FEATURES
04 | Comment Economic issues threaten the affordability of building in Canada.
10 | Climate Perspectives
The promises and realities of solar and wind power.
20 | Legal Understanding new collaborative contract models.
22 | Conversation
Recycling plastics to reduce waste from construction sites.
2025 Industry Survey Results
We asked and you answered! Our recent, all-new industry survey of our readers generated more than 140 responses—thank you! Here now is a summary of your anonymously shared professional details.
12 COVER STORY Planning for Trench Shoring
While trenching still represents some of the riskiest work on a job site, advances in civil engineering, improvements in shoring equipment and updates to safety standards can help make it safer and more efficient than ever.
Modelling High-rise Efficiency
Engineers, architects and developers are actively aiming for lower carbon footprints and more resilient designs for Canada’s high-rise towers. The challenge lies in the tools and workflows they rely on to get there.
Comment
By Peter Saunders
Uncertainty in Canada
Arcadis, an international consulting engineering firm that established its foothold in the Canadian market by acquiring IBI Group in 2022, recently published a global report on construction costs, titled ‘Navigating Uncertainty.’ The report centres on the International Construction Costs (ICC) Index, an annual comparative study of complete buildings in 100 cities across the Americas, Asia-Pacific (APAC) and Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA).
The index can be used to estimate “the costs of the building shell and basic services installation,” but adjustments “may be necessary if the base building is particularly complex.”
The report highlights troubling economic issues.
By such metrics, Canada seems like a relatively affordable place to build. Our most expensive city in the index is Toronto at #41, well below the likes of Geneva and Zurich, Switzerland (#1 and #3, respectively), London, England (#2), Munich, Germany (#4) and New York, N.Y. (#5)—and followed by Vancouver at #46, Calgary at #48 and Montreal at #50, the only other Canadian cities to be listed.
That may be good news for engineering firms involved in designing and developing buildings within Canadian cities, but the report also highlights troubling economic issues facing our construction industry, particularly given its dependence on trade.
“Rising U.S. tariffs on key materials like lumber, steel and aluminum could upend supply chains, just as Canada tries to reignite residential construction and deliver on ambitious housing and infrastructure goals by 2031,” the company explains. “Canadian lumber now accounts for just 23% of U.S. consumption, the lowest it has been in decades, while newly implemented 14.5% tariffs could spike costs for both countries.”
The report cites “mounting pressure” on trade between the U.S. and Canada of such goods as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) components, smart building technologies and fittings. It references the Canadian Construction Association’s (CCA’s) suggestion that “escalating trade tensions present a significant risk to economic development, with the potential for increased costs for homebuilding and infrastructure and disruption to supply chains.”
So, even though there has been an increase in permits for residential construction, transit expansions and energy megaprojects, Arcadis warns “tariff volatility could reverse 2025’s fragile recovery.”
“Popular ‘buy Canadian’ initiatives could result in product scarcity and inflationary pressures over time,” says Simon Rawlinson, head of strategic research and one of the report’s writers.
“The U.S. and Canada have historically had a highly integrated economy,” the report says. “The unpicking of this long-standing economic bloc is likely to have profound and unpredictable implications. Current growth projections could be subject to substantial revision. Unlike other markets included in this review, the U.S. and Canada have highly integrated construction material supply chains.”
“Despite uncertainty from tariffs, there is a huge pipeline of work and a large amount of infrastructure spending has already been committed,” adds Catherine Bruen, Arcadis' cost and commercial management business unit lead for Canada East and another of the report’s writers. “This should hopefully lead to a return to growth across the construction sector in 2025 and beyond.”
As always, stay tuned ….
Peter
Saunders • psaunders@ccemag.com
READER SERVICE
Print and digital subscription inquiries or changes, please contact: Angelita Potal
Tel: 416-510-5113
Fax: (416) 510-6875
email: apotal@annexbusinessmedia.com
Mail: 111 Gordon Baker Rd., Suite 400 Toronto, ON M2H 3R1
EDITOR
Peter Saunders (416) 510-5119 psaunders@ccemag.com
SENIOR PUBLISHER
Maureen Levy (416) 510-5111 mlevy@ccemag.com
MEDIA DESIGNER
Lisa Zambri
EDITORIAL ADVISORS
Darryl Boyce, Todd Busch, Guy Bruce, Andrew Macklin, Sadaf Parvaiz
ACCOUNT CO-ORDINATOR Cheryl Fisher (416) 510-5194 cfisher@annexbusinessmedia.com
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
Beata Olechnowicz (416) 510-5182 bolechnowicz@annexbusinessmedia.com
GROUP PUBLISHER
Paul Grossinger (416) 510-5240 pgrossinger@annexbusinessmedia.com
CEO Scott Jamieson sjamieson@annexbusinessmedia.com
CANADIAN CONSULTING ENGINEER is published 5 times per year by Annex Business Media 111 Gordon Baker Road, Suite 400, Toronto, ON M2H 3R1 Tel: (416) 442-5600 Fax: (416) 510-6875 or (416) 442-2191
EDITORIAL PURPOSE: Canadian Consulting Engineer magazine covers innovative engineering projects, news and business information for professional engineers engaged in private consulting practice. The editors assume no liability for the accuracy of the text or its fitness for any particular purpose.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: Canada, 1 year $56.10, 2 years $110.00. Single copy $11.22 Cdn + taxes. (HST 86717 2652 RT0001). United States $130.00 (CAD). Foreign $155.00 (CAD).
PRINTED IN CANADA. Title registered at Trademarks Office, Ottawa. Copyright 1964. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in part or in full without the consent of the copyright owner(s). Annex Privacy Officer: Privacy@annexbusinessmedia.com Tel: 800-668-2374. ISSN: 0712-4996 (print), ISSN: 1923-3337 (digital)
POSTAL INFORMATION: Publications Mail Agreement No. 40065710. Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to Circulation Dept., Canadian Consulting Engineer, 111 Gordon Baker Road, Suite 400, Toronto, ON M2H 3R1.
PRIVACY: From time to time we make our subscription list available to select companies and organizations whose product or service may interest you. If you do not wish your contact information to be made available, please contact us. Tel: 1-800-668-2374, fax: 416-510-6875 or 416-442-2191, e-mail: vmoore@annexbusinessmedia.com, mail to: Privacy Officer, 111 Gordon Baker Road, Suite 400, Toronto, ON M2H 3R1.
Member of the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Member of Magazines Canada
2025 Industry Survey Results
By Peter Saunders
We decided to try something new this year with an industry survey of our readers. Call it a humble effort to capture the ‘pulse’ of Canada’s consulting engineering community. We heard back from more than 140 of you, anonymously sharing professional details as well as your own opinions of the current state of the industry. What follows is a summary of the results. It is not exhaustive or comprehensive in its reach and scope, but it might at least provide a useful snapshot of a ‘moment’ in the industry.
Demographics
Our survey reached experienced professional engineers, mostly 45 and older (see Q1), and predominantly male (nearly 88%, see Q2)—the industry may have a long way to go yet in its efforts to achieve ‘30 by 30,’ i.e. the goal for women to comprise 30% of newly licensed professional engineers by
Q2 What is your gender?
Q1 What is your age? Q3 Where are you based?
Q4 How many years have you spent in the engineering industry?
2030. (For more on that, do make sure to view this year's Advance Women in Engineering virtual summit.)
Most of our respondents (52%) were based in Ontario, followed by a tie between British Columbia and Alberta (16% each), New Brunswick (5%), Manitoba (nearly 4%), Nova Scotia (nearly 3%), Quebec (2%) and Saskatchewan (1.4%).
Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and the territories were unrepresented in our sample (see Q3). Hopefully, future editions of this survey will reach engineers in all parts east and north.
Q5 How many years have you spent with your current firm?
Tenure
As mentioned, most of the survey's respondents were highly experienced engineers; in fact, 63% have spent 30-plus years in the industr y (see Q4).
While it is not uncommon for consulting engineers to enjoy a full career at one firm, as it grows and diversifies over the years to provide new opportunities and challenges, our respondents seem to have tended to move around more. Most have spent less than 20 years at their current firm (see Q5).
Pay grade
Q6 What is your current salary?
Whatever choices our respondents have made regarding where they work, those decisions have certainly proven profitable and advanced them into leadership roles, with 41% making more than $150,000 a year and an additional 20% making more than $120,000 (see Q6).
Does the size of a business matter? Most of our respondents (nearly 55%) reported their firms employ between one and 100 people in total, globally (see Q7). In an age of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and international expansions, such responses suggest not all Canadian firms need to become giants in the industry to be successful.
Mood
While many respondents have changed roles over the years, those career moves have not necessarily led to a continual increase in job satisfaction (see Q8). When
Q7 How many people does your firm employ around the world?
we asked, ‘How do you feel about your role compared to five years ago?’, the positive and negative responses were fairly even, while a bulk (nearly 47%) answered ‘equally satisfied.’
Among the factors our respondents said they enjoy most about their role, the most popular answers included creative problem-solving, collaboration, teamwork, mentoring, variety of work and flexibility (see Q9). More personal responses included making a difference, serving others and responsibly controlling costs for their clients.
What they said they enjoyed least, on the other hand, included stress, overwork, work-life imbalance and difficult colleagues (see Q10). External factors were also cited (through the significantly popular 'Other: please specify' option), including the national and global economies, b ureaucracy, government, overreach by regulators, difficult clients, disrespect for the profession and the costs of industry association memberships.
The year ahead
Finally, we asked respondents to cite their
Q9 What do you enjoy most about your role?
Q8 How do you feel about your role compared to five years ago?
Q10 What do you enjoy least about your role?
Q11 What is your biggest challenge in 2025?
Q12 What change do you feel the industry most needs to make?
biggest challenge in 2025 (see Q11). Perhaps unsurprisingly, given earlier comments about what they enjoy least about t heir role, their top answers included market forces, managing stress and client demands.
There was also concern about artificial intelligence (AI) and technology in general, an increased pace of work and adapting to change—also not surprising given how many years these respondents have put into their work, having entered the industry at a very different time than today's reality.
As for 'Other: please specify,' responses included corruption, regulations (including a lack or surfeit thereof and changes thereto), dealing with contractors, staff retention and succsssion planning.
From that vantage point, what change would they like to see? The top answer was enhancing continued education of engineers (see Q12). And similarly, in terms of addressing the aforementioned challenges, there was support for adopting newer technologies and embracing new contracts and models for projects.
Responses under 'Other: please specify' included streamlining the licensing of professional engineers, improving their interprovincial mobility, making better use of local resources, implementing protections for work-life balance (such as internal policies against after-hours email and messaging) and improving education at the university level to focus on consulting (and, for that matter, doing a better job of promoting the profession to high-school students).
I’ve often noticed how Canada’s consulting engineering firms ‘punch above their weight’ from a global perspective. Maintaining this point of pride in a highly competitive market has required changing with the times, so it is good to see this degree of vision has not been lost in the face of current issues. Hopefully, firms like yours are indeed ready for the challenges yet to come.
Helical Piles’ Modern Engineering Applications: Dual Case Study
Postech Screw Piles
Though helical piles have been around for nearly two centuries, their role in addressing modern foundation challenges is only gaining full recognition today. From residential decks to institutional buildings and remote infrastructure, their lightweight footprint and rapid, verified installation make them a powerful tool for structural engineers across Canada. Postech Screw Piles, the Canadian innovator behind the Thermal Pile™, has played a central role in this evolution—bringing frost-resistant, insulated foundations to market and leveraging innovation since 1995.
Case 1: Du Moulin School – Lanaudière, Quebec
In 2023, the Du Moulin School project in Lanaudière presented a textbook example of soft soil challenges. Engineers had to design a foundation system for a modular school facility spanning 74 by 109 feet. A geotechnical report revealed undrained shear strength (Cu) below 50 kPa—making conventional concrete foundations unfeasible without major remediation. Helical piles offered a faster, geotechnically sound alternative. Postech supplied a multi-helix configuration, with pile depths reaching 20 feet and helix diameters up to 30 inches. Postech load testing equipment, typically used in thirdparty certification, validated all design assumptions onsite.
To ensure compliance and performance:
• Load tests reached failure at 277.7 kN, providing field validation;
• Certified installers recorded torque logs in real time;
• Transfer beams addressed obstructions without excavation.
Despite a strict two-week deadline and variable ground, the piles were fully installed and validated, supporting the structure’s rapid modular buildout. This case shows how helical piles deliver speed, reliability, and verification when fast-tracked delivery meets poor soils.
Case 2: Tsatsisnukwomi Microgrid –Harbledown Island, B.C.
A different challenge emerged on Harbledown Island, where the First Nations village of Tsatsisnukwomi aimed to shift from diesel to solar. Barge access was limited, excavation avoided to protect artifacts, and concrete would have required transporting nearly 300,000 lbs.
Instead, Postech delivered 180 helical piles—each with a 3.5-inch shaft and 12-inch helix—torqued to ~3,500 ft-lbs. A compact excavator enabled installation across rugged terrain without disturbing soil or needing water-based concrete. This lighter, low-impact method reduced logistics and environmental risks.
Unlike driven or drilled foundations, helical piles with their slender shaft use tip resistance concentrated via the helix—making them more material-efficient and ideal for remote sites.
Whether stabilizing an institutional build on soft clays or enabling clean energy in isolated regions, helical piles prove themselves as a forward-thinking solution—combining resilience with simplicity.
COMPRESSION LOAD TEST REPORT
ProjectÉcole du Moulin Postech Lanaudière
Location120 Laurentien Blvd, Repentigny
Test TypeLoad Test (Compression)
Test No.P02 (P512L20-24-30)
Test Date2024-04-30
Tested ByR. Ba & L. Bastin
Test Procedure Postech Procedure for Load Tests (ASTM 1143 Quick Test)
TESTED PILE SPECIFICATIONS
Pile Type P512L20-24-30
Factor (in-1) 4.5
Helix Diameter (in)24 & 30
INSTALLATION INFORMATION
Installer Postech Lanaudière
Pile Installation Date2024-04-30
Installation Torque (lb pi)4640
Total Pile Length 20.0
Above-Ground Height (in)12
Helix Depth 19.0
EQUIPMENT USED DURING THE TEST
ExcavatorKubota U35/SN: 15906
Auger DriverDinamic Oil SA30
Hydraulic JackSimplex R556
Pressure GaugeMAN-05 (XZT #19112737966267
Deflectometer INSIZE No. 2112-50E SN: M26044228307
Contact: Postech Screw Piles – Sherbrooke T: (819) 843-3003 | (438) 686-9833
www.postechpiles.com/engineering/ Saad Qoq, P.Eng.
climate perspectives
By Stan Ridley
The Promises and Realities of Solar and Wind
It is widely hoped that relatively clean energy from wind and solar facilities will eventually play a much greater role in displacing ‘dirty’ energy from fossil fuel sources and represent a much larger percentage of our global equivalent total primar y energy consumption (TPEC). Globally, solar and wind currently represent only about 3% and 4% of TPEC, respectively, while fossil fuels comprise about 80%, according to the Energy Institute.
We classify wind and solar energy as very clean, renewable energy because (a) their life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are typically between 4% and 8% of those from fossil fuels and (b) wind and sunshine are effectively unlimited.
From 2022 to 2023, the development of wind and solar electricity generating farms increased globally by about 23% in capacity (MW) and 16% in energy (TWh), according to the Energy Institute, for an increase of equivalent TPEC of about 5 EJ to a total of about 35 EJ. While this was significant, fossil fuels’ TPEC increased during the same period by about 7 EJ to 505 EJ. In other words, fossil fuels continued to outpace solar and wind in absolute units.
Energy vs. capacity
The capacities of installed wind and solar plants, it should be noted, are not indicative of their impacts on directly displacing and/or replacing emissions from fossil fuel plants, where such emissions are mainly related to the energy (MWh) they each generate, not their capacity (MW).
In this article, the emphasis will be on energy generated by wind and solar plants. In 2023, this totalled 3,967 TWh globally, including 1,470
TWh in China, 670 TWh in the U.S. and 47 TWh in Canada, according to the Energy Institute.
When wind speeds fall and clouds cover the sun (or at night), of course, the energy generated by wind and solar plants is significantly reduced.
Constraints impact the conversion and use of wind and solar energy.
Wind and solar are available in abundance in many areas of many countries, but there are numerous constraints to the conversion and use of that energy.
Many detractors of wind and solar energy developments tend to point to issues associated with their complete life cycles, including the emissions and other environmental impacts associated with the mining of required materials; the energy needed for manufacturing; the relatively short operational life of wind turbine blades and solar panels; land use and habitat disruptions;
w aste and recycling challenges; hazardous materials; and the aforementioned intermittency and the cor responding need for energy storage, transmission grid control technologies and backup support from other energy sources.
Many of these constraints are also common, however, to fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric energy generation, transmission and distribution systems. The production of ener gy always involves environmental impacts, to some extent.
LCOE
One positive note is how the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for both wind and solar facilities has been falling substantially and consistently. In 2024, advisory firm Lazard indicated the LCOE at utility scale was between about US$30 and
Stan Ridley, C.Eng., MICE, BSc (Eng), MSc (Eng), DIC, is president of West 2012 Energy Management, based in Vancouver. He is also a member of United Nations (UN) groups of experts on gas and coal mine methane and just transition.
US$90 per MWh for on-shore wind and solar and between US$75 and US$140 per MWh for off-shore wind. Energy storage added an LCOE range of between about US$20 and US$110 per MWh, keeping in mind there are challenges relating to technical viability and scalability.
The LCOE for fossil fuel and nuclear plants, meanwhile, typically ranges between about US$50 and US$230 per MWh, from combined cycle gas-fired plants at the low end to nuclear plants at the high end.
Intermittent energy management and storage
Engineers continue to wrestle with the issues associated with managing energy from intermittent sources, including viably scalable storage systems, deploying protection and control systems, ensuring availability for dispatch to meet demand and accessing ‘smart’ transmission grids. Major technological advances will be needed.
Our society insists on a reliable supply of energy to be available on-demand—dispatchable to meet our ever-changing needs on a minute-by-minute, daily, seasonal and yearly basis. Generally, electri-
city has been dispatched from fossil fuel plants, hydroelectric generators with substantial water reservoirs and nuclear baseload power plants. If intermittent renewable energy is to significantly penetrate such a market and meet our TPEC requirements, it will need to be upgraded from non-dispatchable to reliably dispatchable energy. Hence the need for efficient, cost-effective and scalable storage.
I n 2023, the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicated the largest existing energy storage systems, by far, were pumped hydro plants, with a total global capacity of about 180 GW. These were followed by battery storage systems at about 90 GW.
The IEA also indicated the total energy storage volume of batteries used around the world was more than 2,400 GWh in 2023. This is comparable to global wind and solar generation’s total of 2,436 GW in terms of capacity and 3,967,000 GWh in energy. The percentage of intermittent energy that need to be stored to meet dispatching needs is hotly debated, but the ultimate global storage requirements for wind and solar energy to replace our
There is a need for efficient, cost-effective and scalable energy storage.
present fossil fuel TPEC would certainly be enormous.
GHG emissions and land use
Over their life cycles, wind and solar plants are typically associated with between 30 and 90 kg of emissions per MWh, whereas fossil fuel energy generation emits between 850 and 1,200 kg. Each MWh of clean, renewable energy can and does replace a MWh of ‘dirty’ energy, at nearly 100% efficiency.
The physical footprint of electrical generation, on the other hand, varies the opposite way. A fossil fuel or nuclear plant occupies about 5 hectares (ha) per MW, whereas solar uses about 18 ha and wind requires about 29 ha per MW.
The Canadian perspective
While this article has focused on global metrics and challenges, it is important to focus specifically on the Canadian market.
In 2023, according to the Energy Institute, Canada’s total electrical energy generation was about 633 TWh, with wind and solar energy generation representing about 6% and less than 2%, respectively; but another renewable source, hydro, represented about 58%.
Few parts of the world are blessed with both significant reservoirs for hydroelectric generation and intermittent renewable energy resources; British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, in particular, are among them. To greatly expand our generation and use of solar and wind energy across the country, however, will require federal and provincial co-operation to develop ‘smart’ transmission grids and the political will to turn away responsibly from fossil fuels (including both domestic consumption and exports).
My next column will address the ‘marriage’ of hydro, solar, wind and energy storage.
Planning for Trench Shoring
A strategic approach is needed for safety, efficiency and productivity.
By Cam Dougherty
Compared to the use of trench warfare in the Race to the Sea during the First World War, more than a century ago, modern trenching does not need to withstand cannon fire—but it is still some of the riskiest work on a job site. Without the right equipment and proper planning, it can be dangerous and costly.
Fortunately, advances in civil engineering, improvements in equipment and updates to safety standards have made trenching work safer and more efficient than ever. An increased awareness of the risks, through additional training and education around shoring systems, has helped crews work with confidence.
Even with these advances, however, trench shoring projects are often complicated and can prove overwhelming. Advance planning is the key to an efficient and safe project, as is access to well-maintained, up-todate equipment.
Tackling complex projects
Both the construction of new and the repair of existing underground utilities are sorely needed as cities continue to grow and place a heavier burden on their aging infrastructure. Across Canada, provincial and municipal governments have had to dedicate massive budgets to sewer and watermain construction and renovation. By way of example, Ontario has allocated $191 billion for infrastructure, including underground utilities, over the next decade.
Existing buildings, roads, railways and utilities face risks of damage if excavation sites are left unsupported during construction work. As projects become more complex, safety and stability become more critical.
A better understanding of safe job-site and equipment planning is imperative to keeping projects moving for ward. Anticipating problems in advance and designing appropriate solutions to them will significantly improve productivity.
Factors like soil type, trench depth and project duration must be carefully evaluated before selecting equipment. While renting the wrong-sized excavator might cause a minor setback, poor planning in design and equipment selection can lead to costlier delays, structural instability and serious safety risks for crews.
Choosing the right equipment
Selecting the proper equipment and following the right
Linear slide rail systems can accommodate the installation of a long pipe over great distances.
Standard, double wall and single wall trench shields can accommodate light- to extremeduty underground applications.
procedures during excavation are essential for the safe installation of underground utilities for water, sewer, stormwater, oil, gas, electricity or data. Specialized shoring systems play a critical role in supporting the trench walls, minimizing the risk of soil collapse and ensuring a well-secured working environment for construction crews, to facilitate efficient excavation.
With so many options available, selecting the best fit can be difficult, especially for larger projects. Safety comes first, but avoiding costly delays is also critical and choosing the wrong equipment for working on temporary structures can quickly strain an already-tight budget.
Hydraulic and pneumatic shoring
Hydraulic and pneumatic shoring systems have become the industry standard for working on and around utilities. They can support trench walls near structures, curbs and sidewalks and are suitable for pipe installations where larger excavation equipment cannot be
Existing buildings would risk damage if excavation sites were left unsupported during construction work.
used due to space restrictions.
Hydraulic shoring can be installed and removed with minimal resources from the surface, so a worker is never at risk of being situated inside an unshored trench. Hydraulic and pneumatic shoring both offer versatility in trenches up to 25 ft deep and 12 ft wide.
Trench shields
For light- to extreme-duty underground applications, rental providers may recommend a size-appropriate trench shield. Applications range from sites with shallow or limited space to deeper, more demanding jobs that require medium to large excavators.
In addition to traditional trench shields, modular trench shields are ideal for environments with fewer workers available, as they take less time to assemble and deploy. The use of high-tensile steel allows for several different assemblies to accommodate various site conditions, such as cross utilities and end plating options, all accounted for within tabulated data.
Slide rail systems
Slide rail systems are a common, cost-effective alternative to traditional driven close sheeting. They are made of steel posts and panels. Installing component pieces, rather than larger assembled trench shields, allows for more commonly sized excavators and heavy equipment. These systems can be used in a number of ways. Foursided linear systems, for example, are well-suited for long structures, tanks, microtunnelling and boring operations, while a more traditional system is open-ended and can accommodate the installation of a long pipe over great distances.
Specialized equipment
For large projects, the design and installation of shoring systems can be an extensive and complicated process. Specialized trench shoring systems are advantageous for large-diameter pipelines, which demand specific shoring techniques due to their size and depth.
Factors can change quickly over the course of a project, in terms of scope, size or timeline. Equipment that works for one stage may not work for the next. Flexible arrangements with equipment providers will be key to keeping projects on track and controlling costs.
Hydraulic and pneumatic shoring systems have become the industry standard for working across and around utilities.
Keeping workers safe
As mentioned, trench work is one of the most hazardous activities in construction. Safety relies on thorough planning, starting with a job-site assessment and an in-field consultation.
Most excavation-related incidents involve workers striking buried service lines. Proper locate permissions from infrastructure owners are non-negotiable. Other significant risks include cave-ins, collapses and falls
into trenches. Identifying and understanding these hazards will help mitigate them.
While regulations and industry standards certainly provide essential guidance for selecting appropriate protective measures, no two trenches are alike. Conditions can change daily and will vary across job sites.
Soil classification is a critical consideration when designing a trench system. The stability of any excavation depends on the type of soil and will be affected by such factors as moisture content, consistency, ease of removal, excavation method, water seepage and whether or not the soil has been previously disturbed.
Soil classifications differ by jurisdiction across Canada, but generally can be identified as Type 1, 2, 3 or 4:
• Type 1: Hard, dense and stable. Needs mechanical equipment to excavate it.
• Type 2: Very stiff and dense, but can be excavated with a backhoe easily or by hand with some difficulty.
• Type 3: Stiff to firm and compact to loose in consistency. May be backfill or previously excavated soil.
• Type 4: Loose, soft, wet or filled. Any disturbance significantly reduces its natural strength.
Moisture fluctuations can weaken trench walls and compromise shoring systems. Hence, maintaining trench safety may require constant assessment and
adaptation.
Maintaining up-to-date safety training is also essential to creating a secure environment, where workers can perform tasks without the risk of cave-ins or soil movement. It is important to bring in experts to assess hazards, oversee equipment installation and provide training to crews with regard to proper equipment inspection.
By combining proper planning, expert consultation and ongoing training, engineers can mitigate risks and keep teams safe on every excavation project.
More than the right equipment
Designing a trench shoring system is not a one-size-fitsall process. It demands expertise, experience and a deep understanding of site-specific factors, such as soil conditions, excavation depth and surrounding structures. Every project presents unique challenges. nderground construction and utility installations must be undertaken with safety, environmental protection and the integrity of surrounding infrastructure in Well-maintained, up-to-date equipment is not just beneficial; it may well prove essential. anager (GM) of Cooper E quipment eadquartered in Mississauga, Ont.. For .cooperequipment.ca.
Modelling High-rise Efficiency
By Chris Flood
As population density increases, the skylines of Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary continue to evolve with an ever-growing number of residential, commercial and mixed-use high-rise towers. While these buildings are integral to urban growth, they often fall short of their energy performance potential.
The problem is not a lack of intent. Engineers, architects and developers are actively aiming for lower carbon footprints and more resilient designs. The challenge lies in the tools and workflows they rely on to get there.
High-rises present a unique set of dynamic design challenges that static methods cannot address. Work-from-home (WFH) trends, for example, have made both residential and office buildings’ occupancy loads more variable and unpredictable.
Solar gains fluctuate with glazing orientations and shading strategies, while the envelope-to-floor-area ratio in slender towers amplifies the impacts of perimeter heat loss and gain. The stack effect, a pressure-driven vertical airflow phenomenon, introduces additional complexity to ventilation and infiltration control.
With most new suites now including mechanical cooling, meeting summer time thermal comfort requirements has become a dominant design constraint. Cooling systems
must be right-sized not only for annual peaks, but also to ensure key living spaces do not overheat, with designated cool rooms complying with evolving code expectations.
Yet, many design teams still lean on legacy workflows and overly simplified assumptions, missing the opportunities to optimize building performance through dynamic simulation.
To move the industry forward, energy modelling needs to be central to high-rise design—not just a ‘checkbox’ for compliance, but a true decision-making tool to help guide heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) control strategies, envelope design and system selection, from concept to operation.
There are core inefficiencies in how high-rises are currently modelled. A simulation-based approach can help unlock meaningful gains in efficiency, comfort and carbon performance.
The status quo
In most Canadian jurisdictions, energy code compliance is achievable for many new buildings through both pr escriptive and performance-based paths. In high-rise projects, however, prescriptive compliance is rarely possible, as the prescribed envelope insulation levels, glazing ratios and other static minim ums prove too costly or architecturally restrictive to imple -
ment. As a result, most teams pursue the performance path instead—but carry over simplified design assumptions and default values into those models.
Consider a 35-storey residential tower with a mixed-use podium. Even when using a performance pathway under the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB) 2020 or ASHRAE 90.1, Energy Standard for Sites and Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, project teams frequently fall back on oversimplified load estimates, nominal mechanical efficiencies and fixed ventilation rates. These assumptions can lead to:
• oversized mechanical systems that incur unnecessary capital costs and operate inefficiently at partload conditions.
• misaligned ventilation strategies that do not reflect actual occupancy patterns or stack effect pressures.
• ineffective zoning, comfort complaints and over-conditioning in shoulder seasons
Although prescriptive compliance is avoided, the performance potential of these buildings is still constrained by outdated practices and the underuse of simulation tools.
Dynamic simulation
Performance-based compliance, enabled through dynamic thermal
simulation, allows design teams to model buildings in far greater detail. Instead of relying on peak load factors and default values, simulation tools allow engineers to:
• model hourly energy flows based on realistic internal gains, occupancy schedules, weather data and building operation.
• analyze interdependency between envelope, glazing, mechanical systems and control sequences.
• compare HVAC system topologies—such as variable refrigerant flow (VRF), four-pipe fan coils or a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) with hydronic reheating—against building performance.
• ev aluate carbon and energy metrics, such as total energy use intensity (TEUI), thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI) and greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI).
These capabilities are particularly important for high-rise buildings. Accurately modelling internal zone temperatures across different orientations and exposures throughout the day is key to ensuring occupant comfort. East- and west-facing suites can experience dramatically different peak loads due to solar gains, especially during shoulder seasons. This level of granularity is difficult to achieve using static methods, but can be handled effectively through tools that model hourly thermal behaviour and solar interaction.
Envelope modelling
Envelope performance in high-rise buildings is more complex than just assigning nominal U-values ( i.e. measures of thermal transmittance) to wall or window assemblies. Design teams must also account for heat loss that occurs through structural and architectural junctions. Parapets, balcony slabs, slab edges and window-to-wall transitions all contribute
to thermal bridging.
Engineers have two primary options for incorporating envelope performance in simulation workflows, both of which have merit.
Detailed thermal bridging modelling
Using psi- and chi-values derived from junction-level geometry, simulation tools can accurately represent heat loss from linear and point thermal bridges, respectively. This method provides the most precise performance evaluation and can meaningfully affect TEDI calculations. It is particularly useful when targeting aggressive performance tiers or working with complex façade systems.
Detailed modelling is typically justified for projects with performance-driven design ambitions.
Area-weighted U-value approach
For teams constrained by time or budget, it is possible to approximate total envelope performance using area-weighted U-values that include
an allowance for thermal bridging. This is a valid and often efficient strategy during early-stage modelling or when working within a compliance-driven context. Care must be taken, however, to use appropriately conservative values.
This method offers a practical balance of fidelity and speed. The key is knowing when to shift from approximation to precision as the design evolves.
HVAC system selection
HVAC systems for high-rise residential towers are often selected early and ‘locked in’ before any meaningful simulations. The result is often a default to conventional configurations, such as centralized make-up air units pressurizing corridors with transfer air to suites, paired with insuite fan coil or water source heat pump units—without thorough analysis of system interaction, simultaneous heating and cooling demands or part-load efficiency. These arrangements are rarely assessed
dynamically for how they perform under variable occupancy, shoulder-season operation or uneven load distribution.
Simulation-driven design enables evaluation of system performance not just at peak, but across an annual load profile. For example, a DOAS and hydronic heat pump system may have a slightly higher capital cost, but can provide:
• better humidity control in swing seasons.
• load shifting potential through thermal storage.
• improved zone control and comfort.
• lower peak demand and operating costs.
By modelling these trade-offs at the whole-building level, engineers can make informed decisions that account for both initial and life-cycle performance. This is particularly relevant as carbon pricing and building performance standards tighten across Canada.
The regulatory shift
Canada’s energy codes are undergoing a fundamental shift. NECB 2020 has introduced new performance-based paths, while provinces and municipalities are implementing tiered performance targets with step reductions in TEDI and GHGI.
The Toronto Green Standard (TGS), for example, mandates:
• TEUI below 100 kWh/m2/year for high-rise residential.
• TEDI below 30 kWh/m2/year.
• GHGI below 5 kgCO2e/m2/year.
Energy modelling needs to be incorporated into the high-rise design process.
The stack effect complicates ventilation and infiltration control.
Achieving such levels is practically impossible with default values and simplified methods. Engineers need simulation-based compliance pathways to demonstrate performance across these metrics.
Further, codes are beginning to account for operational carbon and life-cycle emissions, requiring integration of embodied carbon tools and whole-building life-cycle assessment (LCA) modules into the design workflow
From modelling to strategy
Transitioning to simulation-based design does not have to mean more work. In fact, it often leads to better co-ordination with architectural and mechanical, engineering and plumbing (MEP) teams, fewer late-stage changes and clearer justification of system choices to clients.
An ideal workflow might look like this:
1. Early massing and zoning analysis
to identify thermal zones and load drivers.
2. Exploration of passive load minimization strategies.
3. Concept-level HVAC simulation to evaluate system types under representative hourly loads.
4. Envelope detailing by modelling thermal bridging and shading and refining TEDI and TEUI.
5. Regulatory compliance modelling to prepare code submissions with performance-based metrics.
6. Post-occupancy benchmarking, using calibrated models to compare design intent with actual performance.
This integrated workflow reduces rework, supports performance-based procurement and positions engineers to deliver both compliance and high-performance outcomes
Leading the shift
High-rise buildings are one of the
East- and west-facing suites can experience different peak loads due to solar gains.
most complex frontiers for energy-efficient design. As expectations rise for building performance —from climate resilience and carbon neutrality to occupant comfort and operational cost stability—traditional static approaches to building design are no longer sufficient.
Engineers are embracing dynamic simulation not only to meet compliance targets, but also to inform optimized design strategies from the earliest stages of development. With the right tools and collaborative workflows, they can shift the narrative on tall buildings from risk-heavy, high- carbon assets to refined, performance-led exemplars of sustainable urban design.
Chris Flood, Canada vice-president (VP) for software provider Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES), is a mechanical engineer with more than 30 years’ experience in the building services industry as a designer, building performance analyst and part-time faculty member at th e British Co lumbia Ins titute o f Technology (BCIT). For more information, visit www.iesve.com.
Linear drainage
Legal
By Andrés Durán and Sherry Hussain
Andrés Duránis a partner and Sherry Hussain is an associate with construction and insurance law firm Beale & Co.’s new Toronto office. For more information, visit www.beale-law.com.
Understanding Collaborative Contracts
New collaborative contract models—including progressive design-build and alliance, both of which have a longer histor y in the U.K. and Australia—are becoming increasingly popular and pervasive for large infrastructure projects throughout Canada. It is impor tant for engineers to be aware of certain issues when evaluating these contracts.
History
Throughout the history of design-build contracts, projects’ owners, contractors, engineers and other critical stakeholders have used different models. In an evolutionary process, public- and private-sector stakeholders have reacted to challenges that emerged as various contract models were stress-tested on live projects.
The public-private partnership (P3) model, for example, was popular in Canada for large infrastructure for some time, but has been strained in recent years. P3s are increasingly seen as unsuitable for particularly complex projects, such as transit networks in large urban environments, and those that incorporate new technologies.
Among other issues, bidding with 30% design is now generally seen as starting a project with too many unknowns and, therefore, too much risk for the fixed-price, date-certain structure of a P3.
Proper risk identification and collaboration between all stakeholders are critical to the success of a design-build project. So, the Canadian market has looked for other contract approaches that will help all stakeholders better manage both risk and cost, foster better collaboration and reduce disputes through the life of a project.
Meanwhile, the benefits of alliance and collaborative contracting became well-established in the U.K. across a range of projects and sectors. There, collaboration has delivered measurable cost savings and project development efficiencies and has driven innovation in design and delivery.
Progressive procurement
Progressive procurement, which is seeing increased use in Canada, is a collaborative approach that can lead to the execution of different types of contract, such as a design-build fixed-price or even a P3 (although ending in a P3 contract is less common, for the reasons stated above.)
In a progressive procurement, private-sector participants compete to become project development partners to the client. Then, the selected parties go through a project development stage, where they work with the client to develop such parameters as design, scope, risks, refined (and eventually, final) budget and target cost.
These processes should improve transparency and help all parties establish an aligned understanding of project risk and how (and by whom) it should be managed. The private-sector partner team will then execute the relevant agreement if successful during the development phase. Some progressive project contracts now combine the development and execution phases into one contract.
Alliance
Under an alliance contract, which integrates a project development stage before
shovels are in the ground, the owner, construction contractor, lead consultant(s) and possibly other key participants—such as a specialized subcontractor—all work to jointly manage the project as a unanimous decision-making body. Risks are shared among the members of the alliance.
The prime consultant under such a contract may be part of the alliance. In that case, the consultant will be in direct contract with the owner, along with the construction contractor and other ‘non-owner’ participants.
In a progressive design-build model, a consultant can either work directly with the construction contractor—who will wrap the risk of the consultant’s scope into their design-build contract with the owner—or serve as a subconsultant, at some tier, to the primary consultant to the contractor.
Issues
Consulting engineers should consider the following issues before tackling one of these projects.
Standard of care
The contractual standard of care an owner will look for with respect to full design and build scope may be broader in the prime contract than what consultants are used to—and compared to what they can insure under a professional errors and omissions (E&O) policy.
When looking at what is ‘dropped down’ to a consultant and what is provided for each alliance member, engineers should pay close attention to the breadth of the standard of care and specifically sign up only for what is reasonable in terms of scope and role.
Commercial and pricing structure
Typically, all members of the design-build team or the alliance will be required to proceed with the development stage of a project on an ‘open-book’ basis. This is logical for the owner, who is entering these relationships at an early stage of the project.
While such a basis is not always explicitly defined, recent public alliance and progressive design-build contracts show committing to an open-book approach requires private-sector consultants and contractors to make all project-related documents, records and information readily accessible to the owner during the development phase, which includes providing detailed insights into all costs and spending.
This meaning of ‘open-book’ and owner audit rights under the contract will be important for consultants, depending both on how far-reaching the contract is and on how the consultant structures its business.
Literature review
Liability
What happens to liability for the consultant’s work if the owner terminates the arrangement during the development stage?
Typically, an owner will retain broad ownership rights over all consultant work done for the project, including during the development stage. That means the owner can use the ‘work product’ with any other design-build team, if it decides to change teams before construction starts at the execution phase.
So, it is important to pay close attention to any liability for the work if the consultant is terminated before the execution phase.
ACO Qmax - High capacity slot drainage system
ACO Qmax has been developed to satisfy the demand for a versatile, high capacity slot drainage system for a wide range of applications to any load class. The system is specifically designed to form an integral part of modern, sustainable surface water management solution requiring effective collection, storage, or attenuation. ACO Qmax is also economical compared with traditional drainage methods. Email: info@acocan.ca
Construction contractors will be concerned about this issue, as well.
The limits of liability at the design-build level—or for the construction contractor in an alliance or progressive design-build project—will be sized to cover a broader set of risks than those within a consultant’s typical scope. As such, consultants will want to make sure such limits (and the carve-outs to them) are correctly structured for the scope and the nature of their work. Careful attention should be paid to the contract wording, liability caps and insurance coverage available to help cover those risks.
New Champion Fiberglass® Expandable Utility Risers (patent pending) adapt on-site with height adjustability, no cutting, and resistance to extreme conditions. This new expandable riser withstands extreme temperatures (-40 degrees °F to +230 degrees °F), protecting against expansion and contraction, creating a safe installation environment. Championfiberglass.com/281.655.8900
For information on placing an advertisement in the Canadian Consulting Engineer Professional Directory, contact
Maureen Levy, Senior Publisher 416-510-5111 • mlevy@ccemag.com
Recycling Construction Plastics
Gil Yaron is managing director of circular innovation for Light House, a Vancouver-based organization that works with construction professionals to help reach environmental goals. One of his current projects is the Construction Plastics Initiative (CPI), which seeks to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.
How did CPI come about?
CPI was born from a conversation in 2023 between myself and Jeff Wint—previously with OceanWise and now with Recycling Alternative—about concerns regarding plastics escaping construction sites and ending up in waterways.
We are experiencing a plastic crisis in Canada and around the world, yet we don’t have any data on the amount of plastic waste being generated from construction sites. What we do know is that all of it is currently going to landfill.
Jeff and I put a proposal together to study the degree to which plastics were escaping, but the project did not proceed. Then, in 2024, the provincial government’s CleanBC program announced a new round of funding for the Clean Plastics Action Fund. We saw an opportunity to expand our original concept to captur e all plastics leaving construction sites and to explore the ability to develop a circular economic model for repurposing plastics as a resource in the creation of new building materials.
Fortunately, CleanBC selected CPI as a pilot project. The federal government later joined the project to explore the alignment of data tracking with requirements under the new federal plastics registry for
producers of materials for construction, to be introduced in 2026.
How does the initiative work?
The purpose of CPI is to demonstrate an alternative to the linear economic ‘take-make-waste’ model in the construction sector.
Currently, plastics are manufactured to make and package building products. In all cases, these plastics ultimately end up in landfill—in the case of packaging, after a single use. Significant attention has been placed across Canada on addressing the plastic crisis with a focus on single-use products and packaging, but this has not addressed plastics coming from construction, which is arguably the largest single source of plastic waste.
CPI is working with 10 construction projects to capture all plastics generated during the process. The plastics are sorted, weighed and tracked to determine the types and volumes of materials leaving the construction sites.
Materials made from polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) are pelletized and integrated into new
building materials, creating a circular model for managing construction waste as a resource. The remaining plastics are either recycled or, if there is no option, landfilled. Based on the findings from these 10 construction projects, CPI aims to estimate the total amount of plastics generated on construction sites in British Columbia and Canada and demonstrate the viability of a cir cular economic model that treats waste as a resource.
What role is there for consulting engineers?
There are two opportunities for consulting engineers.
The first is to source products made from post-consumer recycled (PCR) plastics, such as those we are currently manufacturing with the plastics from CPI, and to ask their suppliers to include PCR content in their products.
The second opportunity, in keeping with circular economic principles, is for consulting engineers to encourage their suppliers to (a) reduce the amount of plastic packaging for their products and (b) establish take-back programs for plastic packaging
CPI is capturing plastic waste from the Pacific National Exhibition (PNE), among other sites.
Gil Yaron.
Expandable Utility Risers (Patent Pending)
EXPANDABLE UTILITY RISERS
Height adjustable for easy installation
Allows for enhanced expansion and contraction with ground movement
Impact and UV resistant
Temperature tolerance (-40 to +230 °F)
LEARN MORE ABOUT CSA LISTED CHAMPION FIBERGLASS® EXPANDABLE UTILITY RISERS
BIM/REVIT
