A COMPENDIUM OF INVITED

TECHNICAL PAPERS AND

INDUSTRY RESEARCH REPORTS
GEO-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2012
ADSC-IAFD EQUIPMENT EXPOSITION AND TECHNICAL CONFERENCE

March 14-17, 2012

San Antonio, Texas

SPONSORED BY
ADSC – The International Association of Foundation Drilling

EDITED BY
Antonio Marinucci, Ph.D., M.B.A., P.E.
W. Thomas Witherspoon, Ph.D., P.E.

PUBLISHED BY
ADSC – The International Association of Foundation Drilling
Library of Congress Cataloging – In Progress

ADSC-IAFD Equipment Exposition and Technical Conference (2012: San Antonio, TX)

Compendium of Invited Technical Papers and Industry Research Reports from the Geo-
Construction Conference Proceedings of the 2012 ADSC-IAFD Equipment Exposition and
Technical Conference, March 14-17, 2012, San Antonio, Texas / Sponsored by the ADSC-The
International Association of Foundation Drilling; edited by Antonio Marinucci and W. Thomas
Witherspoon.
Includes biographical references.
ISBN 978-0-615-60533-3

1. Foundations. 2. Drilled Shafts. 3. Micropiles. 4. Anchored Earth Retention. 5. Testing. I.

Marinucci, Antonio. II. Witherspoon, W. Thomas. III. ADSC-The International Association of
Foundation Drilling. IV. Title.

ADSC-The International Association of Foundation Drilling

Parkway Tower
8445 Freeport Parkway, Suite 325
Irving, Texas 75063
www.adsc-iafd.com

Any statements expressed and contained within these proceedings are those of the individual
authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the ADSC-The International Association of
Foundation Drilling (ADSC-IAFD), which takes no responsibility for any statement made or
contained herein. No reference made within this publication to any specific technique, design or
construction approach, product, or process constitutes or implies a recommendation,
endorsement, or warranty thereof by ADSC-IAFD. The materials contained herein are for
general information only. ADSC-IAFD makes no representation or warranty of any kind,
whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any
information, technique, approach, product, or process discussed within this publication. ADSC-
IAFD assumes no liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any
information, technique, approach, product, or process discussed within this publication. Anyone
utilizing the information contained herein assumes all liability arising from such use.

Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors (ADSC) and ADSC-The International Association of

Foundation Drilling (ADSC-IAFD) – Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Photocopies and Reprints

Permission to photocopy ADSC-IAFD publications can be obtained through the ADSC-IAFD
office (Phone: 469.359.6000; Fax: 469.359.6007; Email: adsc@adsc-iafd.com). Additional
copies of this or other ADSC-IAFD publication can be obtained through the ADSC-IAFD
Technical Library (www.adsc-iafd.com).

Copyright ©2012 by the ADSC-The International Association of Foundation Drilling. All rights
reserved. ISBN 978-0-615-60533-3. Manufactured in the United States of America.
 Preface

This ADSC-IAFD special publication contains selected technical papers and research
reports that were presented during the 2012 ADSC Equipment Exposition and Technical
Conference (EXPO) held from March 14-17, 2012 in San Antonio, Texas. The 2012
ADSC EXPO provided an international forum to present and discuss technological
advances, case histories, and current challenges pertaining to the anchored earth
retention, drilled shaft foundations, and micropiling industries. The 2012 ADSC EXPO
was attended by a wide range of geo-professionals including contractors, equipment
manufacturers, suppliers of tools and services, design and consulting engineers,
academicians, and researchers.

A selected invitation for papers resulted in 13 accepted, peer reviewed technical papers.
Coupled with these contributions, 11 pertinent research reports pertaining to anchored
earth retention, drilled shaft foundations, and micropiles were also made available and
presented. During the technical conference, 23 presentations were delivered in four
sessions.

The editors would like to express their appreciation for having been provided the
opportunity to be a part of this EXPO, and hope that these proceedings will be of use to
the geo-construction and geotechnical engineering community for many decades to come.

The Editors

Antonio Marinucci, Ph.D., M.B.A., P.E. Tom Witherspoon, Ph.D., P.E.

ADSC-The International Association of Consulting Engineer
Foundation Drilling Richardson, Texas, USA
Irving, Texas, USA tomw5@ix.netcom.com
amarinucci@adsc-iafd.com
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: INVITED PAPERS

Evaluating Post-Grouting to Improve Drilled Shaft Capacity.............................. 1

Silas Nichols, Antonio Marinucci, and Benjamin Rivers
The Design-Build Experience.................................................................................... 15
Elizabeth M. Smith
Factors Affecting the Selection and Use of Drilled Shafts for
Transportation Infrastructure Projects................................................................... 25
Dan A. Brown
The Evolution of Small Hole Drilling Methods for Geotechnical
Construction Techniques........................................................................................... 37
Donald A. Bruce
Design and Applications for Anchored Earth Retention Systems......................... 55
John R. Wolosick and Robert F. Scott, Jr.
Micropiles: Update 2012............................................................................................ 77
Allen Cadden and Jesús Gómez
ADSC Research Project Update: Rock Sockets in the
Southeastern U.S. ...................................................................................................... 103
Robert W. Thompson, III
Use of Grade 150 Bars in Compression Design of Micropiles............................... 119
Thomas R. Richards, Jr.
Anchored Wall Systems – Planning, Design, and Project Execution.................... 127
Frederick W. Slack
Crosshole Sonic Logging of South Carolina Drilled Shafts:
A Five Year Summary............................................................................................... 135
William M. Camp III, D.W. Holley, and G.J. Canivan
Percussive Drilling Performance Monitoring (PDPM).......................................... 147
Joseph A. Waxse
Thermal Integrity Method of Assessing Drilled Shafts.......................................... 155
Danny Winters and Gray Mullins
Drilled Shafts in Cable Median Barrier System:
Load Test Results and Analysis................................................................................ 167
Anand J. Puppala, Thornchaya Wejrungsikul, W. Thomas (Tom)
Witherspoon, and Richard S. Williammee Jr.
 The Design-Build Experience
Elizabeth M. Smith, P.E., G.E.1

ABSTRACT

The author is a geotechnical engineer whose primary role is to propose on and manage
the geotechnical aspects of major transportation design build projects. This paper is a
summary of the author’s experience and observations of the design-build process, from
procurement through construction.

INTRODUCTION

Design-build (DB) is an alternate project delivery procurement method that allows the
Owner to contract with one entity (the DB Team) to design and construct a complete
project. According to the Design Build Institute of America (DBIA), the advantages of
DB include: “Faster Delivery, Cost Savings, Better Quality, Singular Responsibility,
Decreased Administrative Burden, Reduced Risk, and Reduced Litigation Claims.”
DBIA also cites the following practitioner benefits: “Higher Profit Margin, Decreased
Administrative Burden, Reduced Litigation, and Increased Market Share.”

DB is a way for a project to be designed and constructed by one entity, which can reduce
the risk and management oversight required by the Owner. This DB team usually
includes the contractor(s), quality control and quality assurance, designers, surveyors,
public relations, and any other players required to get the job done. Projects can be
delivered more quickly because the time for design and construction overlap – once early
designs are released for construction, the Contractor can get in the field while other
elements are being designed. The projects are generally less expensive because the team
works together to collaborate on the best method to complete a task; DB projects progress
3 to 5 times faster than conventional design-bid-build (DBB) projects. From the aspect of
foundation construction, the geotechnical engineer can often use more aggressive design
assumptions based on knowledge of and input into the construction methods to be used,
increased construction observation, and the opportunity to make field changes if unusual
conditions are encountered.

The main elements that ascertain the success of any project include the contract terms;
project implementation, which includes project management, schedule, staffing, and
technical quality; construction schedule and quality; and the culture of the firms that
perform the work on the project. At least four layers of project management occur on DB
projects, all of which are crucial to the functioning of the project. These include the
Owner and the Owner’s Representative (the Owner), the Contractor, the Lead Designer,

1
Principal, National Transportation Program, Terracon Consultants, Inc., 5307 Industrial Oaks Blvd., Suite
160, Austin, TX 78735; Phone: (512) 442 1122; Fax: (512) 442 1181; emsmith@terracon.com

15
and the Geotechnical Firm (the other disciplines go here, too, but are not the focus of this
paper).

On many large transportation projects, the Owner has a separate program management
firm that oversees the project on the Owner’s behalf and supplements the Owner’s staff.
The Contractor may be a joint venture of two or more construction firms, with one firm
taking the lead role and providing the project manager for the team. The Lead Designer
has overall responsibility for the design schedule and work product, and is usually
supported by several subconsultants. The Geotechnical Firm and other design consultants
are most commonly subconsultants to the Lead Designer; the Contractor prefers this
arrangement because the design engineer of record administers the project and is
ultimately responsible for the entire design.

One of the claims of DB is that it allows for more innovation by the Team in order to
deliver the project in a streamlined process. This works as long as the contract documents
provide performance specifications, rather than prescriptive design or construction
methods. DB can be one of the most rewarding and interesting ways to complete a
project, primarily because all of the design and construction professionals are working
together collaboratively to find the best way of building a project.

DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT

Teaming

We are often asked how to get on teams to even compete on a DB project: experience and
relationships, or specialized knowledge or experience that provides a clear benefit to the
team. Teaming has become competitive because all of the elements of experience are
important: prior DB experience; experience with local conditions, standards of practice,
and the Owner; and experience with complex or unique design types, site difficulties, or
specialized abilities. The teams are usually formed before the request for qualifications is
issued because major (public) jobs are based on long-term processes and environmental
compliance requirements. The Contractors and Designers track those projects and
strategize on who is best suited for the project. Experienced teams that demonstrate the
required experience, personnel, and professional reputation will be short-listed and
invited to compete in the actual bid.

The Contractor is responsible for forming the team and has final approval of the various
team member firms, and coordinates the team during the proposal effort. Over the last
several years, teaming alignments have become more rigorous. Even firms that worked
together in the past are finding lead Designers interviewing with the construction team
prior to obtaining a teaming agreement. Furthermore, the subconsultants are being
formally interviewed along with other contenders before being selected to a team.
Relationships and experience play a part in being considered, but are not a guarantee of
being invited to the team. As projects have become larger and more complex, the
experienced DB Contractors have learned how important it is to have the right member
firms, and the right people, involved in their projects.

16
Formal teaming agreements are required, and should include a scope of work associated
with the proposal effort, a cost estimate, and identified key personnel to be assigned to
the proposal effort. Large projects that involve significant design effort should be
reimbursed to the Designer at a reduced labor cost multiplier, particularly if there is a
stipend paid to the unsuccessful proposers. Usually the teaming agreement includes sweat
equity that the Designer is not reimbursed but is considered their part of the proposal
effort. Often, the Designers are “made whole” when they win the project; that is, the
proposal effort fee is increased to an agreed multiplier. DB projects usually have a
negotiated labor multiplier that is agreed upon at the teaming stage. Teaming agreements
protect the parties by defining project roles when (and if) the team wins the project,
which is generally preferred to being paid for the proposal effort without a commitment
to doing the final design. Most conventional engineering work is contracted on a
qualifications-based selection (QBS) process, particularly for publicly funded projects.
However, Federal law does not require QBS on DB projects or other alternate delivery
projects. Texas recently mandated that DB proposers must commit to the Designers in
advance of turning in the proposal, presumably because of the outcry by the engineering
community that post-award, public projects were being bid for engineering services.

The Proposal

Once a team is shortlisted, the proposal process is a major project in itself. The team has
to take the Owner’s schematic concepts and specifications and develop a 30 percent or
higher level design to estimate the final design, construction costs, and schedule. The
team has to figure out the best technical approach, provide a competitive price, compress
the schedule, and meet any other issues or hot topics that are important to the Owner. DB
projects are generally bid on price or a combined “best value” basis (a weighted
combination of price, schedule, and technical proposal content) and are typically
contracted lump sum. Price is usually the driving factor and is typically weighted based
on schedule and the items presented in the technical proposal. Rarely, such as in the case
of I-35W in Minnesota, schedule and aesthetics allowed the highest bidder to win the
project. That project demonstrated the need to understand what the Owner really wanted.
In that case, the selection was driven by the involvement of local citizen groups and the
high profile of the project.

During the proposal phase, critical design decisions are made that significantly affect the
project cost and schedule. The Designers need to be careful and have the required checks
in place that verifies the proposed design will work, and will be acceptable to the Owner
– particularly if the approach is outside of the Owner’s normal methods or comfort level.
That’s where ATCs (alternate technical concepts) come in. If the team wants to propose
something that isn’t included in the scope, differs from the scope, is a little different from
the norm, or requires a design exception, it is best to have that approved in advance
through an ATC. Examples of ATCs include changing the design to have a crossroad go
over the mainline instead of the other way around, changing the type of intersection from
conventional to a SPUI (single point urban interchange), or modifying the pavement
section by using different material combinations. Having these concepts agreed to in

17
advance of the bid eliminates the risk of having a cost-saving concept rejected after
award.

The design is incomplete at the time the scope and price proposals are submitted. As a
result, schedule changes, modifications to design elements, changes in the design
requirements, and redesign can cause significant additional scope and cost increases to
the design professional. However, there is typically limited success of receiving a change
order and additional compensation for added effort. The Designer needs to be aware of
the potential for such changes and plan accordingly by including a detailed scope
description in their proposal, and most importantly, identifying the things that are outside
of the scope. This way the Designer can better justify a scope and fee increase if
significant rework is required.

Another major element of the proposal is the evaluation of risk. Risk considerations
include:
 Quantity Risk. This includes the quantity calculations and the design that provides
back-up to those calculations. Some Contractors hold Designers responsible for
quantity risk, particularly if a design method or assumption turns out to be
unacceptable to the Owner and results in significant added construction costs.
 Schedule Risk. Schedules can be affected by weather, labor, design delays
associated with rejection of submittals, and material availability, among others.
 Site Risk. Uncertainties with site conditions are a major risk that Owners often
pass along to the DB team. Owners are finding they can’t pass all of the risk to the
Contractors because the fees are too high, or teams refuse to bid on their projects.
Many Owners now provide Geotechnical Baseline Reports that provide a measure
beyond which a changed condition is considered.
 Other Risks. These include uncertainties in how well the various team members
among the Owner, Owner’s Representative, Contractor, and design leads mesh (or
clash). Ill-fitting participants can have a big impact on how well the overall team
functions (or doesn’t).

The DB team has to weigh the various risks in their pricing, and they rely on the
Designers to provide input on that risk. Although the Contractor contractually assumes
the overall project risk, the other team members should understand that the Contractor
considers the rest of the team de-facto risk partners. The Contractor may believe risk
sharing is implied because the Team is proposing a lump-sum price for an incompletely
defined project. More recent project contracts have shifted some of the risk sharing
directly to the Designers. These are burdens that do not exist in conventional design-bid-
build and add to the complexities of DB.

Change is the norm for DB projects, and elements are modified as the design progresses
because the entire system is being created at the same time. The Designer should not
price a DB project similar to a conventional design-bid-build project because the labor
required to complete a given task can be woefully underestimated. DB projects include
significant interaction between the various disciplines and have several layers of review,

18
so completing a task often requires a lot of rework. This ultimately results in a better
project, but a Designer inexperienced in DB projects can be caught by surprise.

THE DESIGN-BUILD TEAM

The project staff should be selected based on more than their engineering abilities.
Communication is crucial to successfully completing a DB project. A successful DB
project is a team effort at all levels. The key participants have to be able to keep in mind
that everyone should have the same goal: to build a good project completed on time and
on budget. The only way to accomplish that goal is for the participants to collaborate and
cooperate no matter which “side” they are on. The technical term for this is Partnering,
which is often formally implemented with special meetings and a facilitator. It can also
be accomplished by willing individuals whose goal is to build the proposed project to
meet the specifications. “Willing individuals” is the operative term, and is based on each
team member selecting the right people for the project. The “right” people have qualities
and personal conduct that include:
 Respects others regardless of position or experience
 Thinks outside the box
 Enjoys teamwork and collaboration
 Acts with professional integrity
 Has good communication skills
 Is eager to learn from others, including other disciplines
 Is willing to compromise
 Understands and uses the required professional standards and procedures
 Is decisive but not hasty
 Has a sense of urgency
 Is able to check ego at the door
Use care when identifying team members and recognize personalities that are well suited
(or ill suited) for the work.

It can be difficult to identify a person who won’t do well on a DB team until they show
up at the project, and it will become apparent once the work gets going. We’ve all
worked in teams where one person messes up the dynamic for one reason or another; this
person isn’t a bad apple, just a bad fit. We try to help that person fit in, but if things don’t
get turned around fast, problems will get magnified as the work ramps up and becomes
more stressful. The drama that accompanies that person can be destructive to the rest of
the team. This has occurred with individuals who are bullies, are indecisive, can’t work at
the required pace, or think their way is the only way to do things. The overall project
manager, design manager, individual team leader need to quickly make changes to keep
the overall group on the right track. If a task lead is the problem, the leaders above that
level must take action.

A difficult person can be on any side of the project and, if in a lead position, can be an
expensive detriment (and it’s even worse when there are several on one project). As an
example, on one project, an Owner’s representative demanded additional investigation
and testing that were not within the project scope, and the Owner ended up paying the

19
geotechnical firm an extra several hundred thousand dollars additional because the
changes and costs were well documented and submitted as a change order. In another
situation, a consultant for the Owner bullied the geotechnical lead in two separate
meetings attended by the design and construction team, and the Contractor insisted the
Owner remove him after the second occurrence. Lastly, there was a recent project where
the relationships deteriorated to the point where several leads from each side (Owner,
Contractor, and Designer) were removed from the project while the project was still
under construction. These examples emphasize why team members must be carefully
selected.

THE DESIGN BUILD PROJECT

Once a project is awarded, the final contract is negotiated, and the team is expected to
mobilize quickly and get started. The best projects have co-located team members. That
means the Owner’s representatives, the Contractor’s key people, and the Designer’s
discipline leads are all in the same place working together to get the project executed.

The pace of a DB project is usually very fast and stressful, and anyone who isn’t co-
located can quickly lose the thread of the quickly evolving design process. Team
meetings are frequent and occur at every level on a weekly basis. Each entity has their
own internal team meetings; there are discipline meetings in which each entity
participates, such as structures, roadway, environmental, drainage, and geotechnical; the
design and construction leads also meet to go over progress and issues; and each
discipline meets internally. Decisions are made at all of these meetings that can result in a
change in direction. Each group has to participate because the schedule can go sideways
if everyone isn’t marching in the same direction.

Because so much is going on at the same time, the disciplines (we’ll consider just the
geotechnical discipline now) need to have their own structure that includes the project
manager (PM), the technical lead (TM), and the design staff. The project manager
provides the overall team coordination by attending the meetings and interfacing with the
other disciplines. The technical lead is a senior engineer who manages the design and
coordinates the staff and work assignments. The PM can also be the TM, but can quickly
become overworked and over-stressed on large and/or complex projects; this dual role is
not recommended for one person. A project coordinator, who should be a senior
administrative person, is another key role on the project. This is particularly necessary for
the geotechnical group because the deliverables are written reports and memos; the
coordinator can keep the engineers focused on engineering rather than distracted by
formatting and assembling reports.

Some Designers don’t perform well in DB projects because they don’t understand the
construction process and how things are actually built in the field. The different
construction phases and how each affects the schedule can be complex. Even though
things can be designed, they may not be feasible to construct because of time constraints
or because the interaction between the construction phases just doesn’t mesh. The
Designer needs to be open minded and amenable to changes on the fly: changes can come

20
up as part of the interaction between the various team members (some of us find that the
best part of DB).

The construction staff should understand the design process and appreciate the effort that
goes into each deliverable. While it may seem slow, everything has to follow the design
specifications and go through several layers of checks before being approved. The design
process is more rigorous in DB than on conventional projects because the team has to
adhere to a strict Design Quality Management Plan (DQMP) and more direct oversight of
the deliverables. Discipline checks and reviews have to be completed before a draft goes
to the rest of the DB team for “internal” review and comment; the “internal” review
includes constructability reviews and interdisciplinary reviews by the other design groups
to identify potential conflicts. Once all of the “internal” comments are addressed, the
submittal goes to the Owner/Owner’s representative for review and comment. The Owner
comments are discussed and resolved, and a revised submittal, if required, is submitted. If
consensus is not reached, the submittal process can become drawn out and painful for
everyone concerned.

Projects go really well when the right people are assigned to the project. Rather than
waiting for formal submittals, design issues are openly discussed in task force meetings
in advance. Over-the-shoulder reviews are conducted so concerns are addressed during
the design effort, and the final submittal is well understood by the participants before it is
delivered. This reduces the number of comments and helps prevent surprises that can
derail the design and schedule. But this only works where all three team participants
(Owner, Contractor, and Designers) are actively engaged. As shown in Figure 1, the
participants are all connected, which implies and there has to be mutual agreement for the
design and construction to proceed.

Sometimes, the project specifications

may have been prepared without
considering the differences between
DB and DBB, and can include
requirements that are not in sync with
how the (DB) project will be executed.
The Owner needs to recognize that
sometimes the requirements in the
specifications do not contribute to the
design or construction, and, thus, can
be eliminated. An example, on one
project, in addition to the overall field
Figure 1 Relationship of Project Participants investigation plan, there was a
requirement for each project segment
to have an extremely detailed field planning report within 45 days of the Notice to
Proceed (NTP). The problem was that the investigation was planned during the proposal
phase and the field work start five days after NTP with five drill rigs on site. The project
included six segments and by the time the first planning report was submitted, 30 percent
of the field work for the entire job was complete, and the final design reports were being

21
prepared. Thankfully, the Owner recognized that the planning reports did not contribute
to the final design and waived the need to submit the remaining planning reports. While
this may seem obvious, some Owners insist on every submittal or every part of a design
regardless of reason. Being unyielding can be extremely expensive to the Owner and/or
the DB team without providing a material benefit to the delivered project.

Finally, team members need to understand that DB really means design, start
construction, re-design, and finish construction (sometimes you even have to rinse and
repeat). Once the team is actually in the field and starting construction, things are likely
to change. The Designer needs to quickly adapt and adjust the design to fit the actual
field conditions. On conventional DBB projects, redesigns are usually less likely because
the designs tend to be conservative to account for uncertainty, and needed exceptions are
handled by the Owner rather than passed back to the original Designer. On DBB projects,
quantities can be paid on a unit price, so it’s not as big a deal to just make the piles 10
feet longer. In DB projects, quantities are cost and risk items for which there is no more
money, so increasing material costs is not acceptable.

In DB projects, the design may be completed and construction started, but the “final”
design has to be adapted to the actual field conditions. Foundations, of course, are the
perfect example for field risks. We have seen as-built plans where storm sewers are
shown ten feet away from the actual location (we found out because we drilled through
it). On the same project, a “blasted” rock face turned out to be surveyed incorrectly
during the original construction, and several hundred feet of rock was over-blasted at a
drilled shaft wall. When the Contractor started drilling shafts for the bridge foundations,
the rock was 30 feet deeper than expected in a few locations even though test borings
were drilled along the wall to confirm depth to rock. When the footing excavations were
made, the Contractor also found random extra shafts that must have been drilled in the
wrong place when the original drilled shaft wall was built, and of course they conflicted
with the new bridge shafts. The shaft placement and the footing had to be redesigned, and
the entire bent re-analyzed structurally and quickly because the contractor was still
drilling shafts in the field.

Once a major DB project is completed, the entire team has an amazing sense of
satisfaction, because all were truly involved in completing the project. It’s one thing to
work on a design and eventually see the finished structure. Working on a project as it
grows out of a concept, surviving the design process, being involved while the project is
being constructed to answer questions, watching the structures emerge from the ground,
and seeing it open to the public are incredibly satisfying. Good teamwork and a great
finished project leave the Owner, Contractor, and Designers with a profound sense of
accomplishment.

CONCLUSION

Design-Build projects are challenging, difficult, stressful, and require the right mix of
people, but they result in significant achievements. Everyone on the team learns more
than they would have in any other environment. Team members are exposed to the

22
perspectives of professionals on every side of the project, and have the opportunity to
work side-by-side with disciplines that they may have never encountered before. Give-
and-take between the groups lets the Designer learn the faster, safer, easier, or most cost
effective way to build something. The Contractor learns more about the design process
and the reasons why designs require certain elements. The Owner gets a project that is
completed fast and at a reasonable price, which ultimately benefits the public users (toll-
or tax-payers).

More information regarding design build is available from DBIA (the Design Build
Institute of America); their website has detailed descriptions of the procurement process
and the advantages DBIA can offer to Owners and practitioners (visit www.dbia.org for
more information).

23
24