Search Documents

By Robert A. Field

Static-Load Piledriving utilizes a hydraulic push to facilitate the installation of a pile. The pile is not rotated, impacted or vibrated. A smooth pushing force advances the pile incrementally into the ground. Static-Load devices must have a reaction mass to push against. The most simple form of a Static-Load device is a jack; more advanced equipment, such as the Still Worker, also utilizes this approach. This paper focuses on the use of the Still Worker on three challenging projects. In each case, the existing site conditions made it risky, or unattractive, to utilize conventional impact, vibratory, or drilled-shaft equipment.

Jan 1, 1997

By K. Englehardt

J BERESFORD introduced the subject of the paper which is the use of polymeric slurries to support the sides of diaphragm wall and bored pile excavations during construction. In the opinion of the authors the use of a suitable polymeric fluid offers financial and technical advantages compared with traditional bentonite based slurries. Under quiescent conditions a support slurry must have the following properties. - sufficient viscosity to support the sides of the excavation, to prevent infiltration into soils and to hold loose soil particles in suspension. - when agitated it should thin quickly to assist pumping transfer and cleaning and allow free passage of the grab or drill. - viscosity should be low enough during concreting to facilitate placement but high enough to prevent contamination of the concrete.

Jan 1, 1991

By Jamie D. McEwan

To cater for the future introduction of 12 car trains, London Blackfriars railway station is being extended from the north end to span across the River Thames. Following the demolition of existing buildings, a number of challenges had to be overcome including working adjacent to a live railway line, above live London Underground tracks and working in small restricted spaces. Trains entering and exiting two lines of track at the bridge's north end of track meant that access was difficult due to the location and proximity to existing infrastructure. The site was very much constrained and congested and there were also a series of works in place to maintain passenger flows so as not to inconvenience the travelling public. The site had been developed many times in the past resulting in a number of obstructions that would require removal during the piling work including old brickwork, reinforced concrete, redundant railway sleepers and track and existing concrete and timber piles. A number of solutions had to be devised to overcome these obstructions. Piling works were undertaken during the day and at night to meet programme.

Jan 1, 2011

By P. Dupeuble

Diaphragm walls, owing to their method of construction are discontinuous structures. A new technology for the construction of joints between panels has been developed. This new process allows for the construction of diaphragm walls with mechanical and watertight continuity.

Jan 1, 2010

By Donald Bruce, Mark Harris, Wesley Schmutzler, James Sanders

"This paper evaluates the history, construction and most importantly the performance of two remedial seepage cutoff walls installed in two major dams in the United States. Beaver Dam, on the White River in northwest Arkansas, was completed in 1966 and seepage through the karstic limestone under the embankment was apparent almost immediately upon filling of the reservoir. Several attempts to stop the seepage by grouting were unsuccessful. In 1994 a cutoff wall consisting of secant piles drilled with 32"" diameter down-the-hole hammers to a maximum depth of 185'?was completed and the seepage was reduced to a negligible amount. It has been over 20 years since the completion of the cutoff wall, and all indications are that the cutoff wall is performing as expected. Walter F. George Lock and Dam on the Chattahoochee River near Fort Gaines, Georgia, was completed in 1963 and suffered the same problem as Beaver Dam due to the limestone on which the dam was founded. Cutoff walls were installed in both embankments (1980s) and solved the problem in these areas, but under-seepage at the concrete lock, dam and spillway structures increased to the point that remediation was essential. The cutoff wall had to be installed through 110'?of water and another 100'?into rock upstream of an active dam that continued to generate electricity during the construction of the cutoff wall. A secant pile wall, in combination with a diaphragm wall, was completed in front of these structures in 2004. It has been over 10 years since the completion this cutoff wall and, again, the cutoff wall is performing as expected. The paper describes the construction of these cutoffs, but focuses on the long-term performance in terms of controlling seepage and piezometric levels.BEAVER DAMBeaver Dam is located on the White River, 609 miles above its mouth, in Carroll County, Northwest Arkansas. The construction of the dam and Beaver Reservoir was authorized on September 1954 by the Congressional Flood Control Act for purposes of water supply, flood control and hydroelectric power generation. The dam site was selected in 1957: construction began in November 1960 and was completed in June 1966. (FIG. 1)"

Jan 1, 2017

By Mark H. Balfe

Over the last decade, Fenway Park has undergone annual improvements to modernize the facility for players and fans. These renovations include the Monster Seats, the Right Field Roof expansion, a new pavilion behind home plate, expansion of the Red Sox clubhouse, additional roof seating, and concourse improvements. Retrofitting the historic ballpark to bring it up to current standards required installation of foundations to support the new structural loads for each of the alteration projects. This required evaluation of existing conditions, and in many cases augmentation of the foundations at existing columns to accommodate the structural changes to the park. New foundations, generally consisting of drilled-in micropiles, were installed in numerous configurations and conditions. Since 2003, a total of 215 drilled-in micropiles have been installed to augment various columns around the park. The micropiles range in capacity between 40 and 70 tons and are installed through Fill and Organic Soils and embedded into the dense Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel layer. Issues and learning related to the foundation augmentation include schedule constraints (work is typically conducted during the off-season and schedule is very aggressive), encountering old/abandoned utilities or foundations, ventilation of equipment, and management of spoils during micropile installation.

Jan 1, 2011

By K. Y. C. Chung

A case study on foundation engineering through organic soils is presented. Located along the west shore of the Hudson River, site soils consist of random brick fill over a thick layer of peat and organic silts or clays. The organic layer is underlain by medium dense to dense sand with varying amounts of silt. Strong artesian pressures were measured in the sand. A pile foundation system was selected to support all structures. To avoid periodic flooding, new fill must be placed on the existing fill. Large total and differential settlements will occur due to consolidation and secondary compression of the organic soils. This settlement will reduce the allowable pile capacity due to the large negative skin friction in the organic layer; and will necessitate long-term maintenance of the final grade elevation. Pile load tests were performed to determine the allowable compression and uplift capacities, long-term capacities and pile driving criteria.

Jan 1, 2010

By Amy B. Cerato

The application of this study is to use helical anchors as a foundation system for small wind tower (1 ? 10 kW) guyed cables. Helical anchors are currently used to anchor guyed cables of telecommunication and electric towers. However, the increased dynamic vibrations a wind turbine adds to the tower and foundation system under working loads, as well as extreme environmental conditions (e.g., straight line winds, ice load or sudden furling shocks), require additional knowledge about the behavior of helical anchors. These field conditions were simulated in this study by instrumenting a working tower with load cells and 3-axis accelerometers to gather data on wind speed and tower response. These tower responses were then transmitted to the helical anchors through an extensive, large-scale testing program that included monitoring the performance of the helical anchor foundation under dynamic loads, subject to natural variations in both wind regimes, precipitation (water level) and variations in helical anchor geometry. This paper specifically discusses the effects of helical anchor geometry on helical anchor performance under long-term dynamic loads.

Jan 1, 2008

By Clyde N. Baker

Foundations for the Sohio Corporate Headquarters in downtown Cleveland have column loads of 11,400 kips, which increase to 15,000 kips with wind loading. An extensive exploratory program was conducted and comprehensive studies made to select the economically dependable support for the 46-story structure. A test on bond or socket friction for the caissons has usable values.

Jan 1, 1984

By W. Robert Thompson

Hurricane Katrina caused significant damage to transportation structures on the Gulf coast in August, 2005, including the destruction of the US 90 Bridge over Biloxi Bay, Mississippi. Part of the successful design/build proposal for the replacement bridge included a comprehensive test pile program of indicator piles and load test piles in the geotechnical investigation program. A total of 22 indicator piles were installed on the project using the pile driving analyzer to monitor the pile behavior. Five load tests were performed: two axial Statnamic, two lateral Statnamic, and one static axial. The results of the test pile program established driving criteria for production piles that included end-of-drive blow counts and pile tip elevations with an appropriate allowance for setup. The program also confirmed that the planned installation equipment and techniques of GC Constructors, a joint venture of Massman Construction Co., Kiewit Southern Co., and Traylor Bros., Inc., would install the piles to the design tip elevations before production piles began. An extensive program of restrike measurements at a range of times after initial driving of the indicator piles provided a systematic documentation of pile setup in the soil profiles on the site. These resistance values were used to develop a dimensionless setup factor ?S? as the ratio of the restrike resistance to the end of drive resistance. This factor varied from 1.5 for piles penetrating clays and tipped in sand to 3.0 for piles bearing completely in clay and helped establish an end-of drive blow count that included an allowance for setup. The CAPWAP analyses of restrike data with setup and the load test data were used to confirm the design unit side shear and end bearing values developed from the borings and static capacity calculations and to select the design pile lengths.

Jan 1, 2009

By Stanley A. Schwartz

In the Piedmont, heavily loaded structures are generally supported by either drilled piers or one of several pile types. The choice of drilled piers or piles is typically one of comparative costs. The cost of a drilled pier foundation is usually the more difficult to predict because of the greater impact that variable conditions and construction monitoring have on cost. Poor specifications, related to the drilling equipment, procedures and bearing level, can also result in large cost extras. In the southern Piedmont, straight shafts are typically extended down to hard rock to achieve primary support in end-bearing: when bells are required, they are often constructed manually. In some eastern and northern Piedmont locations the thickness of the decompossed rock zone is significant and considerable skin friction can be mobilized. Typically piers are constructed in holes temporarily cased with steel liners. The bottom is cleaned of loose material and water, and then evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the design bearing pressure (and friction, where appropriate) or recommend alternative construction measures.

Jan 1, 1988

By David B. Paul

"ABSTRACTThe US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has 704 dams in their inventory and over 100,000 miles of levees with a capital value of over $150 billion. Currently, there are 319 dams that are classified as high hazard and have actionable failure modes that will require structural modifications. The most frequent actionable failure mode associated with the inventory is seepage and piping. One of the most effective engineering solutions is the installation of a cutoff to limit seepage. Currently, USACE has over $1.5 Billion of cutoff wall projects under construction and/or design. Given the magnitude of the dam and levee safety issues, USACE is developing a new Engineering Manual (EM) titled “Seepage Control Cutoffs for Dams and Levees.” This EM covers all of the methods to construct cutoff walls. USACE has partnered with the Deep Foundation Institute (DFI) in preparation of the EM to ensure that it is comprehensive and draws from the expertise of the specialty foundation engineering companies that design, manufacture, and construct seepage control cutoffs around the world. The EM contains case histories as well as a comprehensive project statistical summary and guide specification paragraphs. The goal of USACE was to make the EM a state of the art document for use by Districts.HISTORYSlurry wall construction techniques were developed in the late 1940’s in Italy by ICOS. The first use of the slurry trench method of construction in the United States was by the USACE Memphis District in September 1945, to form a partial cutoff along the Mississippi River levee on the Arkansas side of the river just below Memphis, Tennessee. The idea for the project probably evolved from the use at that time of puddle clay trench cutoffs combined with the use of drilling mud for advancing borings. A paddle wheel mixing device was constructed for making slurry from native clays. Trenches were dug to a 20-ft depth using a trenching machine and to a 35-ft depth using a dragline with a 100-ft boom and 2-cu-yd bucket. Backfill was mixed in windrows at the site from hauled-in clay gravel and native materials and pushed into the trench by a bulldozer when the length of the trench was equal to about twice the trench depth. It is amazing that after almost 70 years, the technique is still about the same as it was when first developed by the Memphis District. A soilbentonite cutoff was constructed under the Kennewick Levee adjacent to the Columbia River as part of the McNary Dam Project in Washington by the Walla Walla District in 1952 The first application of a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff for control of underseepage at a major earth dam was at Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River in Washington in 1959.The first cement- bentonite cutoff in the United States was constructed at the Tilden Tailings Project to store tailings from the Tilden Mine in Michigan in 1976. The first cement-bentonite cutoff constructed at a dam on a river retaining a reservoir in the United States was completed in 1978 at the Elgo Dam (formerly the San Carlos Dam) in Arizona.The USACE has designed and constructed some of the deepest and most complex cutoff walls for dams since the 1970’s. The first major concrete panel cutoff wall constructed in a dam in the United States was at Wolf Creek Dam (Nashville District) by the ICOS Corporation between 1974-77. The dam has a long history of seepage issues associated with the karst geology that comprises the foundation. In 1968, about 17 years after first being impounded, wet areas, muddy flows in the tailrace and sinkholes in the downstream toe adjacent to the switchyard occurred."

Jan 1, 2014

By Reda M. Bakeer

"Measurements obtained during load testing of two steel H-piles driven at a site in Northeastern Mississippi are discussed. The general site conditions, equipment used, testing procedures and results of the pile load tests are presented. Both piles were tested in compression and one of the piles was subsequently tested in tension. The piles were instrumented with strain gauges and extensometers to measure the mobilized soil resistance and pile movement. Three different “zero strain” conditions were used to determine the mobilized soil resistance and residual loads due to driving or a load cycle. It was concluded that the effect of residual loads on driven piles could be significant. Driving residual loads influenced the magnitude and distribution of the load transfer curves more than those due to a load cycle. Results of the tension test were impacted by the residual loads from the previous compression test performed on the same pile.INTRODUCTIONSeveral factors affect the performance of a deep foundation system including the subsoil conditions, loading settings, pile type and installation method. Residual stresses develop in piles particularly due to pile driving, but they are typically not accounted for in the analysis (Fellenius 2002). Siegel and McGillivray (2009) presented an assessment of residual loads measured during load testing of instrumented auger-cast-in-place (ACIP) piles. The magnitude and distribution of residual stresses along the pile shaft and toe depend on the pile installation method, previous load cycles and time effects. Poulos (1987) reported that residual load due to driving at the pile toe is independent of pile driving equipment and may significantly affect the results of a pile load test. Hunter and Davisson (1969) reported results of pile load tests performed in compression on fully instrumented piles driven in cohesionless soils along with a discussion of the effects of residual loads. Tension loads of about 445 kN (100 kips) were measured at the pile toe after driving. Unloading residual compression load at the toe was detected as “apparent” tension since the instrumentation was zeroed prior to the test. The researchers suggested a graphical approach to obtain the “corrected” load distribution curves considering that residual load will dissipate following the tension test. Holloway et al. (1975) conducted a study on the effect of residual stresses due to pile driving and developed a computer software that accounts for residual loads. Briaud and Tucker (1984) suggested a method to account for residual loads based on the results of 33 pile load tests performed in mostly cohesionless soils."

Jan 1, 2017

By Geoffrey C. Hebner

Augered, cast-in-place piles (ACIP) have become a very common foundation type in Atlanta and the Southern Piedmont Province as well as much of the United States in the past 20 years. Prior to the introduction of ACIP foundations in Atlanta, the most common deep foundation type was Raymond piles. Raymond piles are basically a driven, thin-walled step-tapered steel pile filled with concrete. Drilled piers were also relatively common and continue to be used, particularly in shallow bedrock or high column load situations. Driven piles, including pipes, H-sections, and timber piles were previously common with working loads typically in the 30 to 50-ton range. Initially, ACIP foundations had similar allowable capacities, however, over time improvements in installation techniques and equipment have resulted in an increase in allowable ACIP capacities. Correspondingly, they have become a more cost-effective and trusted foundation for geotechnical and structural engineers. Over the next several decades many other deep foundation alternatives began to lose popularity. ACIP are one of the predominant deep foundations in Atlanta and the Southern Piedmont today. Although ACIP foundations have widespread popularity in the private sector, they have not been readily accepted currently by government transportation agencies. ACIP may be used by some of the smaller municipalities, but to the author's knowledge, have not been used with regularity by larger, state agencies.

Jan 1, 2003

By Robert Bachus, Jamey B. Rosen

"Abstract Large scale In Situ Barrier Wall Construction projects, specifically those related to earth dams, dikes, and levees, frequently require stringent quality control measures to ensure the success of the wall. This presentation discusses the applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to capture information from multiple data streams and provide geotechnical feedback, quality control, and project control feedback. Techniques used to geospatially analyze verticality data from secant piles and panels will be demonstrated. Examples will be presented from barrier wall installations at two sites owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): the Wolf Creek Dam in Kentucky, and Center Hill Dam in Tennessee.IntroductionDeep foundation installations require contractors to collect a substantial amount of information over the course of a project, both for internal quality control of construction progress and for demonstrating compliance with customer or owner specifications. Methods of collecting information are constantly improving, bringing with it the need for a systemic approach to managing the increasing amounts and types of data. Handling these diverse types of data presents challenges with both budget and schedule demands. This paper discusses some techniques for adding or increasing quality control in barrier wall constructions by consolidating, visualizing and analyzing data using relational database and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology, collectively referred to as Information Management System (IMS) development. The IMS concept is designed to facilitate the collection, transfer and processing of data and provide an easy way to remotely access and visualize construction progress.The remainder of this paper presents the needs and objectives of an IMS applied to quality control in barrier wall construction, the components and data flows involved, the capabilities and user interfaces of the systems and the benefits for the end users. Examples are presented throughout from case study projects including: a pile barrier wall applied in the rehabilitation at the Wolf Creek Dam in Kentucky (under contract to the Treviicos-Soletanche Joint Venture), and a secant pile barrier wall currently under construction in the rehabilitation of the Center Hill Dam in Tennessee (under contract to Bauer Foundations Corporation) (both owned by the Nashville District of the USACE)."

Jan 1, 2014

By David C. Kraft

A major manufacturer and user of machine tools had the need to install a screw press machine at its plant site with the following design load requirements: (1) Vertical Compression Live Load = 2000 kip (8896 kN) and Dead Load = 1000 kip (4448 kN), (2) Rotational Moment = 6600 ft-kip (8950 kN'm). The screw press machine was to be located within an existing manufacturing building. The bottom of the footing base was located 15 ft (4.6 m) below existing floor slab. A geotechnical investigation of the site indicated a 17 ft (5.2 m) thick initial stratum of stiff to very stiff clay underlain by a 14 ft (4.3 m) thick stratum of loose to medium dense sand. Beneath the sand stratum was soft rock described as weathered shale. Obvious concern was raised on the possible effects of the dynamic motion of the screw press and potential resulting settlement within the loose sand stratum. This combination of large loads and dynamic motion resulted in the selection of a helical pile and tieback system to support the concrete foundation. The helical pile foundation system consisted of a group of vertical helical piles installed into the shale rock and a group of inclined helical tiebacks set into the remaining portion of the clay stratum. Four load tests were conducted on the vertical helical piles in order to establish compression load capacity. The results of these load tests as reported herein, led to the addition of a limited number of tubular steel push piles in order to meet the project required Factor of Safety on the design loads. All of the helical piles, push piles and inclined helical tiebacks were successfully installed and the screw press is now installed and operational.

Jan 1, 2003

By Marc Dondelinger

Interlocking H sections with deep webs and high section modulus are being used for cofferdams and shore enclosures where pressures are excessive. The H sections can be as much as a meter deep; they can be used as continuous interlocked wall. A steel saving alternate is spacing the H and driving deep for stability then filling between with shorter interlocking sheet piles. Templates provide for exact positioning.

Jan 1, 1985

By Franz-Werner Gerressen

"The use of soil improvement to utilize areas, which are not suitable for foundation purpose, has a long tradition. Due to the increasing demand of foundation works in areas of unsuitable soils, the improvement of the existing soils becomes even more important in the future.Various applications and systems for various demands exist around the world. Either it is a “simple” improvement for settlement reduction or a more important aim as liquefaction mitigation. However, each system has its advantages, limits and needs.Furthermore to the soil improvement, using various tools, soil mixing can also be used for applications like cut off and/or retaining wall.The paper will describe some basics of various techniques and different applications of the systems all over the world where the systems provided solutions for different purposes, e.g. simple foundation or liquefaction mitigation.It will describe also the main equipment which will be needed to execute these works under the various conditionsINTRODUCTIONSoil mixing is a methodology where the soil is improved by mixing it with cement, lime or other binders in situ by using a mixing tool. This methodology can be used either as wet mixing or as dry mixing. In the more frequently used wet mixing process, usually a mixture of binder and water, maybe with additives, is injected and mixed with the soil. Depending on the type of soil and binder, by the end of the mixing process, a mortar like mixture is created which hardens during the hydration process. In the dry mixing process, the binder is directly mixed with the soil and reacts directly with the existing soil and water.Mixing tools show several versions, so that they are mixing around either a vertical or horizontal axis, mixing in a trench and maybe are jet assisted. Figure 1 shows a classification done by Bruce 2010. Depending on the technique, improvement depth of up to 80 m can be achieved."

Jan 1, 2017

There are many ways to classify structural slurry wall elements, but the DFI committee chooses to limit these descriptions to three functional requirements, namely: design function, plan configuration and type of panel reinforcement. (See Figure 1 in Part IV for panel classification). Slurry walls can function as: 1. Curvilinear or linear elements for temporary and/or permanent structures to resist lateral forces transferred from the ground, water, earthquakes and various surcharge loads. 2. Load bearing elements in various plan shapes to resist vertical forces. 3. Combination Elements to resist combined forces under conditions 1 and/or 2. For example, elliptical shafts with various openings for tunnels and conduits have been commonly used for deep excavations.

Jan 1, 2005

By David J. White

The decreasing availability of land in urban areas, and the increasing demand for urban development is leading to the construction of taller and heavier buildings at increasingly marginal sites. Such structures usually require founding at depth and modern construction methods are making the economics of piled foundations ever more attractive (Salgado, 1995). However, the urban environment is not suited to pile driving. Conventional dynamic installation techniques (i.e. drop hammer or vibro-piling) induce vibrations and settlement in a zone close to the pile, and cause noise and dust pollution. Damage to existing structures resulting from pile driving vibrations is not uncommon (Tomlinson, 1986).

Jan 1, 2000