Search Documents

By John P. Turner

The behavior of tieback retaining walls depends on many factors, including soil properties, groundwater conditions, construction sequence, spacing and stiffness of tiebacks and soldier piles, tieback loads, and others. The primary design considerations for tieback walls are 1) adequate stability and 2) limiting wall movements. Traditional design methods rely on apparent earth pressure diagrams and experience to predict the forces which must be supported by the tiebacks to provide adequate stability. The required soil properties depend upon whether the soil is sand, soft clay, or stiff clay. Design to limit wall movements is more difficult and the usual approach is to design the wall with an adequate factor of safety for stability and then evaluate wall movements during construction through the use of load tests on individual tiebacks and monitoring of wall movements by optical surveying, slope indicators, and extensometers. If excessive movements are likely to occur, it is often not known until construction is well underway. This approach is reflected in the fact that few tieback walls fail due to a lack of adequate stability, while most litigation involving tieback wall performance is related to excessive movements. Much progress has been made in recent years in methods for predicting the movement of all types of insitu retaining walls (Clough et al. 1989, Clough and O'Rourke 1990). These methods are based upon both experience and analytical methods. This paper reviews the methods currently available for evaluating both the stability and movements of tieback retaining walls. Case histories involving excavations constructed in the downtown Seattle area are used to evaluate the applicability of the available methods to Seattle conditions and to illustrate the importance of soil behavior in tieback wall performance.

Jan 1, 1990

By Ziyad Abunada, David O’Connor, Abir Al-Tabbaa

"Abstract Contaminated land remediation using soil mix technology (SMT) is a relatively recent development which has been shown to be a cost effective and versatile system with numerous environmental advantages over other remediation techniques. The added complexities and variability associated with contaminated sites has escalated the need for field trials, field monitoring and specific QC measures to be undertaken for this setting and was the rationale behind project SMiRT (Soil Mix Remediation Technology). The main aim of project SMiRT was field validation, testing and assessment to provide stakeholder confidence in SMT and increase its uptake for land remediation in the UK. The field trials involved the treatment of 800 m3 of soil, through applying six different remediation techniques with four different SMT systems and introducing over thirty binders and binder compositions with a range of installation methodologies. Various issues were faced during the installation process and which were addressed on site. This paper presents some aspects of early age field observations, field monitoring, in-situ testing, coring and laboratory testing of cored samples and highlights some lessons learnt, providing valuable information on the issues that need to be addressed for this application of SMT.IntroductionAlthough soil mix technology (SMT) was developed in the 1960s in Japan and Sweden for geotechnical applications, its potential in geo-environmental applications became evident more recently the 1980s in the US and in the 1990s in Europe, having since increased to provide a range of remediation systems (Al-Tabbaa and Evans, 2003; Al-Tabbaa et al., 2011). The most common applications to date have been (a) the construction of low permeability containment walls or cut-off walls to contain a contaminated site; (b) stabilisation/solidification (S/S) treatment, with cementitious binders, for physical and chemical encapsulation of contaminants in soils and (c) the installation of permeable reactive barriers (RPBs), which are permeable walls that intercept the groundwater flow and remove contaminants from it, by mixing special additives with the native soil. Contaminated land remediation using SMT is a cost effective and versatile approach with numerous technical and environmental advantages over other remediation techniques. These advantages include the use of simple and well established techniques and equipment, speedy implementation, applicability to sites of any size and to multiple contaminants, elimination of off-site disposal, low risk and low emissions. There is a lack of competing alternative technologies that offer the same level of versatility and economic, environmental and social benefits, under current environmental legislation constraints. In addition, most currently available contaminated land remediation techniques are only partially effective, and are relatively contaminant-specific. This makes SMT a promising and timely contender to lead the market place in offering a cost-effective, efficient and low risk solution to contaminated soil and groundwater remediation and has resulted in a range of recent innovations."

Jan 1, 2014

By Dennis W. Boehm

The building boom of the late 1970's and early 1980's has all but used up most of the better sites across the more populated metropolitan areas of the United States. This means that current buildings and other types of structures are being founded on more marginal sites. The use of marginal sites has placed ever-increasing quality control on the installation of the deep foundation systems utilized for these sites. Several remedial techniques are available for the repair of the deep foundation systems. These include minipiles, compaction grouting and jet grouting. Eight case histories are cited where these methods have been utilized to repair deep foundations.

Jan 1, 1999

By Sheryl D. Gallagher

The project consisted of filling an abandoned underground limestone mine to facilitate construction of a new entrance ramp to I-470 in Lee?s Summit, Missouri. Due to collapse of mined areas near the project site, design included determination of the limits of remediation for the project and minimum construction requirements for mine infilling. The Judy Company, contractor selected for the mine infilling, experimented in the laboratory with several grout mixes to determine the appropriate mix for the project. Infilling was accomplished from the ground surface, and camera observation was used to monitor the barrier wall construction and infilling process. It was discovered that some of the mapped rooms were larger and some were smaller than indicated on the construction plan.

Jan 1, 2009

By Antal Partos

ATLAS Processing Company Shrevesport, LA initiated a major plant expansion in 1980. SITE Engineers, Inc. provided engineering consultation regarding the foundation of the vacuum unit. Four test borings were drilled and laboratory testing completed for shear strength and compressibility. Vertical drains were proposed to accelerate time rates of settlements. Steel erection was completed by May 22, 1981 with very small < 0.1 in., settlements. Hydrotesting was initiated on July 9, 1981 and completed on August 27, 1981. An average rebound of 0.3 in. was computed resulting into an average net settlement of 0.5 in. This paper describes in detail soil behavior during load testing.

Jan 1, 1992

By Tracy Brettmann

Equipment ? Hollow Stem Auger ? Drill Bits ? Leads/Torque Arm ? Hydraulic Gearbox ? Hydraulic Power Unit ? Grout Pump ? Crawler Crane

Jan 1, 2004

By G. Sauer

"More Skill is needed to avoid rather than to handle heavy ground loads." This finding, from a tunneling engineer of the nineteenth century, is still relevant today with all advanced sequential excavation and support methods available whether they are applied in the vertical or horizontal direction. Balanced contractual agreements and documents are important since they provide the spirit and climate at the site. This article aims to describe the means and measures for &apos;hand mined&apos; shaft and tunnel support as they are available today. Some special construction elements and methods with a perspective in recent developments in order to avoid getting stuck in conservatism are presented as well. If we don&apos;t allow new methods, means and measures we may end up with the famous quote "Only women who have already proven they are able to give birth to a healthy baby are allowed to become pregnant!"

Jan 1, 2003

By G. G. Goble

Dynamic pile testing is now over 20 years old as a routinely applied tool for evaluating driven pile installation. The first test on a cast-in-place pile was performed more that 15 years ago. The research that produced the method began almost 30 years ago. But, questions still arise regarding the appropriate use of this technique so some review is useful. Today a number of methods including dynamic testing all depending in some way on the application of dynamics are in routine use. First, Wave Equation analysis can be used to predict pile driveability before going to the field. The same approach can be used during driving to estimate the bearing capacity based on the blow count observed in the field. Dynamic measurements, on the other hand, can only be used after pile driving has begun. They offer predictions of pile capacity as well as measurements of hammer, driving system, and pile driving performance characteristics. The first part of this paper will be devoted to discussing how the foundation engineer can use these tools. First, a brief review of what dynamic methods actually do. In Wave Equation analysis a numerical model of the hammer, driving system, pile, and the soil is created by the engineer. The hammer is dropped on the pile and using a discrete, dynamic analysis the motion of the individual pile elements is calculated as a function of time. Of course, input information must be supplied by the program user to describe the hammer, driving system, pile, and soil. In the current state of development, the primary problem in input data is with the hammer performance (efficiency) and the soil description. Research may be able to do a better job with the soil data, but hammer performance will always vary from hammer to hammer and is dependent on the affectiveness of the inspection process. Prior to beginning pile driving the Wave Equation analysis supplies the best available estimate of what will happen when driving begins. It gives an estimate of blow count during driving, driving stresses, both tension and compression in the pile, and for diesel hammers, stroke. The selection of the driving system can be checked with the results of Wave Equation analysis and modifications can be made if required. For example, if the blow count at the required capacity was deemed excessive by the contractor a larger hammer could be tried or if driving stresses were too high changes could be made in the cushion or the hammer selection could be modified. All of these modifications are possible with only the cost of a computer run. The primary questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of Wave Equation analysis at this time is with regard to the assumptions made to represent the soil characteristics and the difficulty in predicting hammer performance.

Jan 1, 1993

By Peter Florian

At 5:50 am on October 1, 1992, the new $800 million Pittsburgh International Airport Midfield Terminal opened its gates to the world after five years of construction and more than 24 years of planning. Despite numerous design changes, this massive project was completed on time and substantially within budget. The importance of this airport to Allegheny County and the Pittsburgh region was recognized 24 years earlier by Allegheny County Commissioners Tom Foerster and the late Leonard Staisey. Staisey and Foerster established a program to acquire land for the "Airport of the Future".

Jan 1, 1993

GENERAL CONTRACTOR: ALEXANDER CONSTRUCTORS, INC. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: CAGLEY & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: F.T. KITLINSKI & ASSOCIATES, INC. PILE FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR: L.G. BARCUS AND SONS, INC. PROJECT PROFILE: 108-10 in. diameter AugerPiles installed to an approximate depth of 32 ft. Piles were installed through Stiff Clayey Fill and Medium-Dense Sands to Decomposed Shale. Piles were drilled to a refusal criteria of 1 ft. / 3 min. Piles were installed using a Barcus Mantis AugerPile rig which is large enough to install piles 25 to 50 ft. long outdoors. The Mantis is also ideal for indoor and low overhead installations. On top of being extremely versatile, the Mantis is also very economical to mobilize. The existing structure is supported on H-Piles. The AugerPiles were furnished and installed for less than the material price of the H-Piles. Design loads were under 40 tons which eliminated the need for a load test. AugerPiles were selected for minimal vibration, limited noise, and economy.

Jan 1, 2001

By Robert B. Bittner

"AbstractLarge diameter tubular piles offer significant advantages in terms of design performance and economy for major marine structures. This is particularly true for foundations of major overwater bridges in regions of high seismicity such as the west coast of North America. The use of large diameter piles in the range of 2 to 3 m diameter means that fewer piles are required, and the size and mass of the pile caps can be significantly reduced, thereby greatly reducing lateral load demand during seismic events. Another advantage of using larger diameter piles is increased pile stiffness that allows the pile caps to be located at or near the waterline rather than being positioned at or below the mud line. This elevating of the pile cap offers significant cost savings by eliminating the need for deep cofferdams. However, relocation of the pile cap creates new problems and opportunities in regard to the means and methods used to construct the pile cap. With the pile cap at depth, conventional steel sheet pile cofferdams with thick tremie seals are typically used to isolated the cap location and allow dewatering for construction of the cap. However with pile caps positioned up off the bottom, conventional bottom founded cofferdams are no longer cost efficient. Float-in or lift-in cofferdams have been developed to address the need for a more cost efficient method for cap construction. This paper describes the key features of the concept and provides three case history examples of its successful implementation.Pier Construction Using Conventional Sheet-Pile CofferdamsCofferdams are temporary structures used in the construction of bridge piers and other marine structures. Their primary purpose is to hold out water and unstable soil from the construction area, and thereby, allow in-the-dry construction of the permanent structure below the water line and quite often below the mud line. Typically, cofferdams consist of long interlocking steel sheet piles driven through water into the bottom of the waterway. The sheet piles form temporary exterior walls which are typically braced internally with wales and struts. The bottom of the cofferdam is typically sealed with tremie concrete or an impervious clay layer if one exists. The depth at which this type of cofferdam can be used is typically limited by the length of steel sheet pile that can be transported and handled by conventional marine equipment."

Jan 1, 2014

By P. Ventura

Reliability of the liquefaction analysis is based on data plotted as by piezocone, as by deep vibrocompactation monitored tests. The negative porewater pressure, re lated to hydrostatic value, recorded by piezocone, is a good marker of the absen ce of the liquefaction. Systematic measures of the ground settlements, inside the vibroinfixed steel pipe, allow to locate the liquefable strata with loose density. Experimental study of the combined soil improvement by stone columns is carry out in particular in sea bed. The interaxis of the columns for the best efficiency is valued as of the vibrocompactation, as of the drainage effects, especially during earthquake.

Jan 1, 1989

By Sanjeev Malhotra

The American Petroleum Institute (API) method of predicting pile capacities in sands is reviewed. Factors that influence pile capacity such as soil parameters, pile parameters, loading effects and installation effects are listed. In addition, the simultaneous occurrence of physical phenomena such as grain crushing, pile shaking, stress-redistribution and plugging add to the uncertainty in the prediction model. To better understand the method of prediction, each parameter and the associated uncertainty is revisited. It is evident that these factors are inter­related and sometimes compensating. This discussion also draws attention to the influence that pile installation procedures can have on pile capacities and highlights the need for field experience with various pile installation procedures for designers. In summary, the strength of the method lies in its simplicity and ease of application, but the possible savings generated by an improved method are too substantial to ignore.

Jan 1, 2000

By Frank Rausche

Since the early 1980s, when the Road Construction Authority of Victoria authorized the dynamic proof testing of roughly 100 drilled shafts of 1.5 m diameter and typically 60 m length in Melbourne Australia, dynamic load testing has been applied worldwide for quality control of drilled shafts. Today, test capacities of 4000 tons or more are not unusual. On numerous occasions the authors have been involved in similar tests in the United States and test engineers from other countries have reported on experiences in many different countries. Without doubt, generating high test loads is most economically accomplished by dynamic load testing and this method is particularly well suited for testing piles founded in rock because of the rocks low energy dissipation. However, deep foundation professionals have on occasion expressed reservations about subjecting a drilled shaft to impact loadings fearing, for example, a degradation of the shaft ? rock interface properties or potential error sources due to uncertain concrete properties or shaft geometry. This paper will present numerous case studies, demonstrating the performance of rock socketed drilled shafts under dynamic loads. It will discuss the mechanics of the dynamic tests and the method of data interpretation, addressing the concerns stated above and investigating the limitations of the test method. The paper will formulate a set of recommendations for the design and execution of these tests.

Jan 1, 2006

By Fawad S. Niazi

Ever since the use of the cone penetration test (CPT) in geotechnical practice, attempts have been made to correlate CPT parameters with pile capacity components of unit end bearing (qb) and unit shaft resistance (fp), thus deriving multiple CPT-based pile design methods. These methods focus on "capacity" only without consideration to complete axial pile load-displacement (Q-w) response. Estimated capacities from these methods also exhibit considerable scatter without any consensus on their consistency. In addition, load-displacement curves obtained from axial load tests on highly expensive and extensively instrumented piles can exhibit different shapes. Nevertheless, a single value from the curve so obtained dictates the design capacity. Currently, there are at least 42 different criteria defining capacity with considerable variation in the values obtained thereof. The Randolph elastic solution, which provides a framework for analytical evaluation of pile load-displacement response, requires the profiles of soil stiffness. The fundamental soil stiffness defined by the small-strain shear modulus (Gmax) can be obtained from shear wave velocity (Vs) readings via seismic piezocone tests (SCPTu). The secant stiffness (G), which softens from Gmax corresponding to operational load levels, can be obtained by generating stiffness reduction curves from back analysis of load tests. Then, using appropriate G values, the Q-w curve can be defined for conditions similar to the database from the pseudo strain (w/d). Thus, a complete framework for optimal integration of SCPTu data, Randolph elastic solution and back-analysis of field operational stiffness can be established for complete axial pile foundation analysis.

Jan 1, 2011

By Seth L. Pearlman

A major excavation support case history for the Eastern approach to the Third Harbor Tunnel (THT) in Boston, MA is described, which uses an anchored Soil Mixed Wall (SMW). Both general and project specific information is provided regarding the design and construction of SMW walls. In addition, conclusions are presented that discuss the suitability of this particular application and other possible variations.

Jan 1, 1993

By Howard A. Perko, M. Mae Benvenga, Heather H. Trantham

Displacement of soil and groundwater during helical pile installation can produce excess pore water pressures (PWP) in fine-grained soils. Pore water pressure reduces effective stress in the soil immediately adjacent to the helical pile shaft and near the helical piles. Previous studies have shown generation of PWP may affect the capacity to torque ratios of the helical bearing elements. Large diameter helical piles that generate much of their torque and capacity from shaft adhesion are affected by PWP and therefore exhibit significant pile "freeze" after installation. Computer modeling is used herein to evaluate PWP immediately adjacent to helical pile shafts during installation in various soil types. The models show the degree and distance from the shaft that is influenced by PWP during installation and the amount of time required for the PWP to dissipate. Pile freeze has been measured on several project sites by re‐torque measurements. These re-torque data are compared with computer modeling and correlations between saturated hydraulic conductivity and dissipation time are presented and discussed. INTRODUCTION Helical piles are full-displacement piles, meaning installation does not produce drill spoil. Soil is displaced laterally as the pile progresses into the ground. This displacement of soil causes an increase in PWP, which reduces adhesion between the pile and the soil. For helical piles with small-diameter shafts, adhesion contributes little to the overall capacity and torque of the pile, so PWP changes are not typically considered in determining pile capacity. In modern construction, the use of larger diameter helical piles has become very common. For large-diameter helical piles, changes in PWP immediately adjacent the shaft can be quite large during installation. Increased pore water pressure and reduced adhesion can have a temporary effect on pile capacity and installation torque.

Jan 1, 2018

By J. Moskowitz

Construction of the new JFK International Airport Light Rail System (LRS) began in 1998 with a pre-construction load test program. This $1.2 billion design-build project consists of approximately 13 kilometers of elevated twin rail. The elevated rail system is supported on nearly 500 piers requiring deep foundations. The presence of underlying compressible and liquefiable soils as well as space constraints precluded the use of large spread footings. In the 1980&apos;s the Port Authority undertook extensive testing to evaluate various piles and drilled shafts types. The LRS piling sub-contractor and the Geotechnical Engineer conducted additional tests for this project to identify the most cost effective deep foundation type. Candidate piles types included: Monotube®, Tapertube®, and closed ended pipe piles. The tapered pile types were found to be the most cost effective and the project utilized both the Monotube® and Tapertube® piles. This paper presents the results of the load test program and the issues related to pile driving induced vibrations and ground movement.

Jan 1, 2000

By Alexander Filotti, Richard Kalson

"1. INTRODUCTION- WHAT IS P3 OR PPP ?The Public Private Partnership (PPP or 3P) is a project delivery scheme based on the government providing land and/or a concession agreement, and on a private entity providing the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the project for an extensive duration of time (up to thirty years). At the end of the operation-maintenance period, the project is turned over to the public entity, which fully owns the project at all times. While there are many PPP delivery schemes used around the world, for the present paper, we are going to analyze the impact of the Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) scheme on the deep foundation specialty subcontractor. There are couple of reasons that the PPP delivery system started to be used and implemented not only by developed nations (e.g. United Kingdom, USA etc.), but also by the International Development Bank for delivering major infrastructure projects in developing nations. From the point of view of government agencies, some of the reasons to use PPP are the following:??The primary use of private capital in an era where borrowing and/or supplemental taxation represents too much of a political risk. Budget deficits and taxation limits are extremely hot topics in every election (national or local) and the level of education of the electorate in this area is making it more and more difficult for politicians to use borrowed funds and additional taxation finance sources for public projects. At the same time, we see an increase in the social expenditures of the government in parallel with a needed increase in expenditures on infrastructure due to aging and neglect.??Bundling the construction risks with the operational and maintenance risks naturally pushes the private entity to increase the level of innovation and communications in the primary phase ( the construction phase) in order to develop future process based upon the innovation and communications utilized in the operation and maintenance phase of the project. This is true if contractual incentives are properly structured because “all revolves around incentives. In a world of ‘incomplete’ contracts, where it is difficult to foresee and contract about uncertain future events, it is important to get the incentive structure right” (Grimsey and Lewis, 2004).??The transfer of very expensive risks such as differing site conditions, schedule, design, construction, maintenance and operation costs from the public authority to the private entity.??The timespan of development and construction of a PPP project is usually shorter than the traditional procurement process (e.g. “ the I-595 P3 provided capacity improvements fifteen years sooner than a conventional plan would have offered. In Maryland, an innovative expansion of the Seagirt Marine Terminal in the Port of Baltimore was completed two years ahead of schedule due to the P3 model. As a result, the Port of Baltimore is only the second port on the US East Coast to have unrestricted access to both a fully functioning 50-foot channel and 50-foot berth.”)"

Jan 1, 2017

A technical exhibition was held in conjunction with the 4th DFI International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Stresa. The exhibition was located in the ground floor of the Conference Hall. It was open from 15.30 on Monday April 8 till 16.30 Thursday April 11, 1991. The following is an alphabetical list of firms who took part. 1) A.P. VAN DEN BERG MACHINENFABRIEK B.V. P.O. BOX 68 8440 AB HEERENVEEN The Netherlands Tel: +31 5130 31355 Fax: +31 5130 31212 Stand Executive: A. Duyfjies

Jan 1, 1994