by Moncef Souissi, CTL / Thompson
September, 2015
As most people in the helical pile industry know, the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) Acceptance Criteria for Helical Piles (AC358 – click here to access) was first published in June 2007. Back then, many helical pile manufacturers formed an Ad-Hoc committee and teamed with CTL|Thompson’s Fort Collins, CO branch (IAS Accredited Lab # T342 for helical pile testing) to work with ICC-ES to develop this acceptance criteria. Once the manufacturers of helical piles started testing their product(s) to obtain an ICC-ES report, they encountered many difficulties with ICC-ES staff concerning the meanings and clarifications of many sections in AC358. To resolve this issue, the AD-Hoc committee was reassembled in 2011. This committee consisted of eight manufacturers plus Moncef Souissi of CTL|Thompson who served as its chairman. The committee worked with ICC-ES and the new revised AC358 was issued in June 2013.
Recently, ICC-ES staff contacted Souissi to recommend that AC358 be revised again to primarily address the issue of larger diameter helical piles, as the current AC358 can only be used to certify piles up to 3.5” in diameter. Helical piles larger than 3.5” in diameter are classified as being non-conforming and are treated like small diameter helical piles that do not conform to table 3 (page 16 of AC358). Small diameter helical piles that are non-conforming still have an established Kt value stated in AC358 that ICC-ES can use as a guide. However, there are no established Kt values in AC358 for helical piles with diameters larger than 3.5”.
Moncef Souissi and Chip Leadbetter of CTL|Thompson are willing to again work with the AD-Hoc Committee to improve and simplify the current AC358 for small diameter helical piles (sizes in AC 358 with established Kt values) and to also address the issues of the larger diameter piles. Souissi will be sending the specifics of the revisions to manufacturers who would like to take part in this AD-Hoc Committee. Input from manufacturers will be sought to simplify the new revised AC358 and to eliminate ambiguities that have previously caused interpretation problems between ICC-ES staff and manufacturers seeking an ESR report.
In addition to this proposal to revise AC358, the CTL|Thompson team will be addressing the issue of response and long turnaround times with ICC-ES staff. Many manufacturers have complained about how long the certification process takes, which can also impact the overall cost of obtaining an ESR.
It is important to note that this issue was brought up during the recent Helical Piles & Tiebacks Committee meeting in Newark, NJ on September 9th. Some of the manufacturers attending the meeting recommended that a separate acceptance criteria be developed for large diameter helical piles. This recommendation also deserves thought and discussion, and input from the industry is invited.
To be part of this Ad-Hoc committee, please contact Moncef Souissi at:
msouissi@ctlthompson.com
Or by phone: (970) 206-9455
September, 2015
As most people in the helical pile industry know, the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) Acceptance Criteria for Helical Piles (AC358 – click here to access) was first published in June 2007. Back then, many helical pile manufacturers formed an Ad-Hoc committee and teamed with CTL|Thompson’s Fort Collins, CO branch (IAS Accredited Lab # T342 for helical pile testing) to work with ICC-ES to develop this acceptance criteria. Once the manufacturers of helical piles started testing their product(s) to obtain an ICC-ES report, they encountered many difficulties with ICC-ES staff concerning the meanings and clarifications of many sections in AC358. To resolve this issue, the AD-Hoc committee was reassembled in 2011. This committee consisted of eight manufacturers plus Moncef Souissi of CTL|Thompson who served as its chairman. The committee worked with ICC-ES and the new revised AC358 was issued in June 2013.
Recently, ICC-ES staff contacted Souissi to recommend that AC358 be revised again to primarily address the issue of larger diameter helical piles, as the current AC358 can only be used to certify piles up to 3.5” in diameter. Helical piles larger than 3.5” in diameter are classified as being non-conforming and are treated like small diameter helical piles that do not conform to table 3 (page 16 of AC358). Small diameter helical piles that are non-conforming still have an established Kt value stated in AC358 that ICC-ES can use as a guide. However, there are no established Kt values in AC358 for helical piles with diameters larger than 3.5”.
Moncef Souissi and Chip Leadbetter of CTL|Thompson are willing to again work with the AD-Hoc Committee to improve and simplify the current AC358 for small diameter helical piles (sizes in AC 358 with established Kt values) and to also address the issues of the larger diameter piles. Souissi will be sending the specifics of the revisions to manufacturers who would like to take part in this AD-Hoc Committee. Input from manufacturers will be sought to simplify the new revised AC358 and to eliminate ambiguities that have previously caused interpretation problems between ICC-ES staff and manufacturers seeking an ESR report.
In addition to this proposal to revise AC358, the CTL|Thompson team will be addressing the issue of response and long turnaround times with ICC-ES staff. Many manufacturers have complained about how long the certification process takes, which can also impact the overall cost of obtaining an ESR.
It is important to note that this issue was brought up during the recent Helical Piles & Tiebacks Committee meeting in Newark, NJ on September 9th. Some of the manufacturers attending the meeting recommended that a separate acceptance criteria be developed for large diameter helical piles. This recommendation also deserves thought and discussion, and input from the industry is invited.
To be part of this Ad-Hoc committee, please contact Moncef Souissi at:
msouissi@ctlthompson.com
Or by phone: (970) 206-9455
RSS Feed
