Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 ANALYSIS OF VARIABILITY IN PRECASTING AND INSTALLATION OF PILE FOUNDATIONS Hasan Kaplan1, Andries Elburg2, and Iris D. Tommelein3 ABSTRACT This paper presents a study on the use of pre-stressed precast foundation piles using data collected on a building project that comprised the installation of more than 340 piles. The objective is to assess the presence of product and process variability in demand and supply, and the impact it has on precast pile delivery. Sources of variability in precasting, transportation, and installation are described. As a step towards understanding the complexity of this production system and to show how production planning decisions affect execution, this paper elaborates on two deterministic scenarios and compares those with actual data from the project. Performance of the system is analyzed on the basis of inventory vs. work completed. From the perspective of ‘lean’ thinking the paper then identifies sources of waste and suggests means to eliminate them. It also presents questions for follow-on research. KEY WORDS Pre-stressed precast piles, production management, deep foundation construction, variability, standardization, supply chain, lean construction INTRODUCTION Placing a foundation is one of the first activities on a construction site: a foundation literally forms the basis of the rest of the construction work. One way of building a foundation is to design and precast concrete piles, transport them, and drive them into the ground. A case study is presented here that pertains to an 8-story reinforced concrete residential building in San Francisco, California, with a foundation made of piles that were precast at a plant in Antioch, California. The authors interviewed the industry practitioners involved in the production and installation of these precast piles. We identified various occurrences of variability and uncertainty in this production system. Because of variability and uncertainty, generally speaking, lead times tend to increase and schedules risk being jeopardized. We present a deterministic model and analysis and then suggest potential system improvements based on ‘lean’ thinking (Ballard et al. 2002, Koskela et al. 2002). Follow-on research will include stochastic modeling and analysis. 1 2 3 Student, Mechanical Engineering, University of Twente, the Netherlands and visiting student researcher, University of California at Berkeley, h.kaplan@student.utwente.nl Student, Industrial Management, University of Twente, the Netherlands and visiting student researcher at Univ. of California at Berkeley, a.elburg@student.utwente.nl Professor, Engineering and Project Management Program, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, 215-A McLaughlin Hall, University of California at Berkeley, CA 94720-1712, Tommelein@ce.berkeley.edu 1
  2. 2. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 RELATED WORK Foundation construction is notoriously challenging because of uncertain subsurface conditions that lead to a significant amount of variability in the delivery system. Lean production regards undesired variability as a major culprit for waste (Hopp and Spearman 2000). In order to see the causes of such waste and identify means to avoid them, one needs to reveal and articulate the intricacies of the production system, then manage those, because ‘the devil is in the details.’ Detailed descriptions of observed practices through case studies, analysis, and testing against theory, are therefore in order (e.g., the case study presented here). In contrast, many descriptions in the construction literature remain high-level in order to maintain a sense of generality (e.g., Peurifoy et al. 1996). Presumably generality cannot be obtained at a more detailed level, but this could be the consequence of lack of theoretical understanding. The study of a precast pile production system, as described here, relates to lean construction studies that illustrate how competitive advantage in the construction industry may be achieved by identifying opportunities for lead-time reduction in engineered-toorder products (e.g., Ballard 2001, Ballard et al. 2003, Arbulu and Tommelein 2002, Elfving 2003, Tommelein and Ballard 2005). Lean construction tools and techniques, such as understanding interacting sub-cycles (Howell et al. 1993), designing construction operations using first-run studies (Howell and Ballard 1999), standardizing products, using tight real-time process feedback loops (Tommelein 1998), and strategic positioning of buffers and batch sizing (Alves and Tommelein 2004, Walsh et al. 2004) apply when looking for system improvements in the delivery ofprecast piles. DESIGN OF FOUNDATION PILES The focus here is on pre-stressed precast piles. These are formed by tensioning highstrength steel cable before casting the concrete. After the concrete has developed adequate strength the cables are cut, so they will apply a compressive stress on the pile. Typically, ‘a group of piles is used to transmit the load of the superstructure to the soil mass.’ (Brown 2001). ‘The individual piles are spaced and connected to the pile cap or tie beams and trimmed in order to connect the pile to the structure at cut-off level, and depending on the type of structure and eccentricity of the load, they can be arranged in different patterns’ (Napier 2004). On the project in this study, the geotechnical engineering (GE) firm recommended to the owner that precast pre-stressed precast piles be used (Treadwell&Rollo 2002). At a later time, upon the request from the general contractor (GC), the GE also studied the use of steel H-piles but these proved to be less economical at the time of decision making. The characteristics of a pile depend on the loads the pile may be subjected to and the loading capacity it can develop. The pile design process has a reciprocal dependence and is thus iterative. The SE determines the number of piles based on column loads (determined by the SE) and pile capacity (determined by the GE). The GE decides on the piles’ cross sections (typically in collaboration with the SE) and their lengths. This project included placing a foundation of 341 piles. On average, 8 +/- 3 piles per day were driven into the ground, a number that increased to 12 or 13 piles per day or even more when conditions were favorable. A unique challenge of the site was that the bedrock, in which the foundation piles had to be grounded, was not level. The GE drilled five test borings for this specific project, reviewed drilled borings (and possibly CPTs) 2
  3. 3. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 from a previous investigation as well as data from older investigations by others, and also relied on their experience with projects on adjacent sites to design the foundation system. Early on during construction, they conducted a ‘first-run study’ to determine the location of the bedrock more precisely: twenty indicator piles were driven into the ground. These confirmed that the depth of this bedrock varied anywhere from -25 m down to -55 m (-83 ft down to -180 ft): a challenge for a rectangular site lot with dimensions 55 m by 73 m (180 ft by 240 ft). While these indicator piles were made specifically to obtain test data, they also served in the foundation system being built. PILE PRODUCTION The pile production process consists of the following steps: • Adjusting formwork: The precaster in this study had casting ‘yards’ 260 m (850 ft) long, with steel forms and blocks to be set to the appropriate pile width and length. • Making caging: After the distances of the blocks are determined, reinforcement is installed. First rebar coil is inserted in the form, cables are pulledthrough them, longitudinal rebar is added, and then the cables can be stretched. Subsequently the coil is stretched and the longitudinal rebar is manually lifted into its final position. The rebar is precut and supplied in the right sizes, but tying it is time-consuming. • Mixing concrete: The mixing process is completely computerized. It only takes on the order of two minutes to prepare a batch ready to pour. • Pouring concrete: Pouring must happen within 30 minutes or so of mixing, but usually it is completed in as little as 10 minutes. A truck with a screw auger transports the ready-to-pour concrete. After pouring the concrete in the formwork it has to be vibrated and smoothened. • Hardening concrete: The concrete hardens overnight thanks to the use of steam curing (steam blankets). • Removing concrete from formwork: A crane lifts the pile out of the form and puts it in the precaster’s inventory. It remains there for at least 14 days or until design strength is reached (typically 41 MPa (6,000 psi)) to allow for transport and driving. PILE INSTALLATION The pile driving process consists of the following steps: • Pre-drilling: A hole is drilled about 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft) deep, typically the depth of the fill, to pre-position the pile and remove possible obstruction/debris. This step involves an auger operator and a worker who guides the process from the ground. • Pile handling: taking the pile out of on-site inventory and lifting it up causes the most stress on the element, when it is lifted from the horizontal to the vertical position by the pile driver. This step involves the piledriver operator, two people to attach cables to the pile, and someone who guides the process. • Connecting pile to hammer: Rebar that sticks out at the top of the column has to fit into holes in the head of the hammer. When fitting the rebar, one person operates the pile driver. The operator gets guidance from someone on the ground who is better able to see the hammer. Another worker tries to steer and turn the column in the right direction from the ground, while another person supervises the process. This step 3
  4. 4. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 • • requires skill from the pile driver operator. If it fails, a worker has to climb up and fit the rebar manually, which may cause delays in the operation on the order of 1/2 hour. Placing pile in pre-drilled hole: The pile driver drops the pile into the pre-drilled hole in preparation for driving. When placing the pile in the hole it sometimes sinks on its own as much as 15 m (50 ft) or so through the layer of Bay Mud. This step involves four people: a pile driver operator, a person who turns the pile to the right angle, a person to signal to the operator, and a supervisor. Driving pile in ground: The pileis hammered into the ground until it progresses less than 60 blows/30 cm (60 blows per ft). This refusal criterion is to make sure the pile is in sufficiently hard rock to support the load (not necessarily at the rock surface). The supervising GE counts the blows and decides when the final depth is reached. This step involves the pile driver, the GE, and a worker who holds the rope to shut off the fuel supply. It may vary in time, depending on subsurface conditions. PLAYERS IN THE FIELD AND THEIR INTERACTION Thee contractual relationships for pile delivery on this project—which are fairly common for the industry—involved many different supply-chain participants. The owner retained the GE early on in this project and under a separate contract to get soils analysis data. The SE determined the loads and stresses that act on the piles, and accordingly designed the foundation system. That design was passed on to the architect, who in turn passed it on to the GC. The GC then requested design-build proposals from several pile driving companies, who in turn requested quotes from precasters, and selected one. The precaster developed a design solution based on the data from the SE and GE. This design had to be approved by the SE and by the GE for conformance with design intent so it was passed back along contractual relationship links. The GE determined the pile tip elevations, considering variations in the depth and hardness of the bedrock across the site, and ended up specifying a 10 m (15 ft) cut-off. Based on this data, the pile driving contractor determined the pile lengths. Clearly, a lot of communication is necessary to ensure a comprehensive design- and construction process. PRODUCT- AND PROCESS VARIABILITY Different kinds of variability influence the piledelivery process, for example: 1. The design process is fragmented. The SE designs the piles, but the GE provides substantial input, and a designer from the precast plant develops the design and works out the details. Both the GE and the SE review the pile shop drawings and may provide feedback to the precaster. 2. The production process appeared to have a low degree of variability in time. It was a fairly streamlined and reliable process, based on the precaster’s standard work sheets that spelled out the detailed process steps. The normal curing time for concrete is 14 days but by adding an accelerator to the concrete mixture the precaster can decrease this time by a few days. The owner, GC, pile driver or precaster decide on the use of (and pay for) this additive in order to accelerate the schedule. 3. The pile driving process was highly variable. Circumstances on site are difficult to assess and control (subsurface conditions, access restrictions and obstructions, reliability of equipment, weather, labor skill and availability). Data collected on a 4
  5. 5. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 productive day, during which 11 piles were installed, showed the duration ranging from 21 min for one pile to 84 min for another pile, starting with removing the pile from on-site storage until driving it completely into the ground. 4. Variability in demand posed the biggest challenge. The GC manages the entire construction project and decides which schedule best suits the owner’s needs, but since pile driving is such a crucial activity early on in the project, the pile driving subcontractor essentially sets and controls this early part of the schedule. This notwithstanding, the project schedule changes and changes must be dealt with as they arize. For example, when a pile breaks it must be replaced. As a contingency, the pile driver or the precaster may have piles (from other projects or made extra) that can be used for this purpose. Some design variance is granted in this circumstance in order to accommodate the immediate needs; otherwise, the precaster would have to produce a replacement for the broken, engineered-to-orderpile. If not accounted for during planning, a different pile sequence can jeopardize the installation schedule of the pile driving company and also the production schedule of the precaster. The lead time for making a pile is about 3 weeks (incl ding 2 weeks for u curing), so if there is no appropriate pile in inventory, a change in project schedule could cause construction to come to a halt. To avoid this, the piledriving subcontractor may decide to drive a “green” pile (<14 day cure) at their risk. REDUCING VARIABILITY Supplier Involvement in Design: On this project, some iteration was needed in the precaster’s design process, involving both the SE and GE. Koskela et al. (1997) noted that roughly 50% of the causes for uncompleted design tasks are related to variability in the design process. Reducing this variability can reduce the duration and improve the quality of the design process. “An alternative approach is to involve specialty contractors early on in the design process to take advantage of their ability to develop creative solutions and their knowledge of space consideration for construction processes, fabrication, and construction capabilities and supplier lead times and reliability” (Gil et al. 2001). “Suppliers are no longer viewed as vendors of a commodity, but rather are brought into the picture as true partners in the design and production of the end product” (Mikulina 1998). The GE pointed out (personal communication) that coordination meetings involving themselves, the SE, and the precaster are seldom called, yet they can be effective in communicating design intent. Product and Process Standardization: Standardization can reduce the duration of design because it reduces the amount of communication between parties. It also can simplify the production process. On this project, all piles were 35.6 cm by 35.6 cm (14” by 14”) square so formwork did not have to be readjusted. All compression piles were standardized to a large extent, and so were the tension piles, even though the piles’ length and rebar configuration varied. Could standardization have been taken further? Standardized pile designs work, e.g., for CalTrans, because they build relatively similar structures with similar loads (e.g., highway overpasses) and their engineers use the same design manual. Engineers for other types of facilities often prefer to create value through custom design because it affords them the opportunity to fine tune their design based on specific project requirements (GE personal communication). 5
  6. 6. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 Transportation: The pile driving company is responsible for transporting piles from the precaster to the site. This requires planning because piles are heavy and those longer than 80 feet require a transportation permit from the city of San Francisco. The City restricts when transport can take place, taking into account rush hour and other traffic conditions. Another limiting factor is the availability of trailer trucks and drivers qualified to handle the extremely long loads. Space on site for storing and manipulating piles was limited and further diminished as foundation work progressed, so keeping a big inventory was not possible. These factors made reliable transport of piles challenging. Loading and off-loading of the piles was a relatively straightforward, more repetitive process. Installation: The pile driving company schedules the installation work. They set the sequencing of piles based on site access constraints and in consultation with the GC. The company estimates the duration needed to drive a pile based on the soils report, equipment selection, site conditions, and experience. It assumes the diesel hammer makes a certain number of blows per minute, and it then relates blows to soils data (e.g., SPT). The company also includes an efficiency factor to account for site logistics and other factors, and looks at previous jobs conducted in the area. The pile driving schedule is coordinated with the precaster’s schedule. To allow for variability in site work, the precaster tries to get ahead of installation work by producing piles, curing them, and keeping piles in inventory. This makes it feasible to install piles more quickly than scheduled and it provides the flexibility to swap the order in which piles get installed should project changes require it. Standardization of piles makes piles more interchangeable. If one pile would break a perfect substitute replacement would be available. Site space availability is even more important with regards to installation than it is for storage. Limited space hampers equipment movement and makes it more likely for pile driving to interfere with other subcontractors’ work. Demand: Demand variability in pile driving is caused in part by the fact that the sequence in which work gets done affects how much work is to be done. Displacement piles, such as the piles in this study, push soil out while they are being driven into the ground. This makes it more difficult to subsequently drive other piles in the vicinity. Demand variability may also be caused by changes in the project schedule, such as those stemming from the manifestation of uncertainty in the installation process. The sequencing of pile driving was changed on this project, due to heaving of a sidewalk pavement observed at the edge of the site. The GE stopped site work to investigate the situation. They speculated that piles might be pushing soil towards the China Basin Channel. As a countermeasure, they ordered that holes for the piles be pre-drilled deeper (down to 10 m (30 ft)) and larger so more soil would be dug up. This changed the subcontractor’s work method, as larger holes could not be left unattended (smaller holes for a day’s worth of work could be drilled all at once). Pre-drilling now had to be followed immediately by pile installation so the auger and its operator had to remain on stand-by. The GE also ordered relief holes drilled near the pile cap at the side of the Channel so displaced soil could be pushed into them, and to be filled after completion of the pile driving work. 6
  7. 7. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 ALTERNATIVE MODEL SCENARIOS AND CALCULATION OF INVENTORY As a step towards understanding the complexity of this production system, we introduce simplifications, develop two model scenarios, analyze their inputs and outputs, and then compare them against actual site data. Our aim is to explore how production planning decisions affect process durations, as well as inventory at the precaster’s and on site. Assume: (1) all processes progress at a steady rate (modeling of uncertainty and variability is left for follow-on research); (2) piles take two weeks to cure (an equivalent of 10 working days) in order to be strong enough for transportation; (3) 8 piles/day are driven into the ground; (4) 8 piles/day are transported to the site to meet this installation rate; and (5) space on site is limited and allows for 8 piles maximum. Tables 1 and 2 show, for each scenario, (1) which day it is, (2) the number of piles cast on that day, (3) the precaster’s cumulative inventory at the end of the day, (4) the number of piles transported to site on that day, (5) the cumulative number of piles stored on site, and (6) the cumulative number of piles driven into the ground. 0 8 16-336 344 352 357 16 16 16 16 16 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 5 Installed 16 16 32 32 224 224 232 224 232 224 232 224 221 213 205 197-21 13 5 Stored On Site 16 Transported Day Inventoried 8 8 8 8 5 1 2 3 4 5-27 28 29 30 31-41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-70 71 72 73 74 Produced 8 8 8 8 5 Table 3: Scenario 2 (average daily inventory = 137 ± 77 piles) Installed 51 102 153 204 255 306 357 357 357 357 349 341 333-13 5 Stored On Site 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 Transported Inventoried 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13-53 54 55 56 Produced Day Table 2: Scenario 1 (avg. daily inventory = 184 ± 112 piles) 0 8 16-96 104 112 120 128 136 144 152-328 336 344 352 357 In scenario 1 (Table 1), piles are cast in the order needed using the maximum daily production capacity (51 piles/day assumed). The precaster completes production three days before transportation to site starts, at the rate piles are needed (8 piles/day). Numbers as shown do not distinguish indicator piles from other piles, and the total number accounts for each section of pile (very long piles were made in two sections). In scenario 2 (Table 2), which more closely describes the precaster’s practice, piles are made on alternate days at a rate of 2 days worth of installation per day of production (16 piles/2 days). Production starts ahead of construction so as to have 1 month worth of inventory at all times. 7
  8. 8. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 Actual data for production and placing was obtained from records provided by the precaster and by the GE (not show due to space limitations). Note that the numbers vary slightly because some piles were cast in two sections, but they count as one installed. Figure 1 depicts these three sets of data. Comparison of the scenarios yields the following observations. The total duration for scenario 1 is 56 working days, but scenario 2 takes nearly four more weeks (74 working days). Transportation of the piles starts later, because the precast plant wants a 4-week lead on the pile-driving schedule. The maximum as well as the daily average amount of inventory differs in the scenarios. Scenario 1 presents one extreme. Scenario 2 shows the benefits of synchronizing pile production with pile driving. It is more of a ‘just-in-time’ system, though further improvements are still possible. Figure 2 shows lead times for pile production, assuming all materials are on hand when production starts. The arrows above the time line reflect a scenario that has a 7 week lookahead window. The arrows under the time line reflect a ‘just-in-time’ scenario that has a 3 week lookahead window. Number of Piles 400 350 300 250 S1 Inventory S1 Installed Actual Installed Actual Inventory S2 Installed 200 150 S2 Inventory 100 50 0 1 11 21 31 41 51 Time 61 [days] Figure 1: Piles in Inventory and Total Installed for Two Scenarios vs. Actual Figure 2: Lead Times for Production Scheduling vs. Installation Scheduling The advantages of a ‘just-in-time’ system are several, especially for projects with changing demands: • A smaller inventory of finished products means a smaller storage and handling cost. • Less space needed means a lower capital investment (or excess space could be rented), lower taxes (e.g., state and property taxes), and lower insurance rates to be paid on inventories (even though the precaster gets paid for piles ready for shipment). It could also make it easier to find a good location for a new precasting plant. • Smaller risk for obsolescence, which stems from the risk that a product will lose some of its value because of changes in the project or market. If design changes are likely in the course of a project, then it is better to hold off on making products, because once made, products are much more costly to change if they can be changed at all. • Reduced lead time from order-to-receipt and increased responsiveness of the production system to changing site needs, so less inventory needs to be maintained for the sake of flexibility. QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-ON RESEARCH Questions thatwill guide follow -on research include: 8
  9. 9. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 1. What is the impact of variability on execution? This paper presented a deterministic model and assumes there are no ‘matching’ problems (Tommelein 1998). The model must be developed further to reflect product variety and other variability: How does the length of each pile affect how piles are sequenced for fabrication? How does the precaster define batches of ‘like’ piles? How much opportunity does the precaster have to make piles more standardized (e.g., in terms of rebar lengths and sizes)? If piles are too long to be transported in a single unit and thus have to be spliced, how does that affect transportation and installation? It must also be developed further to reflect the stochastic nature of modelparameters (e.g., durations). 2. What are the costs and benefits for driving indicator piles? How does one go about choosing where they should be driven and how many of them? 3. What and how much waste is there in current practice? For example, based on the significant amount of uncertainty with regards to the depth of bedrock and considering the cost for making a pile longer should that prove to be necessary after they have been driven into the ground, the GE justifiably specified relatively large cut-off lengths. Notwithstanding the potential costs associated with the risk of having piles that are too short, making the excess length, cutting off a pile to the needed elevation, and disposing of the remains, are real costs. Is there a way to obtain better soils data, e.g., through real-time data collection and feedback on how deep piles are driven into the ground, that may assist in determining cut-off lengths? 4. Are there product alternatives on the market that are more in line with lean principles? E.g., one overseas company is making high-strength spun concrete piles of standard-length sections, ending in metal plates so that sections can be welded together. Is this a viable alternative to the precast concrete piles used on this project? CONCLUSIONS This paper presented a study of precast pile delivery and highlighted various kinds of variability and uncertainty in this process. The description focused on handoffs between industry participants in the delivery process, lead times, and inventory buildup. The paper cited several lean construction principles and suggested how they could be applied to this process with characteristically high demand variability. Additional research is in order to further articulate the factors that affect this process and that can be altered through management decisions with regards to production system design. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors much appreciate contributions made by industry practitioners, consulted in the course of this research, who made time to explain their practices and reasoning, and to entertain alternative ideas. We specially want to thank Cahill in San Francisco, KieCon in Antioch, Treadwell&Rollo in San Francisco, American Piledriving in Pleasanton, and UC Berkeley for providing the opportunity and facilities to conduct this research. REFERENCES Arbulu, R.J. and Tommelein, I.D. (2002). “Alternative Supply-Chain Configurations for Engineered or Catalogued Made-To-Order Components: Case Study on Pipe Supports used in Power Plants.” Proc. 10th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-10), Gramado, Brazil, August 6-8, pp. 197-209. 9
  10. 10. Proceedings Construction Research Congress 2005, ASCE, San Diego, California, 5-7 April 2005 Ballard, G. (1999). “Improving Work Flow Reliability.” Proc. 7th Annual Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, IGLC-7, Berkeley, CA, July 26-28, pp. 275-286 Ballard, G. (2001). “Malling Precast Products Ltd.: A Case Study in the Application of Lean Production Concepts,” Tech. Rept. 2001-1, Lean Constr. Institute, Ketchum, ID. Ballard, G. and Arbulu, R.J. (2004). “Making Prefabrication Lean.” Proc. 12th Ann. Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, Elsinor, Denmark, see http://www.iglc2004.dk/ Ballard, G., Harper, N., Zabelle, T. (2003). “Learning to See Work Flow: Application of Lean Production Concepts to Precast Concrete Fabrication.” Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, Blackwell Pub., 10 (1) 6-14. Ballard, G., Tommelein, I., Koskela, L., and Howell, G. (2002). “Lean Construction Tools and Techniques.” Chapter 15 in R. Best and G. de Valence (editors, 2002). Design and Construction: Building in Value. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 227-255. Brown, R.W. (2001). Practical foundation engineering handbook. Second edition, McGraw-Hill, page 4.102. Elfving, J.A. (2003). Exploration of Opportunities to Reduce Lead Times for Engineeredto-Order Products. Ph.D. Diss., Dept. of Civil & Envir. Engrg., University of California, Berkeley, Fall, 322 pages. Gil, N., Tommelein, I.D., Kirkendall, R.L., and Ballard, G. (2001) “Leveraging Specialty-Contractor Knowledge in Design-Build Organizations.” Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management (ECAM), 8 (5/6) 355-367. Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (2000) Factory Physics. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill International Editions, Boston, 698 pp. Howell, G.A. and Ballard, G. (1999). “Design of Construction Operations.” LCI White Paper-4, http://www.leanconstruction.org/pdf/WP4-OperationsDesign.pdf, 9 pages. Howell, G.A., Laufer, A., and Ballard, G. (1993) “Interaction between Sub-cycles: One Key to Improved Methods.” J. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 119 (4) 714-728. Koskela, L., Ballard, G., and Tanhuanpaa, V.P., (1997) “Towards Lean Design Management.” Proc. 5th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, July. Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G., and Tommelein, I. (2002). “The Foundations of Lean Construction.” Chapter 14 in R. Best and G. de Valence (editors, 2002). Design and Construction: Building in Value. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 211-226. Mikulina, T.W. (1998). “The Parallel between Product Development and Production and Building Design and Construction.” DBIA Conf., Chicago, IL. Napier (2004). Pile Foundation Design: A Student Guide, Napier University, Edinburgh, http://sbe.napier.ac.uk/projects/piledesign/guide/chapter2.htm, visited on Sept. 29. Peurifoy, R.L., Ledbetter, W.B., and Schexnayder, C.J. (1996). “Piles and Pile-Driving Equipment.” Ch. 15 in Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods. McGraw Hill, 5th ed., 633pp. Tommelein, I.D. (1998). “Pull-driven Scheduling for Pipe-Spool Installation: Simulation of Lean Construction Technique.” ASCE, J. Constr. Engrg. Mgmt., 124 (4) 279-288. Treadwell&Rollo (2002). Geotechnical Investigation Block N3A Parcel 1 Mission Bay, San Francisco, CA. Treadwell&Rollo, San Francisco, CA, 22 May, 34 pp. and appx. Walsh, K.D., Hershauer, J.C., Tommelein, I.D., and Walsh, T.A. (2004). “Strategic Positioning of Inventory to Match Demand in a Capital Projects Supply Chain.” ASCE, J. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., 130 (6) 818-826. 10