Search Documents

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 'hand mined' 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'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 Dilip Khatri

Helical pile anchors have gained acceptance over the past sixty years. Most recently they have been commonplace in the 20th century for the power utility industry in anchoring transmission towers, equipment platforms, street lighting, telephone poles, and radio tower applications. They have a strong proven industrial track record in these industries. As the cost of conventional deep pile foundations rises, the practical benefits of helical pile anchors becomes evident as a practical alternative. Noted for their uplift capacity, helical piles demonstrate equally strong compressive capacity as a structural foundation element. This paper summarizes the history, practical benefits, and technical requirements for helical piles. Significant structural testing has been completed at various universities. The practical benefits of these tests are discussed. One case example of proven performance is presented to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of helical pile anchors as suitable foundation elements.

Jan 1, 2003

By M. Tominaga

An industrial port complex was constructed on the west coast of Leyte Island The work was started in December 1981 and completed in May 1984. This port complex includes a 665 m long wharf and can accommodate vessels ranging from a 60,000 DWT ore carrier to a 4 000 DWT general cargo ship. It now handles materials for and products from a copper smelter with an annual capacity of 130,000 t and a fertilizer plant with an annual capacity of 900,000 t. The Wharf structures consist mainly of interlocked steel pipe piles, steel sheet piles and steel pipe Piles. Material handling equipment such as unloaders, shiploaders, etc. were installed on the wharf. Site survey, planning, engineering design and construction aspects of the port development are discussed in this paper with particular emphasis on the wharf structure.

Jan 1, 2010

By Franklin M. Grynkewicz

As part of the Boston Harbor clean up project, the new 1,000 mgd Deer Island Sewerage treatment plant includes ten 240 feet high egg-shaped "residuals" tanks. Contract documents called for these structures to be supported on 2,600 sixteen inch concrete filled pipe piles. The project site is underlain by highly variable glacial and marine deposits. Subsurface conditions vary from one extreme where firm glacial deposits exist at subgrade to the other extreme where 70 feet of medium stiff clays overlying weathered bedrock must be dealt with. The most common profile consisted of 15-20 feet of sands, 20-40 feet of marine clays, and 20-60 feet of stratified glacial deposits (commonly called tills) overlying Argillitic bedrock. Post bid redesign work, initiated as a cooperative effort between the owner and the general contractor, demonstrated that an $8 million savings could be realized if high capacity 48 inch diameter caissons replaced the specified pipe piles. A highly unusual arrangement of having the general contractor and specialty subcontractor providing input to the owner's engineering team allowed the redesign work to proceed on a "fast-track" schedule.

Jan 1, 1992

By Alain E. Holeyman

After scoping out the objectives of this general report, the report reviews the three assigned main themes addressed by the papers submitted to the session: pile monitoring, testing, and data processing. It focuses on later developments and on issues requiring clarification, thereby identifying topics for potential discussion. Pile Monitoring does not bring much novelty, except for the integration of IT on construction sites. As far as testing, new developments focus on internal pile loading procedures while more confidence is being gained with dynamic and kinematic load tests. Significant advances are noted in the interpretation of data, where variability of results are coped with, loading rate effects are being better addressed, and more routine use of Finite element analyses are observed. Several many older problems remain while new issues emerge from more recent technologies and approaches.

Jan 1, 2006

By Takashi Saito

Since early 1970?s skirt suction foundations (skirted foundation / bucket foundation) have been used as support for large fixed substructures or anchors for floating structures in offshore hydrocarbon development projects. In recent years skirt suction foundations are recognized as one of the solutions in foundations applicable to bridge substructures installed in waters, because skirt foundations have a wide variety of functions such as control of settlement during service life, less impact to environments during operation at installation site. This paper introduces general features of skirt suction foundations, and then discusses design practice of them for the application to bridge substructures, with reference to experiments in both laboratory and field.

Jan 1, 2013

By Gordon] [Reavis

Halliburton Services and Brown & Root have developed a unique foundation system that blends oilfield and construction technologies to construct deep foundations which offer significant advantages across a variety of soil profiles. This highly efficient system is being developed to meet the construction industry's needs into the 21st Century. Based on a concept initially introduced to Halliburton Services by V.L. Schellhorn in 1987, Halliburton combined their existing cement slurry mixing and pumping technology with oilfield drilling practices and a new tool design to field test the viability of the concept. Results looked encouraging, and Halliburton asked it's sister company, Brown & Root to evaluate and further develop the process. With Brown & Root's knowledge of the construction industry, the original concept has developed into a viable and efficient foundation construction system.

Jan 1, 1993

By Jorj O. Osterberg

The Osterberg (O-Cell) Method makes it possible to separate the side shear resistance (skin friction) from end bearing. The O-Cell is placed on or near the bottom of a drilled shaft and after the concrete is poured and cured, an equal upward and downward pressure is applied. From the test, the load-upward deflection curve in side shear and the load-downward deflection curve in end bearing are drawn. Typical curves are shown where the ultimate load in side-shear is reached and where the ultimate load in end bearing is reached. Several examples of tests in which the test load reached ultimate loads far in excess of what was expected are shown. The side shear in rock sockets is shown to be much larger than generally estimated. Examples are given of where side shear is smaller than expected and the reasons discussed. Disturbance of the sides of drilled holes due to poor construction techniques and ways to avoid these conditions are considered. Examples of bottom hole disturbance are given and ways to prevent the disturbance are discussed. A graph showing the actual measured capacity of drilled shafts compared to the estimated capacity as a function of the hardness and strength of the soil or rock is presented.

Jan 1, 1999

By Derrick D. Dasenbrock

Three piers of a new river bridge are supported on 1.067 m diameter open-end steel pipe piles. At time of drive, and after pile re-strikes, high-strain dynamic capacity values at plan tip elevations, were as low as 23% of design requirements. Pile lengths were extended 20% to 40% deeper than planned at two piers, driving to rock, impacting both the project cost and schedule. The significant discrepancy between predicted and observed capacity was investigated through a series of coordinated dynamic tests; a full-scale test pile was installed and monitored over 221 days by both dynamic and quasi-static methods. Unusually slow strength gains were observed by dynamic monitoring on all piles installed at the site. CPT soundings were advanced at the test pile and through the pile interior to investigate the soil plug. High-strain dynamic methods were found to have significant limitations in properly assessing the long-term capacity of large-diameter open-end pipe piles during driving and short-term pile re-strikes. As the benefits of large diameter high-capacity open-end pipe piles are numerous, the geotechnical community needs to address appropriate construction monitoring and control of these foundation types to take full advantage of these systems. An improved understanding of the physical effects of pile installation and the impact on soil strength assessment while driving and long term soil strength gain should be developed and incorporated into both design and monitoring procedures to avoid either unsafe or needlessly costly designs.

Jan 1, 2006

By Paul J. Sabatini, Yazen A. Khasawneh

"A Demag CC1800 crawler crane was partially erected on crane mats adjacent to a seawall when settlements near a corner of the crane mat area were observed to be slightly larger than previously assessed. A ground improvement program including installation of dry soil cement mix (DSM) piers was implemented to improve soil bearing capacity. Due to near-surface obstructions, only 75 percent of the DSM piers were installed to the design depth. Because of the partial installation of the DSM piers, an evaluation of the crane pad stability and the effect of the crane loading on the stability of an adjacent 10-ft high concrete seawall, which was believed to have limited (if any) reserve capacity, was required. A two-dimensional finite element model was developed to evaluate the responses of the partially improved ground and the sea wall to the loads imposed by the crane. Geotechnical site investigation and laboratory testing programs were performed to better define the subsurface conditions near the area where settlements occurred and to provide the required mechanical parameters for the soil constitutive model. Analysis results indicate that total and differential settlements of the crane pad and the increase in load on the seawall were tolerable provided limited excavation and replacement of weak dredged soils outside the DSM area would be implemented.INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUNDA Demag CC1800 was erected on 8 ft × 16 ft crane lattice mats at about 12 ft from an existing seawall. Approximately 3.5 in. of subsidence was observed at one corner of the crane mats, while the crane was partially erected and stationary. The approximate location of the crane mats with respect to the existing seawall when the subsidence occurred is shown on Fig. 1.The seawall consists of a reinforced concrete wall connected by reinforced concrete bents to a composite section of sheet pile wall; the total depth of the seawall is about 29 ft. The bents are spaced at about 20’4” and supported by five piles at each bent location. The composite sheet pile consists of concrete and a sheet pile section with a reinforced concrete wale section. The retaining wall is about 10 ft in height and is supported at three levels. The first support level comprises a 2-½” diameter steel rod near the top of the wall spaced at 40’8” the second and third level supports comprise 1-½” diameter steel rods spaced at about 5’6”. The second level support is inclined at about 10 degrees below horizontal and the third level support is oriented horizontally through the wall footing. A schematic of the seawall section is shown on Fig. 2.A geotechnical site investigation was implemented soon after the subsidence was observed. The program included advancing four borings to a depth ranging from 16 ft below ground surface (bgs) to about 30 ft bgs. In general, the investigation showed sandy material (likely fill that was used behind the retaining wall) from the ground surface in two borings located immediately behind the retaining wall. The other two borings furthest from the retaining wall showed very soft to soft clay (possibly dredged material) from the ground surface to a depth of about 10 ft bgs. Based on this information, the ultimate bearing capacity of the subsoils was estimated to range from 1,200 to 2,000 pounds per square feet (psf). From the anticipated crane loading (weight of the crane and loading lifts), a minimum allowable bearing capacity of about 1,500 psf would be required for safe operation. To achieve the required bearing capacity a ground improvement program was selected and implemented."

Jan 1, 2017

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

By Bruce Haldeman

Timber has been used as pile support for structures for 6,000 years. Some means of preservation of wood go back almost that far. Timber piles support all types of structures ? some are buried below the water table; others raise a home for protection from animals or a chief's home for prestige. Millions of wood piles have been driven for bridge support. Earlier piles were driven by hand then by ingeniously raised weights. Charring, animal fats and oils have been used for preservation. Coal tar creosote and other preservative methods started only in the early 1800's and give effective protection.

Jan 1, 1984

Precast prestressed concrete piles designed to be end-bearing in a sand stratum at Drax Power Station met with extremely variable resistance during driving. Some piles came to virtual refusal almost immediately on entering the sand whereas others were driven to considerable penetration with very low resistance. Redriving and load tests on piles experiencing low resistance on initial drive showed that take up in strength occurred over a relatively short period of time. Investigations involving the use of pneumatic piezometers revealed the development of significant excess pore pressures during driving. Samples from boreholes showed that piles met the least resistance when the sand had a high silt content. Comparison with the original site investigation data demonstrated the difficulties in predicting detailed pile behaviour. The varied behaviour could not be related to the original borehole logs or to SPT or static cone penetrometer results. The factors controlling pile driving behaviour were essentially geological and could only be explained with reference to local soil grading.

Jan 1, 1989

By Tracy Brettmann

A new method for estimating ground vibrations caused by pile driving was developed as a result of a vibration monitoring program performed for a large pile driving project. The method is accurate, rational and theoretically based starting with energy actually transmitted to the pile (not the rated or operating hammer energy). This energy is then assumed to be transmitted to the soil in the form of surface waves that attenuate from both geometric and material damping. The main input parameters for this method include the energy transmitted to the pile and the dynamic properties of the soil (wave velocity, material damping, and unit weight). In this study we concurrently measured both: (1) pile driving of 14-in.-square, 65-ft-long precast concrete piles with a Pile Driving Analyzer?, and (2) vibration levels at various distances away from the piles during driving. A geotechnical study for the site was also performed that included measurement of the dynamic soil properties using both crosshole and seismic cone testing. This paper presents the data obtained from the study and compares the results to the values estimated using this new method. Vibrations from pile driving is a serious matter that impacts virtually every pile driving project. It is important that accurate methods for estimating ground vibrations be available to engineers and contractors.

Jan 1, 1999

By George J. Tamara

The urban environment presents special challenges for the design and construction of earth retention systems. Complications arising from difficult subsurface conditions are compounded by the presence of urban infrastructure and existing and prior construction. The proximity of adjacent structures as well as intense prior use can cause special concerns including the potential for archeological artifacts or contaminated ground or ground water. Utilities and structures may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of ground movement, dewatering and vibrations. Difficulty of access, congestion and limited work areas may severely restrict means and methods of construction. Dewatering may be limited or prohibited because of concerns for disposal of clean or contaminated water, depletion of aquifers, drawing of contaminants to the site or dewatering induced settlements.

Jan 1, 2003

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 Ali Ameli

Design loads are limited for piles relying upon toe stresses in rock due to uncertainty about the rock quality over the whole pile diameter because of rock mass properties or construction effects. The paper discusses the use of video images to evaluate rock quality at the bottom of piles socketed into graniodorite bedrock in a steel pipe pile project. Skillful interpretation was required to assess the 3D properties of the rock from video images. It is necessary to observe the rock mass characteristics near the project site for better perception of the rock features from the images. Video image interpretation skills were established by the evaluation of the cores drilled under the socket base and the results of pile loading tests. Correlations were found between rock appearance in the images and the rock socket drilling records. Rock socket acceptance criteria were developed through monitoring the drilling operations for the specific site procedures. Video images then served as one of the quality-assurance tools together with probing and pile loading test. Lessons and methods learned from video inspection in this project could be used to evaluate rock quality in similar cases.

Jan 1, 2006

By Anthony D. Barley

Over 60,000 multiple anchors have been used internationally since their introduction in the early 1990s, including 1000 in the United States. The multiple anchor system comprises a "multiple" of "unit" anchors installed within a single borehole - each unit anchor being staggered within the borehole length to mobilize its own capacity independently of the other unit anchors. These systems offer higher capacity than conventional anchors with identical bond lengths due to superior load transfer efficiency. The use of higher capacity anchors may allow reduction in the number of anchors required on a project, which results in time and cost benefits to the anchor installer, contractor, and the owner. Fully removable temporary multiple anchors are available, and have been used with consistent success. Three case histories are discussed highlighting the use of these systems

Jan 1, 2002

By Brian R. Zuckerman

The Capitol Area East End Complex is currently being constructed under contract with the State of California Department of General Services on two sites adjacent to the grounds of the California State Capitol Building in downtown Sacramento. The complex will consolidate the headquarters of the Departments of Health Services and Education, which currently occupy several facilities located throughout Sacramento. When completed in 2003, the complex will be the largest civic office project in California history, with approximately 1.5 million square feet of office space and housing nearly 6,300 state workers. The total project is being constructed on five separate blocks in downtown Sacramento, Blocks 171 through 174 and 225. Separate design/build contracts were executed for the construction on Blocks 171 through 174 and the construction on Block 225. The scope of this paper is limited to construction on Blocks 171 through 174, which comprise a square, two blocks on a side, bounded by 15th, 17th, L, and N streets, located immediately to the east of Capitol Park and the State Capitol Building, as pictured in the image shown below.

Jan 1, 2002

By Mark DeSalvatore

Currently, at Caltrans, the Office of Structure Design is carrying out an extensive seismic retrofit program involving transportation structures throughout California. The goal of the retrofit program has been to upgrade existing transportation structures to meet the present seismic codes and anticipated loads that are generated during a seismic event Part of the retrofit program involves retrofitting existing structure foundations when required. To determine if the foundations of a specific structure need to be retrofitted, an engineering analysis of the existing foundations has to be done. If the engineering analysis of the structure foundations determines that the foundations will not meet the load carrying demands required by the structural engineer, the existing foundations are then retrofitted. The retrofit projects that require foundation modifications can be separated into two general cases. The first case comprises structures where the original designs will not meet the demands of the present seismic design code. In this case, the existing foundations are not capable of providing the load capacities the current seismic code requires. The second case consists of structures where the retrofitting of the superstructure will increase the required load carrying capacity of the existing foundations during a seismic event In this case, the anticipated load demands on the existing foundations are greater than the foundations are capable of providing. For either of the cases listed above, the present strategy for increasing the capacity of the existing structure foundation consists of installing tiedown anchors or large capacity piles to provide the required resistance to seisraically induced loads.

Jan 1, 1993