Use of Inclinometers to prove slope stability 1

[dlustri]

I am in a situation where counsel from an opposing side wants to use inclinometers to prove/disprove a slope stability problem. Is the following statement defendable?
Using inclinometers over short periods of time(i.e. 3 months) does not indicate the true extent of movement.
A brief background, a contractor dumped fill on a virgin slope (over 100 years with heavy tree growth)took down the trees, buried them at the base of the slope and dumped fill on top of the organics. This happened three years prior to the request to use inclinometers to monitor the slope. I maintain that using it now for three months will not show the true extent of movement because the majority of movement would happen immediately after the fill was placed and then taper off over time. The decomposition of organics would cause this movement to extend over a longer period of time. Can anyone shoot any holes in this argument?

 

[VAD]

dlustri:

Nice counter arguments.

You are fortunate to have seen the trees being buried. Denuding vegetation and pushing same down slope is often standard practice on such projects. Very often snake pits are used at the toe to bury the trees so that they do not have to burn or remove to a disposal site.

You will be amazed to know that may of the highways we drive on and are performing well have a variety of so called deleterious matter below them. It is standard practice for Contractors to do things of the sort when no one is around. Do you really think that the operators get heck from the boss. It is also amazing to find out that some of what we think is poor practice works well very often.

I have seen enough trees, so called topsoil and the like under roadways that have performed well. There is a depth of burial where some of these so called deleterious materials are of no concern. Contractors have that experience better than engineers.

Contractors take chances on roadway work but are careful on grading that would receive a building structure because inspectors are present and a building site can be readily reviewed being apoint location. Not the same on highway projects.

I guess I do not know all the details of your site and discussions with the contractor. If the instructions were not in writing then you will have a difficult time defending same as it is your word against his.

I have seen too many cases where contractors make a convincing case that nothing was told to them etc. You do not have a binding contract with the contractor. He is not using any specifications except perhaps what you have told him to do.

Was there any supervisor on site. If you were there all the time then surely this would not have occurred. I am not sure that you can expect a contractor to be responsible for a problem unless you have a contract in writing that makes him responsible for defects. You have invoked a method specification which requires supervision. You do not put dracula to be in charge of the blood bank.

I am taking the position of the devil's advocate because you will be amazed at how articulate a contractor is and how easy it is for him to win the battle. Unfortunately sound engineering principles are not what the judge or arbitrator concerns himself with in such cases. As a layperson he will think like one and would have expected you as a professional to have taken more care especially when you did not put what you wanted in writing.

There are a number of issues that the contractor can bring up to show that you were responsible. The mere fact that the building had cracks would be one aspect that I, in the contractor's shoe, would indicate that you should have taken care about. Earthmoving is on a different scale and the judge will treat it in that context versus a builder that does a poor job on a building such as poor painting or something of the sort.

I hope that you succeed and would be curious to hear the outcome.

Regards

 

[dlustri]

Thank you again VAD,

I recognize that you don't know all of the details and I intially was asking a specific question in the beginning of this post. But if you want more background I would like your opinions.
I was assured by the site foreman that the area around my home was going to be dealt with 'properly' (We had numerous discussions of compaction and what not to disturb) This assurance came numerous times before during and after. Up to the day I poured my driveway, I asked the contractor if he performed his work in that area as we had discussed. I was told yes. (Side note, the project foreman was fired 2/3 through the project for reasons I am unaware.)
I was not soliciting anyone to do this work at my home. If the project across the street did not happen, then I would never have had any of this work happen. It was unneccessary. It was supposed to be a win-win situation for everyone. They had a short haul, I got some luxury work that required large equipment to do(How many people have disposable income to dump in their properties?). No money exchanged. Now I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the property and everything on it would be in at least the same condition or better after the work is performed. Accidents happen to everyone. But this was no accident. I had specific requests and direction, they were ignored. As a result, I have problems. They ignored standard earthworking practices and principles, (organics decompose and allow for continual settling over a period of time, therefore they are not ideal in any base material which will ultimately carry a load.)
Let me change my approach here for a moment. If I hire an electrician to rewire my house and he does things behind the walls that are not up to code, is he responsible for damages that occur if his wiring fails? I can't see what he did, and I wouldn't know if he did anyting wrong unless I open my walls, witnessed it or someting goes wrong. Regardless, he has a responsibility to do his job in a 'workmanlike' manner. This premise was created because no contract can cover every scenario.
Now I know that I am talking about a fantasy world where everyone does things properly, but this isn't a contractor that has never done earthwork before. If he told me he didn't then I would have assumed the responsibility because I am aware of his lack of experience.

The biggest difference between this 'slope/fill failure' litigation and others is that I am an engineer who knows better. This contractor would never have been called on his actions if an average homeowner was in my shoes.

Thanks for your comments and opinions.

 

[dlustri]

I was deposed yesterday (8 hours!), the foreman of the project who was fired and told me a great deal of the things the contractor did poorly, will be deposed in the next few days. My mindset is now changing to what questions should be asked of this foreman to aid my case. If anyone has any thoughts I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[dgillette]

1. Configuration and sequence of excavations, including angle of cut slopes as measured or eye-balled.

2. Materials exposed in the cuts.

3. Compaction (method, density testing) of the new materials, specified vs used.


("And which ASTM standard is used for the laboratory maximum density of fill containing large trees?" "That would be D 698 modified to use a 20 cubic yard mold and a 20-ton rammer. We've never actually done it because none of our technicians can lift the hammer.")

 

[VAD]

Let us look at some technical aspects for a moment. The issue with natural slopes and placement of fill on such is the phenomenion of blocked seepage caused by the fill placement. This is subtle and not well recognized by many as everyone looks for copious or visible amounts of water issuing from the slopes. As a geotechnical Engineer, I would never allow placement of fill on an existing slope without examining the slope and the soil stratigraphy. Hence borings should have been done prior to allowing such an operation. While I hear what you say being an engineer, there are issues as I have mentioned that if the other side is on the ball, you will have a hard time convincing anyone. It is very possible that a build up of pore water pressure by blocked seepage paths could be responsible for the problem at your site. I have seen this time and again. A creek at the bottom tells me that your natural ground water movement from the hillside is toward the creek and further that seepage paths were inscribed in the soil stratigraphy as part of the natural process through geologic times.

You may disagree with some of the opinions but if you have inspected "dirt" intricately and with much detail you will appreciate that thin lenses of sand and silt within the soil matrix coupled with a particular topographical disposition of your hilllside is all that is required to be blocked thereby disrupting the pattern that the soil was "born with".

Natural slopes are fasinating and we often see them standing at steep angles. However, change their regimen and we have problems. To deal with mother earth we must first understand her as she does not always follow our rules. Unfortunately we do not spend enough time to understand geologic composition of soils/slopes.

Your case of the electrician can be answered through the regulations for having any renovations etc done to a home. Yes, we do not always follow those and we are taking a chance that the electrician is good or we know him personally and he will do a good job. If something goes wrong with the process, both the electrician and yourself would be held responsible. In fact the electrician would be expected to have advised you about a permit for the work that he is doing so that the building reps can inspect the installation to determine if codes etc were followed. I am sure that if something dramatic happenned, you would say that he did not advise you accordingly and he would say he did and you allowed him to go ahead because it was a small thing and no bother. Sometimes you win and others you lose big time. Every home owner must understand the rules of the game and pleading no knowledge is not an excuse these days.

Regarding the site foreman who was fired and is making statements about poor work etc. You have to understand that someone fired always more than often likes to get back at the one who fired him. He may be telling the truth about your situation. However, you have to be clear on the reason why he was fired before deciding that you will use him on your side. This is where your lawyer knows the game better than most Engineers. If not you can be in a worse position by using him. Do not forget that the other side may be expecting that and will be prepared for the rebuttals.

I am unable to say more and again wish you the best.

Regards

 

[dlustri]

Vad,

I say this with the utmost sincerity, your last post is worth at least a couple quarter's worth of geotechnical engineering (amongst other disciplines)coursework. Exploring and analyzing the intricate nature you have described can only be appreciated by few. I do not pretend to grasp the full science of geology and geotechnical engineering and that is why I turned to all of you. I simply received a "pamphlet" worth in my time. I very much appreciate everyone's input and comments. This has been a very good learning experience for me. I hope I will not be paying for it through the litigation.

I only want my costs and the ability to sell my property without losses. I don't think that lumps me into the category of 'McDonalds spilled coffee in the lap' litigation.

I firmly believe that if the contractor simply made an error, I would accept my involvement and this would not have progressed to the point it has. But it has become evident to me that the contractor used me as a vehicle to increase his profits without care of damages to me.

I can not let that go just on the principle.

Thanks again all of you, perhaps I will post again after this is over and let you know what transpires.

Respecfully,

Dlustri

 

[dgillette]

Dlustri -

Just out of general nosiness, what was the final outcome?

Thanks,
DRG

 

[oldestguy]

Hi Guys:

This series of statements and opinions ought to be part of an engineering course on soil mechanics and the practice of Geotechnical engineering. Very useful discussion. Many lessons to learn here from this forum and they apply generally to other engineering subjects.

Both had valid arguments, but lawyers have the final say.

Thanks.

 

[dlustri]

Hello gentlemen!

The case has settled, but I have not been told what I am allowed to say just yet. As far as the technical aspects, I guess I can talk about those without issue.

The inclinometer was installed but only an initial reading was taken(on the record). I believe that additional readings were taken, but not disclosed. They were required to share any and all findings, but if on the record they didn't take any readings, then they don't have to disclose anything. If they found evidence in their favor, then they would have disclosed it. This is just my paranoid belief. I have no proof of it just strong suspicion beause of disturbance of the testing area a month after initial readings.

I became the target of the defense counsel and their professionals. Their argument was that, as an engineer I should have known better. I never got the chance to defend my position, that I did know better, I told them to stop, they didn't because the contract didn't require them to do so, and as a result there were problems.

My biggest disappointment was that their geotechnical engineer became a "prostitute" to their cause. I had a tremendous amount of respect for the individual before reading his report and finding that it basically mirrored the defense counsels motion for summary judgement. I guess there will always be someone out there who can be had for a price. I didn't expect a professional engineer to sway into such posturing.

The technical aspects of the case were mostly in my favor. Testing proved failure in the fill, not one of the four professionals disagreed to that. (two were mine, two were theirs, structural and geotechnical) The professionals were never cross examined so I believe that more arguments for my cause would have surfaced. The bottom line for technical findings is that there are only so many different ways to read a bore log. The SPT and wildcat tests were indicative of failure in the fill layer.

Their argument would have been heavy in the contract, and my argument would have been heavy in the "workmanlike" manner of construction. There is an inherent responsibility to anyone in their respective business to do things properly. If they are told to do things in a manner that would cause problems, then it is their responsibility to tell the client their position.

Once again, these arguments never had a chance to be argued. The court basically forced us to settle, doing their typical "you have a weak case" argument to both sides individually. The argument that "forced" me to settle was the amount of cost to depose all of the professionals in preparation for trial.

My final feelings on how it would have gone was that I had a better than half of a chance to win, but that doesn't mean that I would get the damages I was looking for. I found myself in a real life "Deal or No Deal" gameshow. I had a bird in the hand, should I gamble for more without any guarantees?

The whole ordeal left me with a bad taste in my mouth and a huge problem in the back of my home. The settlement was better for them than for me. I was told that a good conclusion to a lawsuit is when both parties feel poorly about the results. I guess that was the case.


If anyone has any more technical questions, I would be happy to share more details as soon as I find out what I'm allowed to share. I think I have been vague enough so far and I have not named anyone. I am not intentionally slandering anyone, if I have done so, my apologies.

 

[Ron]

dlustri....did you happen to check and see if burial of construction debris violates any local or other ordinances? In my area, several municipalities have prohibitions against on-site burial and the penalties can be stiff....just curious.