Search Documents

By Emad Farouz, Roger Failmezger

"The proposed reconstruction of I-75 downtown consists of widening an approximately 2.46 Km section of IR-75 through the northern section of downtown Dayton, OH, USA. Bridge B-13 is a 9-span continuos prestressed concrete I-beam, 319.0-meter (1,048-foot) long bridge with a stub abutment on MSE walls for the rear abutment, and a stub abutment with spill-through slopes for the forward abutment. The piers in the river were located parallel to the Great Miami River, and are full-height reinforced concrete wallsPRESSUREMETER TEST PROCEDUREThe driller advanced either casing or augers approximately 1 meter above the pressuremeter test. Steel casing was used to advance borings performed in the river, and augers were used for borings on land. Mud rotary drilling with a large diameter roller bit was used to remove all of the gravel and cobble fragments inside the casing or augers.At the pressuremeter test elevation the driller used a 63.5-mm (2.5-inch) carbide button bi-cone bit, using a rotation rate of about 60 rpm, a mud fl ow rate of about 10 gallons per minute (40 liters per minute), and an advance rate of 6 to 10 minutes per meter (2 to 3 minutes per foot). To minimize vibrations, advance rates were slower where excessive cobbles were encountered. The 63.5-mm (2.5-inch) O.D. slotted casing pressuremeter was lowered to the test elevation, often requiring either pushing or hammering into the test zone. We believe that the test zone was not perfectly straight, or that gravel or cobble fragments jutted into the test zone and had to be displaced to advance the pressuremeter into the test zone. The slotted casing prevented membrane damage during insertion. A photograph of the slotted casing being lowered into the borehole is shown below.The pressuremeter was calibrated for system compressibility and membrane resistance. At full expansion of 800 cm3, the membrane resistance of the slotted casing was about 2.5 bars.Strain-controlled tests were performed using a Texam control unit with a monocell probe. Volume increments of 20 cm3 were injected into the probe and corresponding pressures were measured. Near the end of the elastic portion of the test, an unload-reload cycle was done. A creep test was performed for 10 minutes at the next volume increment. The test continued until either 800 cm3 were injected or the membrane burst."

Jan 1, 2007

By Peter Deming

"PART 1 OF 2INTRODUCTIONSlurry trenches are the least cost hydraulic barrier available, if the excavated spoils can be recycled into backfill. As such, slurry trenches are constructed where possible, sometimes at high risk. Slurry trenches are also used to install biopolymer drainage trenches, which have a low safety factor because the biopolymer slurry weight is marginally greater than the weight of water. In marginal ground the construction risk falls to both the Owner who designs and asks for the construction, and the Contractor who manages the work and promises to complete the project successfully. This paper discusses design and construction of slurry trench barriers in marginally stable ground and where groundwater chemistry invokes the need for slurry management details to obtain proper backfill placement.As a designer, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers works for both Owners and Contractors. We are usually able to convince Owners of their responsibility for design detailing in order to obtain a working final product and to obtain reasonable bids from Contractors by disclosing construction needs and designing to reduce the contractor’s exposure. We often work for Contractors to produce designs which result in successful construction in projects where the Owner’s engineer places the responsibility of design and construction on the Contractor.This paper is intended to inform both Owner and Contractor audiences of resources which are available to reduce the risks of trench collapse in difficult ground conditions. We hope it serves this purpose.DESIGNSubsurface InvestigationsSubsurface conditions should be defined by borings focused on definition of the soil profile and soil design parameters. After general subsurface conditions are defined, barrier borings should be drilled along the final alignment.Definition of Soil Strength and CompactnessCompactness of sand and gravel strata should be defined with Standard Penetration Test N-values. The shear strength of cohesive materials should be defined by laboratory testing. Silt and fine sand strata with little cohesion should be investigated using mud rotary techniques to prevent disturbance. General strength characterization by soil layer should be used for analysis of trench wall stability."

Jan 1, 2006

By Peter Deming

"PART 2 OF 2 (CONTINUED FROM SUMMER 2006 EDITION) CONSTRUCTION ISSUES (cont’d) The Influence of Ground Conditions on Collapse Sand and gravel strata provide frictional resistance to support active earth pressure. The angle of internal friction has only slight influence on computed stability. Sand and gravel material design parameters can be defined with SPT N-values. Silt strata should be analyzed using internal friction. Definition of soil parameters should be performed by laboratory testing. Cohesive materials, especially soft clay and peat, require careful definition for design. Shear strength should be determined by laboratory testing. Work platforms constructed over granular strata improve the ground resistance by increasing confining pressure. However, temporarily increasing overburden stress on cohesive ground reduces trench stability. If the ground contains soft cohesive deposits which are not normally consolidated to the construction overburden, these must be stabilized before attempting trench construction. Use of wick drains and surcharge fill to improve the ground is recommended. Ground stabilization work requires time, and should be performed by the Owner prior to trench excavation. The addition of cement, stone columns, or other measures to support trench excavation equipment is typically determined to be more expensive and less dependable than ground improvement. Excavation through peat can be especially problematic. Peat materials rapidly compress when earth pressures exceed preconsolidation stresses. Backfill materials provide a horizontal stress on the trench wall which can exceed the bearing capacity of peat. As the peat compresses, the trench becomes wider, and slurry levels drop and trench stability can rapidly deteriorate. If the peat is the closure layer, a shallow key is recommended. If peat is present on the trench wall, preconsolidation with surcharge is recommended. Bottom preparation and Backfill Placement Trench wall stability is a temporary condition which must be controlled by proper design and construction of work platforms and slurry features which influence ground support. Backfill materials and intimate contact of the backfill with the closure layer are permanent conditions which are the end goal of the work. The most common reason slurry trenches fail to provide working barriers is improper bottom closure. Either the closure layer is not engaged, or the backfill is not in intimate contact with the closure layer. This can result from construction problems associated with sidewall collapse described above, slurry performance and/or degradation, backfill placement methods, and failure to maintain the trench bottom clear of sediment prior to placing backfill."

Jan 1, 2006

By Ryan P. Sullivan, G. Alan Klevens, Jian Huang

"BACKGROUNDLake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR was created in 1932 when the Arkansas Power and Light Co. completed Carpenter Dam on the Ouachita River to generate electricity. Today, the 7,200-acre (2,914 hectares) impoundment is one of Arkansas’s most popular recreational and residential lakes.U.S. 70 crosses Lake Hamilton by means of a seven-span bridge featuring nine steel girders per span. Constructed between 1982 and 1984, the 1,410-foot long (430m) bridge carries four lanes of traffi c across the lake. The bridge is supported by six intermediate reinforced concrete piers composed of hammer heads, stems, footings and seals, which sit on the underlying rock. (See Figure 1). The bridge rises to a maximum of 33 feet (10m) above the surface of the lake and the footings and seals extend a maximum of 29.5 feet (9m) below the surface of the lake. The seals are situated on hard, fractured sandstone and shale.Routine underwater inspections in 1993 revealed large cracks in the lean seal concrete and refl ective cracks in the reinforced concrete footings. Infrastructure Engineers, Inc., The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department’s (AHTD) design consultant, then conducted an in-depth underwater inspection of the pier foundations. The investigation included cross-hole sonic logging, singlehole sonic logging, visual examination and strength testing of core samples, and petrographic analysis.The investigation revealed extensive cracking and low-strength concrete within the seals of all intermediate pier foundations. Many voids within the seal concrete had become fi lled with silt. There was evidence of continued seal deterioration between underwater inspections.AHTD and its engineers considered three rehabilitation solutions in the preliminary engineering stage: micropiles, a cofferdam supported concrete jacket, or a pile supported concrete jacket. The three alternatives were estimated to cost $1,250,000; $4,320,000; and $3,030,000 respectively. All three options would transfer the loads from the pier footing directly to the rock below, bypassing the seal concrete."

Jan 1, 2007

By Ryan P. Sullivan, G. Alan Klevens, Jian Huang

"BACKGROUNDLake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR was created in 1932 when the Arkansas Power and Light Co. completed Carpenter Dam on the Ouachita River to generate electricity. Today, the 7,200-acre (2,914 hectares) impoundment is one of Arkansas’s most popular recreational and residential lakes.U.S. 70 crosses Lake Hamilton by means of a seven-span bridge featuring nine steel girders per span. Constructed between 1982 and 1984, the 1,410-foot long (430m) bridge carries four lanes of traffi c across the lake. The bridge is supported by six intermediate reinforced concrete piers composed of hammer heads, stems, footings and seals, which sit on the underlying rock. (See Figure 1). The bridge rises to a maximum of 33 feet (10m) above the surface of the lake and the footings and seals extend a maximum of 29.5 feet (9m) below the surface of the lake. The seals are situated on hard, fractured sandstone and shale. Routine underwater inspections in 1993 revealed large cracks in the lean seal concrete and reflective cracks in the reinforced concrete footings. Infrastructure Engineers, Inc., The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department’s (AHTD) design consultant, then conducted an in-depth underwater inspection of the pier foundations. The investigation included cross-hole sonic logging, singlehole sonic logging, visual examination and strength testing of core samples, and petrographic analysis.The investigation revealed extensive cracking and low-strength concrete within the seals of all intermediate pier foundations. Many voids within the seal concrete had become filled with silt. There was evidence of continued seal deterioration between underwater inspections.AHTD and its engineers considered three rehabilitation solutions in the preliminary engineering stage: micropiles, a cofferdam supported concrete jacket, or a pile supported concrete jacket. The three alternatives were estimated to cost $1,250,000; $4,320,000; and $3,030,000 respectively. All three options would transfer the loads from the pier footing directly to the rock below, bypassing the seal concrete."

Jan 1, 2007

By Clif Kettle

The paper will detail the design and execution of passive and active settlement control measures, the means adopted to overcome the various physical and operational constraints, and to meet specified allowable settlement criteria. The paper will highlight the close integration between the tunnelling and geotechnical contractors, designer, and Client, and demonstrate how particular practical difficulties were overcome by both the design and the construction methods.

Jan 1, 2008

By Travis A. Shoemaker, Mitchell S. Youmans, Nancy T. Chin, Michael S. Senior

A geologic assessment and stability analysis of the right abutment of Boundary Hydroelectric Dam in Pend Oreille County, Washington was completed in May 2017. The stability analyses identified a potential failure plane of a rock block that supports a bridge abutment, and weight restrictions were established to reduce the bridge loads. To restore full use of the bridge, a long-term stabilization solution was designed. A two-phased construction approach was implemented to reduce risk: (1) cable lashing and wire mesh and (2) 24 permanent post-tensioned tiebacks. The tiebacks were located and sequenced based on stabilization effect and site access to incrementally ease the bridge loading restrictions throughout construction. Due to weight restrictions and site tolerances, all work was performed with rope access construction methods. The contractor’s means and methods, tight drilling tolerances, and an exploratory adit within the rock block made the construction uniquely challenging. Due to limited exploratory data and irregular rock face geometries, the design orientation, location, and tolerances of the tiebacks were established in a 3D Building Information Model (BIM). The 3D model was revised frequently during construction to 1) model the as-drilled conditions of the tiebacks; 2) compare with the remaining proposed anchors; 3) anticipate the contractor’s sequence to reduce risk during drilling; 4) accommodate the contractor’s requests for information; 5) make design changes based on field observations; and 6) incrementally assess rock block stability. The 3D model was created using BIM software and automated using custom programming to link per-plan, proposed, and as-installed tiebacks between the 3D model, field logs, and a stability analysis. This system allowed for a near real-time 3D model and stability analysis, which were easily communicated between the design team and field staff. This workflow and automated model nearly eliminated manual editing of the 3D model, accelerated contract document response time, and helped reduce risk for the owner, contractor, and engineer. Here, we present a successful case study utilizing the Observation Method and a real-time 3D model to complete a project with numerous complexities relating to design, communication, and risk.

By Michael W. Neill, O&apos

This presentation addresses some of the problems encountered in estimating the capacity of drilled shafts and augered, cast-in-place piles in soft rock. Methods to quantify side and base resistance are suggested. However, the methods that are described should always be verified locally by performing load tests.

Jan 1, 2001

By Eric J. Pederson

The down hole hammer is widely used in specialty geotechnical construction. The common uses include tie-back anchor installation, micropile installation, and general soil/bedrock drilling operations. Veit used these techniques to develop a cost effective way of installing the foundation system for University of Minnesota Football Stadium. The soils present at the site of the stadium contained layers of concentrated cobbles and boulders. The geotechnical engineer recommended a driven pile system, and the base bid outlined in the project documents consisted of an H-Pile using a 14x73 pile section. Veit submitted an innovative alternate consisting of using a rotary percussion system to install a 12? O.D. pile. This paper will show that this pile type and installation method was the correct choice for the project. The design criteria for the compression, uplift, and lateral capacities and deflections were met, while eliminating pile damage. The method resulted in a significant cost savings to the University and maintained the project schedule.

Jan 1, 2008

By Dan Brown

Renewal and revitalization of transportation presents a challenge in the need for replacement, repair, and improvements of existing bridges, as well as increased construction of transit systems within existing transportation rights of way. Difficulties with conventional deep foundation systems occur because of the limited site access, adjacent structures, the need to maintain traffic, and other constraints on construction activity. Major projects are often performed in a design-build contract environment in which the schedule is aggressive, and where speed and reliability represent major considerations. Foundation designers are confronted with a need to solve problems with a construction-oriented mindset, where typical experience with lowest cost solutions may not reflect the most effective approach. This presentation presents an overview of the challenges that may affect design and construction of deep foundations in this environment and the methods that have successfully been employed on several large transportation projects in the U.S.

Jan 1, 1900

By Ronnie W. Sisk

1. Troubles start early - Inadequate Geotechnical Data A. Owners think they are saving money by allowing limited soil borings at their site. This places a high gamble on the bidders and the Lump Sum Price will be higher. B. Inaccurate elevations on soil reports. a. Surprises in depths - over or under design bid bottom elevations. 1. Requires backfill and extraction of casing that is too short for the greater depth of the drilled shaft. 2. Redrill utilizing longer casings. 3. Softer earth (backfill) can cause difficulties in redrilling such as less quantity extracted on the auger and maintaining plumbness. 4. Greater concrete overrun. b. Extreme under depths. 1. Excessive concrete is placed as a result of planning for a deeper shaft. c. Geotechnical report that does not supply a layout of boring locations. d. Design Engineer does not have a basic knowledge of how a caisson is installed.

Jan 1, 1988

By Andy Boeckmann

In early 2021, DFI formed a Foundation Reuse Task Force due to concurrent and coincidental discussions of this topic during meetings of the Subsurface Char- acterization for Deep Foundations and Testing and Evaluation committees. Interested members from both commit- tees, as well as of the Sustainability Com- mittee, joined forces to form the task force. The task force mission is to promote foundation reuse by leveraging experi- ence among DFI members and collabo- rating across pertinent committees. General goals of the task force are to identify, assess and reduce risks associated with reuse; to educate owners and decision-makers about reuse; and to improve the investigation, design, construction and testing practices associated with reuse. One of the first orders of business for the task force was to organize a roundtable discussion of foundation reuse for DFI's 46th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations in Las Vegas. Last fall's discussion was framed as a continuation of the successful "Horses for Courses" session of SuperPile '21, which also focused on foundation reuse. However, whereas the SuperPile session focused on technical content, the annual conference panel on October 13, 2021, was envisioned as a less technical conversation that emphasized audience participation while addressing approaches to decisions about foundation reuse issues. The roundtable consisted of five panelists: • • • Bryan Hartnagel, Ph.D., state bridge engineer, Missouri DOT (MODOT) Tom Bradley, project director, Stanhope, London Hilary Shields, senior geotechnical engineer, Arup, London Jim Mackey, vice president/chief marketing officer, McGee Group, London Susan White, attorney, Benesch, Cleveland The roundtable was moderated by Andy Boeckmann, Ph.D., P.E., a senior engineer who works in Dan Brown and Associates' Missouri and Illinois offices, and is an article co-author.

Feb 1, 2022

By Alan Christopherson

Nearshore construction projects often require installation of steel piles and specific methodologies of installing piles may adversely affect nearby species of concern. Water is an uncompressible medium which allows for easy transmission of energy through the water column. Energy transmission through water depends on the following factors for pile driving: 1) direct contact of the pile and the water; 2) the depth of the water column; 3) the size of the pile; 4) type of hammer; and 5) the energy of the hammer. Seasonal restrictions are usually the best practicable alternative for reducing habitat impacts when pile driving activities may adversely affect the species of concern. When seasonal restrictions are not practical other options need to be evaluated, including mitigation and noise attenuation devices. The broad array of mitigation options will not be discussed as part of this presentation but instead will focus on noise attenuation technologies. Dewatered cofferdams can be effective noise attenuators as they eliminate direct contact of the pile with water while driving. Also, introduction of a compressible medium, like air, near the energy source can provide sound energy attenuation. An unconfined bubble curtain is relatively inexpensive but is not effective in tidal marine projects or rivers and may have unacceptable secondary effects. Secondary effects must be evaluated as these can increase exponentially for larger projects. Secondary effects to the environment include air quality degradation from air compressor use, transportation costs for fuel and equipment, and the potential for injecting oily compressed air into the water column. The confined bubble curtain works well in nearly all environments. It usually is more expensive initially, relative to an unconfined air curtain, but there is less potential for harmful secondary effects. Generally, seasonal restrictions will be adequate to protect species of concern. However, there are conditions in which mitigation or one of the sound attenuation options should be utilized. Site specific factors, including the amount of energy being imparted into the environment, sensitivity of the species of concern, current, accessibility, length of time needed to complete the project, and the cost of the sound attenuation, should be factored into the permit evaluation.

Jan 1, 2013

By Rasin Duzceer

In this paper, the results of pile load test on 24 piles from twelve sites are presented. The pile load tests were performed on 14 driven and 10 bored piles of varying diameters and lengths installed in different ground conditions in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the axial capacity of the piles obtained using pile load test interpretation methods. Davisson, Brinch Hansen %80, Chin-Kondner, Shen-Niu, De-Beer, Housel, Mazurkiewicz, Fuller-Hoy, Brinch- Hansen (90%), Corps of Engineers, Butler Hoy and Tangent Intersection methods were used to determine the axial capacity of the piles. Static analysis using FHWA method was performed to predict the axial capacity of the piles. A statistical analysis was performed to compare and quantify the load test interpretation methods. The ratio of interpreted (Qi) to predicted (Qp) pile capacity was compared for each method. For each pile load test and for each interpretation method, the mean and coefficient of variation of (Qi)/ (Qp) were calculated. Among twelve methods investigated, the highest Qi/Qp value was obtained as 1.37 for Chin-Kondner method whereas the lowest Qi/Qp ratio of 0.70 was obtained from De Beer method.

Jan 1, 2002

By Gordon Chen

As part of a value engineering envisioned by East Coast Slurry, Weidlinger Associates, Inc. designed a unique elliptical slurry wall cofferdam for construction of the 65 ft. deep MWRA North Dorchester Pump Station. A conventional rectangle cofferdam with multiple levels of bracing would have been time consuming and costly and imposed a significant obstruction to the pump station construction. A circular slurry wall, while eliminating the bracings, conflicted with adjacent structures and required excessive backfilling around the final pump station structure. The ellipse shaped cofferdam fit the needs of the project well; however, it created a significant design challenge without the use of bracings. Unlike a circular cofferdam which primarily only has hoop stresses, the ellipse still has to be designed for horizontal bending moments in each panel because of the non-axial symmetric conditions. The more eccentric the cofferdam shape; the higher the horizontal bending. The challenge was to develop a three dimensional finite element model that could analyze both the hoop stresses and horizontal bending stresses above and below the bottom of excavation induced by soil and water pressure and unbalanced construction surcharge loads. This paper discusses the techniques used to model the soils and structure interactions and results of stresses on this challenging unbraced configuration.

Jan 1, 2010

By Yahia M. Al-Smadi

Effect of lateral loading against existing sheet pile wall and distribution of gravity loading due to various number of construction loading scenarios were studied. The objective of this effort was to determine the loading case that permits the contractor to utilize a 400 ton crane at the specified location with the existing limitation imposed on site. Staged analysis was determined as the methodology that will more accurately predict the exiting and additional stress due to the impose crane loading. A reliable and robust analysis (ANSYS) software was used to complete both 2D and 3D finite element model and analysis. Analysis model parameters such as material properties, non-linear behavior of the soil, and meshing are presented and discussed. At the conclusion specific range of crane operation and pick weights operating on existing concrete mat supported on top of an existing tunnel was reviewed and deemed acceptable.

Jan 1, 2010

By Andrew Baxter

The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas is a beautiful glass and concrete structure cut into a valley that mingles with water ponds spanned by multiple bridges with suspended roofs. Or, at least it will be when completed in 2009. At Crystal Bridges, most of the proposed buildings involve cuts up to 50 ft high to be retained by the building structures. This requires the construction of retaining walls adequately founded to support lateral loads of up to 70 kip/ft. To add to this difficulty, the site is within a karst region with all the variability and irregularities associated with solutioning and erosion of the parent rock in this environment. The irregular rock profile made it virtually impossible to conceive a predictable arrangement of shallow footings and shear keys for the retaining walls. The existence of layers of soft soils within a hard rock formation made a caisson foundation impractical. The authors developed an innovative solution based on micropiles, which proved to be invaluable from a cost and schedule point of view. In areas where rock was shallow, micropiles were used as ?shear pins? to transfer the horizontal loads to the rock. In areas with significant overburden, a system of vertical and battered micropiles was devised to carry vertical and horizontal loads from the retaining walls. This paper presents a detailed description of the design and installation of the micropiles used as shear pins, and includes the results of lateral load tests performed on full-scale models of the grade beams on shear pins. The work performed shows that micropiles in rock can be effectively utilized for support of significant lateral loads provided that an adequate arrangement of suitably sized micropiles is provided, and that micropiles used as shear pins may develop significant tensile stresses when loaded laterally.

Jan 1, 2008

By John E. Lens

Driving bridge foundation piles into glacio-fluvial sands and gravels and glacial tills brought surprisingly longer than predicted driving lengths on several recent projects in Vermont. In some instances, piles drove more than 40 feet past refusal depths predicted from Standard Penetration Resistances from borings terminating in glacial till. Overall, piles developed substantially less skin friction than predicted using common capacity formulas and drove as much as 80 feet longer than predicted in the moderate to dense gravelly and cobbly soils. These piles were driven for one to five span highway bridges within narrow valleys with bedrock ranging from 80 to over 200 feet deep. Piles were for both conventional and integral abutment bridges. H-piles were used for a variety of reasons including lower unit cost, better availability, and better ability to drive through cobbly soils in upper strata. Dynamic testing was used to evaluate capacity, including skin friction and end bearing capacity. In order to develop better pile length and capacity predictions for future projects, VTrans and one of their geotechnical consultants are collaborating to develop criteria for improved pile capacity predictions in these river valleys. We are doing this by evaluating driving and dynamic testing data from four projects in comparison with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) DRIVEN pile design software, and methods from Myerhof (1976) and Tomlinson (1981). Our overall objective is to provide a basis for choosing appropriate pile types and reliably estimating pile lengths for projects in this terrain. Bridge foundation design projects in other mountainous terrain share similar design and construction challenges to those encountered in these Vermont projects. These include: difficult exploration drill rig access requiring smaller rigs with limited capability to drill through cobbles and boulders deep enough to reach bedrock; limited experience with displacement piles as alternatives to H-piles in this geology; and relatively greater variability in soil stratigraphy between foundations at these sites as a consequence of the relatively high energy depositional environment in mountainous terrain. This paper presents the case history summaries of the pile driving, results of the ?back analysis? capacity evaluations, examples of solutions employed on these projects to address the lower capacities achieved, and resulting pile capacity design guidelines and prediction criteria for these geologic conditions based on data from these projects.

Jan 1, 2007

By Pierre Gouvin

This paper describes the design, installation and monitoring of a state of the art real time geotechnical/structural instrumentation monitoring system to facilitate tunnel construction under Interstate route I-5 in Seattle, Washington, USA. The project involved removal of existing highway foundation substructures on both North and Southbound lanes as well as the underground reversible high occupancy vehicle lanes. The system utilized state of the art 3-D pulsed laser scanning, wireless sensor networks, automated robotic total stations, tilt beam sensors, narrow angle tiltmeters, and in-place inclinometers. Dedicated real time data loggers, with a web based graphical interface, provided 24/7 access to critical measurements. In addition to the instrumented sections of wall and roadway subsurface which monitored physical measurements at known points, the pulsed laser scanning allowed complete site monitoring coverage where physical sensors were not located. This data allowed post processing at any location enabling the contractor and designer to respond to unforeseen structural responses to construction. Use of the instrumentation system resulted in the early detection of wall movement, and provided feedback to the designers to facilitate construction process changes in order to minimize further movement.

Jan 1, 2010

By Ashley Shirer

Have you heard a geotechnical engineer rail against using the word "dirt"? The typical maxim is: "It's not dirt, it's soil!" This axiom is so prevalent that it is joked about on the construction site. How did we get to the point in our profession that soil is too technical to understand, while dirt is not viewed as important? Take a moment and think about the images that come to mind by the word soil. Responses range from the sand at a playground to the mud that sticks to the bottom of your shoe, the dark loam found in gardens to the firm earth under your feet. But do you know where the term soil originated? Or how it was intended to be used? This article looks at how word choice can lead to very different motivations for owners, designers and constructors.

May 1, 2023