Search Documents

By Ørjan Nerland, Torgeir Haugen, Astri Eggen, Kjell Karlsrud

"Ground improvement by the deep dry mixing (DDM) method is used in Norway since the late 1970's. A brief review is given of the Norwegian guideline for ground improvement with DDM issued in 2012, but focus is on practical examples and experiences related to improving the stability of excavations and natural slopes in soft clays. Two examples deal with experiences from 10 to 18 m deep excavations in soft and partly highly sensitive clays, where DDM panels and block stabilization were used to both give sufficient stability against bottom heave and to limit lateral wall displacements. A third case deals with improving the stability of a natural slope in quick clay by installing DDM panels near the crest of the slope. To limit disturbance and excess pore pressures generated during the DDM works, vertical drains were installed in advance in between the DDM panels. This ensured that the excess pore pressures generated by the DDM works (up to 150 kPA) dissipated quickly, which was instrumental to avoid triggering a landslide during the stabilizing works.INTRODUCTIONThe lime column (LC) method developed in Sweden and Japan in the mid 1970's (e.g. Broms and Boman, 1977). Since then, there have been significant developments in Scandinavia and around the world in terms of rigs, mixing machinery and tools, and type of binders used. The method, presently named the ""Dry Deep Mixing"" (DDM) method in contrast to the wet deep mixing methods (WDM) that also have developed significantly over the past decades, e.g. Kitazume and Terashi (2013). The first application of the DDM method in Norway was in the late 1970's to improve the stability of an excavation in quick-clay, then using only lime as binder. Most DDM applications in Norway have also thereafter been to improve the stability of cuts, supported excavations or natural slopes in soft clays. The Norwegian Geotechnical Society (2012) issued in 2012 “Guidelines for design of ground improvement with DDM methods"". The following highlights design issues dealt with. The paper focuses however, on some practical cases where DDM has been used to improve stability of deep excavations and a natural slope in soft and partly highly sensitive clays."

Jan 1, 2015

By Gary L. Seider, Dana A. Wesolek, Fred C. Schmednecht

"A new condominium project, The Atelier, developed by Pickus Companies located at the corner of Bryn Mawr and Sheridan in Chicago, IL required an earth retention system to protect the surrounding roads, alley, and existing neighboring apartment bui lding during its construction. Slurry Systems, Inc. (SSI) and Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. designed the earth retention system using cantilevered sheet piling for three of the four sides: two sides bordering major streets and one side bordering an alley. For the fourth side, which borders an existing occupied brick building, a combination of sheet pil ing and AB. CHANCE® helical screw piers were used. SSI was actively involved in the review process of its earth retention system with the City of Chicago and quickly learned that there was no specific code for hel ical piers/anchors. (It appears that this is the case with most metropolitan cities throughout the United States). Consequently, the approval of underpinning for this project became the critical path, as much testing, calculations, meetings, and other details were required prior to its approval.SSI and AB. CHANCE® recognized that this process for underpinning approval must be seen by other contractors/suppliers who wish to use helical piers/anchors in the City of Chicago. Consequently, this project served as an opportunity to work with the City of Chicago and the City's Building Code Committee in furthering the development of the Helical Piers/Anchors Code, Section 1814. INTRODUCTION - HELICAL PIERSDefinition. A helical pier or anchor consists of one or more helix-shaped steel bearing plate(s) attached to a central steel stem (solid bar or pipe), which is installed by rotating or ""torquing"" into the ground. Each helix is attached near the tip, is circular in plan , and is formed into a screw thread with a defined pitch. Helical piers/anchors are pre-fabricated and can derive their load-carrying capacity through both end bearing and skin friction. The helical piers/anchors can be augmented with grout."

Jan 1, 2005

By John C. Tosh, Peter M. Kandaris, Sheldon John

Geologic, geotechnical and hydrologic studies were performed for the design of 115 deep, large diameter drilled shaft reinforced concrete foundations (6 to 12 feet) to support tall steel monopoles for a new 13-mile long 230/69kV transmission line in southwestern Arizona. The subsurface conditions along the alignment posed a wide range of challenges for performing investigation and design studies. These conditions include saturated, loose granular flood plain deposits with generally low lateral capacity, potential ground loss up to 23 feet due to occasional river flow (scour and embankment loss), liquefaction impacts from nearby active fault seismicity that can generate magnitude 6.5-7.0 earthquakes, and unsaturated alluvial and eolian sand-dominated soils to full depth with low lateral capacity. All conditions will require significantly deeper than normal foundation embedment (depth ranging from 22 to 77 feet) and will present construction difficulty due to ground instability from groundwater and dry soil sloughing. A phased investigation was performed to accurately characterize the conditions for design and construction, and included performing a review of existing data, detailed field geologic reconnaissance, a limited number of standard exploratory borings (limited access), seismic cone penetrometer soundings (SCPT) in saturated soils to better understand liquefaction and strength loss potential, and hydrologic analyses to estimate scour/ground loss potential. This paper describes the site conditions, presents details on the investigation team’s approach, documents findings in relation to deep foundation analysis and design, and discusses recommendations for foundation construction to help in reducing risk.

Sep 8, 2021

By Robert Bachus, Nikolaos Machairasm, Allen Cadden

Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (DIGGS) is a data transfer standard that is gaining widespread acceptance in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental communities. Originally developed using funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to efficiently capture data related to geotechnical boring logs, cone penetration test (CPT) soundings, and lab testing results, the data transfer protocol is rapidly gaining traction. It has been shown to have beneficial impacts in other allied areas where disparate parties (i.e., consultants, contractors, vendors, etc.) routinely publish/submit data as part of project deliverables. The historic problem is that many of these submissions use paper copies (i.e., .pdf images) to transmit valuable data for the project… data that may extend beyond the “technical” aspects of the project (e.g., equipment operating conditions, construction production rates, project costs, etc.). These data could be used by multiple parties to assess project performance and safety, as well as to track productivity, etc. Currently, in the limited situations when actual data are compiled and transmitted, the data often are submitted as an author-specific (and often proprietary) software application and must then be re-entered into other software applications (e.g., analysis software, database, etc.) for use beyond simple data collection. An initiative undertaken by the Geo-Institute (G-I) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) focuses on exploiting the full potential of DIGGS to geoprofessionals both within and outside of the transportation community. The deep foundations industry represents one community that could benefit significantly from using DIGGS. Data of interest to DFI members include production records, quality assurance information (e.g., verticality and alignment, concrete strength), and, importantly, load test results. When adopting DIGGS, users need not modify how they capture data, but rather will use DIGGS as a vehicle to transfer data to other applications in a standard format where it can be shared, used, stored, and retrieved. This paper and associated presentation will describe DIGGS and demonstrate how DIGGS can be used effectively within the deep foundations community.

Jan 1, 2019

By Alice Y. Tseng, Dan MacLean

"Corrosion protection of all deep foundation systems made of steel is THE issue when considering durability of the element in the long term. Protecting steel from corrosion and maintaining the steel tendon cross sectional area ensures a competent and durable system. The foundation of a building is usually difficult to repair and therefore high risk is taken when unknowingly choosing a non-adequate solution.Requirements according to EN 1990 (Eurocode 0 or EC 0) on construction durability requires a service life over 100 years. How can a service life over 100 years be achieved? How shall bare steel be protected in soil, which sometimes could be an aggressive environment to the steel? Which corrosion protection methods are commonly used in Europe and in North America?This paper will focus on hollow bars used as Micropiles, Anchor piles and Soil Nails. It gives an overview about the state of the practice in regards to corrosion protection (including head construction) and evaluates different options following the European Standards focusing on type of material and method of installation. Further the different corrosion protective methods such as thickness of grout body, coating types and sacrificial loss are listed with the pros and cons evaluated.Based not only on North American standards like FHWA “Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines”, FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 for “Soil Nail Walls“ and Post-Tensioning Institute “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors”, but also European standards like EN 14199 “Execution of special geotechnical works – Micropiles”, EN 14490 “Execution of special geotechnical works - Soil nailing”, EN 1537 “Execution of special geotechnical work – Ground anchors“, and other relevant standards, all possibilities of protecting the hollow bars and the steel quality will be introduced, discussed and compared ."

Jan 1, 2017

By Steve Davidow, Ashely E. Evans, Peter M. Kandaris

"Annually thousands of deep foundations are constructed across North America supporting high voltage transmission line structures. However, a recent state of the practice survey by the Deep Foundation Institutes’ Electric Power Systems Foundation Working Group discovered that the electric power utility industry lacks consistent foundation design guidelines. The survey identified a wide variability in design assumptions, a minimal understanding of risk based analysis, and a need to standardize design methodologies. This paper summarizes the state of practice in electric system foundation design and proposes a framework for risk-based foundation design by accounting for uncertainty from both loads and resistances. Loads derived from electric system codes do not necessarily provide a compatible level of reliability for the design of foundations, as they are a mixture of probabilistic and deterministic values. Load uncertainty is derived from variability in weather conditions, structural models and material properties, typically accounted for by code derived overload factors. Resistance uncertainty arises from variability in natural soil properties, resistance models, subsurface construction techniques, material sampling methods, and limited observations. A consistent methodology is offered relating nominal resistance capacity (strength) to structure loads and service state criteria. Discussion also includes the need for risk-based assessments to account for non-structure load influences (fluvial loads, scour ground loss, liquefaction, etc.).INTRODUCTIONNearly 40 years ago the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) embarked on a major research effort to optimize reliability and economics of transmission line foundation design. Strategies focused on improvements in design models, site characterization, exploration strategies and testing to reduce uncertainty and variance in analysis. Transmission line engineers realized that safety and reliability advancements in design based on probabilistic approaches, with a focus on the unique nature of transmission line, could better control risk and cost.Some transmission line professionals took full advantage of these advancements, particularly where research led to improved software and models. Yet, even after two decades of extensive research, by 1995 the industry still had made little progress in changing design habits. The majority of designers were still characterizing sites via deterministic methods, using loads that may or may not relate to a consistent probability of occurrence, and applying a traditional global factor of safety approach (Phoon, et al. 1995). The following two decades have seen even greater developments in software and reliability-based analysis methods, but old habits seem to die hard as recent surveys show less than half of design professional quantitatively assess risk in their design process."

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

This Section describes four alternative methods for load testing of drilled shafts: high strain dynamic test (HSDT), rapid load test, static load test, and bottom load test. Until recently, static load tests were the only method available for verifying the capacity of a drilled shaft. However, because many drilled shafts carry very high design loads, the static load test was prohibitively expensive. The alternative methods, HSDT, rapid load testing, and bottom load testing are gaining acceptance because of their lower cost and faster implementation. However, these different methods do not necessarily yield the same results. This section describes the load testing methods and the differences that may occur when interpreting the test results.

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1988

By Martin D. Larisch

The construction of diaphragm walls and most large-diameter bored piles (piers) is often carried out under drilling support fluids to temporarily stabilise the excavation prior to concrete placement. In most cases such fluids are either mineral-based slurries (bentonite) or polymer support fluids. The working mechanisms of these two fluid types are fundamentally different. Designers need to consider possible fluid-related impacts on the permanent design performance of the project-specific deep foundations as well as for the temporary excavation stage during construction. Robust design methods for bentonite slurry-supported excavations have been developed in the last few decades and the working principles and associated risks of such mineral-based slurries are understood reasonably well. However, such meth-ods have not been developed in detail for polymer-based drilling fluids. This document provides a brief overview of the main characteristics of bentonite- and polymer-based drilling fluids as a guide for construction practitioners and design engineers alike. The paper also high-lights some common construction risks related to casing installation and the selection of suitable fluid systems for different ground conditions. Typical defects caused by the incorrect application of drilling support fluids, and their pro-active mitigation, are discussed, too. In addition, the basic concepts of sta-bility calculations for bentonite fluid-supported deep excavations are briefly introduced and their ap-plicability for other fluid types such as polymer-based support fluids or water are reviewed.

Nov 1, 2022

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1998

The intent of this manual is to provide guidelines for inspectors of drilled shaft construction otherwise referred to as drilled piers, caissons or bored piles. It should also be helpful to train beginning geotechnical engineers with limited first hand experience or for geotechnical engineers who are training inspectors. It is expected that the general guidelines and procedures described here will be supplemented by local geotechnical engineers working in a particular region based on local practice and experience. Since drilled shaft construction procedures vary widely based on local geology and size of project, an all-inclusive manual is not considered practical. This manual focuses on traditional topside inspection for routine drilled shaft construction. Other inspection and evaluation methods that rely on electronic equipment are available, but these methods require extensive training and experience in the interpretation of results. These more sophisticated methods of drilled shaft inspection and evaluation are common in construction, but they are usually provided by specialty subconsultants. The subconsultant will typically submit a report for each shaft, which will be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Other manuals are available to describe the electronic methods of drilled shaft inspection.

Jan 1, 2004

By Maurice Guillaud

The most striking innovations on diaphragm-wall construction plant are those associated with continuous real-time trajectory monitoring of the excavating tool (either a grab or a hydro-cutter). The recent equipments are fitted with clinometers and gyrometers to control deflection, rotation or deviation from the vertical, thus allowing to install diaphragm-walls with a verticality accuracy of less than 0.3%. One of the greatest advantages of extensive use of on-board IT systems on the Hydrocutters and hydraulic grab machines is that it aids quality control by automatically producing complete real-time reports of all excavating data (verticality, depth, type of ground, rate of progress, stoppages, etc.). These reports are available to the Engineer, providing the total transparency required for Works Supervision and the Quality Assurance Plan. They also provide the Contractor with input data for databases used for optimising efficiency and progress criteria on future jobs.

Jan 1, 2002

By Robert Bachus, Jamey B. Rosen

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

Jan 1, 2014

Jan 1, 1989

By Edmund J. Cardoza

WELCOME TO THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUTE 26TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WELCOME ESPECIALLY TO THIS SEMINAR ON NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFTS, PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE DFI DRILLED SHAFT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ED CARDOZA; I AM A VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE MILLGARD CORPORATION, A DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTOR FOCUSING PRIMARLY IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1990

"1.0 INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines reflect the state-of-the-practice of the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) in North America. DMM is an in situ mixing process that breaks down the soil structure; injects binders, fillers and reagents into the soil; and blends them with the soil. DMM is also commonly referred to as Soil Mixing. The final properties of the treated soil in situ are a function of the composition of the native soils and groundwater, the binders introduced, the mixing methods and energy, and the conditions and time of curing. Treated soils generally have increased strength and stiffness and/or reduced permeability relative to the native soils.This document addresses DMM performed by rotating single and multiple axis mixing tools, rotating cutter wheels at the end of a rigid kelly bar, or trench mixing using a rotating cutting/mixing chain around the perimeter of a rigid bar. Binder may be injected through low or high energy (velocity) jets.The treated soils created through wet DMM are heterogeneous mixtures of binder, water, soil, and groundwater. Treated soils produced by dry DMM techniques are a mixture of binder, soil, and the water already present in the native soil.DMM applications described in this document include•,Earth retention•,Liquefaction mitigation•,Groundwater seepage control and containment isolation•,Bearing capacity improvement•,Deep foundations•,Mass stabilization and contamination containment•,Embankment, levee and dam strengthening, and stabilization•,Casing replacementThis document was developed to address deep foundations applications. Use of deep mixing for seepage control is not specifically addressed. The reader is referred to documents prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for additional information. Shallow soil mixing and the use of DMM for stabilization/solidification of contaminated soils performed at depths less than 10 feet (3 m) are mentioned briefly. Jet grouting is not covered by these guidelines."

Jan 1, 2016