Adjusting Budgets for Additional Reinforcement Materials

Adjusting Budgets for Additional Reinforcement Materials

Common mistakes to avoid when creating follow up plans for foundation repair services

Identifying the signs that indicate the need for additional reinforcement materials


When managing budgets, particularly in contexts where projects or operations are dynamic and subject to change, it's essential to be vigilant about signs that indicate the need for additional reinforcement materials. Timely foundation crack repair service prevents costly long-term damage foundation crack repair service radon mitigation. This foresight can help in maintaining the integrity and success of the project while ensuring that resources are utilized efficiently. Here are some key indicators that suggest it might be time to adjust your budget to accommodate additional reinforcement materials:

Firstly, a consistent pattern of budget overruns can be a red flag. If you find yourself repeatedly exceeding your allocated budget, it may be a sign that your initial estimates were too optimistic or that unforeseen challenges are consistently arising. This could necessitate a budget review and potential increases to cover additional materials or resources needed to complete the project successfully.

Secondly, feedback from team members or stakeholders highlighting resource shortages or inefficiencies can be a critical indicator. If those directly involved in the project are reporting that they lack the necessary materials to perform their tasks effectively, it's a clear signal that the budget may need to be adjusted. This feedback is invaluable as it comes from those with a firsthand understanding of the project's operational needs.

Moreover, changes in project scope or objectives often require additional resources. Whether it's an expansion of the project's goals or a shift in focus, any alteration can lead to increased demands for materials. Keeping an eye on these changes and being prepared to adjust the budget accordingly is crucial for project success.

Additionally, external factors such as supply chain disruptions or increases in material costs can impact your budget. Staying informed about market conditions and being prepared to adjust your budget in response to these external pressures is essential for maintaining project momentum.

Lastly, regular project reviews and assessments can uncover the need for additional reinforcement materials. These reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate the project's progress, identify any gaps in resources, and make informed decisions about budget adjustments. Engaging in this proactive approach can help prevent future budget shortfalls and ensure that the project remains on track.

In conclusion, recognizing the signs that indicate the need for additional reinforcement materials is crucial for effective budget management. By staying attuned to patterns of budget overruns, listening to feedback from team members, monitoring changes in project scope, being aware of external factors, and conducting regular project reviews, you can make informed decisions about budget adjustments. This proactive approach not only helps in maintaining the project's integrity and success but also ensures efficient resource utilization.

Cost analysis of common reinforcement materials used in foundation repair


When adjusting budgets for additional reinforcement materials in foundation repair, it's crucial to consider the cost analysis of the common reinforcement materials used. These materials play a pivotal role in ensuring the stability and longevity of the repaired foundation. The primary materials include steel rebar, fiberglass rebar, epoxy injection materials, polyurethane foam, and helical piers.

Steel rebar is one of the most traditional and widely used materials in foundation repair. It is known for its high tensile strength, which makes it ideal for reinforcing concrete. However, the cost of steel rebar can fluctuate based on market conditions and availability. Additionally, labor costs associated with installing steel rebar can be significant, as it requires skilled labor to ensure proper placement and integration within the foundation.

Fiberglass rebar is a modern alternative to steel rebar. It offers several advantages, including corrosion resistance and lighter weight, which can reduce labor costs during installation. However, fiberglass rebar tends to be more expensive than steel rebar upfront. Despite the higher initial cost, its durability and lower maintenance requirements can provide long-term savings.

Epoxy injection materials are commonly used for crack repair in foundations. These materials are injected into cracks to fill voids and bond the concrete back together. The cost of epoxy injection varies depending on the extent of the damage and the type of epoxy used. High-strength epoxies, while more expensive, offer superior performance and longevity.

Polyurethane foam is another popular material for foundation repair, particularly for lifting and stabilizing settled foundations. It is less invasive than traditional methods and can be injected under the foundation to raise it to the desired level. The cost of polyurethane foam is generally competitive, but it can vary based on the volume required and the specific formulation of the foam.

Helical piers are a more permanent solution for foundation repair, especially in areas with expansive soils or where the foundation has settled significantly. These piers are driven into the ground until they reach load-bearing strata, providing a stable base for the foundation. The cost of helical piers can be higher than other methods due to the equipment and labor required for installation. However, their durability and effectiveness in preventing future settlement make them a worthwhile investment in many cases.

In conclusion, when adjusting budgets for additional reinforcement materials in foundation repair, it is essential to evaluate the costs and benefits of each material. Factors such as initial cost, labor requirements, durability, and long-term performance should all be considered. By carefully analyzing these elements, homeowners and contractors can make informed decisions that ensure the foundation is repaired effectively and within budget.

Factors influencing the budget adjustment for additional materials


When it comes to adjusting budgets for additional reinforcement materials, several factors play a crucial role in determining the necessary budget adjustments. Firstly, the scope of the project often dictates the extent of budget modifications needed. Projects with larger scales or more complex requirements typically demand greater quantities of reinforcement materials, leading to increased budget allocations.

Moreover, the type and quality of reinforcement materials significantly influence budget adjustments. High-quality materials may come at a premium price, necessitating higher budget allocations to ensure the project's success and durability. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs, influenced by market dynamics and supply chain factors, can impact budget adjustments. Sudden price hikes or shortages of essential materials may require reallocating funds to accommodate these changes.

Furthermore, project timelines and deadlines can affect budget adjustments for additional materials. Tight deadlines may necessitate expedited procurement processes, potentially driving up costs due to urgency premiums or expedited shipping fees. Conversely, extended project timelines may allow for more strategic purchasing decisions, potentially reducing overall budget requirements through bulk purchasing or negotiated discounts.

Lastly, unforeseen circumstances such as natural disasters, regulatory changes, or unforeseen project challenges can necessitate budget adjustments for additional reinforcement materials. Contingency planning and risk assessment are essential components of budget management, allowing for flexibility and adaptability in response to unexpected events.

In conclusion, adjusting budgets for additional reinforcement materials requires careful consideration of various factors, including project scope, material quality, market dynamics, project timelines, and unforeseen circumstances. By proactively assessing these factors and implementing strategic budget adjustments, project managers can ensure the successful completion of projects while maintaining financial efficiency and sustainability.

Strategies for estimating the additional costs associated with reinforcement materials


When it comes to adjusting budgets for additional reinforcement materials, it's crucial to have effective strategies in place to estimate the associated costs accurately. This not only ensures that projects stay within budget but also helps in making informed decisions about resource allocation. Here are some strategies that can be employed:

Firstly, conducting a thorough needs assessment is vital. This involves evaluating the current structural conditions and determining the specific areas that require reinforcement. By understanding the scope of work, project managers can make more accurate estimates of the materials needed and their associated costs.

Secondly, leveraging historical data can be incredibly beneficial. Past projects that required similar reinforcement can provide valuable insights into the types and quantities of materials used, as well as their costs. This data can serve as a benchmark for current and future projects, helping to refine estimates and avoid unexpected expenses.

Thirdly, engaging with suppliers early in the planning process can lead to more accurate cost estimates. Suppliers can provide detailed information about the availability, quality, and cost of various reinforcement materials. Additionally, establishing relationships with reliable suppliers may offer opportunities for negotiated prices or bulk discounts, further aiding in cost management.

Another effective strategy is to use technology to aid in estimation. Software tools designed for project management and cost estimation can help in simulating different scenarios and calculating potential costs based on various inputs. These tools can account for variables such as material prices, labor costs, and project timelines, providing a more comprehensive view of the budget requirements.

Furthermore, incorporating a contingency budget is a prudent approach. Unexpected challenges or changes in material costs can arise during a project. Allocating a portion of the budget as a contingency ensures that there is financial flexibility to address these unforeseen circumstances without derailing the project's progress.

Lastly, regular reviews and adjustments of the budget throughout the project lifecycle are essential. As the project evolves, so might the needs for reinforcement materials. Continuous monitoring and adjustment of the budget based on real-time data and project developments help in maintaining financial control and ensuring that the project remains viable.

In conclusion, estimating the additional costs associated with reinforcement materials requires a combination of thorough assessment, historical data analysis, early supplier engagement, technological aid, contingency planning, and ongoing budget reviews. By employing these strategies, project managers can more effectively adjust budgets to accommodate the necessary reinforcements, ensuring both structural integrity and financial stability.

Communication with clients regarding budget adjustments and the importance of transparency


In the dynamic world of construction and project management, effective communication with clients is paramount, especially when it comes to budget adjustments. One particular scenario that often arises is the need to adjust budgets for additional reinforcement materials. This situation not only impacts the financial aspect of the project but also requires a delicate balance of transparency and client relations.

When faced with the necessity to incorporate additional reinforcement materials into a project, it's crucial to approach the conversation with clients with clarity and honesty. Transparency is the cornerstone of trust in any client-contractor relationship. It's important to explain the reasons behind the need for additional materials in a straightforward manner. Whether it's due to unforeseen structural challenges, changes in design, or compliance with safety standards, clients need to understand the necessity and benefits of these adjustments.

Moreover, it's essential to present the financial implications of these changes in a transparent and comprehensible way. This includes detailing the cost of the additional materials, how they will be integrated into the project, and the expected impact on the overall budget. Providing a clear breakdown helps clients make informed decisions and fosters a sense of partnership in navigating the project's challenges.

In these discussions, it's also beneficial to explore alternative solutions or compromises. This might involve discussing different material options, phasing the project to manage cash flow, or even re-evaluating certain aspects of the project to find a balance that meets both the client's needs and budget constraints.

Lastly, maintaining an open line of communication throughout the project is key. Regular updates, even when there are no major changes, help in building a rapport and ensuring that clients feel involved and informed at every step. This proactive approach not only aids in smoother budget adjustments but also strengthens the overall client-contractor relationship.

In conclusion, communicating with clients about budget adjustments for additional reinforcement materials requires a blend of transparency, clear financial communication, exploration of alternatives, and consistent updates. It's about building trust and ensuring that clients are not just informed, but also feel heard and involved in the decision-making process.

Case studies illustrating successful budget adjustments for foundation repair projects


When it comes to foundation repair projects, budget adjustments for additional reinforcement materials are often necessary to ensure structural integrity and long-term stability. This essay highlights several case studies that exemplify successful budget adjustments in foundation repair, demonstrating how flexibility and strategic planning can lead to effective outcomes.

Case Study 1: Residential Home in Texas
In a suburban area of Texas, a residential home faced significant foundation issues due to expansive clay soils. Initial budget estimates did not account for the extensive use of helical piers required to stabilize the foundation. Upon discovering the extent of the problem, the contractor and homeowner collaboratively adjusted the budget to accommodate the additional reinforcement materials. By reallocating funds from less critical aspects of the project, such as cosmetic upgrades, they were able to cover the cost of the necessary piers. The result was a structurally sound foundation that met safety standards without compromising the overall project timeline.

Case Study 2: Commercial Building in California
A commercial building in California required foundation repair after an earthquake. The initial budget was based on standard reinforcement techniques. However, during the project, it became apparent that the soil conditions were more challenging than anticipated, necessitating the use of carbon fiber reinforcement in addition to traditional steel bars. The project manager quickly reassessed the budget, reallocating funds from contingency reserves and negotiating with suppliers for better rates on the additional materials. This proactive approach ensured that the project stayed on track and within the revised budget, ultimately leading to a safer and more resilient structure.

Case Study 3: Historic Building Restoration in New England
Restoring a historic building in New England presented unique challenges, particularly in preserving the building's original character while ensuring modern safety standards. The initial budget did not include the cost of custom-made reinforcement materials required to match the historic aesthetic. Through careful planning and collaboration with historical preservation societies, the project team secured grants and additional funding sources to cover these unexpected expenses. This strategic budget adjustment not only preserved the building's historic integrity but also ensured it met contemporary safety requirements.

These case studies underscore the importance of flexibility and proactive planning in budget management for foundation repair projects. By being prepared to make necessary adjustments and seeking additional resources when needed, project managers can ensure successful outcomes that meet both structural and aesthetic goals.



(Learn how and when to remove this message)

Radon mitigation is any process used to reduce radon gas concentrations in the breathing zones of occupied buildings, or radon from water supplies. Radon is a significant contributor to environmental radioactivity and indoor air pollution. Exposure to radon can cause serious health problems such as lung cancer.[1]

Mitigation of radon in the air by active soil depressurization is most effective. Concrete slabs, sub-floors, and/or crawlspaces are sealed, an air pathway is then created to exhaust radon above the roof-line, and a radon mitigation fan is installed to run permanently. In particularly troublesome dwellings, air exchangers can be used to reduce indoor radon concentrations. Treatment systems using aeration or activated charcoal are available to remove radon from domestic water supplies. There is no proven link between radon in water and gastrointestinal cancers; however, extremely high radon concentrations in water can be aerosolized by faucets and shower heads and contribute to high indoor radon levels in the air.

Testing

[edit]
A typical radon test kit
Fluctuation of ambient air radon concentration over one week, measured in a laboratory

The first step in mitigation is testing. No level of radiation is considered completely safe, but as it cannot be eliminated, governments around the world have set various action levels to provide guidance on when radon concentrations should be reduced. The World Health Organization's International Radon Project has recommended an action level of 100 Bq/m3 (2.7 pCi/L) for radon in the air.[2] Radon in the air is considered to be a larger health threat than radon in domestic water. The US Environmental Protection Agency recommendation is to not test for radon in water unless a radon in air test shows concentrations above the action level. However, in some U.S. states such as Maine where radon levels are higher than the national average, it is recommend that all well water should be tested for radon. The U.S. government has not set an action level for radon in water.

Air-radon levels fluctuate naturally on a daily and seasonal basis. A short term test (90 days or less) might not be an accurate assessment of a home's average radon level, but is recommended for initial testing to quickly determine unhealthy conditions. Transient weather such as wind and changes in barometric pressure can affect short-term concentrations as well as ventilation, such as open windows and the operation of exhaust fans.

Testing for radon in the air is accomplished using passive or active devices placed in the building. Some devices are promptly sent to a laboratory for analysis, others calculate the results on-site including digital Radon detectors. Radon-in-water testing requires a water sample being sent to a laboratory.

Retesting is recommended in several situations, for example, before spending money on the installation of a mitigation system. Test results which exceed accuracy tolerances also require re-testing. When a mitigation system installation is warranted, a retest after the system is functional is advised to be sure the system is effectively reducing the radon concentration below the action level, and after any mitigation system repairs such as replacing a fan unit. The US EPA recommends retesting homes with radon problems every two years to ensure proper system function. Due to the vast fluctuation in indoor radon levels, the EPA recommends all homes be tested at least once every five years.[3]

Testing in the United States

[edit]
Radon map of the United States

ASTM E-2121 is a US standard for reducing airborne radon in homes as far as practicable below the action level of 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) (148 Bq/m3).[4][5] Some states recommend achieving 2.0 pCi/L or less.

Radon test kits are commercially available[6] and can be used by homeowners and tenants and in limited cases by landlords, except when a property is for sale.

Commercially available test kits include a passive collector that the user places in the lowest livable floor of the house for 2 to 7 days. The user then sends the collector to a laboratory for analysis. Long-term kits, taking collections from 91 days to one year, are also available. Open land test kits can test radon emissions from the land before construction begins, but are not recommended by the EPA because they do not accurately predict the final indoor radon level. The EPA and the National Environmental Health Association have identified 15 types of radon test devices.[7] A Lucas cell is one type of device.

Retesting is specifically recommended in several situations. Measurements between 4 and 10 pCi/L (148 and 370 Bq/m3) warrant a follow-up short-term or long-term radon test before mitigation. Measurements over 10 pCi/L (370 Bq/m3) warrant only another short-term test (not a long-term test) so that abatement measures are not unduly delayed.

Progress has been made regarding radon in the home. A total of 37 states have now[when?] passed legislation requiring home-sellers to disclose known radon levels before completing the transaction (although only a handful have introduced criminal penalties for misrepresentation).[8] And over half the legislatures have written radon into their state's building code.[9] Purchasers of real estate may delay or decline a purchase if the seller has not successfully abated radon to less than 4 pCi/L.

The accuracy of the residential radon test depends upon whether closed house conditions are maintained. Thus the occupants will be instructed not to open windows, etc., for ventilation during the pendency of test, usually two days or more. However, the occupants, if the present owners, will be motivated to pass the test and insure the sale, so they might be tempted to open a window to get a lower radon score. Moreover, there may be children or immature teens or young adults in the house who will open a window for ventilation notwithstanding instructions not to do so, particularly in uncomfortably hot weather. Accordingly, whether the potential purchaser should trust the result of such a test is problematic.

Management of radon service provider certification has evolved since being introduced by the EPA in 1986. In the 1990s this service was "privatized" and the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) helped transition the voluntary National Radon Proficiency Program (NRPP) to be administered by private firms. As of 2012, the NRPP is administered by the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST).[10]

Some states, such as Maine, require landlords to test their rental properties and turn the results in to the state. In limited cases the landlord or tenants may do the testing themselves. The rules in each state vary. In many cases there are private contractors that will inspect hired by the city.

Testing in Canada

[edit]

Health Canada recommends regular annual testing, either by hiring a qualified tester or by using a home-testing kit that should be checked quarterly.[11]

Canadian Government, in conjunction with the territories and provinces, developed the guideline[12] to indicate when remedial action should be taken was originally set at 800 Bq/m3 (becquerels per cubic meter) and since reduced to 200 Bq/m3. This new guideline was approved by the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee in October 2006.[13]

Testing in the UK

[edit]

Radon testing in the UK is managed by UKradon and the UKHSA.[14]

Testing in Norway

[edit]

The Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (DSA) developed the protocol[15] for radon measurements in residential dwellings[16] with respect to rental accommodation, which is governed by The Radiation Protection Regulations.[17]

Methods of radon gas mitigation

[edit]
Part of a radon mitigation system including the fan and vent pipe is visible near the gutter downspout.

Because high levels of radon have been found in every state of the United States,[18] testing for radon and installing radon mitigation systems has become a specialized industry since the 1980s. Many states have implemented programs that affect home buying and awareness in the real estate community; however, radon testing and mitigation systems are not generally mandatory unless specified by the local jurisdiction.[19]

Anticipated high radon levels can be mitigated during building design and construction by a combination of ensuring a perfectly sealed foundation, allowing sufficient passive dispersal of under-slab gas around rather than through the building, and proper building ventilation. In many instances, such approaches may achieve a sufficient reduction of radon levels compared to other buildings where such approaches were not taken. However, quality of implementation is crucial and testing after construction is necessary. For instance, even a small gap in the sealing of the slab may be sufficient for excessive quantities of radon to enter, given pressure differentials.

Where such approaches were not taken during construction or have proven insufficiently effective, remediation is needed. According to the EPA's "A Citizen's Guide to Radon",[20] the method to reduce radon "primarily used is a vent pipe system and fan, which pulls radon from beneath the house and vents it to the outside", which is also called sub-slab depressurization, soil suction, or active soil depressurization (ASD). Generally indoor radon can be mitigated by sub-slab depressurization and exhausting such radon-laden air to the outdoors, away from windows and other building openings.[21] "EPA generally recommends methods which prevent the entry of radon. Soil suction, for example, prevents radon from entering your home by drawing the radon from below the home and venting it through a pipe, or pipes, to the air above the home where it is quickly diluted" and "EPA does not recommend the use of sealing alone to reduce radon because, by itself, sealing has not been shown to lower radon levels significantly or consistently" according to the EPA's "Consumer's Guide to Radon Reduction: How to Fix Your Home".[22] Ventilation systems can utilize a heat exchanger or energy recovery ventilator to recover part of the energy otherwise lost in the process of exchanging air with the outside. For crawlspaces, the EPA states,[22] "An effective method to reduce radon levels in crawlspace homes involves covering the earth floor with a high-density plastic sheet. A vent pipe and fan are used to draw the radon from under the sheet and vent it to the outdoors. This form of soil suction is called submembrane suction, and when properly applied is the most effective way to reduce radon levels in crawlspace homes."

High radon levels in a Minnesota (USA) basement with a passive under slab vent pipe system can be seen in the left half of the graph. After installation of a radon fan (ASD), a permanent reduction in radon levels to approximately 0.6 pCi/L can be seen in the right half of the graph.
  • The most common approach is active soil depressurization (ASD). Experience has shown that ASD is applicable to most buildings since radon usually enters from the soil and rock underneath and mechanical ventilation is used when the indoor radon is emitted from the building materials. A less common approach works efficiently by reducing air pressures within cavities of exterior and demising walls where radon emitting from building materials, most often concrete blocks, collects.
  • Above slab air pressure differential barrier technology (ASAPDB) requires that the interior pressure envelope, most often drywall, as well as all ductwork for air conditioning systems, be made as airtight as possible. A small blower, often no more than 15 cubic feet per minute (0.7 L/s) may then extract the radon-laden air from these cavities and exhaust it to the out of doors. With well-sealed HVAC ducts, very small negative pressures, perhaps as little as 0.5 pascal (0.00007 psi), will prevent the entry of highly radon-laden wall cavity air from entering into the breathing zone. Such ASAPDB technology is often the best radon mitigation choice for high-rise condominiums as it does not increase indoor humidity loads in hot humid climates, and it can also work well to prevent mold growth in exterior walls in heating climates.
  • In hot, humid climates, heat recovery ventilators (HRV) as well as energy recovery ventilators (ERV) have a record of increasing indoor relative humidity and dehumidification demands on air conditioning systems. Mold problems can occur in homes that have been radon mitigated with HRV and ERV installations in hot, humid climates.[citation needed] HRVs and ERVs have an excellent record in cold dry climates.
  • A recent technology is based on building science. It includes a variable rate mechanical ventilation system that prevents indoor relative humidity from rising above a preset level such as 50% which is currently suggested by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others as an upper limit for the prevention of mold. It has proven to be especially effective in hot, humid climates. It controls the air delivery rate so that the air conditioner is never overloaded with more moisture than it can effectively remove from the indoor air.
    • It is generally assumed that air conditioner operation will remove excess moisture from the air in the breathing zone, but it is important to note that just because the air conditioner cools does not mean that it is also dehumidfying. If Δt is 14 degrees or less, it may not dehumidify at all even though it is cooling.
    • Factors that are likely to aggravate indoor humidity problems from mechanical ventilation–based radon installations are as follows and an expert radon mitigator/building scientist will check for and correct any and all of the following when he or she performs radon mitigation procedures:
      • Air conditioner duct leaks located outside the breathing zone, such as in the attic.
      • Excessive exhaust fan operation
      • Oversize or over-capacity air conditioners
      • AC air handler fans that do not stop running when the air conditioner compressor stops running.
      • Delta tt), which is the amount that the air is cooled as it is passed through the air conditioner's cooling coils. A good Δt performance figure for home air conditioners is about 20 °F (11 °C). In comparison, automobile air conditioners deliver Δt performance of 32 to 38 °F (18 to 21 °C). A Δt of 14 °F (8 °C) will dehumidify poorly if at all.

In South Florida, most radon mitigation is performed by use of fixed rate mechanical ventilation. Radon mitigation training in Florida does not include problems associated with mechanical ventilation systems, such as high indoor humidity, mold, moldy odors, property damage or health consequences of human occupation in high humidity of moldy environments[citation needed]. As a result, most Florida radon mitigators are unaware of and do not incorporate existing building science moisture management technology into mechanical ventilation radon installations. Home inspectors may not necessarily be aware of the mold risks associated with radon mitigation by mechanical ventilation.

The average cost for an ASD radon mitigation system in Minnesota is $1500.[23] These costs are very dependent on the type of home and age of construction.[24]

Methods of radon-in-water mitigation

[edit]

Radon removal from water supplies may be at a treatment plant, point of entry, or point of use. Public water supplies in the United States were required to treat for radionuclides beginning in 2003 but private wells are not regulated by the federal government as of 2014. The radon can be captured by granular activated charcoal (GAR) or released into the air through aeration of the water. Radon will naturally dissipate from water over a period of days, but the quantity of storage needed to treat the water in this manner makes home systems of this type impracticably large.[25]

Activated carbon systems capture radon from the water. The amount of radiation accumulates over time and the filter material may reach the level of requiring disposal as a radioactive waste. However, in the United States there are no regulations concerning radiation levels and disposal of radon treatment waste as of 2014.

Aeration systems move the radon from the water to the air. Radon gas discharged into the air is the release of a pollutant, and may become regulated in the United States.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Nunnally, Diamond (2022-03-30). "Dangerous radon gas dangers and detection tips". WBMA. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
  2. ^ WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon: A Public Health Perspective. World Health Organization. 2009.
  3. ^ US EPA, OAR (2013-08-27). "Radon". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2023-02-04.
  4. ^ "Recommended Residential Radon Mitigation Standard of Practice". United States Environmental Protection Agency. Archived from the original on 2008-01-16. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  5. ^ "ASTM E2121-03 Standard Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential Buildings". ASTM International. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  6. ^ "Commercially Available Radon Kits". Alpha Energy Labs. Archived from the original on 2012-07-12. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
  7. ^ "Radon Measurement Method Definitions". The National Environmental Health Association—National Radon Proficiency Program. Archived from the original on 2007-12-24. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  8. ^ "State Radon Laws". lawatlas.org. Retrieved 2021-07-12.
  9. ^ "National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) - Radon".
  10. ^ "National Radon Proficiency Program - NEHA and NEHA-NRPP History". Nrpp.info. Retrieved 2015-03-30.
  11. ^ "Home radon testing important for health". lethbridgeherald.com. 18 March 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
  12. ^ "Radon Gas | Vancouver, BC, Canada". Radoncontrol.ca. Retrieved 2015-03-30.
  13. ^ "Radon Frequently Asked Questions - Health Canada". Hc-sc.gc.ca. 2014-07-30. Retrieved 2015-03-30.
  14. ^ "UKradon - Home". www.ukradon.org.
  15. ^ "Radon measurements in residential dwellings".
  16. ^ "Radon boliger 2013" (PDF).
  17. ^ "Legislation".
  18. ^ "Radon: Myth vs Fact". Radon-Rid/EPA. Retrieved 2009-11-13.
  19. ^ "Listing of States and Jurisdictions with RRNC Codes". EPA. Retrieved 2009-11-13.
  20. ^ "A Citizen's Guide to Radon" (PDF). EPA. Retrieved 2024-12-27.
  21. ^ "Radon Mitigation Methods". Radon Solution. Archived from the original on 2008-12-15. Retrieved 2008-12-02.
  22. ^ a b "Consumer's Guide to Radon Reduction: How to Fix Your Home" (PDF). EPA.
  23. ^ "Radon Mitigation System - EH: Minnesota Department of Health". Health.state.mn.us. 2014-12-10. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
  24. ^ "Featured Radon Mitigation System Archives". Radonreductioninc.com. Retrieved 2015-03-30.
  25. ^ ""Radon in Drinking Water Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis: Notice"" (PDF). Federal Register. 64. February 26, 1999. Retrieved 2015-03-30.
[edit]
  • Radon at the United States Environmental Protection Agency
  • National Radon Program Services hosted by Kansas State University
  • Radon and Lung Health from the American Lung Association
  • It's Your Health - Health Canada
  • Radon's impact on your health – Quebec Lung Association

 

In geotechnical engineering, soil compaction is the process in which stress applied to a soil causes densification as air is displaced from the pores between the soil grains. When stress is applied that causes densification due to water (or other liquid) being displaced from between the soil grains, then consolidation, not compaction, has occurred. Normally, compaction is the result of heavy machinery compressing the soil, but it can also occur due to the passage of, for example, animal feet.

In soil science and agronomy, soil compaction is usually a combination of both engineering compaction and consolidation, so may occur due to a lack of water in the soil, the applied stress being internal suction due to water evaporation[1] as well as due to passage of animal feet. Affected soils become less able to absorb rainfall, thus increasing runoff and erosion. Plants have difficulty in compacted soil because the mineral grains are pressed together, leaving little space for air and water, which are essential for root growth. Burrowing animals also find it a hostile environment, because the denser soil is more difficult to penetrate. The ability of a soil to recover from this type of compaction depends on climate, mineralogy and fauna. Soils with high shrink–swell capacity, such as vertisols, recover quickly from compaction where moisture conditions are variable (dry spells shrink the soil, causing it to crack). But clays such as kaolinite, which do not crack as they dry, cannot recover from compaction on their own unless they host ground-dwelling animals such as earthworms—the Cecil soil series is an example.

Before soils can be compacted in the field, some laboratory tests are required to determine their engineering properties. Among various properties, the maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content are vital and specify the required density to be compacted in the field.[2]

A 10 tonne excavator is here equipped with a narrow sheepsfoot roller to compact the fill over newly placed sewer pipe, forming a stable support for a new road surface.
A compactor/roller fitted with a sheepsfoot drum, operated by U.S. Navy Seabees
Vibrating roller with plain drum as used for compacting asphalt and granular soils
Vibratory rammer in action

In construction

[edit]

Soil compaction is a vital part of the construction process. It is used for support of structural entities such as building foundations, roadways, walkways, and earth retaining structures to name a few. For a given soil type certain properties may deem it more or less desirable to perform adequately for a particular circumstance. In general, the preselected soil should have adequate strength, be relatively incompressible so that future settlement is not significant, be stable against volume change as water content or other factors vary, be durable and safe against deterioration, and possess proper permeability.[3]

When an area is to be filled or backfilled the soil is placed in layers called lifts. The ability of the first fill layers to be properly compacted will depend on the condition of the natural material being covered. If unsuitable material is left in place and backfilled, it may compress over a long period under the weight of the earth fill, causing settlement cracks in the fill or in any structure supported by the fill.[4] In order to determine if the natural soil will support the first fill layers, an area can be proofrolled. Proofrolling consists of utilizing a piece of heavy construction equipment to roll across the fill site and watching for deflections to be revealed. These areas will be indicated by the development of rutting, pumping, or ground weaving.[5]

To ensure adequate soil compaction is achieved, project specifications will indicate the required soil density or degree of compaction that must be achieved. These specifications are generally recommended by a geotechnical engineer in a geotechnical engineering report.

The soil type—that is, grain-size distributions, shape of the soil grains, specific gravity of soil solids, and amount and type of clay minerals, present—has a great influence on the maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content.[6] It also has a great influence on how the materials should be compacted in given situations. Compaction is accomplished by use of heavy equipment. In sands and gravels, the equipment usually vibrates, to cause re-orientation of the soil particles into a denser configuration. In silts and clays, a sheepsfoot roller is frequently used, to create small zones of intense shearing, which drives air out of the soil.

Determination of adequate compaction is done by determining the in-situ density of the soil and comparing it to the maximum density determined by a laboratory test. The most commonly used laboratory test is called the Proctor compaction test and there are two different methods in obtaining the maximum density. They are the standard Proctor and modified Proctor tests; the modified Proctor is more commonly used. For small dams, the standard Proctor may still be the reference.[5]

While soil under structures and pavements needs to be compacted, it is important after construction to decompact areas to be landscaped so that vegetation can grow.

Compaction methods

[edit]

There are several means of achieving compaction of a material. Some are more appropriate for soil compaction than others, while some techniques are only suitable for particular soils or soils in particular conditions. Some are more suited to compaction of non-soil materials such as asphalt. Generally, those that can apply significant amounts of shear as well as compressive stress, are most effective.

The available techniques can be classified as:

  1. Static – a large stress is slowly applied to the soil and then released.
  2. Impact – the stress is applied by dropping a large mass onto the surface of the soil.
  3. Vibrating – a stress is applied repeatedly and rapidly via a mechanically driven plate or hammer. Often combined with rolling compaction (see below).
  4. Gyrating – a static stress is applied and maintained in one direction while the soil is a subjected to a gyratory motion about the axis of static loading. Limited to laboratory applications.
  5. Rolling – a heavy cylinder is rolled over the surface of the soil. Commonly used on sports pitches. Roller-compactors are often fitted with vibratory devices to enhance their effectiveness.
  6. Kneading – shear is applied by alternating movement in adjacent positions. An example, combined with rolling compaction, is the 'sheepsfoot' roller used in waste compaction at landfills.

The construction plant available to achieve compaction is extremely varied and is described elsewhere.

Test methods in laboratory

[edit]

Soil compactors are used to perform test methods which cover laboratory compaction methods used to determine the relationship between molding water content and dry unit weight of soils. Soil placed as engineering fill is compacted to a dense state to obtain satisfactory engineering properties such as, shear strength, compressibility, or permeability. In addition, foundation soils are often compacted to improve their engineering properties. Laboratory compaction tests provide the basis for determining the percent compaction and molding water content needed to achieve the required engineering properties, and for controlling construction to assure that the required compaction and water contents are achieved. Test methods such as EN 13286-2, EN 13286-47, ASTM D698, ASTM D1557, AASHTO T99, AASHTO T180, AASHTO T193, BS 1377:4 provide soil compaction testing procedures.[7]

See also

[edit]
  • Soil compaction (agriculture)
  • Soil degradation
  • Compactor
  • Earthwork
  • Soil structure
  • Aeration
  • Shear strength (soil)
Multiquip RX1575 Rammax Sheepsfoot Trench Compaction Roller on the jobsite in San Diego, California

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Soil compaction due to lack of water in soil
  2. ^ Jia, Xiaoyang; Hu, Wei; Polaczyk, Pawel; Gong, Hongren; Huang, Baoshan (2019). "Comparative Evaluation of Compacting Process for Base Materials using Lab Compaction Methods". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2673 (4): 558–567. doi:10.1177/0361198119837953. ISSN 0361-1981.
  3. ^ McCarthy, David F. (2007). Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 595. ISBN 978-0-13-114560-3.
  4. ^ McCarthy, David F. (2007). Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 601–602. ISBN 978-0-13-114560-3.
  5. ^ a b McCarthy, David F. (2007). Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 602. ISBN 978-0-13-114560-3.
  6. ^ Das, Braja M. (2002). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. p. 105. ISBN 0-534-38742-X.
  7. ^ "Automatic Soil Compactor". cooper.co.uk. Cooper Research Technology. Archived from the original on 27 August 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2014.

 

Various examples of ornate ceilings

A ceiling /ˈsiːlɪŋ/ is an overhead interior roof that covers the upper limits of a room. It is not generally considered a structural element, but a finished surface concealing the underside of the roof structure or the floor of a story above. Ceilings can be decorated to taste, and there are many examples of frescoes and artwork on ceilings, especially within religious buildings. A ceiling can also be the upper limit of a tunnel.

The most common type of ceiling is the dropped ceiling,[citation needed] which is suspended from structural elements above. Panels of drywall are fastened either directly to the ceiling joists or to a few layers of moisture-proof plywood which are then attached to the joists. Pipework or ducts can be run in the gap above the ceiling, and insulation and fireproofing material can be placed here. Alternatively, ceilings may be spray painted instead, leaving the pipework and ducts exposed but painted, and using spray foam.

A subset of the dropped ceiling is the suspended ceiling, wherein a network of aluminum struts, as opposed to drywall, are attached to the joists, forming a series of rectangular spaces. Individual pieces of cardboard are then placed inside the bottom of those spaces so that the outer side of the cardboard, interspersed with aluminum rails, is seen as the ceiling from below. This makes it relatively easy to repair the pipes and insulation behind the ceiling, since all that is necessary is to lift off the cardboard, rather than digging through the drywall and then replacing it.

Other types of ceiling include the cathedral ceiling, the concave or barrel-shaped ceiling, the stretched ceiling and the coffered ceiling. Coving often links the ceiling to the surrounding walls. Ceilings can play a part in reducing fire hazard, and a system is available for rating the fire resistance of dropped ceilings.

Types

[edit]
California tract home with an open-beam ceiling, 1960

Ceilings are classified according to their appearance or construction. A cathedral ceiling is any tall ceiling area similar to those in a church. A dropped ceiling is one in which the finished surface is constructed anywhere from a few inches or centimeters to several feet or a few meters below the structure above it. This may be done for aesthetic purposes, such as achieving a desirable ceiling height; or practical purposes such as acoustic damping or providing a space for HVAC or piping. An inverse of this would be a raised floor. A concave or barrel-shaped ceiling is curved or rounded upward, usually for visual or acoustical value, while a coffered ceiling is divided into a grid of recessed square or octagonal panels, also called a "lacunar ceiling". A cove ceiling uses a curved plaster transition between wall and ceiling; it is named for cove molding, a molding with a concave curve.[1] A stretched ceiling (or stretch ceiling) uses a number of individual panels using material such as PVC fixed to a perimeter rail.[2]

Elements

[edit]

Ceilings have frequently been decorated with fresco painting, mosaic tiles and other surface treatments. While hard to execute (at least in place) a decorated ceiling has the advantage that it is largely protected from damage by fingers and dust. In the past, however, this was more than compensated for by the damage from smoke from candles or a fireplace. Many historic buildings have celebrated ceilings. Perhaps the most famous is the Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangelo.

Ceiling height, particularly in the case of low ceilings, may have psychological impacts. [3]

Fire-resistance rated ceilings

[edit]

The most common ceiling that contributes to fire-resistance ratings in commercial and residential construction is the dropped ceiling. In the case of a dropped ceiling, the rating is achieved by the entire system, which is both the structure above, from which the ceilings is suspended, which could be a concrete floor or a timber floor, as well as the suspension mechanism and, finally the lowest membrane or dropped ceiling. Between the structure that the dropped ceiling is suspended from and the dropped membrane, such as a T-bar ceiling or a layer of drywall, there is often some room for mechanical and electrical piping, wiring and ducting to run.

An independent ceiling, however, can be constructed such that it has a stand-alone fire-resistance rating. Such systems must be tested without the benefit of being suspended from a slab above in order to prove that the resulting system is capable of holding itself up. This type of ceiling would be installed to protect items above from fire.

[edit]

See also

[edit]
  • Beam ceiling
  • Hammerbeam roof
  • Hollow-core slab
  • Moulding (decorative)
  • Popcorn ceiling
  • Scottish Renaissance painted ceilings
  • Tin ceiling
  • Passive fire protection
  • Fire test
  • Hy-Rib

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Casa de las Ratas 2/2/2003". Archived from the original on September 29, 2008. Retrieved September 14, 2008.
  2. ^ Corky Binggeli (2011). Interior Graphic Standards: Student Edition. John Wiley & Sons. p. 220. ISBN 978-1-118-09935-3.
  3. ^ Meyers-Levy, Joan; Zhu, Rui (Juliet) (August 2007). "The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming on the Type of Processing That People Use". Journal of Consumer Research. 34 (2): 174–186. doi:10.1086/519146. JSTOR 10.1086/519146. S2CID 16607244.
  4. ^ Melvin, Jeremy (2006). …isme Să ÎnÈ›elegem Stilurile Arhitecturale (in Romanian). Enciclopedia RAO. p. 39. ISBN 973-717-075-X.
  5. ^ Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève (2008). The Louvre, a Tale of a Palace. Musée du Louvre Éditions. p. 26. ISBN 978-2-7572-0177-0.
  6. ^ Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève (2008). The Louvre, a Tale of a Palace. Musée du Louvre Éditions. p. 30. ISBN 978-2-7572-0177-0.
  7. ^ Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève (2008). The Louvre, a Tale of a Palace. Musée du Louvre Éditions. p. 55. ISBN 978-2-7572-0177-0.
  8. ^ Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève (2008). The Louvre, a Tale of a Palace. Musée du Louvre Éditions. p. 106. ISBN 978-2-7572-0177-0.
  9. ^ Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève (2008). The Louvre, a Tale of a Palace. Musée du Louvre Éditions. p. 138. ISBN 978-2-7572-0177-0.
  10. ^ Marinache, Oana (2015). Ernest Donaud - visul liniei (in Romanian). Editura Istoria Artei. p. 79. ISBN 978-606-94042-8-7.
[edit]
  • Media related to Ceilings at Wikimedia Commons
  • "Ceiling" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 5 (11th ed.). 1911.
  • "Ceiling" . New International Encyclopedia. 1904.
  • Merriam-Webster ceiling definition

 

 

Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo

Reviews for


Jeffery James

(5)

Very happy with my experience. They were prompt and followed through, and very helpful in fixing the crack in my foundation.

Sarah McNeily

(5)

USS was excellent. They are honest, straightforward, trustworthy, and conscientious. They thoughtfully removed the flowers and flower bulbs to dig where they needed in the yard, replanted said flowers and spread the extra dirt to fill in an area of the yard. We've had other services from different companies and our yard was really a mess after. They kept the job site meticulously clean. The crew was on time and friendly. I'd recommend them any day! Thanks to Jessie and crew.

Jim de Leon

(5)

It was a pleasure to work with Rick and his crew. From the beginning, Rick listened to my concerns and what I wished to accomplish. Out of the 6 contractors that quoted the project, Rick seemed the MOST willing to accommodate my wishes. His pricing was definitely more than fair as well. I had 10 push piers installed to stabilize and lift an addition of my house. The project commenced at the date that Rick had disclosed initially and it was completed within the same time period expected (based on Rick's original assessment). The crew was well informed, courteous, and hard working. They were not loud (even while equipment was being utilized) and were well spoken. My neighbors were very impressed on how polite they were when they entered / exited my property (saying hello or good morning each day when they crossed paths). You can tell they care about the customer concerns. They ensured that the property would be put back as clean as possible by placing MANY sheets of plywood down prior to excavating. They compacted the dirt back in the holes extremely well to avoid large stock piles of soils. All the while, the main office was calling me to discuss updates and expectations of completion. They provided waivers of lien, certificates of insurance, properly acquired permits, and JULIE locates. From a construction background, I can tell you that I did not see any flaws in the way they operated and this an extremely professional company. The pictures attached show the push piers added to the foundation (pictures 1, 2 & 3), the amount of excavation (picture 4), and the restoration after dirt was placed back in the pits and compacted (pictures 5, 6 & 7). Please notice that they also sealed two large cracks and steel plated these cracks from expanding further (which you can see under my sliding glass door). I, as well as my wife, are extremely happy that we chose United Structural Systems for our contractor. I would happily tell any of my friends and family to use this contractor should the opportunity arise!

Chris Abplanalp

(5)

USS did an amazing job on my underpinning on my house, they were also very courteous to the proximity of my property line next to my neighbor. They kept things in order with all the dirt/mud they had to excavate. They were done exactly in the timeframe they indicated, and the contract was very details oriented with drawings of what would be done. Only thing that would have been nice, is they left my concrete a little muddy with boot prints but again, all-in-all a great job

Dave Kari

(5)

What a fantastic experience! Owner Rick Thomas is a trustworthy professional. Nick and the crew are hard working, knowledgeable and experienced. I interviewed every company in the area, big and small. A homeowner never wants to hear that they have foundation issues. Out of every company, I trusted USS the most, and it paid off in the end. Highly recommend.

View GBP