are, theoretically, for the consortium—but so are many benefits. A DBFM contract, often extended with “O” for operation, gives the companies that make part of the consortium a great deal of freedom in managing the risks. As the contract periods are long, usually 20–30 years, they also stimulate the companies to develop their own maintenance, operation, marketing, and other strategies with respect to the constructed site. It is not surprising that the DBFM specifications are almost entirely performance based. They contain no technology, unless resulting from the law (like navigation conditions) or the interfaces with the rest of country’s infrastructure. One of the new lock projects, currently under construction based on a DBFM contract, is the New Sea Lock in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. This lock (Fig. 14.3) will have the largest chamber in the world, 500 m long, 70 m wide, and 18 m deep. Some details of the rolling gates for this lock have been shown in Figs. 3.182 and 15.2. The choice for a DBFM contract had in this case various reasons, the most substantial of which were: • The Netherlands waterway authority, Rijkswaterstaat, deliberately reduced its in-house expertise and is no longer capable of providing its own quality control for the projects of this size. • The IJmuiden Sea Lock project makes part of a larger national lock refurbishment program, the control of which would indeed require large deployment of own skilled personnel. • DBFM model offered the highest confidence that the assumed time schedule (contracting in 2015, new lock operational in 2019) would be met. • Although the New Sea Lock makes part of an existing lock complex, it can to some extent be functionally separated from the rest and subjected to external management. At the time of writing these lines, the Netherlands’ media reported that the construction cost of the New Sea Lock had risen; and that the lock will be fully operational in 2022, that is, 3 years later than contracted. It is too soon draw

866

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

FIG. 14.3 New Sea Lock in IJmuiden, currently under construction, the Netherlands. Courtesy VolkerWessels and ZUS.

definite conclusions from this news. The future will bring more ground for conclusions and for an assessment of the DBFM contract models. In the United States, public private partnership (PPP or P3) contracting is also another recent trend and similar to the DBFM contracting model in the Netherlands. It is currently being considered for some flood protection and hydraulic gate projects including a flood diversion project in Fargo, North Dakota. This contract model engages private companies and public waterway administrations in funding, operating, and maintaining public projects. It is especially applicable to large and costly civil works projects. Many times these projects cannot be funded due to budget constraints. Thus, the biggest advantage of this contract model is that it provides alternative funding and may also allow a project to be completed sooner. A P3 contract model leverages private company financing for constructing a project in return for a promised revenue stream perhaps directly from a Government entity or indirectly from users over the projected life of the project. This could, for example, be a new lock where the private company would collect tolls from users, or—as in the case of the IJmuiden Sea Lock—would receive payments from the government for providing the locking functionality. The private company generally assumes the financial, technical, and operational risk in the project.

14.1.6 Issues of Special Concern Changes in the scope of a project during project execution are a common reason for both missed schedules and budget overruns. “Scope creep” can be considered including more items into the project that were not originally budgeted, considered, and scheduled. The scope can also change significantly during the course of a project for a variety of reasons. As an example, on the New Orleans IHNC surge barrier DB contract, the Bayou Bienvenue gate was revised from a sector gate to a vertical lift gate. Change management is one means to control the scope of a project and is one of the more important aspects of project execution. It is the process by which proposed changes in a project are evaluated, agreed upon, documented, and implemented. Changes are defined as any activity or influence that could potentially impact or disrupt the scope, schedule, budget, or any aspect of the planned execution of a project [1]. Significant changes need to be documented in a project management plan. Change requirements are often generated by the customer or contractor requests. They can also be generated by unforeseen environmental restrictions or regulatory changes. To help reduce cost overruns, the goals of the project including the scope, schedule, and budget should always be tracked and monitored during the project execution. According to Ref. [3], the final project design should include applicable criteria, existing conditions, any alternatives considered, the selected or recommended alternative, and

14.2 CONTROL OF DESIGN PROCESSES

867

rationale for the technical choices. The project work needs to be described adequately to avoid modifications and field changes during construction. A detailed review plan such as required by USACE in Ref. [3] should be implemented to ensure product plans and specifications are technically sound and of high technical quality.

14.1.7 Building Up the Partnership A partnership between all stakeholders of a project is important to project success. This applies to all types of contract models and especially so with DB contracts since these contracts are typically fast tracked and construction and design are often taking place at the same time. A strong partnership means partnership with all parties involved, including the designer of record, all stakeholders, contractor, and subcontractors. A strong partnership will go a long ways to reducing cost overruns and schedule delays or scope creep. It is important to have good communication with all stakeholders. It is important that the contractor and the owner interpret the plans and specifications in the same way. This requires clear and effective communication and partnership [7]. A dilemma for many projects is meeting all the requirements of the customer yet controlling the budget and schedule. A strong partnership will help in this regard. A goal for all technical products such as hydraulic gates is that they should clearly, concisely, and comprehensively address the customer’s requirements and applicable policy and criteria, and enable a technically sound, cost effective approach to be implemented to meet those requirements [4]. At the same time, the customer’s expectations must be reconciled with schedule, budget, laws and regulations, relevant criteria such as codes and standards, and good technical practice. Environmental approvals often require their own supporting technical products and can also affect the technical solution chosen. Partnering is a long-term commitment between two or more organizations for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives by maximizing the effectiveness of each participant’s resources [7]. Partnering relationships are based on trust, dedication to common goals, understanding, and assistance to reach each other’s individual expectations and values. Partnering should not be considered legally binding. Rather it is a commitment and agreement between the parties to: • • • •

promote open communication within the entire project team; provide open and complete access to information except for any excluded by law; encourage decision-making at the working level staff to resolve as many issues as possible; and reach decisions by consensus as much as possible and when consensus is not possible, achieve resolution in a timely manner using an agreed upon process for resolving disagreements.

14.2 CONTROL OF DESIGN PROCESSES 14.2.1 Specifying Products or Functions Having control of the design process is an important consideration for the owner or his designee regardless of the contract model chosen and can be critical in a hydraulic gate project. For example, if the owner is replacing hydraulic gates in-kind, having complete control of the design process would be a benefit since the new gate has to be identical to the existing. A DB contract provides the least control of the design from an owner’s standpoint, as DB contracts are nearly always based on functional or performance specifications. Specifying products or functions then becomes a key decision for the owner. A contract based on product specifications again is typically a DBB contract and typically will say: “Deliver and install steel gates of miter type, of a specific width and a specific height with welding details as shown.” The majority of USACE contracts for hydraulic gates are very detailed, product-based specifications, as described earlier for the miter gates of the Upper Mississippi River Locks and Cannelton Lock. It is recommended to utilize this approach for any project that is replacing hydraulic gates in kind. The advantages of this approach include: • • • • •

design can be completely controlled by owner including the applicable design standards; owner has full control of project execution; easier for contractors to bid since the design is established; less risk for contractors; and price can be easily estimated before bidding and construction since a design is established.

868

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

A contract based on functional specifications is typically a DB contract and will say: “Provide a way to facilitate ship passage in a certain amount of time, safely and environmentally friendly.” This is also called a performance-based specification within USACE; and was the approach used for the New Orleans IHNC Surge Barrier. This functional approach gives the contractor a wider latitude in the design and construction and should be considered for cases where there is no time to develop a detailed design. The functional approach should also be considered where the design is very complex and there are many options available to consider. This was the case, for example, with the new locks of the Panama Canal Third Lane and the associated gates (both lock gates and culvert valves). The advantages of this approach include: • parts of the project can be designed while other parts can be constructed; • a single source of design and construction accountability; and • more collaboration, brainstorming, and innovation between the design and construction aspects which may be especially important on large and complex hydraulic gate projects.

14.2.2 Design Requirements and Freedoms On DB contracts, like for the IHNC Lake Borgne Surge Barrier, it is important to determine which design parameters should be functional based and which should be specified in the contract as hard requirements. It also needs to be determined which parameters should be left to the contractor’s innovation and which ones should be described “somewhere in between.” The IHNC Lake Borgne Surge Barrier contract specified several things as hard requirements including the dimensions of the required gate openings. This was necessary so the new gates would match the existing navigation pass openings. The contract left open the selection of the actual gate type. This allowed the DB contractor a free rein to select a gate type as long as it matched the required opening size. If local crews or in-house crews already have experience, equipment, etc. to handle a certain gate type, it may be beneficial to specify that particular gate as a hard requirement in a DB contract, or for that matter a DBB contract. A hard requirement in a contract is also useful if standardization is a goal. The Port of Antwerp in Belgium is an example. All the locks in the port utilize rolling gates driven by mechanical winches, see for example Fig. 11.28. Table 3.18 gives more details of these gates and Fig. 14.4 shows two of them in an aerial view. In this case, the owners and operators of the Port of Antwerp have much experience with rolling gates and the mechanical winch drive system.

FIG. 14.4 Berendrecht and Zandvliet Locks in Antwerp harbor. Photo MOW Vlaanderen.

14.2 CONTROL OF DESIGN PROCESSES

869

Not surprisingly, the new Kieldrecht Lock also utilizes rolling gates and a wire rope winch system. This allows uniform O&M procedures throughout the port. Besides, this is not the only reason for these choices, but it played a role. A consideration on DB contract models is that the contractor is the designer of record responsible for the adequacy of the design. As such, the owner reviews the design primarily for conformance to the contract requirements whether they be hard requirements or functional requirements; and the design will be accepted rather than approved. Some points to pay attention to in reviewing design submittals in DB contracts include: • Does the design conform to the solicitation requirements and the DB contractor’s accepted proposal? • Do the design submittals clearly document compliance with all appropriate standards and criteria?

14.2.3 Control on Management Level The control of design processes on management level is typically focused on controlling whether the design of structures such as a hydraulic gate proceeds on time and in line with the scope and budget. If the design is contracted, either in DB or in DBB model, then its schedule, scope, and budget will in the first instance be of contractor’s concern. If the design is done in-house then all these three aspects are of the owner’s management concern. In the latter case, the aspect of “budget” may in public institutions be managed in labor hours or so-called FTEs (full-time equivalents) rather than in dollars or euros. The project manager will need to negotiate the contribution of the institution own design staffs with the managers of appropriate departments. This may result in a conclusion that the in-house design capacity is insufficient, in which case the contribution of a third party, often private consulting company will have to be claimed. It is important that the agreements made at this stage are realistic and binding. A failure to meet them by the managers of the contributing departments will endanger the schedule of the design and, possibly, the schedule of the entire project. Regardless of whether the design of a hydraulic closure is contracted or performed in-house, it should properly be structured and managed in a modern way. A general guidance in this field can be found in quality assurance (QA) standards as ISO 9001 [8]. For the management of design processes, this usually includes the steps and actions like: • Making a so-called “work breakdown structure” (WBS). The PMBOK Guide [9] defines the WBS as “a deliverableoriented breakdown of a project into smaller components.” This definition also applies to the design. The WBS of a design identifies a number of design components. • Further specifying the WBS components and estimating the specific design capacities required to deliver them. This estimation will basically be in terms of functions, competencies, labor hours, required equipment (like computers and software), sometimes investigations, tests, etc.; • Prioritizing and scheduling the design activities based on the WBS, identifying constraints, critical paths, “milestones” and necessary approvals, establishing main communication channels, means and actions to control the progress of the design, communicating these with personnel involved. • Once the design is in progress, it is necessary to have good practices for controlling this progress. Design team meetings play a crucial role among these practices. It goes too far now to discuss the agendas and style of these meetings but all such details really matter. As regards the last item on this list, the authors’ experience is that meetings of design teams should normally take place once a week; and that the best day for these meetings is Tuesday. The latter will, obviously, not be possible for all projects. Meetings should not withhold intermediate communication within the design team. Free, informal contact between all individuals involved is usually helpful and should be encouraged.

14.2.4 Control on Technology Level Control on the technology level goes deeper and determines whether the materials, components and technologies applied in the design are adequately chosen; and whether their qualities (like steel grades), dimensions, dimensional and other tolerances, surface conditions, etc. are correctly specified. The main difference between this type of control and the control on the management level is that the latter is focused on the design processes, while the first focuses on the product being designed, in this case the hydraulic gate. Control on the technology level should in the first instance be carried out by the company or institution that provides the design, like an external consulting company or the owner’s in-house design teams. This is required by all QA systems and it is also a precondition of receiving appropriate quality certificates, like the ISO 9001 QA certification. The ISO 9001 [8] requires a systematic control of design activities on both management and technology level. It specifies four aspects of this control that can be summed up as follows:

870

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

• Formal control of outputs: The outputs like drawings, specifications, instructions, time schedules, and user manuals must have a form that enables control, particularly the control whether these outputs meet the input requirements. • Evaluation: The design must be evaluated at agreed stages. The purpose of evaluation is to ensure that the design satisfactory develops and to find solutions to the issues that may have arisen. This must properly be documented in revised drawings, reports, approvals, etc. • Verification: Verification is also performed at agreed stages and controls whether the design, so far, meets the input requirements. An example is the verification of the gate structural analyses. Verifications must also be documented in reports, control calculations, etc. • Validation: This control stadium should provide confidence that the gate final design indeed meets its requirements, before the construction begins. Examples are model investigations, laboratory tests, performance measurements on prototypes, and the like. There are many good practices and models developed for the design control on technology level, like internal reviews, approval procedures for drawings, internal and external audits, certifications by appropriate agencies, and test reports by independent institutes. Readers seeking more detailed guidance are advised to consult the literature on quality assurance, like Refs. [7, 8]. Good designs should also be open to the practices and lessons learned in the construction stages of comparable projects. In this sense, readers are advised to take notice of the discussion in Section 14.3.3. Finally, a lesson learned is also that every effort should be made not to allow the required formalizing of the control replace the in-depth technological expertise. The authors of this book are aware that the stringent requirements for documenting the performed controls tend to replace the focus from actual issues to the formal correctness of reporting. This is an undesired effect and there is no easy way to prevent it. The methods and tools of QA systems, in design and construction processes alike, still have some way to go before efficiently serving the purpose.

14.2.5 Design Approval for Construction The DBB contract model is easier to apply when design is approved before construction. The design has to be completed and clearly represented and depicted in detailed plan sets and specifications. Only at that point is a solicitation or tender for construction issued. USACE has specific reviews and design approval requirements listed in Ref. [3]. It is the Corps’ policy that the design quality control (DQC) is always done; and that all civil works products including hydraulic gates undergo an open, dynamic, and rigorous review process. Technical, scientific, engineering, and other information to support recommendations in decision documents or to form the basis of designs and specifications are reviewed to ensure technical quality. If the complexity and dollar value of the project are large, an independent technical review (ITR) may also be done to ensure the quality and credibility of the design. For the DB contract model, it can be more difficult to define when the design is ready to construct. The DB contractor may choose to construct certain features while still designing other features. The question is whether and when to build in so-called “stop points” for design approvals. If this is done, then the question is also when exactly should design drawings be released for construction: After definitive acceptance of the total design of a gated closure? In stages? If so then which ones? The New Orleans IHNC surge barrier project did allow the DB contractor to split the project into separate design packages for different aspects of the work; and begin construction on some packages before remaining packages were 100% complete and accepted. 30% and 90% review packages were required on the project and included the following: 30% Stage

• design calculations with assumptions and criteria used for all major components, and detailed calculation for all items scheduled for construction prior to and 30 days after the 90% submittal; • a time schedule and estimated cost of the work; • catalogue cuts for all “off the shelf” equipment and materials; • identification of proposed specially fabricated equipment, devices, mechanical and electrical components, and other unique systems; • to-date specifications; • design of procedure to maintain navigation during construction; • to-date foundation design and drawings for all structures; • to-date structure and barrier layouts, sufficiently complete to show all structural, electrical, and mechanical schematics planned;

14.3 GATE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

871

• to-date site plans including all utility connections, environmental protection measures, security elements, and other site features; and • complete and independent technical review (ITR) of the design. 90% Stage

• all updated documents required at the 30% stage; and • complete specifications for the project. The design packages often included proprietary items and materials specifically called out and also details in the form of shop drawings. The DB contractor was allowed to begin construction of certain work elements after approval of the 30% drawing set and before the 90% documents had been fully developed and submitted for approval. However, the DB contractor was required to identify those work items shortly after award in order to receive this approval. A consideration for the DB process as used for the IHNC surge barrier project is to conduct “over the shoulder” reviews. This is a cooperative review and helps to ensure a timely design review process. This type of review also helps facilitate approval for early procurement of long-lead time items, special fabricated items, construction materials, etc. As noted in Section 14.2.2, the approval of submittals by the owner only indicates that the design is in conformance with the contract requirements. Approval of submittals does not relieve the DB contractor of the responsibility for any error that may exist, as the contractor is the designer of record and responsible for the design and construction of all work.

14.3 GATE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL 14.3.1 Possible Construction Approaches The question whether to build (or repair) a hydraulic gate in a fabrication shop or on site is often answered in the contract. After all, the site owner has to give the contractor additional space if he or she allows the gate fabrication on site. If the contractor is free in this choice, it is important to include requirements in the scope to ensure that the quality of construction work performed in open air will be sufficient. The decisions in this matter affect the choices like whether to provide field joints or not, if so then where, painting restrictions, etc. Other questions to ask include: What are the shipment and installation options for the gate? Are there size limitations due to bridge clearances? How does the choice of the fabrication place affect the structure and its fabrication process? How do the provisions resulting from this choice (like field joints and hoisting equipment) affect the future maintenance possibilities? USACE often has in-house personnel available who are efficient at doing field work and repair work on gates on-site and in-place. An example of this efficiency is the delivery contract for new miter gates in the 10 Locks on the Upper Mississippi River, discussed in Section 14.1.3. Prior to procuring the new miter gates, the lock chambers were often dewatered and the old gates repaired and painted as shown in Fig. 14.5 for Lock 5A. Note also that the skin plate of the gate in Fig. 14.5 is constructed in so-called “buckled plate” system, carrying basically no bending moments but only tensile loads. This membrane effect allows for very low plate thicknesses and was popular in the 1930s, mainly in bridge decks [10], large rolling gates, and caissons. Its application in miter gates is quite exceptional, which gives the Mississippi River locks with such gates additional, historical value. By comparison, the structural drawing of a very similar gate but with a flat skin plate is presented in Fig. 8.22. See also in this context the discussion in Section 15.8 in the next chapter. In the case of the miter gates at Lock 5A, once the lock was dewatered the gate construction and repair work could proceed. The major repair done during this particular dewatering was fixing a crack in the bottom horizontal girder of miter gate No. 3 (downstream, I-Wall side). The crack extended approximately half-way through the web and through the upstream flange. These defects were repaired by stop drilling the tip of the crack and installing bolted splice plates. The miter girder on gate No. 3 was also bent out of plane and was heat straightened during the dewatering. All rubber seals on the miter gates were replaced. Some of the other work conducted includes the following: • • • • •

jacking the gate to replace the pintles, replacing gudgeon pins and bushings, repairing drive strut arms and strut connection boxes to miter gates, installing new gate diagonals and re-tensioning them, and sandblasting and painting the gate.

872 FIG. 14.5

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

Miter gate repair and painting at Lock

5A (USACE).

The miter gates for the Upper Mississippi River and Cannelton Lock are provided under supply contracts and furnished as completed gates. In this case, the complete gate fabrication is done in the shop. This allows the tighter control of the fabrication under climate-controlled conditions. Shop fabrication is also generally more efficient since the fabricator will have his work space configured to maximize production effectiveness. Fabrication shops are often similar to automobile factories in that production moves from one assembly area to another. There are also usually shop cranes that can be utilized to move the structure from one assembly point to another. Shop fabrication labor rates are often less than field labor rates. One big disadvantage is that the gate has to be shipped from and back to the field site, which adds to the cost. If the gate is required to be shipped as a single unit, it will often need to be shipped on a barge. Contracts where both the fabrication and installation are contractor’s tasks are ideal. The contractor is then responsible for testing the gates before they are accepted and also determining which components are better suited for shop fabrication and which are suited for field. The rolling gates for the new Antwerp Kieldrecht Lock in and the new Panama Canal Third Lane locks were all fabricated in the shop and delivered as complete gates.

14.3.2 Scheduling the Construction Here are a few notes on how the contractor schedules and organizes the construction of a hydraulic gate. Issues like preparing bills of materials (BOMs), placing orders, coordinating production processes, balancing cash flow with payments by the project owner, etc. are important considerations. Some items (like castings) may have long delivery times, so they typically need to be ordered sooner. Some works (like painting) may better be carried out in certain seasons of the year so scheduling this is important to ensure the opportunity for painting is not missed. Still other works and materials may require special testing, legal clearances, etc., so they need to be carefully planned and managed. An example here would be nondestructive testing of materials and products that may require a certified specialist. Obtaining legal clearances and necessary permits is another task that requires thorough planning and control. After all, failing to timely obtain permission for, for example, sand blasting in open air or navigation shutdown to allow a shipment of large subassembly, can result in not meeting the project schedule. In the Netherlands, project teams (both owner’s and contractor’s) often have a special person, so-called “permit tracker,” who identifies all the permissions required, timely applies for them, and manages the progress of these applications, usually from a database or spreadsheet. According to USACE [7], a general success is for all contractors based on their ability to do the following: • • • •

manage personnel; control costs; finance project work; estimate work;

14.3 GATE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

873

• schedule the work; • manage cash flow; and • maintain an effective quality control system. For USACE projects, the computerized resident management system (RMS) is used to assist in the monitoring and administration of contracts. All scheduling of the project is done in RMS including contractor scheduling. The USACE and the contractor both have access to the system during the execution of the project. The contractor accesses the RMS to record, maintain, and submit various information throughout the contract period and the joint use of RMS facilitates electronic exchange of information and overall management of the contract. RMS provides the means for the contractor to input, track, and electronically share information in the following areas: • • • • •

finance; quality control; submittal monitoring; scheduling; and closeout

Contractor entries into RMS establish, maintain, and update data throughout the duration of the contract. Contractor entries generally include prime and subcontractor information, daily or periodic reports, submittals, requests for information, schedule updates, and payment requests. RMS includes the ability to import attachments and export reports in many of the modules, including submittals.

14.3.3 Control Tools During Construction One of the control tasks during construction is ensuring that materials and components are within acceptable qualities, dimensional, and other tolerances, have passed the required testing, etc. This is the typical approach for the control of many USACE, Rijkswaterstaat, or other waterway administration projects. The testing and quality control procedures are often very detailed and specific. As an example of the level of detail, the USACE miter gate contracts discussed earlier provided stringent testing requirements for the welds, including the structural steel fracture critical member (FCM) welds. All welds on FCM were tested in accordance with the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.5M/D1.5, Section 12.16. The testing was done as early in the project as possible to ensure the quality of the procedure and process. In accordance with AWS D1.5M/ D1.5, Section 12.16.5.3, all discontinuities found by ultrasonic testing were recorded if required per AWS D1.5M/1.5 Section 6.19.8. All fracture critical member welds had to meet the provisions of AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Table 6.3 for Class C flaws, and all nonfracture critical member welds had to meet the provisions of AWS D1.5M/D1.5 Table 6.4 for Class C flaws. The ultrasonic testing of welds was required to conform to the provisions of AWS D1.5M/D1.5. The fabrication of hydraulic gates in the United States is usually required to conform to the standards by American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), especially so for any fracture-critical structures. As an example, for the miter gate supply contract, the fabricator was required to be certified under the AISC Quality Certification Program for one of the following: • certified hydraulic steel structures fabricator (HYD); • advanced or intermediate bridges (ABR or IBR) certification with supplemental requirement F—Requirements for fabricators of bridges with fracture-critical members, or the Category III, Major Steel Bridges (CBR) category with fracturecritical endorsement (F), and sophisticated paint system endorsement (P). The fabricator was also required to submit AISC certification indicating that the fabrication plant met one of the following specified structural steelwork categories: • • • •

CBR: major bridge fabrication, IBR: certified bridge fabricator—intermediate, ABR: certified bridge fabricator—advanced, and HYD: certified hydraulic steel structures fabricator.

Construction quality management (CQM) is an important tool during the construction of a project. CQM is defined as the performance of tasks, which ensures that construction is performed according to plans and specifications, on time, within a defined budget, and a safe work environment [7, 11]. There are many parts and pieces to the CQM process including quality assurance (QA) and quality control.

874

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

USACE typically provides in-house oversight of the contractor’s conformance with all the terms of the construction contract, including the plans and specifications. Other waterway administrations may contract out this oversight. However, the contractor, as already discussed, should always be responsible for the quality control of the project. The owner then provides QA of the project which means periodically verifying that the contractor’s system of quality control is working effectively and that construction and fabrication complies with the contract requirements. In general, the owner’s responsibilities (whether in-house or contracted) on a construction project include the following: • inspect the contractor’s performance to determine if the work conforms to the requirements of the contract plans and specifications; • provide personnel for construction management and project control as required for the project; • prepare periodic cost estimates, change orders and contract modifications, start and stop orders, recommendations for changes and construction inspection reports; • conduct periodic inspections to determine if the project is within budget and track funding; • perform all QA testing, as required, to determine the contractor’s conformance with plans and specifications; and • prepare and maintain an accurate, written record of contract time expended on the project by the contractor throughout the contract duration. This record may be important at the time of contract closeout to determine whether the assessment of liquidated damages is justified. The construction contractor (or in the case of a hydraulic gate project, the fabricator) should always have a detailed contractor quality control (CQC) plan. The primary function of CQC is to assure that the completed project meets all quality requirements of the contract, and at the same time to eliminate deficiencies and errors. In the CQC plan, the contractor defines the procedures by which he will manage and control his own work plus all subcontractor’s and supplier’s activities so that the completed project complies with contract requirements [7]. The CQC plan is not explicitly required by ISO 9001, but it is implicitly encouraged there. USACE typically mandates a CQC system manager provided by the contractor. The CQC manager’s responsibilities include the following: • • • • • • • •

controlling the quality as specified in the plans and specifications; developing and maintaining an effective CQC system; stopping work if necessary; performing all control activities and tests; preparing acceptable documentation of CQC activities; reviewing submittals, daily activities, performing quality audits; developing and maintaining submittal logs and all project specific quality control reports; verifying and documenting that all received materials were in conformance with approved submittals, handled and appropriately stored; • documenting prefinal and final inspections and acceptances of work at various phases; and • providing daily quality control reports. The owner should always have a QA plan. QA involves the means by which the owner or waterway administration protects its interests. Through reviews, inspections, and tests, the QA plan assures that the CQC plan is working effectively and the end product (such as hydraulic gate) complies with the quality established by the contract. In USACE, the CQC daily report in RMS is the official report for the project. The contractor has the ability to tailor the reports to better suit the fabrication process necessary in hydraulic gate projects. Some typical QC reports include welding, nondestructive testing, and gate alignment. For the Upper Mississippi River miter gate supply contract, the QC plan included all fabrication operations, both onsite and offsite, including work by fabricators, suppliers, laboratories, and purchasing agents. A prefabrication conference was also required. During the prefabrication conference, the fabricator’s quality control plan and system were reviewed. At the same time, a mutual understanding of the fabrication details was developed, including the forms for recording the QC operations, control activities, and testing for both onsite and offsite work. For DB contracts, the CQC manager must be in place for the design phase. It is important that the CQC manager takes an active role in the review and coordination of the design including constructability, operability, environmental review, and review of all drawings and specifications. The CQC manager should also facilitate coordination between the different disciplines and trades to prevent any undesired interferences between different components, and to coordinate with suppliers. See Section 14.2 for more discussion of design processes control. Gate fabrication work should always include multiple intermediary inspections to assure compliance with plans and specifications. Prior to final inspection or start of tests for constructed gate, all systems being inspected or tested should also be coordinated and accepted by the CQC manager. After acceptance, the final inspection and test should proceed in accordance with the following steps:

14.3 GATE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

875

• verify that testing personnel have a working knowledge of the special characteristics of the instruments being used; • note the particular inspection or test requirements and criteria for successful completion of the required inspection or test; • upon satisfactory verification of these requirements the test may proceed. Each reading will be verified and documented by the CQC manager; and • no functional test should be accepted without properly authorized and approved test procedures. Liquidated damages are often used in USACE contracts. They are a monetary assessment against the contractor if the construction works are not completed in a specified time as stated in the contract. The amount of liquidated damages is also established in the contract.

14.3.4 Commissioning in Construction The purpose of commissioning is to ensure that the hydraulic gate will satisfactorily function once in service. This section discusses commissioning during the construction process and, more specifically, in the fabrication shop. Section 14.4.5 discusses further specifics for commissioning hydraulic gates once installed and before they go into service. It is first worthwhile to define what exactly is commissioning. The building construction industry makes extensive use of the commissioning process. In the United States, both the LEED program [12] and the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers (ASHRAE) have specific definitions for commissioning. ASHRAE defines commissioning as a quality-oriented process for achieving, verifying, and documenting that the performance of facilities, systems, and assemblies meets defined objectives and criteria [13, 14]. That definition can certainly be applied to hydraulic gates. ASHRAE standards [13, 14] describe how to plan, conduct, and document the commissioning process including checklists, systems manual, and reports. These standards ensure the commissioned systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner’s project requirements. Much of this can be adapted to hydraulic gates. Wikipedia provides a similar definition of commissioning as a process of assuring that all systems and components of a building or industrial plant are designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained according to the operational requirements of the owner or final client. In this case the term “hydraulic gate” can replace the term “building.” Wikipedia also notes that the commissioning process may be applied not only to new projects but also to existing units and systems subject to expansion, renovation, or revamping. The commissioning of hydraulic gates both in the shop and on site before going into service provides several benefits including: • • • •

assurance to the owner that the gate will perform satisfactorily; assurance that the gate was built according to project plans and specifications; confidence that CQC procedures are followed; and completion of final close-out procedures including providing O&M manuals and as-built drawings.

It is important to differentiate between commissioning in a fabrication shop and commissioning on site. The commissioning in a fabrication shop will ensure the gate is properly constructed per the project plans and specifications. The commissioning on site will ensure the gate properly works and functions. Tolerances for hydraulic steel structure construction should always be measured in the shop with the gate in the operating position. For example, while a bulkhead or vertical lift gate or miter gate will likely be fabricated in the flat position (Fig. 14.1) on the shop floor to improve the welding access; this permits the self-weight of the gate to control welding distortion. When the gate is then picked up from the flat position to the vertical position for installation, the residual stress locked into the gate during the fabrication process can result in deformation (twisting) of the gate that may prevent the gate from sealing or even fitting into the required operating slot. For this reason, all dimensional verifications of critical dimensions should be performed in the shop with the gate in the required operating position prior to shipping the structure from the fabrication shop to the site. Commissioning in a fabrication shop is especially important if the gate is fabricated under a supply contract like for the Upper Mississippi River miter gates and the Cannelton miter gates discussed earlier. In this case, the owner (USACE) is installing the gates and the contractor’s work is completed upon gate delivery. The commissioning and final assembly needed to be done in the fabrication shop. The inspection requirements were fairly detailed. Both the commissioning and inspection requirements are further described in the paragraphs below. First, it was verified that all required ultrasonic and radiographic testing was completed and properly documented. A complete quality control checklist was established. Each miter gate leaf was required to be assembled in the shop to

876

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

FIG. 14.6 Final assembly and fit-up of Lock 2 miter gate. Photo: USACE.

determine the correctness of the fabrication and matching of the component parts. In the vertical position, it was required to closely check each gate unit assembled to ensure that all necessary clearances were correct and that binding does not occur in any moving part. Grease pipes were flushed prior to connecting to bearings. Precautions were taken to avoid distortion of the gate leaf or any component parts. Special care was required during delivery to prevent any sag of the miter ends of the gate leaves due to compression of blocking or other causes. Miter gate diagonal prestressing was required to be performed at the fabrication shop and before delivery. A prestressing plan was developed by the contractor and tensioning was performed with the miter gate assembly in the vertical position. The threads of the diagonals were lubricated with antiseizing compound so the tensioning nut could be turned easily. Three strain gauges were placed on each diagonal so that the strains and stresses could be read and monitored during prestressing operations. The strain gages were located in a line such that the uppermost gage was not closer than 305 mm from the starting point of the rectangular cross-sectional area near the top of the diagonal. The walkway was installed on the miter gate assembly prior to shipping to ensure proper fit-up (Fig. 14.6). After installation, the walkway grating over the lifting assembly and operating strut hood including the hinged walkway over the gudgeon hood, were detached, protected, and delivered with the miter gate assembly. Miter guides were installed after the contact blocks had been properly set. The guide bracket and roller bracket were mounted on gate leafs in the mitered position. Each gate was required to have its own self-weight stamped on it based upon the lifting weight of the finished gate. Bulkheads, stoplogs, and other gates that are fabricated from several stacking components should also be assembled and stacked in the shop to verify dimensional tolerances. This often requires the fabricator to install seals for this dimensional verification. These seals are then often removed to prevent damage during shipping. The designer should prescribe these tests when dimensional tolerances are critical to ensuring an adequate sealing surface is maintained. For radial gates and in particular, radial gate hoist machinery, hoist drums, packaged gear reducer units, drive brake motors, bearings, limit switches, and other hoisting equipment and controls mounted to the machinery skids should be shop assembled and aligned on the skid prior to shipping to the site. All purchased components such as brake motors, gear reducers bearings, and limit switches should be assembled in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Any open gear sets should be assembled, aligned, and lubricated in accordance with the engineering drawings.

14.4 INSTALLATION AND OPERATION TESTS 14.4.1 Sorts of Installation in Gate Service Life Removing hydraulic gates in service and then reinstalling typically requires large barge-mounted cranes. All hydraulic gates should be equipped with lifting eyes for removal. There is always the possibility the gate may need to be removed. USACE typically services and repairs miter gates and radial gates in place as described in Section 14.3.1. For gates that are heavily damaged such as from a barge impact, the gate is removed and sent to a fabrication shop. This was the case for the upstream land wall gate at Lock 5A on the Mississippi River. The upstream land wall miter

877

14.4 INSTALLATION AND OPERATION TESTS

FIG. 14.7 Miraflores miter maintenance shop. Photo: USACE.

gate

in

gate was severely damaged as a result of a navigation accident in 2013, further discussed in Chapter 16. The damaged gate was removed and transported by barge (in the vertical position) to a service base in Rock Island, Illinois, where it was dry docked for repairs. A spare miter gate was installed in the wet to replace the damaged gate so the lock could remain in service. All of the vertical beams and girders except for the miter and quoin girders were replaced on the damaged gate. The overall objective was to repair or replace the damaged miter gate in the safest, most efficient fashion possible. Before repairs were undertaken, a repair versus replace comparison was made which considered cost and time required. The final decision was made to repair the damaged portions of the gate and return it to service. One advantage of rolling gates is they are typically buoyant and can be floated into and out of their recesses if necessary for repair. See Tables 3.19 and 3.20 for the weight and dimensions of some of the largest rolling gates. The data for the new rolling gates of the Panama Canal Third Lane are given in Table 3.22. The Panama Canal rolling gates are designed to be maintained in their gate recesses. Bulkheads are placed over the recess and lifting jacks are utilized to lift the rolling gate. The Panama Canal Authority regularly takes their miter gates from the original locks out of service for repair and service. There are redundant gates on the canal so one set of miter gates can be removed and the lock can remain in service. These are all still the original miter gates. A specially designed maintenance facility is utilized to repair the gates off-site. All the miter gates on the original Panama Canal are buoyant. As such, they are removed with cranes. For repair and then installation, gates are sealed, filled with air, floated to the maintenance base, and there lifted into the maintenance facility. Specially designed synchro-lifts are utilized as shown in Fig. 14.7. The gate of the Miraflores Lock, shown in this figure, was painted and received new bearing plates shortly before this book was written.

14.4.2 Lifting, Transport, and Installation Lifting and transport operations should always be considered for hydraulic gates. These operations are performed a number of times during the gate service life, including: • at initial installation; • for regular maintenance in shop or maintenance base; and • for major repair in shop after an accident (like ship collision). Depending on the type and size of the gate, accessibility for transport and lifting equipment, and other local conditions, various installation scenarios can be chosen. As an example, the difference between two rolling gate installation techniques is discussed further. The chosen cases are those of the Antwerp new Kieldrecht Lock gates, and the new Panama Canal rolling gates, both presented in several photos and drawings earlier in this book.

878

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

FIG. 14.8 Panama Canal rolling gate installation. Courtesy of ACP.

The Kieldrecht Lock rolling gates were floated into place with tugs, as shown in Fig. 8.72, taking advantage of the buoyancy of the gate. The Panama Canal rolling gates were transported by ship from Italy, four at a time, and then offloaded at a storage facility by using self-propelled motorized wheel transporters (SPMTs) with more than 400 wheels each. The same SPMTs were utilized to install the rolling gates in the dry as shown in Fig. 14.8. USACE typically installs gates in the dry but the miter gates furnished under the supply contracts discussed earlier will be installed in the wet. A detailed study with pros and cons of installation in the wet versus installation in the dry was done. Installation in the dry requires dewatering of the lock which in turn requires floating plant and significant labor. The lock is also out of service for a much longer period of time. However, the gate installation can be controlled much more closely and no divers are required. Installation in the dry also provides better conditions for a controlled placing of the gate onto the pintle, and for commissioning and testing before the lock is filled. Installation in the wet reduces the amount of time that the lock is out of service. However, it takes much more precautions to set the gate correctly and divers are required to ensure the gate is properly set on the pintle. The gate cannot be commissioned and tested in the dry first, which increases the risk of unnoticed misalignments. The installation at Lock 12 on the Mississippi River is shown in Fig. 14.9. Since the lock chamber is not dewatered, the labor requirements are much lower.

14.4.3 Closing and Opening Tests A number of opening and closing tests are necessary for hydraulic gates. For radial gates this is done for adjusting rope tension, verifying limit switches, calibrating inclinometers to ensure gate opening readings, and finally to ensure the gate returns to the sealed position. Operational tests should require each gate to be cycled a minimum of five times ideally under actual operating conditions. For example, if a miter gate is installed in the dry, then operating tests should be initially conducted without any water on the gate. Once the lock is filled, the gate should be operated again. This provides assurance the gate is properly operating. On a radial gate, one cycle counts as raising the gate from the closed position to the upper limit switch and lowering to the fully closed position. On a miter gate or rolling gate one cycle would be from the fully recessed position to the fully open position and then back to the recessed position. During the operational tests, improper operation or poor condition of safety devices, electrical components, mechanical equipment, and structural assemblies should be monitored. Gate should be observed for any binding and abnormal noises. Any observed defects should be reported immediately and testing should be suspended until the deficiency is corrected. If defects, such as misalignment, improper adjustment, overheating, or other defects which can damage the gate, become apparent the tests should be discontinued until proper action has been taken to correct the conditions. During and immediately following the operational tests, the following inspections should be made:

14.4 INSTALLATION AND OPERATION TESTS

879

FIG. 14.9 Miter gate installation in the wet at Lock 12. Photo: USACE.

• inspect for evidence of bending, warping, permanent deformation, cracking, or malfunction of structural components; and • completely inspect gate drive systems for abnormal wear.

14.4.4 Other Tests and Procedures For gates and valves requiring a rated leak test, these tests need to be specified with critical thought to how leakage will be measured. Performing a test and ensuring that the leakage rate is less than a specified volume of water per minute requires the contractor to have a method of measuring this leakage. This is often an unenforceable requirement as there is not adequate method to measure this leakage. After all, stable water level in the chamber cannot be an indication of low leakage because it can also mean that the flows through the upstream gate are comparable to the flows through the downstream gate, and that both are large. The possibility of a leakage through filling and emptying devices makes the situation still more complex. The experience of Dutch engineers is that it is better to specify the allowable leak openings (in terms of total surfaces of leakage gaps) than the leakage itself (in terms of leakage rates as mentioned above). Leak openings are measurable. They can be seen and measured by divers, be it not easily and not with great precision. The development of remotely controlled underwater survey equipment (like water drones) will probably enhance the precision of such measurements in the future. Some global indications of allowable leak openings in navigation locks as practiced in the Netherlands are the following [15]: • If the project specifications contain no other specific requirements concerning the gate leakage then the following two conditions should be satisfied as a minimum: • the commissioned gate must show no visible leakages under differential water heads that occur during normal operation conditions; and • the total leakage opening of the lock gate (including filling and emptying sluices either in the gate or in culverts) may under normal operation conditions never be larger than 0.1% of the gated “wet cross-section” of the chamber. • As an example, here are the allowable leakage limits as specified in the contract for new Maasbracht and Born Lock gates on the Meuse (width 16 m, depths as in Fig. 5.11): • Downstream gate: 0.15 m2; and • Upstream gate: 0.10 m2. Obviously, gate leakage will be more critical in, for example, navigation locks than in river weirs or flood barriers. Nevertheless, there are multiple reasons to prevent it in all hydraulic gates. See the discussion in Section 8.6.1.

880

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

The USACE practice is slightly different in this matter. It recommends performing the leakage tests in a test bed or shop fixture with a simulated pressure wherever possible. Such tests can provide an effective, visual confirmation that the structure has a high likelihood of sealing once installed on site. It is also important to test gate drive machinery. Some of the gate drive system tests include: • check for overheating in brake operation and check for proper stopping position: test and inspect all safety devices, including emergency stop switches, and POWER OFF pushbuttons, separately to verify proper operation of the brakes; • check for abnormal noise or vibration and overheating in machinery drive components including speed reducers, brakes, bearings, and couplings: measure and record the full load operating temperatures of the speed reducers; • check for the power supply: measure and record the current draw and voltage supplied to the motor at specified intervals of gate opening; • check electrical drive components for proper operation, freedom from chatter, noise, or overheating; • inspection of external gears for abnormal wear patterns, damage, or inadequate lubrication; • inspection of gearing after all testing, with inspection covers of gear reducers removed; • inspection of drum and pinion gears after all testing, with covers. For gate hoist machinery, any open gearing needs to make proper contact so this should be considered as part of the commissioning process. After performing initial hoist wire rope tension measurements and adjustments, the final alignment of the hoist drum should be done. After initial tensioning of the wire ropes, the drum assembly should be realigned such that the pinion engages the ring gear on the wire rope drum with proper backlash. Alignment of any pinion and bull gear should be checked at the rated load using bluing to verify alignment requirements are met. Four teeth at 90 degree intervals on each gear set should be checked. The gears should be aligned so that there is a minimum of at least 90% tooth contact across the unworn or worn tooth faces, whichever is larger, at rated load.

14.4.5 Commissioning on Site Commissioning on site is the last activity of project execution control before the hydraulic gate is turned over to the owner. For example, the new rolling gates of the Third Lane locks of the Panama Canal required extensive commissioning before the locks were opened. This comprised many control activities, one of which was having a ship enter the lock and to test all performance parameters of the filling and emptying system including the culvert valves. There are commissioning requirements that are specific to various types of gates. For miter gates, this includes proper diagonal adjustment and tensioning, quoin and miter block adjustment, and seal adjustment. These requirements should all be part of the commissioning process. The designer should ensure that the bottom seal on the gate has some degree of adjustment. Thermal expansion and contraction of the gate during installation can affect the seal contact. This is especially true when the lock is dewatered for gate installation. The gate exposure to the sun in a dry condition is often not considered during initial design with the belief that the thermal variation on the gate is heavily dampened by the exposure to water. While this is indeed the case during gate operation, during construction or installation of the gate there is no water present to provide this thermal dampening. Thermal gradients on the gate can result in deformations that make diagonal tensioning, bottom seal adjustment, and quoin and miter block adjustment difficult and less reliable during gate installation. For large gates in excess of 20 m in height or width, and especially for curved miter gates, the potential for thermal effects should be considered during the design and especially during the installation and commissioning of the gate. One example that supports this necessity is the installation of The Dalles miter gate previously depicted in Figs. 8.1b and 8.3. During the installation of this gate, the ambient air temperature in the month of March ranged from 29°C during the day to 1°C overnight. The steel surface temperature at the top of the gate was affected by sun exposure resulting in a temperature of more than 38°C on the skin plate. This resulted in tremendous difficulty adjusting the diagonals and bottom seal surface. The diagonals were tensioned to the required 83 MPa during the normal work day with warm ambient temperatures. Overnight, when the ambient temperature dropped to 1°C the tension was lost and the gate curved inward at the bottom by nearly 50 mm. This degree of curvature resulted in inadequate miter block contact and seal contact at the bottom of the gate. To combat this issue, all tensioning was required to occur overnight with cooler ambient temperatures. In addition, the bottom seal surface was adjusted to ensure the gate would seal at the miter contact point under all possible temperatures. In addition to thermal effects on the diagonals and sealing surfaces, the installation of a new miter gate must consider thermal expansion and contraction of the gate framing during operation. In the case of The Dalles miter gate,

REFERENCES

881

historical documents from 1956 during the original construction identified that the gate jammed and could not be rotated. This was due to the thermal expansion of the top portion of the gate when the gate was exposed to the sun. To alleviate this, the top 1 m section of the quoin block was adjusted to leave a 3 mm gap with the gate in the fully mitered position. This gap was sufficient to prevent binding in the summer while still permitting the gate to close and carry quoin block load into the surrounding concrete. This was also required due to more than 6 mm stretch of the embedded gudgeon anchor which would then be reduced when the gate was mitered and loaded. Commissioning of the miter gate must consider the time necessary to verify adjustment of the miter blocks, quoin blocks, the bottom seal, and gudgeon anchorage. Following the adjustment of each of these components, the gate should be operated through a minimum of 5–10 cycles to verify the safe operation of limit switches and operating components. After ensuring that the gate is properly operating in the dry the gate should be run through another 5–10 cycles with filling and emptying to make sure no additional adjustments are necessary. For vertical lift gates, there are similar considerations for commissioning. Critical elements include balancing and tensioning of counterweight ropes or direct hoisting ropes to ensure equal level hoisting. Motor amperage readings should be taken and compared with design specifications to prove that the gate is not binding. Regardless of the type of hydraulic gate, a commissioning report should document the results of performed tests. The report should include: • identification of the date and commissioned gate, as well as all contractor personnel that were involved in the testing; • models and serial numbers of any measuring equipment used; • proof that the required inspections were completed; • description of any abnormalities in operation such as excessive vibration, noise, or excessive heat during testing; • recorded values of speed reducer temperatures; and • recorded values of motor current draw at specified increments of gate movement. For radial gates, critical elements include wire rope tensioning, limit switch adjustment, etc. An example is the Blue River Spillway Gate Rehabilitation in Oregon, USA. An extensive commissioning plan was developed for the radial gate rehabilitation. The intention was to prove the functionality of the new systems installed for the rehabilitated radial gates. The rehabilitation work included: new stiffeners for gate arms and girders, new gate rollers, trunnion hub modification; new hoist machinery, machinery platforms, control panels, and wiring for all controlled systems. The commissioning included ensuring equal tension in all the wire ropes based on motor amperage readings. Internal gearbox temperatures were recorded every 30 min. The list of some other commissioning requirements included: • • • •

no evidence of bending, warping, permanent deformation, cracking or malfunction of structural components; no evidence of slippage of wire rope sockets or fittings; no evidence of overheating in brake operation. Verification of proper stopping and stop push button functions; no abnormal noises, vibration, overheating in machinery drive components (motors, gearboxes, brakes, bearings, couplings); • proper operation of wire rope drum: proper spooling, freedom of movement, no abnormal noise or vibration; • no abnormal noises or binding evidence in trunnions; and • verifying that when the stop button is pushed while holding the raise button, the gate stops; The example provided above reflects some typical commissioning requirements for electromechanical drives of hydraulic gates, in this case wire rope winch drives. Such requirements will, obviously, be different when commissioning the drive mechanisms of other types, for example, oil-hydraulic drives. Readers seeking more information in this field are advised to consult guidance documents by appropriate waterway administrations, national or other standards authorities. Engineers in the United States, for example, may like to consult Chapter 3 of USACE manual [16]; engineers in the Netherlands will find acceptance criteria for hydraulic drives in Ref. [17] and for mechanical drives in Ref. [18].

References [1] USACE, PMBP Manual, Project Management Business Process (PMBP), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, May 2009. https:// apps.usace.army.mil/sites/myP2/PMBP/SitePages/Home.aspx. [2] USACE, Design-Build Contracting, Engineering Regulation ER 1180-1-9, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, March 31, 2012. [3] USACE, Review Policy for Civil Works, Engineering Circular EC 1110-2-217, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, February 20, 2018.

882

14. PROJECT EXECUTION CONTROL

[4] USACE, Design Manual, Engineering Guidance, U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, AL, December 31, 2013. [5] CROW, Uniform Administrative Conditions for Integrated Contract Types, UAV-GC-2005 (in Dutch), Kennisplatform CROW, Netherlands, 2005. [6] USACE, Request for Proposal Design Build Phase 2, Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Hurricane Protection Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hurricane Protection Office, New Orleans, LA, October 26, 2007. [7] USACE, Construction Quality Management for Contractors, Student Study Guide, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Professional Development Center, Huntsville, AL, 2004. [8] ISO 9001, Quality Management Systems—Requirements, International Organization for Standardization ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [9] PMI, A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge (The PMBOK Guide), sixth ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, 2017. [10] A. Freige, Stahlbr€ uckenbau, in: Stahlbau—Ein Handbuch f€ ur Studium und Praxis, Band 2, Stahlbau Verlags GmbH, Kõln, 1964. [11] USACE, Construction Contract Administration, Student Material, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE Learning Center, Huntsville, AL, 2017. [12] C.W. Scheuer, G.A. Koeleian, Evaluation of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods, NIST CGR 02-836, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2002. [13] ASHRAE, Standard 202-2013, Commissioning Process for Buildings and Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2013. [14] ASHRAE, Guideline 0-2013, The Commissioning Process, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2013. [15] Rijkswaterstaat, Vraagspecificatie VS-1C Deel Sluiscomplex Maasbracht, Rijkswaterstaat Maaswerken, Maastricht, March 2007 (not published). [16] USACE, Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-2610, Mechanical and Electrical Design for Lock and Dam Operating Equipment, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, June 30, 2013. [17] Rijkswaterstaat, Eisen voor Hydraulische Bewegingswerken, NBD 06000, Rijkswaterstaat Bouwdienst, Utrecht, November 1, 2005. [18] Rijkswaterstaat, Eisen Tandwielkasten, Open Overbrengingen en Boogtandkoppelingen, NBD 00500, Rijkswaterstaat Bouwdienst, Utrecht, November 10, 2005.