Search Documents

By Gene Bryant, Wesley Schmutzler, Matteo Bertoni

The levees where the Mississippi River and the Lower Wood River meet near East Alton Illinois have been a problem area for years due to underseepage. The first phase of the deep cutoff wall was a 2,000-linear foot section that was completed in 2016 for the Illinois Flood Prevention District Council. This section was installed along the Wood River and the Mississippi river to depths of over 135’, The United States Army Corps of Engineers was tasked with continuing the cutoff wall along the Mississippi river. The wall was a continuation of phase I with depths up to 140’. The 1,000’ long cutoff wall was installed through fill, loose sands, cobbles, and sandy clay. The cutoff wall was terminated in either Glacial Till or sound rock. In order to provide wall permeability equal to or less than 1.0 X 10-6 cm/sec a self-hardening slurry (SHS) composed of ordinary Portland cement, slag cement, and water was utilized. The depths reached on this project using SHS is the deepest done to date in the United States. Along with the permeability requirements, a very narrow range for the unconfined compressive strength was specified at 50 – 180 PSI. In order to monitor the ground movement and water level fluctuations during the excavation of the panels with the Hydromill or Clamshell, 6 automated inclinometers were installed and monitored continuously during panel excavation in phase 1. Seven automated piezometers were monitored in phase 2. This paper will give an overview of the project with emphasis on the effect of the excavation on the instrumentation, specifically the reaction of the piezometers as the last panels were installed. INTRODUCTION The project is in Illinois, about 1000 feet downstream from where the Wood River Creek enters the Mississippi River between East Alton, IL and Wood River, IL adjacent to State Highway 143 (Fig. 1). The Wood River Lower Cutoff Wall Phase 2 Project (WR2) was awarded to TREVIICOS SOUTH (TIS) in September 2017. The Main Project features are: Construction of work platform, inclinometers installation and removal, cutoff wall construction by the Self-Hardening Slurry method (approx. 135,000 sf) up to 140' depth, clay cap installation, and site restoration. The levee system along this stretch of the Mississippi River has been plagued by under-seepage for several years. The phenomenon has worsened to varying degrees, depending on location, to the point that remediation was needed to ensure that Levee failure would not be an issue in the future.

Jan 1, 2019

By James P. Hambleton, Anastasia Nally

This work focuses on the numerical simulation of multi-plate anchor systems (e.g., helical anchors) in sand subjected to vertical loading. In assessing the stiffness and capacity of these multi-plate anchor systems, full awareness of the abilities and limitations of the various analysis methods must be understood. This work first summarizes studies completed by others and then goes on to assess the failure mechanisms of multi-plate anchors in sand and the influence of (1) plate width-to-depth ratio, (2) number of plates, and (3) relative positioning of plates. The analysis makes use of (1) conventional limit analysis, (2) so-called modified limit analysis that employs reduced strength parameters to account for the influence of soil dilatancy, and (3) the displacement-based finite element method, which considers elastic as well as plastic deformation leading to failure. The work critically reflects on limitations in the current analysis methods for helical ground anchors. INTRODUCTION Helical anchors are a relatively low cost foundation type, typically consisting of a steel rod and single or multiple plate attachments. In recent decades, they have seen rapid growth, and as outlined by Merifield and Sloan (2006) and Hambleton et al. (2014). Design techniques for helical anchors have previously been predominately empirical, as much of the past research in this field is experimentally based. It is common practice for helical anchors to be modeled as horizontally oriented plate anchors in both numerical and experimental analysis. This work focuses on analysis based on the finite element method, including so-called finite element limit analysis and the conventional displacement-based finite element method, with some comparisons made to experimental studies. Numerical simulation of anchor pull-out capacity in cohesionless soils is stunted by the many difficulties faced when using numerical analysis with cohesionless soils. Additional variations can be seen when comparing the serviceability based load capacities to the ultimate load. In this work, both the force-displacement response (stiffness) and the ultimate anchor capacity are assessed, with more focus on the latter. This work focuses only on analysis techniques for multi-plate anchors with vertical loading in cohesionless soils. Many studies have been completed in this area, some of which assume a rectangular plate in a plain strain model (Rowe & Davis, 1982; Merifield & Sloan, 2006; Cerfontaine et al., 2019). Whereas others use axisymmetric conditions (Baker and Kondner, 1966; Saeedy, 1987; Murray & Geddes, 1987; Ghaly & Hanna, 1994; Sakai & Tanaka, 1998; Merifield et al., 2006;) and minimal studies considered both axisymmetric and plane strain in the one study (Vesic, 1971; Tagaya et al., 1988; Murray & Geddes, 1987; Sarac, 1989).

Jan 1, 2019

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect projectspecific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project.1. SCOPEThe work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, post-tensioning and testing helical anchors used to support tension loads, and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to accomplish the work. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows:• The Owner is the property owner.• The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to execute project tasks required for the successful design and construction of the overall project. Tasks could include construction management, design, oversight, etc.• The anchor designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical anchors.• Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical anchors, and possibly other tasks associated with the project.It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development.The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of anchor performance if required by the Owner or the anchor designer to confirm performance of the anchors subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional anchors if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2016

By Thai Nguyen Ph. D

Dynamic Load Test (DLT) on driven piles has been performed routinely all over the world. In several recent projects, even 100% testing has become a norm where every single pile is dynamically load tested. In these cases, most piles are of uniform sections, making the field analysis (CASE method) straight forward. The CASE method, which has been used for the last 50 years, however, is only applicable to uniform piles to monitor pile driving stresses as well as pile capacities. Signal matching analysis can handle different configurations. However, the analysis used to require user inputs (i.e., non-automatic). Manual signal matching analysis, which can solve non-uniform solutions, traditionally takes hour(s) to complete for one blow. As such, the real-time pile driving stresses and resistances had traditionally been relying upon the CASE method, using typical range of CASE damping (JC). Until 2021, due to the lack of a rigorous instant signal matching analysis for non-uniform piles, no tool was available to help engineers evaluate non-uniform piles in real-time. An inexperienced field engineer may overlook this shortcoming when evaluating peak driving stresses. Furthermore, ultimate bearing resistances for non-uniform piles may require further evaluation to account for the non-uniformity of piles if relying on the CASE method. This paper highlights recent advances in instant Signal Matching Analysis on non-uniform piles, allowing field engineers to monitor stresses and resistances of non-uniform piles during driving.

Oct 1, 2022

By Patrick E. Durnal, Henrik Dahl

"A joint venture of Ben C. Gerwick Inc., Sverdrup (now Jacobs) and DMJM (now DMJM + Harris) designed the $779 million seismic upgrade of the Richmond - San Rafael Bridge over the San Pablo Bay in the San Francisco Bay Area and provided construction support to Caltrans. Construction of the marine foundation retrofi t was completed by a joint venture of Tudor Saliba/Tidewater/Koch-Skanska and their subcontractors: Pomeroy Precast Construction, AGRA Foundations, Dutra Construction and Vortex Divers. Construction management and inspection was performed by Caltrans with the support of various consultants. MARINE FOUNDATION RETROFIT SCOPEThe retrofi t design of the submerged foundations included:??A total of 476 tension and compression micro piles (290- 1140 kips or 1290-5071 kN) installed through cored holes through the underwater bells at 31 pier locations??Fourteen 126/150/164 inch (3.20/3.81/4.17m) diameter CISS (Cast-in-steel shell) concrete shear piles (1160- 2660 kips or 5160-11832 kN) installed through new precast concrete pile cap extensions??Twelve CIDH (Cast-in-drilled-hole) shear piles (1060- 2130 kips or 4715-9475 kN) with 150 inch (3.91m) diameter steel shells to top of bedrock and 30 ft (9,14m) long and 11 ft (3.35m) diameter rock socket installed through new precast concrete pile cap extensions The specifi ed post bid test boring revealed deeper bedrock at one pier location allowing deletion of the rock socket. Thus 15 CISS and 11 CIDH shear piles were installed at 11 pier locations - 9 piers with 2 piles and 2 piers with 4 piles. Cut off elevations for the shear piles ranged from 46 ft to 60 ft (14.0m to 18.3m) below mean sea level and cut off for the micro piles was 8 ft to 46 ft (2.44m to 14.0m) below mean sea level. Almost all foundation retrofi ts required work under limited headroom conditions. Underwater construction connections required innovative design details and construction techniques for each pile type. The 11 piers had 22 precast concrete pile cap extensions installed in pairs and connected by either tremie concrete closure pours or by large pipe struts. The precast pile cap extensions were strapped underwater using large steel bands wrapping around the belled piers with grouted annulus. The precast pile caps were founded with 14 inch (355mm) diameter steel pipe piles, which were either support piles or seismic tension and compression piles. The seismic piles were connected in grouted corrugated steel pipe sleeves cast into the new concrete pile caps."

Jan 1, 2007

By Norm Kirk, Robert Bittner

"The addition of a new powerhouse at the existing Tulloch Hydroelectric site on the Stanislaus River in the western foothills of the Sierras Nevada Mountains of central California required a deep excavation in rock on the downstream face of the dam. A cofferdam (water exclusion device) was necessary to isolate the powerhouse construction site excavation from the existing Goodwin Reservoir and the turbulent discharge from the existing powerhouse. The cofferdam was positioned on a steeply sloping fractured rock surface exceeding 50 degrees.This paper describes the challenges encountered during design and construction of the cofferdam and describes the unique design features used to address these challenges including:•,The use of flat-sheet-piles to form cellular walls on the steeply sloping rock surface.•,The use of 5-ft deep tremie concrete plugs in the bottom of the sheet pocket cells to create the bottom seal of the cellular cofferdam walls against the sloping rock surface.•,The use of vertical post-tensioned rock anchors to provide shear resistance at the contact point between the base of the cellular-wall and the sloping rocksurface.INTRODUCTIONModification or expansion of existing hydroelectric power plants often require downstream cofferdams or water exclusion devices to temporarily separate new construction from turbulent downstream discharge of the existing dam. Most dams are positioned on solid rock in the narrowest and therefore the steepest section of the river. This combination of steeply slopingrock and the need for an exclusion barrier creates a challenge for the design engineer trying to maintain a safe dewatered construction site. Typical cofferdam solutions for hydroelectric dams usually use large granular filled circular sheet pile cells that perform as gravity structures. However, this type of structures is not well suited to steeply-sloping highly irregular rock surfaces in a confined area."

Jan 1, 2017

By George Piscsalko

Quality control of drilled shafts and ACIP piles is greatly dependent upon the practices of the site personnel. In many applications it is difficult to properly inspect the shaft prior to concreting, such as when the shaft is drilled under slurry. In other cases, such as ACIP piles, it is impossible to inspect the shaft in any manner prior to concreting. There are numerous methods currently available to assess the integrity of drilled shafts and ACIP piles. Each method has its advantages and limitations. This paper will compare the various available methods as well as introduce a new method for assessing integrity in drilled shafts and ACIP piles. This new method, known as Thermal Integrity Profiling, determines the integrity over 100% of the shaft both inside and outside the reinforcing cage by measuring the hydration temperature of the concrete along the length of the shaft. These temperature measurements can be made by either passing a thermal probe through a standard Cross Hole access tube typically 12 to 48 hours after concrete placement, or from embedding thermal wires within the shaft prior to concrete placement and monitoring them with unattended data collectors for 12 to 48 hours after concrete placement. This Thermal Integrity Profile method will be described in detail and several case histories will be presented. Additional testing methods which will be compared include low strain Pile Integrity Testing, and Cross Hole Sonic Logging. Advantages and limitations for each method will be discussed.

By Bernard Hertlein, Chia K. Tan

"The move to LRFD methods for structural design by AASHTO, ACI, AISC , ASCE, and the FHWA has been a major change for the American construction industry. The deep foundations industry has arguably been placed most at risk by this situation, because of the need for, and the difficulty of providing, reliable quality assurance.LRFD is attractive for both the owner and the engineer because it promises cost reductions, but the assumption underlying LRFD is often overlooked - that the acceptable margin of safety can be rationally reduced, thus saving costs, provided that all the factors involved are closely controlled. This means that both the quality of the materials and the quality of the construction work must be closely monitored, and held to an acceptable standard.This paper describes the type of comprehensive quality management program that is needed in deep foundation construction projects based on LRFD. Case histories are used to illustrate the importance of both adequate inspection and reliable testing to a comprehensive quality management program.IntroductionOver the last thirty years, the major organizations that set standards and practice policies for the American construction industry, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), the American Concrete Institute (ACI) , The American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), have embraced Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) as an alternative to, and in some cases, a complete replacement for, Allowable Stress Design (ASD). AASHTO first published a new set of LRFD-based design guidelines for bridges in 1996, with several revisions in 1997, 1998, and 1999 (AASHTO, 1996). The 1996 AASHTO Bridge Design Code was the first in the United States that required foundations to be designed using LRFD procedures. LRFD has a clear advantage over conventional ASD where variability in material strength, bias in design methodology, and degree of construction quality can be rationally accounted for to achieve an acceptable level of risk."

Jan 1, 2005

By Kenneth Gavin, Weichao Li, Paul Doherty

"The lateral load capacity is one of the most important issues to be considered in designing piles to resist berthing loads, ship impact forces and for monopiles used in the offshore wind sector. A number of semi-empirical design approaches are available to calculate the ultimate soil resistance and assumed soil reaction profile along the piles’ embedded depth. In order to investigate the response of monopiles to lateral loading, a series of field experiments were conducted on instrumented steel pipe piles. Two lateral loading tests were performed on model piles with a diameter, D, of 340 mm and embedded depth, Lem, of 2.2 m, giving a Lem/D ratio similar to those adopted in the offshore wind sector. The piles were driven into dense sand at the University College Dublin geotechnical test bed site in Ireland. 10 pairs of strain gauges were installed on each model pile along the embedded depth at 10 levels to capture the load transfer and bending moment within the piles. The deflection and rotation at the model pile head were measured by Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) and inclinometers. The tests results were used to perform a detailed evaluation of current design methods. In the final section, discussion on the determination of the ultimate lateral load capacity for monopile design was conducted. IntroductionA pile’s lateral load capacity is determined, for design purposes, by two conditions: 1) the ultimate lateral load, Fu, divided by an appropriate safety factor; and 2) the load according to the maximum lateral deflection that the support structures can sustain. In view of the first condition, design methods to calculate the ultimate load were developed for piles used in the offshore oil and gas sectors, which tend to be much more slender than monopiles used in the wind industry. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether these design methods provide reasonable estimates of ultimate capacity, for short rigid monopiles.The methods to determine the ultimate lateral load generally follow three steps: 1) determine the ultimate soil resistance, Pu, along the pile embedded depth; 2) adopt the most appropriate soil reaction profile, Pz, along the piles embedded depth when the pile subjected to the ultimate lateral load condition (four of the most popular ones are depicted in Figure. 1); and 3) ensure equilibrium of lateral forces (see Equation 1, symbols are listed at the end of the paper) acting on the pile and bending moments (see Equation 2) about a point in pile is employed to determine the ultimate lateral load."

Jan 1, 2015

By Andrew Higgins, Jamey Rosen

This presentation will demonstrate some recent advancements in the applications of Project Information Systems (PIMS) technology to seepage barrier walls in the context of evolving Owner Specifications. The use of geospatial technology in particular is used to track, visualize, and analyze data from a variety of sources and serve those data to contractors and owners via dashboards and as-built drawings. Data describing the geometry of construction elements (including diaphragm panels, secant piles, and jet grout columns) is of particular importance on these projects, and this presentation will include case studies in the United States of how these data are used to determine if a barrier wall is constructed as designed and if it meets the owner specifications with respect to tolerance (i.e., if each element is sufficiently close to vertical) and overlap (i.e., do adjacent elements overlap sufficiently to prevent leakage).

May 1, 2022

By Chandramohan P. V

A unique tension pile where the pull is at a point a certain distance below the top of the pile. The pull is transferred by a cable consisting of high tensile strands. The HDPE duct of the cable prevents bond between the strands and pile concrete in upper portion. While soil friction on the pile will act downwards on the whole length, there is tension in the bottom portion of pile, there will be compression at the top portion.

Nov 1, 2022

By Charles Roeder, Amy Leland, Dawn E. Lehman

Concrete filled steel tubes (CFSTs) are composite members that are commonly used in many countries today. CFST components are used in the United States, but they are more common in Asia, in part because the connections used in Asia are quite labor intensive and there are not standard connections in the U.S. In addition, US design specifications are prepared by separate groups for structural steel and reinforced concrete structures and so composite systems that use CFST components are not overseen by a single group and as such there are several, conflicting design standards. In the US, steel tubes used for CFST are more slender (i.e., the diameter-to-thickness, D/t, ratio is larger) than some other countries, and labor practices (structural steel labor is different than reinforcing steel labor) also cause potential conflicts in construction. As a result, CFST has had some use in tall building construction in the US, but very limited use in bridge construction. A research program at the University of Washington has been in progress to address many of these issues with an eye towards universal design expressions, simpler, standardized connections and promotion of accelerated bridge construction (ABC). The research has resulted in recent changes to the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) bridge design specification as well as state departments of transportation (DOTs), which supports the increased use of CFST in bridge pile and drilled-shaft foundations. An experimental research study which investigate the flexural strength, shear strength and connections was conducted. These connections provide good performance under both seismic and gravity loads and address the concerns of US construction. These connections, their design rules and requirements, and their impact on composite behavior and system performance are discussed. These results permit rapid and economical construction of CFST bridge piers, piles and drilled shaft foundations. They encourage the use of more slender and economical tubes, while achieving the benefits of composite construction. INTRODUCTION Concrete filled steel tubes (CFSTs) are widely used for bridge and building construction in Asia, but the use of CFST in bridge construction is limited in the US. The historical use of structural steel and reinforced concrete in US bridge construction have resulted in more developed design expression for those construction methods, which has limited the use of CFST. Bridge construction in the US is inherently different than in Asia because of differences in codes, labor costs and construction practices. As a consequence, design and construction practices that are economical and practical in other countries may not be practical for US bridge construction.

Jan 1, 2019

By Sumantra Sengupta

"Northeast Frontier Railway (NF Railway) intends to connect Imphal, the capital of Manipur (bordering Myanmar) with Assam by railway link. They have planned a 125km long railway line that passes through steep rolling hills of Patkai region, eastern trail of Himalaya, and as a result large number of tunnels and bridges need to be designed. While the high mountains are penetrated by tunnel, the deep gorges between the mountain ridges are connected by tall bridges. The tallest of such bridges connects a gorge at about 140m above its bed level with an overall length about 700m at rail level. In all, five such bridges with tall piers are now under construction. With extensive study on possible alternate arrangement of the bridges considering the effect of high seismicity of the area, moderately to highly weathered siltstone/ sandstone as ground bed material, slope of the hills etc it was decided that bridge will be founded on 1.5m diameter bored cast in situ piles with length varying from 20m to 30m depending on the location. The substructures are RCC hollow pier and superstructures are steel open web through type girder of 103.5m span. Considering absence of any major construction work in the vicinity, it was decided that prior to design work, Site-specific spectrum study will be carried out and design will be carried out considering the varying stiffness of the tall piers, each of different height. Interesting results were obtained regarding behavior of piles under lateral loads generated by high seismic conditions. The paper discusses in detail the design of Pile foundations and the effect of bed material along the steep slope on which the piles are being constructed.INTRODUCTIONIndian Railway has undertaken the construction work of connecting the North-Eastern states of India through railway line. The major stretches of the area passes through hilly terrain and as a result the line passes through tunnels and bridges in succession. The tall mountains are being penetrated with tunnels and immediate after deep gorges are crossed with high level bridges. The entire area is under high seismically active zone. The bed material below the ground level of the sloped hill is 4 to 10 meter of mixed soil of sand, gravel, pebbles etc underlain by moderately to highly weathered sandstone, siltstone at the higher level and moderately weathered sandstone, siltstone at lower level. Considering all the aspects like constructability, maintainability, geological and geotechnical aspect, seismicity, stability, safety, functional aspect and cost it was finally decided that the bridges will be simply supported structure with open web through type steel superstructure of maximum span 103.5m and hollow cylindrical discretely varying RCC substructure with 1.5m diameter group of piles as foundation. The paper discusses on the design aspect of the pile foundation in the rocky strata in the hill slope. The codes and standards that have been followed for design are IRS (Indian Railway Standard), IS (Indian Standard), IRC (Indian Road Congress), AREMA (American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association), UIC (International Union of Railway) provisions."

Jan 1, 2015

By Chris M. Haberfield

The design of side resistance of drilled shafts socketed into rock has traditionally been empirically based on the results of pile loading tests in which the side resistance can be isolated from the side resistance. In practice, this is achieved in one of several ways : loading the pile in tension, using a collapsible base, or by using a device such as an Osterberg cell to load the pile from the base. Although this approach has resulted in generally safe design practice, this has been at the expense of efficient design practice. Safety in design has been achieved through conservatism, which has been necessary because of the large scatter that is evident in the pile socket resistance database (Rowe and Armitage, 1984; Kulhawy and Phoon, 1993). Research at Monash University through the 1980's has been aimed towards understanding and then modelling the complex mechanisms of shear transfer at the concrete-socket interface of sedimentary rocks. Armed with such an understanding, the important factors which affect the strength of pile sockets can be isolated, and the reasons for the large scatter can be deduced. This paper briefly describes the research approach taken, and the main features of the design method and computer program which have now been developed. Some load-settlement predictions of the program are compared with the results of full-scale pile socket tests. The paper then presents the results of a numerical study which relates predicted socket a factors to unconfined compressive strength of the rock, socket diameter, initial normal stress and socket roughness.

Jan 1, 1996

By Nicholas P. Gura

This paper presents the analysis, design, and load test program results for drilled shafts to support a 70-story hotel tower and associated 10 story podium structures located in Las Vegas, Nevada. A mat foundation for the structure, although feasible, would have produced undesirable differential settlements within the high rise tower footprint and at the interface with adjacent lower level podium structures. The resulting foundation system solution for the 70-story, approximately 800-foot long hotel tower was four-foot diameter drilled shafts, extending 100 below shaft cutoff. The design compression capacity for the four foot diameter drilled shaft was 5,000 kips. The load test program proved that the unique Las Vegas valley geology lends itself to efficient installation, precluding the need for engineered slurry or casing. The load testing program included the installation of two four-foot diameter test shafts to 100 feet below theoretical cutoff and the performance of two highly instrumented independent Osterberg load cell tests with maximum sustained test loads of 12,000 kips. Sonic caliper testing was also performed to document actual in-place shaft diameters and verticality. The load test program also provided information necessary for the foundation design of the podium structures. In addition to the tower?s drilled shaft load test program data, continuous flight auger (CFA) pile evaluation and testing was also performed. The CFA testing consisted of traditional ?top down? loading techniques and was performed as an alternative to the recommended shallow drilled shafts for the lower level podium structures. The results of the CFA test program provided supplemental, insightful soil friction data which was used in conjunction with the drilled shaft test program data in evaluating the most appropriate support for the lower level structures.

Jan 1, 2007

By Lucian L. Bogdan

"SummaryActive loaded strand anchors are often used for slope stabilization, retaining walls or tiedown anchors. Normally, strands are tensioned against the structure and wedges are locked inside the anchorages at a certain lock-off load. During the life of the structure, anchors can receive additional loading during a surcharge, seismic event or other activity on the structure.In order to have a reliable ground anchor system, the strand must not slip through the anchorage wedges during its service life. Strand slippage has been reported during lock-off, when dirty wedge plates and wedges have been used. Low lock-off loads are believed to contribute to strand slippage too. Since the initial lock-off load for a ground anchor is usually lower than the lock-load for an equivalent capacity tendon in other types of post-tensioning construction, there is a concern that strand slippage may occur if the load on the anchor increases above the initial lock-off load.Corrosion protection grout, placed after the anchor is locked off, fills the pocket and surrounds the strand and wedges. Some anchor installers believe that the grout will prevent the anchorage from developing additional capacity if the load increases above the initial lock-off load.The load-carrying capacity of an anchorage depends on several factors. Most important are: initial applied load, anchorage geometry, friction between wedge-anchorage-strand and condition of the contact surfaces.The ADSC Anchored Earth Retention Committee considers that the industry should know how wedges behave once the permanent strand anchors are stressed and grouted inside the transition pipe, between wedges and inside the grout cap."

Jan 1, 2005

By Faisal Shalzad, Adnan Anwar Malik, Tadashi Maejima, Jiro Kuwano

Single helix screw piles carry most of the structural load through end-bearing if the helix is embedded in the dense bearing layer. The tip condition of the central shaft of the screw pile can be closed, closed with cutting blades, opened with flat cut, and opened with wedge shape cut and its selection is based on the insitu ground conditions. These different end conditions of the central shaft disturb the ground differently, leading to the change in bearing capacity. In this study, an attempt is made to investigate the effect of open and close-end screw piles on installation effort (installation load and torque) and bearing performance in the dense bearing layer. The model steel screw pile with a pile shaft diameter of 21.7 mm and helix diameter of 43 mm is used in this study. Test results show that the open-end screw pile required less installation effort than the close-end pile that penetrated the bearing layer by 1Dhwith an unplugged condition. Further, the open-end screw pile shows a higher bearing response than the close-end screw pile if it enters the bearing layer with an unplugged condition.

Oct 1, 2022

By W. Morgan NeSmith

"The DFI ACIP Pile Committee, in conjunction with the Florida DOT, completed an ACIP Pile installation monitoring and performance test program in late 2016 to advance the inclusion of ACIP piles in future specifications for bridges by state agencies. Piles of different diameters were installed for compression, tension and lateral testing, and one pile was extracted for visual inspection. This paper presents the pile installation, non-destructive testing and load test results of the program.INTRODUCTION The Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Committee performed a ACIP pile installation and test program in the fall of 2016 to demonstrate a fully monitored installation of 18-in and 24-in diameter ACIP piles. The program included automated and manual installation monitoring, Thermal Integrity Profiling, compression, tension and lateral load testing (including monitoring of strain gages embedded along the compression pile shaft), and post-testing extraction of an installed pile for visual inspection.PROJECT DETAILS AND FIELD EXPLORATION A general program location map along with an aerial view of the property in Okahumpka FL is shown in Figure 1. Two Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) were performed at initial reaction pile locations R-6 and R-8 (Figures 2 and 3) The results from CPT R-6 indicated very loose soil conditions at depths below 55-ft, indicating potential relic sinkhole conditions. The test layout was subsequently rotated and moved south of CPT R-8.TEST PILE INSTALLATION DETAILS Seven piles were installed to either 40-ft or 60-ft below grade. Thermal Integrity Profile (TIP) wires were installed in all piles but varied to include one wire each attached to a steel center bar or one wire attached to the steel center bar AND four additional wires (each) attached the steel reinforcing cage installed in these piles. Additionally, the 24-in lateral and compression piles had four steel or PVC casings installed next to the TIP wires for testing by thermal probe and/or wire inserted into the casing."

Jan 1, 2017

By Peter J. Nicholson

Recognition of the liquefaction susceptibility of dam embankments has been heightened since the San Fernando Dam near failure incident in 1971. Both the downstream and upstream slopes of dams can be at risk for slope failure that can lead to breaching of the dam during or after a seismic event. Many dams have been remediated by various means such as the installation of stone columns or by excavation and replacement of the liquefaction susceptible material. Recent engineering and technology advances in equipment and materials has shown that construction of shear walls to the appropriate depths and at the right center to center spacing may be an economical alternative to the more traditional methods. Recently, the downstream embankments of at least 4 dams, from South Carolina to California, have been, or in the process of being remediated by the use of shear walls. The method of installation has been either multi-axis Cement Deep Soil Mixing walls or walls constructed by the use of trench excavation under self-hardening slurry. Four case histories of dam remediation are discussed, three by multi-axis paddle auger CDSM equipment one with the use of self hardening slurry trenches.

Jan 1, 2008

By Zia Zafir

"Levees in the central valley of California are primarily for flood control purposes and thus are subjected to infrequent hydraulic loading. The primary concern for these levees is their instability due to through and under seepage. Primary seepage control measures are seepage cutoff walls and/or seepage berms. The cutoff walls primarily consist of soil-bentonite (SB) slurry walls. The seepage berm could be a drainage blanket to allow the seepage with controlled exit gradient or an impervious layer to provide enough cover to protect any adverse effects of seepage in terms of sand boils. Although, Sacramento is an area of moderate seismic activity, levees protecting urban areas require assessment for the potential instability due to liquefaction and associated vertical and lateral deformations. In certain cases, the seismic deformations of the levee may not compromise the stability of the levees, but they may cause damage to the seepage control measures. Depending on the nature and extent of the damage, the mitigation measures may require limited or full replacement of the seepage control measures. This paper will provide a systematic assessment of these different types of seepage control measures under vertical and lateral deformations due to liquefaction and lateral spreading under seismic loadings.INTRODUCTIONThere are two broad categories of levees in Central California: levees that are subjected to continuous hydraulic loading such as delta levees and are called frequently loaded levees (FLL) and flood control levees that are subjected to seasonal or infrequent hydraulic loading, called infrequently loaded levees (ILL). This paper will focus on the seismic response of ILL. The probability of ILL experiencing an earthquake at the time of the design flood is very low. Therefore, consequences of seismic failure of flood control levees are only significant in terms of response time required to restore the level of flood protection provided by the levee before the next flood season. An example for this restoration is the restoration of the Pajaro River levees in Santa Cruz, California after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Nevertheless, failure of flood control levees due to a seismic event could result in loss of the entire levee and/or loss of freeboard. In addition, some of the seismic failure of ILL levees may result in loss of seepage control measures such as the soil-bentonite wall.The State of California State approved Senate Bill (SB) 5 in 2007 that mandates for 200-year flood protection to be the minimum level of protection for urban and urbanizing areas in Central California (Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley) by the year 2025. This legislation also requires that urban and urbanizing areas protected by Federal project levees cannot use adequate progress as a condition to approve development after 2025. SB 5 requires that the urban level of flood protection be consistent with criteria used or developed by DWR (Government Code § 65007(k)). To avoid delaying urgently needed flood protection, Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC, 2012) was developed."

Jan 1, 2016