Piling

There are many health (and safety) hazards during pile operations  – the main ones for each step are listed below:

1 Manual handling aspects to changing auger heads

2 Contaminated land hazards

3 Dermatitis and other cement-related hazards

4 Manual handling and injury risks in placing rebar cage along with cement-related hazards

5 Cement related and manual handling hazards (excess concrete typically removed by hand

6 Major hand-arm and whole body vibration hazards (HAVS/WBVS), noise, dust and other manual handling hazards

7 Insitu concrete hazards (many and various)

Most of these hazards are prevalent in many construction operations and as such are not remarkable to those experienced in construction – more worryingly they are frequently just accepted as the norm.  The D⁴h research identified step 6, breaking down of the pile top, as the most hazardous operation in terms of occupational health.

Removal of pile top methods
Breaking down of the pile top poses a particular risk to the occupational health of those involved in the operation and also to others in the vicinity, due mainly to the noise hazard.  A number of techniques exist to prevent the need for mechanical breaking D4h has identified three methods.

Typical piling operations

Typical piling health hazards

Alternatives to conventional insitu-bored piles
Off site pre-fabrication
Cementation guide wall

Removal of pile top/ cap method
Taets Hydraulic Pile Breaker
Elliot pile breaking method
Recepieux chemical pile breaking method

Health-related comparison of pile alternatives

Click on the headings below to view further information

Piling operations

1 Auger fitted with appropriate head

2 Auger drilled into ground to required depth

3 Concrete poured down hollow core of auger whilst auger is removed

4 Steel reinforcement cage pushed into wet concrete

5 Wet concrete overspill at ground level

6 Ground level reduced and top section of pile 'broken down' to desired level

7 Pile cap or capping beam constructed

Piling health hazards

Alternatives to conventional insitu-bored piles

Off-site production

The alternatives to traditional insitu bored piles include pre-assembled piles, either concrete or steel and either driven or vibrated into place. Pre-assembly, or off-site production (OSP) is one of the often quoted 'solutions' to reduce health and safety risks on site, and at the same time increase productivity and improve quality.  Another Loughborough project, HASPREST, is developing this research and has found that manufacturing in the UK is around six times safer (in terms of fatalities and major accidents) than traditional insitu construction.  This occurs in a number of ways, partly by removing some of the hazards (such as manual handling), but more usually, moving the hazards from the site into the factory environment where they are easier to control (such as cement exposure). 

In addition, as mentioned earlier, the off-task hazards are reduced as the number of people working on site is reduced through the increased use of off-site production.  However, along with the obvious benefits there are also challenges – some of the risks remain, and their consequences can be more severe although the likelihood of them occurring is reduced.  An example of this rationale is the comparison of insitu brick and blockwork with brick-faced precast concrete cladding.  Insitu brickwork has many hazards with a high incidence rate although a relatively low consequence, whereas a precast concrete panel, if dropped from the crane is likely to have very serious consequences although the likelihood is greatly reduced.  Furthermore, there are obviously additional 'new' hazards with driven or vibrated piles such as noise and vibration.

Precast concrete piles (Photo courtesy Roger Bullivant)

Main health issues addressed
HAVS and other health risks associated with breaking down of the tops of insitu bored piles, along with other pile top hazards

Description
Contiguous piled walls require more accurate alignment and need a temporary, sacrificial concrete guide wall to be cast before the piling operations  through which the auger passes.  The Cementation-Skanska system prevents the abortive work of the early guide wall, which in the final permanent state is usually replaced by a concrete capping beam of similar dimensional proportions.  The system utilizes pre-cast concrete guides placed into position and retained by a non-structural concrete surround.  By preventing contamination to the tops of the piles, they can be poured to 'cut-off' level in the first place removing the need to break-down the pile tops.  Circular voids in the mould allow the piling auger to pass through the mould in the required position.  Adjacent voids are protected with circular 'lids' to prevent them being filled with concrete or pile arisings. 

1 - guide blocks being placed along the line of the wall

2 - auger drilling 'through' the block guides

3 - blocks removed after the piling operation and also the shape left by the blocks acting as the formwork for the capping beam. 

Design action required
Actual choice of technique is probably left to the Principal Contractor.  However, designers should identify the significant risk and ask the PC for proposals to remove the risk (knowing that there is an answer).

Main residual health risks
Additional operations involve the placement of the precast guide wall units which may involve some MSD hazards.

Cementation sacrificial guide wall

The table  below shows the risk evaluation carried out on this technique as part of the 'Better, Safer, Easier Design' project (Wright et al, 2003).

fig 1: Blocks being positioned

fig 2: Augering through the blocks

fig 3: blocks removed showing the capping beam mould

Main health issues addressed
HAVS and other health risks associated with breaking down of the tops of insitu bored piles

Description
The Taets system from the Netherlands replaces hand-held pneumatic breaking with a large scale hydraulic breaker.  The breaker is suspended from an excavator and makes a horizontal fracture in the pile at cut-off level.  Each hydraulic cylinder drives a chisel into the concrete producing a  horizontal fracture as the breaking force built up this way always seeks the shortest way through the concrete. 

This stage takes about 25 seconds. The steel chisels do not have to penetrate beyond the reinforcement bars.  After the fracture is made, the chisels penetrate further into the concrete (usually 25-40 mm).  Due to the shape of the chisel, in combination with the reaction forces on the concrete by the steel reinforcement, the concrete breaks into pieces and can removed without the need for further breaking.

Design action required
Actual choice of technique is probably left to the Principal Contractor.  However, designers should identify the significant risk and ask the PC for proposals to remove the risk (knowing that there is an answer).

Main residual health risks
Slight MSD risk maneuvering breaker although this is a crane / excavator operation.  MSD risks disposing of broken concrete – depending on techniques used.  Some dust and noise.

Method 1 Taets Hydraulic Pile Breaker  www.taets.nl

Elliot pile breaking method   www.elliott-europe.com

Main health issues addressed

HAVS and other health risks associated with breaking down of the tops of insitu bored piles

Description

This technique involves the removal of the unwanted pile section in one piece, exploiting the physics of crack propagation.  Steel reinforcement above the final cut-off level is prevented from bonding with the concrete by fixing isolating sleeves to the bars before the cages are lowered into position (1).  When the pile is finally exposed a 51mm diameter hole is drilled horizontally into the concrete at cut-off level to just beyond the centre of the pile (2).  A standard hydraulic splitter is inserted and activated (3) and after around 30 seconds the concrete cracks across the desired level.  Then an excavator is used to lift off the surplus in a single piece via a lifting eye cast into the top surface (4). 

Elliot claim that the operation cuts the hand-arm vibration risk by more than 90%.  It will work on pile diameters from 300mm to 3m and typically takes around 10 minutes (5), bringing significant productivity and cost benefits.

Design action required

Actual choice of technique is probably left to the Principal Contractor.  However, designers should identify the significant risk and ask the PC for proposals to remove the risk (knowing that there is an answer).

Main residual health risks

One 51mm hole is drilled into the pile with some associated vibration hazards (approx 5 minutes task time). 

Some MSD hazards may remain in the manoeuvring of the pile top section although this is a crane operation.

Recepieux chemical pile breaking method  www.recepieux.com

Main health issues addressed
HAVS and other health risks associated with breaking down of the tops of insitu bored piles

Description
Recepieux's technique involves the removal of the unwanted pile section in one piece, exploiting the principle of crack propagation induced using an expanding grout.  The steps are as follows:

1  Foam sleeves are fixed over the reinforcement over the length to be removed

2  A series of PVC tubes and cones is assembled

3  The tube and cone assembly is pushed into the wet concrete

4  The tube assembly is checked for level and funnels fixed to the top of the tubes

5  The temperature of the pile concrete is measured (this affects the grout mix choice)

6  The expanding grout is mixed and batched into containers

7  The grout is poured into the tubes via the funnels

8  The grout expands in the cones set at 'cut-off' level propagating a horizontal crack through the pile

9  The top unwanted section is removed by crane

Design action required
Actual choice of technique is usually left to the Principal Contractor.  However, designers should identify the significant risk and ask the PC for proposals to remove the risk (knowing that there is an answer).

Main residual health risks
COSHH issues with the grout and increased work required to the wet concrete during pile construction. 

Some MSD hazards may remain in the maneuvering of the pile top section.

Health-related comparison of pile alternatives

The pile innovations described above are compared in the table blow in terms of their affect on the health hazards related to pile top removal.  In all cases the health hazards seem to have been significantly reduced compared to traditional hand-held pneumatic breaker methods, however, some residual hazards remain and should be considered in the design process.

It should also be noted that these innovations have not just been driven by altruistic health benefits, their inventors claim significant productivity, cost and quality advantages.

Return to the top

D⁴h Building case studies