Geotechnical News • March 2016
31
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION NEWS
summary data or interpretive reports,
whatever their background or title.
Those likely most highly suited and
positioned to perform, evaluate and
interpret the monitoring programs
and data remain are those who played
a role in designing the structure on
behalf of the owner, who ultimately
has the most at stake to complete the
project without incident or delay. We
find that construction contractors are
sometimes receptive to relinquish-
ing the monitoring programs to the
owner or the owner’s consultants,
allowing many other benefits such as
starting the process of access, permis-
sions, installation and baseline prior to
awarding the construction contract.
On many projects, the cost and risks
of today’s monitoring programs rival
those of the project’s geotechni-
cal investigation and or excavation
support design. I believe that the
assignment of specific tasks or roles
in undertaking the geotechnical or
structural monitoring program requires
as much thought, premeditation and
vetting at each stage of design and
construction as does other major
design and construction tasks. Should
an “expert” not be engaged to directly
manage the monitoring scope, roles
and methodology, it is in the best
interest of the design or construction
team to consult one. It is unlikely in
the writer’s opinion, that a one-size
fits all approach will ever be estab-
lished, though local Codes may look
to further pre-certify organizations
to perform such “Special Inspection”
tasks as a function of individuals and
their respective firm’s history and
experience. I agree and support the
author’s recommendations for tasks to
be incorporated into contract specifi-
cation language for an RTS or AMTS
specialist, following the lines that they
have thought through assigning these
roles, and also that the specifications
be reviewed on a case by case basis
by someone experienced in this type
of work.
As the monitoring scopes and costs
increase, responsibility may be more
and more shifted from the designer
to the PE who is charged with imple-
menting and managing the program
during construction. As always, the
person signing off on the work must
have a comprehensive understand-
ing of the technical issues. Whether
a PE with geotechnical or structural
background or specialty, a PLS or
someone with another title all together
is charged to lead the program will
continue to depend on the nature of
the specific job and the philosophy of
the firm awarded the work. However,
it clearly behooves each to consult
and collaborate with others holding
relevant background and experience
before undertaking the specified
monitoring scope. Where the monitor-
ing consultants are third party to the
design, appropriate questions should
be asked as to anticipated deforma-
tions and timing of those throughout
construction, such that appropriate
resources can be dedicated to evaluate
the work as those time frames occur.
Joel L. Volterra
Mueser Rutledge Consulting
Engineers
14 Penn Plaza - 225 West 34
th
St,
6
th
Floor
New York, NY 10122
Tel. (917) 339-9363
Email:
Authors’ Reply
We would like to thank both Joel and
Martin for their in-depth discussion
and John for his ongoing support of
these discussions. We were remiss
in also not acknowledging Charlie
Daugherty who brought this subject to
task for the authors and had long been
involved in the resurgence of New
York City tunneling instrumentation
over the last 20 years.
Although our article was intended, and
as John states in his introduction,
to
guide owners, engineers and
speci-
fication writers,
the topic is clearly a
one of great passion and strong opin-
ion for both Joel and Martin.
Martin Beth
Clearly Martin is a proponent of
having highly qualified personnel, no
matter what their education and/or cer-
tification by a government agency, to
oversee (and ideally design) the data
collection systems on instrumentation
projects. Where this becomes difficult
is for the specification writer to have
some comfort regarding who will
be qualified to undertake this work,
accepting that they will in all likeli-
hood have little say in who the general
contractor selects, given that in the
majority of large horizontal infrastruc-
ture project the work is a public bid.
The government agency certification
of the PLS or PE gives the specifica-
tion writer some assurance that the
work will be undertaken by a qualified
person, without providing a long list
of qualification which the specification
writer likely is not familiar with. In
addition it was our intention to focus
only on the scope of the RTS portion
of the monitoring, to be completed
as a subset of the overall monitoring
system overseen by the Geotechni-
cal Instrumentation Engineer. This
brings up the argument that maybe the
industry should pursue some type of
internal RTS user certification, but this
lacks support as Joel later discusses.
Regarding Martin’s discussion of the
specifications we agree and strongly
support an enforceable specification
