Search Documents

By James A. Mason

The State of California has instrumented numerous buildings, bridges, and dams throughout the state with earthquake recording devices. These accelerometers are strategically placed to measure the response of the structure to a specific seismic event. This comprehensive program enlightens the field of seismic engineering after each earthquake. The Office of Strong Motion Studies, California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, a sub-branch of the Division of Mines and Geology, provides a professional service unequalled in the world. Within hours of a local earthquake, a preliminary report with the epicenter / hypocenter, structural damage, and time history records are available to all interested parties. The included partial report in the appendix, see section 5.1, is one of the reports that C.S.M.I.P. produced after the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17,1989. The diagram on the cover is even of interest. This is a small portion of San Francisco. The values on the diagram are the recorded maximum horizontal ground accelerations at that location in the city. For example, the acceleration at Yerba Buena Island was 0.06g. (The "g" refers to the acceleration of gravity. Thus, a 0.06g acceleration refers to the force, F=m*a, that the structure would experience. For this case, the force would be six percent, 6 % , of the mass of the structure.) Yet, directly on the other side of the Bay Bridge, at Treasure Island, the acceleration was 0.16g. Yerba Buena Island is a natural island composed of hard granular material. Whereas, Treasure Island is a man-made island of imported filled. Here one can see the absorption / transmission difference between hard material, which interact with short seismic wavelengths, and soft cohesive material, which interact with long seismic wavelengths.

Jan 1, 1993

By Donald Bruce

The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: ? Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. ? Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. ? Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications. Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.

Jan 1, 2004

By Joint Micropiles Committee

"The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: • Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. • Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. • Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications.Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.The owner, designer and contractor will together be responsible for the tasks associated with the design, installation, acceptance, and performance of the micropiles. The installation of micropiles requires specialized equipment, techniques, and appropriate workmanship. Not every detail of the work can be specified, and not every potential problem can be anticipated. Therefore, a contractor who has demonstrated experience in micropiles must be selected to execute the work required."

Jan 1, 2004

By William J. Neely

Augercast piles are formed by drilling a continuous-flight auger into the ground and, on reaching the required depth, sand-cement grout or concrete is pumped down the hollow stem as the auger is withdrawn. The sides of the hole are supported at all times by the soil-filled auger, eliminating the need for temporary casing or bentonite slurry. The augercast piling method is fast and economical; there is no vibration, very little noise and, if executed properly, no ground displacements during installation. The method is well suited to sands which are easy to drill and are readily transported up the auger. Relatively little attention has been given to augercast piles in the literature which might be part of the reason for the considerable variations in local practice, building code requirements and design methods. The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the features of augercast pile installation that are known to influence both the structural and geotechnical capacity of the pile, to evaluate several empirical design methods and to look at some important aspects of quality control of augercast pile installation.

Jan 1, 1990

By K. Rainer Massarsch, Bengt H. Fellenius

"Abstract Vibration limits for buildings with respect to ground vibrations from pile driving published in international standards are reviewed. At first, relevant vibration parameters are defined and the evaluation of vibration records is described. The sensitivity of structures to different vibration parameters (displacement, velocity and acceleration) is discussed. Most vibration standards relate to blasting activities, the dynamic characteristics of which can be significantly different to those from construction activities and in particular, pile driving. Several vibration standards are reviewed. The Swedish vibration standard is described in detail, as it is the only one accounting for several important factors, such as ground conditions, building material, and type of building foundation. Many standards limit the guidance to values based on the dominant vibration frequency and a wide scatter of frequency-dependent vibration limits exists. It is difficult to compare limiting values of ground vibrations proposed in different standards.1. INTRODUCTIONFor poor ground conditions, placing structures on piles is the most common foundation solution, while sheet piles are widely used to support deep excavations. Piles and sheet piles must often be installed in the close vicinity to buildings, structures or installations in the ground, which can be affected by ground movements and vibrations, (Massarsch and Fellenius, 2014). In many areas, environmental concerns with respect to noise and ground vibrations can restrict or even prohibit driving of piles or sheet piles or reduce the efficiency of installation. The design engineer must prescribe – often at an early stage of a project — the permissible levels of ground vibrations in order to minimize the potential risk of building damage. When seeking guidance from the literature, little or practically no applicable information can be found on how to assess permissible levels of ground vibrations."

Jan 1, 2014

By Zia Zafir

Design of the deep foundations for the loads imposed by lateral spread include the estimate of the pressure applied by the liquefied material as well as amount of anticipated displacement. In the absence of a non-liquefiable cover over a liquefiable layer, it is possible to design the foundation system just for the additional pressure applied by the flow slides. On the other hand, if a non-liquefiable layer exists above the liquefied zone, the foundation should be designed for anticipated movements. To completely account for liquefaction and/or lateral spread and their interaction with the deep foundation system, a coupled soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis should be performed. However, a complete SSI analysis may not be feasible for most of the projects. This paper will present recent advances in analysis techniques and simplified methods to design deep foundations for liquefaction and lateral spreading. In addition, a case history of the Rancho California Bridge in southern California located within 1 km of the active Elsinore fault will be presented. One of the bridge abutments is underlain by potentially liquefiable layers. The pressure applied by the liquefiable layer was estimated to be greater than the shear capacity of the 36-inch CIDH piles designed for the abutment. However, with limited ground improvement and more careful analyses incorporating structural effects of CIDH piles, resulting design and construction resulted in a factor of safety greater than 1 against slope failure. The recommended approach was generally consistent with the recently published, and AASHTO sponsored, NCHRP 12-49 project regarding seismic design guidelines for new bridges and the effects of seismic displacements against bridge foundations.

Jan 1, 2006

By Patrick E. Durnal

The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was built in the early 50s' and was first opened to traffic on August 31, 1956. Among California's longest steel bridges, it spans more than 21,000 feet across the northern portion of San Francisco Bay. It is one of six toll bridges currently undergoing seismic retrofit in the Bay area. Current retrofit criteria require the structure not to collapse in a Magnitude 8.3 earthquake lasting 45 seconds on the San Andreas Fault. The earthquake epicenter is 10 miles to the west of the Bridge, near the mouth of San Francisco Bay. Another major fault is the Hayward Fault, with a potential of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. It is only 4 miles east of the eastern end of the bridge. The retrofit criterion is that the structure survives these earthquakes without collapse or loss of life, and that they are capable of repair within a period of one year. Therefore an energy absorbing, ductility and nominal resistance based approach to the retrofit design have been adopted for the retrofit of this bridge. Foundation Retrofit The foundation retrofits were designed to satisfy of drift criteria of 6 inches at the base of the footings, and to keep the existing H-piles from experiencing unacceptable levels of permanent soil displacement and /or structural rupture. Full-scale structural lateral load testing of BP14x89 piling, to rupture, has helped to determine the drift criteria. However recent non-linear analytical results, have led to a redesign, which may allow for 12 inches of drift. The as-built analysis of the Micropile piers determined that those piers would not exceed the 6-inch drift criteria so lateral resisting shear piles were not needed at those piers.

Jan 1, 1998

By Peter Faust, Jeremy Zorne, Timothy Siegel, Diane Fiorelli

Professional sport venue construction follows a very simple rule. Once the decision has been made to move the team to a new place, construction shall begin immediately, so that not more than one or two seasons pass by stuck in the old home. Such tight construction schedules require a different approach than traditional design-bid-build contracts. Design is mostly done on the fly, the construction schedule becomes a main risk factor and an early contractor involvement is desired. As specialty contractors become more and more sophisticated, owners, their construction managers or the general contractor have realized the value of ideas and modern technology they can bring to the table for a successful and fast project completion. Local knowledge and experience in a variety of solutions play a key role in the specialty contractor’s ability to provide added value to the project. This is also true for the specialty foundation contractor, who needs to understand the complexity of such modern structures from its integrate foundation, over the delicate concrete structure to a potentially fancy movable stadium roof. Not to mention all the modern high tech equipment which shall make such a place a great customer experience. His expertise shall enable him to propose the most suitable foundation element for the given ground condition and application. Rather to build what others have designed, his strength is to propose alternate concepts which will be faster and (hopefully) more cost effective. This paper highlights different value engineering (VE) input a specialty foundation contractor had on 3 major sports arena projects in California. Together with the entire team from owner to GC, including the Geotechnical (GEOR) and the Structural Engineer of Record (SEOR), the most efficient and best performing foundation solution can be found every time. But such an approach also requires the open mind of the owner to entertain last minute changes when the permit drawing set has already been submitted for approval.

Jan 1, 2018

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 Jim Steding

L.G. Barcus and Sons, Inc. recently completed a three-phase project for the expansion of Presbyterian Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico for McCarthy Construction Co., the Construction Manager for the project. It was a challenge that allowed Barcus to demonstrate many of it's strengths. Safety of people and property, restricted access, low headroom conditions, extensive planning to maintain hospital operations and a tight schedule were all key elements affecting the successful installation of the Augered Cast-In-Place Piles. Phase I began with installing and performing a 450-ton pile load test on an 18-inch diameter Augerpile 65 ft long. The load test was installed and performed directly in front of the Emergency Room entrance. Space was limited and the E.R. had to remain open with uninterrupted ambulance access. The results of the load test were outstanding. In fact the test pile performed so well that some of the job piles were shortened from 75 ft long to 65 ft long. [ ]

Jan 1, 2003

By Jim Bruce

The Transformation AGO project, constructed between 2005 and 2008, featured a foundation trade contract that included design of pile caps and grade beams and construction of 138 permanent micropiles. The new foundation works were constructed within seven different settings ? each featuring a host of attributes challenging to constructability ? inside and outside the existing Art Gallery of Ontario, all while the gallery remained open for business. Transformation AGO resulted in several firsts for micropiles in the Toronto construction market: this was the first micropile trade contract with a multimillion dollar contract value; it featured the first static compressive load test performed beyond 7000 kN on a single micropile; the first static compressive load test beyond 8000 kN on an experimental pile cap supported by two test micropiles; and it was the first publicly funded project to go to tender with micropiles listed as the preferred foundation option. This paper outlines the successful application of micropiles at the landmark Transformation AGO project.

Jan 1, 2011

By Shawna Munn, Jakub Hudler

This paper outlines the use of tunneling headwall softeyes for transit construction projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) over the past decade. Due to spatial constraints, tunnel boring machines were used to construct the underground tunnels requiring the design of launch and exit shafts with headwall softeyes to facilitate tunneling operations. Variable ground conditions and shaft geometries lead to the development of innovative headwall and tunnel softeye design applications using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) elements (beams, reinforcing bars, and tiebacks). This paper outlines the challenges and benefits associated with designing and constructing shafts using various systems. Lessons learned throughout design and construction of more than 20 structures over the past 10 years are outlined. The constructability challenges with using FRP and design performance are also discussed. For over a decade, the City of Toronto has been expanding its metropolitan transit network with a variety of new transit construction projects. Two recent projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) for underground infrastructure include the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension and the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project. These add a total of 31 new stations and 18.6 km (11.5 miles) of underground transit (TTC 2017) (EllisDon 2016). Due to ground conditions and spatial constraints of existing surface infrastructure, these projects utilized tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to construct the underground tunnels requiring the design of various types of shafts and headwalls to facilitate underground tunneling operations. To allow for tunneling through the headwalls, these shafts were designed with “softeyes” - a section of the wall without metal reinforcement that allows the TBMs to tunnel through.

Jan 1, 2018

By Dan A. Brown

The New Mississippi River Bridge (MRB) employed conventional design-bid-build procurement, but the bidding process included the opportunity for pre-qualified bidders to develop and propose confidential Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC?s) for evaluation and approval in advance of bidding. The ATC process provides a mechanism for value-engineering prior to bid, with incentives and opportunities for both the owner and the bidding contractor. The contract described in this paper is for the river bridge composed of a cable-stayed crossing with two pylons and the anchor piers on each side of the river. The Massman-Traylor-Alberici (MTA) team developed a re-designed foundation system for the main pylon and anchor foundations which utilizes their equipment and experience along with field load test measurements to optimize the foundations. The paper describes the experience with the use of the pre-bid ATC process on the project from the perspective of the bidder, and outlines some of the benefits and limitations of this concept with respect to foundation design and construction. Some keys for success are identified and impediments to the effective implementation of the process are described.

Jan 1, 2011

By Yu Zhenquan

At the construction site of Bao Shan Iron &. Steel Mill in Shanghai, lots of RC driven piles with length of 50 to 60m were applied. The most unfavourable distribution of stress along the pile shaft was known by measuring the compressive and tensive stresses. With analysing the test results a phenomenon of impact fatigue of RC pile was discovered, the range of impact fatigue and its critical zone can be distinguished. Finally some countermeasures are presented to avoid the impact fatigue of RC long pile.

Jan 1, 1991

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

By Arturo Ressi di Cervia

From the times when men in lacustrine environments drove wooden piles into the mud to elevate their dwellings, until the beginning of the twentieth century builders reacted to the conditions found in the location of their proposed structures by attempting to distribute their loads in ways that could be supported by the foundation's soils; or, if those were unsuitable, by moving the structure, whenever possible. While many major structures were built on stable ground (the pyramids were founded on rock), others were built on [ ]

Jan 1, 2000

By Magued G. Iskander

The deterioration of concrete, steel, and timber is a serious hindrance to construction in marine and corrosive environments. Composite materials such as fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) can offer performance advantages for construction in these environments. In the last decade, piling made of FRP composites has been used experimentally throughout North America. However, composites face obstacles because they do not have a long track-record of use in civil engineering structures. A comprehensive review of the current experience in research, testing, design, and practice of composite piling is presented in this paper.

Jan 1, 2002

By David R. Beadman

The Fleming method is widely used for the analysis and prediction of single pile behaviour under maintained loading. The method does not distinguish between bored and driven piles. Driven piling avoids the need to dispose of spoil from the pile installation and is therefore becoming increasingly attractive. This paper considers the theoretical effects of the possible preload at the base of a driven pile after installation, using the hyperbolic functions as defined by Fleming. The Fleming method is reviewed and the equations and analyses are adapted, using spreadsheets, to allow for a possible preload. The simplifying assumption of the effect of the elastic compression of the pile is also reviewed and a more analytical method adopted to assess the elastic compression. Some driven pile test data is analysed to consider the possible effects of the preload on the performance of a driven pile and to test the theoretical relationships that are developed in the paper.

Jan 1, 2006

By David B. Paul

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

Jan 1, 2014

By Jørn H. Thomsen

This paper presents the experience gained and the lessons learned over the last decade within the numerous offshore foundation projects undertaken in the offshore waters of Denmark and Belgium by COWI A/S of Denmark. This experience derives from the close collaboration with, and interaction between the owners, contractors, and engineers in the various stages of project development. In turn, the experience draws on COWI's experience within foundation of large bridges world wide over half a century. Focus is on two pioneering gravity base foundation projects: ? Nysted in Denmark, currently the largest offshore windfarm worldwide with 72 Nos Bonus 2.3 MW turbines in water depths up to 10 m in the relatively benign inner Danish waters ? Thornton Bank in Belgium, where the first phase - comprising 6 Nos REpower 5MW-turbines of a total of 60 - are planned to be built in the rough North Sea in water depths exceeding 25 m.

Jan 1, 2013