Search Documents

Jan 1, 1993

By Sunil S. Basarkar, Dilip M. Dewaikar, Rajesh H. Gajjar

"A load transfer program AXPILE was developed for simulation of the loadmovement characteristics of socketed piles of the Mumbai reg ion. This program used empirical relationships for ultimate shaft resistance at pile-rock interface recommended by Zhang and Einstein (1998). According to their recommendation, ultimate shaft resistance at pile-rock interface is related to the square-root of uniaxial compressive strength of intact socket material by a parameter C, which ranges from 0.4 for smooth sockets to 0.8 for rough sockets. Results of three instrumented pile load tests were compared with the AXPILE generated results. The comparison of analytical and field estimates of the unit shaft resistance confirm the recommendations of Zhang and Einstein (1998) on the unit side shear parameter c,, which was found to be in the range of 0.35 to 0.67.INTRODUCTIONInstrumented pile load tests were carried out on the test piles at the Bandra-Worli sea link project in Mumbai city of western India. High capacity socketed piles were required to take up loads from the superstructure. Hence, in addition to the available toe resistance, an accurate measurement of the shaft resistance in socket portion was desired. The instrumented load tests incorporated Osterbergcell (0-cell) assisted by strain gauge instrumentation to estimate the shaft resistance mobilization in the socket portion.AXPILE load transfer program was developed for load-movement simulation of socketed piles (Basarkar, 2004). The load transfer algorithm based on Coyle and Reese (1966) was incorporated in this program, which used empirical correlations and functions to account for load transfer in piles through shaft and toe resistance.This paper compares the computed unit shaft resistance from the AXPILE program with the measured values recorded from the instrumented pile load test."

Jan 1, 2005

By Jakub Szary

Excavation and shoring adjacent to the above-grade Gilmore train station and elevated guideway was undertaken in 2019. A perimeter secant pile cut-off wall was constructed to a depth 37 m (121 ft) below ground surface consisting of 1.0 m (3.3 ft) diameter drilled piles spaced 750 mm (2.5 ft) on-center, tied back with soil anchors, and reinforced with W610 steel sections every 4th pile. A bracing/jacking system was also constructed to support 3 free-standing guideway caissons within the excavation. An automated instrumentation program was installed to monitor movements of shoring walls and train infrastructure in real time and consisted of a robotic total station, inclinometers, tiltmeters, strain gauges, extensometers, and anchor load cells. Baseline monitoring was able to establish diurnal and seasonal movements within the structure, strongly correlated with temperature. The system actively monitored various shoring elements and train infrastructure in real time and alerted the project team when values exceeded predetermined threshold values. Remote reconfiguration of the automated system allowed for more frequent monitoring during jacking of Pier 29 in March 2022. Monitoring data was in agreeance with on-site manual surveying results and jacking dial gauges, and proved to be a reliable monitoring system for construction applications.

Sep 1, 2022

By Ricardo Dobry, Alain Pecker, George E. Leventis, Ralph B. Peck

"This year’s DFI Outstanding Project Award is for the design and construction of the foundation scheme for the largest cable-stayed bridge in the world. In 1993, Gefyra, SA (a French/Greek consortium led by VINCI of Paris, France) was awarded a €750 million ($1billion+ USD) Concession Contract to design, build, fi nance, operate and maintain a three-span cable-stayed suspension bridge connecting the Peloponnese, Greece’s southernmost peninsula, with the mainland across the Gulf of Corinth. The contract extends over a 42-year period, 7 years for design and construction and 35 years for operation. The project was fi nanced through a combination of public funds, private equity and bank loans. Alternative foundation concepts that were considered included traditional driven piles, deeply embedded caissons and soil improvement. PROJECT CHALLENGESThe extreme technical challenges faced included:??Weak foundation soils composed of soft alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded layers of granular and cohesive materials with thin layers and lenses of gravel and liquefi able sand pockets; rock is believed to be at a depth of 1,000 m (3,500 ft) or more.??A very deep seabed exceeding 60 m (200 ft).??The requirement to withstand the collision of 180,000-ton tankers traveling at 16 knots.??Maximum wind forces of 250 km/hour (155 mi/hour).??Design seismic forces corresponding to Richter magnitudes of 7.0+ with peak ground accelerations of 0.48 g at seabed.??Design tectonic movements of 2 m (7 ft) in any direction between any two adjacent bridge pier foundations/pylons.Considering subsurface conditions and local seismicity and water depths, foundation design and construction methods were the key drivers for this project. In large part, the success of the project is owed to the unprecedented partnering and collaboration between all partners involved fostered under the leadership of Jean Paul Teyssandier and Gilles De Maublanc of VINCI Group (France) who served as lead Concessionaire and General Contractor. The joint venture’s lead Greek partners were Elliniki Technodomiki/AKTOR and J&P/AVAX. Alain Pecker of Geodynamique et Structure (France) served as lead Geotechnical Consultant/ Designer while Buckland and Taylor (Canada) served as Design Checkers with Ralph Peck and Ricardo Dobry (U.S.) as Special Advisors on foundation issues, Langan International/Langan Engineering and Environmental Services P.C. (George E. Leventis, Gregory Biesiadecki and Diane Fiorelli) served as Technical Advisor on geotechnical, geodynamic and foundation/marine construction issues."

Jan 1, 2007

By Roger A. Bullivant

As the UK's foremost domestic foundation underpinning contractor over the last 25 years it has become abundantly clear that the size of the repair market, some £500m per annum is a significant waste of resource and cost. To experience this scale of foundation failure in mainly new construction less than 20 years old is unacceptable. This is being further endorsed by our contracting experience in the USA over the last 10 years. Our foundation repair systems are mainly based upon the use of driven mini piles and it was considered appropriate that this type of pile should be upgraded and used on new build construction where the ground was marginal or bad.

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1988

By Goudschaal Mark R.

"The Museum of Science and Industry U-505 Submarine Relocation project in Chicago, IL consisted of building an underground reinforced concrete vault (37' deep) for the Museum's new U-505 exhibit. This WWII submarine was captured in 1944, had been located outdoors at the Museum since 1954 and was lowered into its new exhibit area in 2004. A unique combination of earth retention, water cut-off and underpinning systems allowed a forty-two foot (42') deep excavation underneath th is historic museum. The museum - originally built in 1893 for the Chicago World's Fair - was closely monitored for building movements throughout construction. The underpinning systems, construction activities and monitoring results are presented herein. IntroductionThe historic U-505 German submarine at the Museum of Science & Industry was restored, moved approximately 1,000' and then lowered into its new indoor home (Figures 1, 2 and 3). The new underground exhibit opened this year celebrating the 61st anniversary of the German submarine's capture on June 4, 1944. On this historic day, Captain Daniel V. Gallery, a Chicago native, led the Navy in the siege of this submarine near the coast of Africa. This U-boat was the only German sub captured by the United States Navy in WWII and the Enigma machines, codebooks and publications recovered from the sub helped the war effort."

Jan 1, 2005

By Atta B. Yiadom, A. David Miller, Robert C. Kirby, Sean M. Todaro

"San Pablo Dam is a 170-foot (52-meter)-high earthfill embankment, located approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of downtown Oakland, California, that impounds a 38,600 acre-feet (47.6 million m3) reservoir for customers in the East Bay Municipal Utility District's (EBMUD's) service area. Seismic upgrades were designed and constructed in 2008 through 2010. Work included removal of an existing 140,000 cubic-yard (107,000 m3) downstream buttress, which was replaced with an enlarged 300,000 cubic-yard (230,000 m3) buttress founded on alluvium and colluvium that were improved in-place using Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) technology. The site characterization for the project, design of CDSM, reuse of CDSM spoils as construction materials, and environmental permitting have been described in five previously published professional papers.This paper provides a brief summary of the design of the seismic upgrades and presents the results of measurements made during and/or after construction including the variation of CDSM strengths with time, piezometric levels within the dam and foundation soils, and seepage flow rates. These measured values are compared to the values estimated during design of the seismic upgrades.INTRODUCTIONSan Pablo Reservoir is located approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of downtown Oakland, California, as shown in Fig 1. As many as 50 million gallons (200,000 m3) per day pass through the reservoir for treatment and distribution to a portion of the 1.3 million customers served by EBMUD. The dam is founded mainly on alluvium and was originally built in 1920 using materials excavated from the left and right abutments consisting of siltstone, claystone, fine-grained sandstone, mudstone, and shale that were excavated and placed using hydraulic fill methods. The dam is located within two miles (three kilometers) of the Hayward Fault which is capable of a moment magnitude 7.25 earthquake.Because of the foundation materials, construction method, and proximity to the Hayward Fault, the dam has undergone a series of seismic improvements, including the placement of a downstream compacted earth buttress in 1967 and an upstream compacted earth buttress in 1979. In 2002, the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) requested that EBMUD evaluate the seismic stability of San Pablo Dam, following the results of a study that same year that indicated a 62 percent chance of a greater than 6.7 magnitude earthquake striking the San Francisco Bay region between 2003 and 2032. The dam was evaluated and it was concluded that portions of the underlying foundation soils may liquefy during the maximum credible earthquake which could cause the dam to become unstable."

Jan 1, 2015

By Rick Ellman, Ian Chaney

"The Hampton Roads area encompassing the Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Newport News metropolitan region experiences some of the worst traffic congestion in Virginia. With continued growth of the ports and increasing demand, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) initiated the Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/MLK Expressway Project, a complex undertaking critical to addressing the Hampton Roads area’s transportation needs. The project is a $2.1 billion Design/Build/Finance/Operate (DBFO) endeavor most notably involving the construction of a new two-lane vehicular tunnel utilizing the Immersed Tube Tunnel (ITT) method. The tunnel will pass under the Elizabeth River parallel to the existing Midtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth, Va. It will be the largest design-build project constructed in the history of the Hampton Roads District.The New Midtown Tunnel will extend approximately 6,450 ft (1,966 m) along the north side of the existing tunnel where it ties into the existing Midtown Tunnel approaches in Norfolk and Portsmouth. It is being installed in a pre-excavated trench of which approximately 2,250 ft (686 m) required bracing on the Portsmouth side and approximately 1,000 ft (305 m) required bracing on the Norfolk side. The remaining 3,200 ft (975 m) of trench excavation was open cut dredging with laid back side slopes, optimized to reduce dredging, disposal and backfill quantities while also reducing the risk to the existing tunnel. The braced excavation portions of the tunnel alignment were divided into distinct segments which include: Portsmouth Approach Boat Section, Portsmouth Approach Cut-and-Cover Section, Portsmouth Dredge Section, Norfolk Dredge Section, Norfolk Approach Cut-and- Cover Section and the Norfolk Approach Boat Section. All “approach” excavations were performed in the dry and all “dredge” excavations were performed in the wet. Eleven ITT segments are being fabricated in the Sparrows Point Dry Dock facility in Baltimore, Md., and each 14,000 ton (12,700 tonne) segment is being towed approximately 220 mi (354 km) to the site. The ITT segments will extend under the Elizabeth River, with the deepest crossing 90 ft (27 m) at the Federal Navigation Channel. Once beyond the channel limits the ITT rises at an approximate 4.5% slope. Controlled screeding and element lowering operations will be performed primarily from floating barges."

Jan 1, 2014

By Joseph A. Mann

"Soil mixing is a proven solution for the construction of ground improvement adjacent to sensitive structures due to the use of computer controlled and monitored equipment. The precision to which geometry is controlled can often be the deciding factor for selection of soil mixing versus other means of ground improvement. Protection of existing structures and utilities requires careful planning, investigation, and may demand supplemental control measures. During planning, it is imperative that the process be fully developed by the project team to ensure proper control measures are budgeted; otherwise, the success and safety of a project can be jeopardized.This paper discusses case histories of soil mixing performed in close proximity to large, sensitive, and critical utilities, including foundation support for an existing earthen dam impounding a water reservoir in upstate NY, a buffer zone for a tunnel drop shaft at an operating wastewater treatment plant in Washington DC, and a containment system to protect a major water line along an interstate widening project in Baltimore, MD. The function of soil mixing as ground improvement varied; however, the selection and application of the technique versus other means of ground improvement was specific due to the controlled manner of construction with soil mixing. Through the three case studies, small diameter (3- ft [0.9 m]), large diameter (8-ft [2.4 m]), and mass mixing applications will be discussed. Furthermore, the case studies offer insight into how the geotechnical community in the Mid-Atlantic utilizes soil mixing technology for widely varying applications. Additional topics of discussion will be the design and construction of the ground improvement systems, procedures and execution of the work to protect existing structures, and the QA/QC methods, procedures, and results from the projects.INTRODUCTIONWet soil mixing, also known as the Deep Mixing Method, is a ground improvement technique that improves the characteristics of weak soils by mechanically mixing them with cementitious binder slurry. To construct columns, a powerful drill advances a mixing tool with radial mixing paddles located near the bottom of the drill string. The binder slurry is pumped through the drill string to the tool as it advances and additional soil mixing is achieved as the tool is withdrawn.Wet soil mixing is applicable in a wide range of soils. Soil mixing has been performed at depths more than 100 lf (30 m). Soils vary widely in their ability to be mixed, depending on the soil type, strength, water content, plasticity, stratigraphy, and texture. Almost any soil type, including organics, can be treated with certain soil mixing technologies, although they may require high binder contents and/or pretreatment to achieve the required results. In cases when the target soil is very soft, including some very weak clays and peats, 100% of the soil may require treatment. This complete coverage of soil mixing is referred to as mass mixing."

Jan 1, 2015

By R. Lee Wooten, David R. Shields, Darren D. Clark

"Borehole permeability tests that measure flow or head changes in boreholes located within seepage barrier walls are commonly used to estimate the in situ permeabilities of those walls for quality control and assurance. The current state of practice for estimating permeabilities from these barrier wall borehole tests is to use equations published by M. J. Hvorslev in 1951. Hvorslev’s borehole test equations model an infinite stratum of uniform permeability, which is not the actual condition for a test performed in a low permeability barrier wall located within a high permeability stratum. We examine and develop alternative equations based on line source analytical models, which more closely match barrier wall test conditions. We describe how these alternate equations can be used to estimate barrier wall permeabilities from borehole tests and compare the results to those obtained from the Hvorslev models. We also provide recommendations that consider differing upstream and downstream water levels.Barrier Wall Permeability Tests - State Of PracticeThe installation of seepage barrier walls has become more common in a variety of applications ranging from dams and levees to contaminated sites requiring retardation of groundwater flow. The types of seepage barrier walls and installation methods include soil-bentonite, soil-cement-bentonite, concrete, self-hardening slurry, geomembranes, and sheet piles, installed with various soil mixing, slurry-supported trench, and driving methods.Owners and contractors have used a variety of methods to evaluate the permeability of these seepage barriers. The following table lists commonly used quality control/assurance tests for evaluating the permeability of a seepage barrier."

Jan 1, 2016

By Joe Harris

Large structures, such as a multistory office building or a large storage tank, are constructed the most economical way possible, which may involve a shallow foundation system placed on native soil or compacted fill material. Over the life of the structure, the foundation system may not perform as originally anticipated, leading to differential settlement. Minor differ- ential settlement is expected; however, settlement that exceeds allotted tolerance can render the structure inoperable. Compaction grouting is a well-known and accepted ground improvement technique that can be used to not only stabilize but relevel multistory buildings and large dia- meter storage tanks. Two projects, each with differing types of structures, were successfully remediated utilizing com- paction grouting as the primary method to remedy settlement.

Sep 1, 2023

By Roger A. Bullivant

The introduction of this size and type of piling rig is intended to address a multipurpose foundation activity. The 8000 denotes the size of equipment that is attached to the mast, namely 8000 Kg. Larger equipment can be carried subject to adjustment of rig geometry. The 8000 series rig will easily accept hydraulic piling hammers and CFA equipment, but for the purpose of this discussion it will be equipped with an auxiliary power pack that is matched to twin vibrators. The design of the siamesed vibrators allows long tube equipment or piles to be driven with a short mast configuration that provides a lower overturning risk. It is easily adapted within minutes to carry out other foundation requirements that are required on the same contract. The piling and ground consolidation activities that can be undertaken by the 800 series machine are:-

Jan 1, 1995

By Stefan Schwank, Alexander Blatt, Franz-Werner Gerressen

Diaphragm wall technique is usually used to install diaphragm walls, which are known as underground structural elements commonly used for retention systems and permanent foundation elements as well as deep groundwater barriers, named Cut-Off-Walls (COW). In this exploration project, the diaphragm wall equipment was used in the 2019 summer season to perform the first part of an exploration and bulk sampling program for a potential mine on the Star Kimberlite. Beside the idea of using the diaphragm wall technique as bulk sampling equipment, the sampling program required the adaption of equipment and tools for a depth capability never reached before by a trench cutter in any commercial application worldwide. The paper will explain the development of the sampling program as well as the challenges occurred with the local geology and the specific demands of the exploration and sampling program. It will also provide an overview of the lessons learned during the 2019 season and will give an outlook to the approaches of optimization for the second phase which will be carried out in 2020.

By R. J. Yan

There was a plant equipped with a 32000t Hydraulic Press to be built, under which a box foundation of 22.5m x 15m x 14.25m (depth) with a base slab of, varying thickness was proposed. The subgrade reactions, bending moments and settlements needed to be determined by means of in-situ model test. A model of the same materials as the prototype scaled to l/10 was embedded in-situ with simulated depth in the bedrock. A lot of data obtained from 39 bench marks, 32 elongation measuring points, 30 couples of electric resistance strain gauges and 24 pressure cells attached to the model foundation enables all the quantities required to be found out. Since it was put into operation, the settlements measured has reasonably agreed with the test results and the foundation has been in good condition.

Jan 1, 2010

The pile inspector is a critical element in the quality control process necessary for a successful pile installation project. This guide is intended to provide the inspector with a basic understanding of only one of the many components of this process - the pile driving hammer. Pile driving hammers are used to install both bearing piles for structure foundations and sheet piles (and soldier piles) as used in retaining structures. In a single document, this guide offers a general presentation of the operation of the more common types of hammers the inspector is likely to encounter. It should make the information in the contractor's hammer submittal for the project more understandable. It should also provide an appreciation for the importance of a properly operating pile hammer. Prior to the start of most pile driving operations, the contractor will normally furnish a submittal to the engineer giving the specific pile driving equipment that he intends to use on the job. This submittal should include the make, model, and type of the intended pile driving hammer or hammers and their operating characteristics such as ram weight, rated energy, operating speed, external power requirements and, other pertinent information. Frequently, the operating characteristics are provided in the form of the manufacturer's specification sheet. The engineer will review this information and when he is satisfied, approve it and pass it on to the inspector. The driving criteria will have been determined by the engineer or others (the geotechnical engineer, consulting engineer, contractor, etc.) from the results of static analysis (for minimum penetration), driving during a test pile installation, Wave Equation analysis, dynamic formula, pile instrumentation during driving, static load test, or a combination of these or other appropriate analyses. The driving criteria can be a minimum penetration of driven pile length (embedded length), or a minimum (or maximum) blow count per unit of penetration. The pile inspector should become familiar with this information prior to the start of the job and should understand or seek help to comprehend the terminology and intent of each specification.

Jan 1, 1995

By Jean Wehbe, Daniel C. Brahana

"The new Mercedes-Benz Stadium (MBS), home of the Atlanta Falcons, is part of a new era of stadium construction in the U.S. These new-age stadiums are larger and have more amenities than their predecessors. Many of the MBS’s features, including its innovative retractable roof, result in extraordinary structural loads. The roof structure is supported by a series of mega columns that bear on eight large caps, six of which are supported by drilled piers. Each of the pier caps contains between 8 and 16 drilled piers that bear in the underlying bedrock. The design pier diameters are 6 and 6.5 ft (1.8 m and 1.9 m). Augercast piles were used to support two of the mega column caps. Drilled piers, augercast piles, aggregate piers and spread footings were used to support the more lightly loaded portions of the structure.The focus of this article is the construction aspects of the drilled pier foundations. Initially, a fairly extensive drilled pier load test program was performed. Load testing included a Statnamic compression test, two Osterberg Cell tests and two lateral tests. Production pier installation included over 3,800 linear ft (1,158.2 m) of earth excavation and over 1,350 linear ft (411.4 m) of hard rock excavation. The piers contain more than 6,600 cu yd (4,587.3 cu m) of concrete and 1,100 tons (998 tonnes) of reinforcing steel. Drilled pier installation took about 4.5 months. ABE Enterprises was the specialty foundation subcontractor and Bauer-Pileco was the equipment provider.Site and Subsurface ConditionsThe project site is in downtown Atlanta and was originally occupied by residential buildings. A portion of the site was later developed as a rail yard, and other areas contained light manufacturing, warehouses and other relatively light structures. For the past 15 to 20 years the site had been used for surface parking.Beneath a surficial layer of manmade fill, soil test borings at the site generally encountered residual soil, partially weathered rock and the parent bedrock. The bedrock at the site is highly variable, both in elevation and in hardness/quality. The depth to rock is reasonably uniform within the western two-thirds of the site at about 20 to 50 ft (6 to 15.2 m), with a few exceptions. In the eastern third of the site, the rock drops off dramatically to the north and east. In one mega column cap, there was almost 80 ft (24.3 m) in elevation difference. In two borings in the cap that were 20 ft (6.1 m) apart, the top of rock varied in elevation by 34 ft (10.3 m)"

Jan 1, 2016

By Julie Clarke

In 1939 Dr. Ralph Peck criticized the Civil Engineering community for taking a bifurcated approach to the prediction of building damage due to subsurface geo-technical works. Specifically, he observed that Geotechnical Engineers concerned themselves only with subsurface issues implying that their results were largely independent of the presence and condition of the structures above. He continued that Structural Engineers charged with risk assessment of buildings approached their work nearly in isolation of below ground activities. Seventy years later, although the state-of-the-art has enabled a better understanding of soil-structure interaction, the reality remains that risk assessment from subsurface construction, is not yet an integrated activity when done on a large-scale basis. To help move beyond this, this paper proposes a new, integrated methodology for preliminary assessment that considers a three-stage process that involves the following: (1) traditional empirical relationships for predicting ground movement from tunneling, (2) recent advances in condition assessments, and (3) architectural designators related to usage and historic preservation listings. The methodology is applied to a study area of nearly 260 buildings in the city center of Dublin Ireland, in an area slated for an upcoming metro. The results are com-pared to the Environmental Impact Statement issued for the official project. Al-though the test case is for tunneling, the approach may be adapted to other subsurface construction activities including excavation and piling.

Jan 1, 2009

Jan 1, 2001

By Joseph A. Sopko

The first documented procedures for designing frozen earth structures are over 50 years old, implemented long before the introduction of the Finite Element Method (FEM). Since that time, the development of three-dimensional models has made the traditional and often over-conservative methods relatively obsolete. This paper discusses a new approach that is largely dependent on the analysis of internal stresses with the frozen structure and comparison to frozen soil laboratory tests. A specific design process is discussed related to initial field investigation, laboratory testing, structural and thermal analysis, and performance monitoring. The design results are compared to case histories in the field that verify the procedure. BACKGROUND One of the first documented methods to designing frozen earth retaining structures was by Sangar (1968). Methodical refinements were published by (Harris 1995) and published by the International Symposium on Ground Freezing in 2002 (Andersland et al. 1991). The structural design or thickness of the frozen mass was based on the unconfined compressive strength of the frozen soils. Two simple equations for determining the thickness of a frozen shaft are shown in Fig. 1 and the first two equations below.

Jan 1, 2019