Search Documents

By Dan Brown

Improvements in construction equipment and techniques in recent years have made possible the use of drilled shaft foundations in diameters and lengths not previously considered practical or feasible. Many highway bridge and other structures are now routinely founded on drilled shafts which -are 8 to 12 feet in diameter and extending over 200 feet in depth below grade. There are unique challenges associated with constructing such large and deep cast-In-place foundations and engineers should be aware of the special needs associated with site investigation, construction specifications, material requirements, and quality assurance. This paper outlines a number of special considerations for these foundations, along with strategies that may be employed to improve the reliability and quality of large drilled shaft foundations.

May 11, 2007

By Jean Wehbe, Daniel C. Brahana

"This paper presents a case history of drilled pier construction for a new stadium in Atlanta, Georgia. The stadium structure is supported on several different foundation types, with the heaviest ""mega columns"" typically bearing on drilled pier supported mats. The project includes 141 drilled piers with design diameters of 5.5, 6 and 6.5 feet. The piers bear on bedrock at depths of 20 to 110 feet below the ground surface. Many of the piers included rock sockets with design lengths of 5 to 18 feet. A pre-production drilled pier load test program was completed including one Statnamic load test, two Osterberg Cell tests and two lateral load tests. Non-destructive testing (crosshole sonic logging and sonic integrity testing) were also performed during construction. Production pier installation with over 3800 linear feet of earth excavation and over 1350 linear feet of rock excavation was completed in a little over four months. The piers were installed using both the cased hole method and the slurry method. All cased holed required downhole inspection and slurry holes were initially inspected with a mini-SID device and subsequently by sounding. Advanced drilling equipment and tooling were used to meet the production requirements for the project. This paper reviews the highly variable soil and rock conditions encountered at the site, briefly presents the results of the load tests, and discusses pier installation procedures and the equipment used for installation. The paper also presents conclusions related to the installation and lessons learned.INTRODUCTIONWith the opening of AT&T Stadium in Dallas, a new era of stadium construction began in the U.S. The new age stadiums are larger and have more amenities than their predecessors. The new Atlanta Falcons stadium is no exception. Many of the new features, including Atlanta’s 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 drilled pier supported. 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 feet. Augercast piles were used to support two of the mega column caps. Drilled piers, augercast piles, aggregate piers and spread footings are used to support the more lightly loaded portions of the structure."

Jan 1, 2017

By Davide Grassi, Joel Joaquin Cortez, Giovanni Spagnoli, Nick Chittenden

Grouting is a technique used to improve the engineering properties of soils and rocks. Grouting techniques are classified under different criteria: injection method used, type of grout material injected, typical application, and the sequence of construction. The best-known criterion is the mode of entrance or admission of grout into the soil or rock. It is possible to identify therefore several grouting techniques: compaction, fracture, jet/mixing and permeation. The function of penetration grouting is to reduce the permeability of the soil or rock and/or increase the strength and density. In order to avoid displacement, permeation grouting shall be carried out at carefully controlled pressures and flow rates, using appropriate grouts. Colloidal silica is an innovative binder which has low viscosity (about 5 m·Pas), it is not toxic (pH lower than 9) and it is workable between +5°C and +45°C. This paper presents several case histories: a consolidation job related to the installation of a new sewer in North Italy in cohesionless soils, water stopping injection in a weathered granitic bedrock in California, permeation works in the US in sandy soils to improve excavation and the installation of sheet piles in the UAE. Results show that the colloidal silica an innovative and robust technology to perform grouting in very fine soils where conventional binders or micro-fine cements cannot penetrate.

May 1, 2022

By William B. Conway

This paper will describe the large caisson pier foundations for four of the bridges crossing the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area; and will discuss some of the unusual problems encountered during their sinking. Certain settlement phenomena experienced during their service life will also be related: The four bridges in order of their construction: The Huey P. Long Bridge, River Mile 106.1, completed in 1935 The Greater New Orleans Bridge No. 1, River Mile 96.0, completed in 1958 The Hale Boggs Bridge, River Mile 121.6, completed in 1983 The Greater New Orleans Bridge No. 2, River Mile 96.1, completed in 1988 Each of these bridges employed large open-dredged concrete caissons as foundations for one or more of the river piers, with the smallest being the 65ft by 102ft caissons for Piers I and II of the Huey P. Long Bridge and the largest being the 99ft by 214ft caisson for Pier II of the Greater New Orleans Bridge No. 2. The Huey P. Long caissons are founded in a dense fine sand at -170 while all of the other bridge caissons are founded in hard preconsolidated clay at elevations varying from -150 to -185. The Huey P. Long Bridge is currently being widened without increasing the caisson foundations under any of the river piers; and the design reasoning that led to this decision is presented.

Jan 1, 2013

By Mohammad Ali Rowshanzamir, Mehdi Aghayarzadeh

"This article is an effort to improve our understanding of the performance of geogrid retaining structures (GRS) through numerical analyses. The numerical modeling utilized a commercially available finite difference program, FLAC3D. In this context an extensive parametric study has been carried out on two different GRS walls (vertical reinforced block and inclined reinforced block) to investigate the influence of internal design factors such as soil strength properties and reinforcement stiffness on the performance of these walls. The main purposes of the parametric study were to (1) investigate the sensitivity of the modeling results to the input material properties, (2) examine the influence of the internal design factors on the performance of GRS retaining structures, and (3) improve the internal design of GRS walls on the basis of the working stress information obtained from the parametric study. Based on the analyses results, it was revealed that GRS walls with oblique reinforcement and reinforced block (rotated against natural backfill) have much better performance in terms of reduction in the stresses and strains of reinforcing elements as well as decrease in the wall lateral and vertical displacements in comparison with vertical reinforced block (conventional wall). For example, with 12° inclination of the wall reinforced block there was 50% reduction in the backfill settlement. Also increasing the reinforcement stiffness amount from 10MPa to 50MPa decreases the wall face displacement more than 50% in both GRS walls.INTRODUCTIONOver the past few decades, Geosynthetic- Reinforced Soil (GRS), a soil mass reinforced by geosynthetic layers to restrain the soil lateral deformations, has been employed in the construction of many types of earth structures, including retaining walls, embankments, slopes and bridge abutments. In fact GRS structures are typically more flexible (hence more tolerant to differential settlement), more adaptable to low quality backfill, easier to construct, require less over-excavation, and more economical. Nevertheless, there is a need for an accurate design tool that can predict the performance of GRS structures under working stress conditions and can predict their failure loads as well.Many studies have been published on the performance of the soil reinforced walls such as Isabel et al., 1996; Bathurst et al., 2000; Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, 2005; Nernheim and Bathurst, 2008; Chen and Chiu, 2008 Correia et al., 2012; Erlich et al. 2012. Several numerical studies have also been made throgh finite elements and finite difference techniques on reinforced soil retaining walls to analyze the wall deformations (e.g. Hatami et al. 2001& 2006, Liu and Won 2009, and Abdelouhab et al. 2011). A limited laboratory research has been reported indicating of improving effect of tilting face on GRW performance (Chen and Chiu, 2008). However no major numerical study was found on the effects of face or reinforcement tilting."

Jan 1, 2017

By Ed Revoort, Robert Schippers

In Rotterdam in the Netherlands the project ‘De Zalmhaven’ is being developed. The project consists of the realization of houses, parking facilities, two residential towers of 70 m and a residential high rise of 215 m. An artist impression for the project is given in figure 1. For the high rise a new development in the use of large diameter, drilled piles with a steel casing has been successfully utilized. In this article the installation method of 65 m long steel drilled piles in two consecutive sections is presented. The settlements for the building (and the influence on its surroundings) have been analyzed in detail using 3D Finite Element calculations, which will also be discussed. Finally there is focus on the results of settlement measurements carried out during construction in relation to the settlement prognosis.

May 1, 2022

By Brandon Smith, William Bohlen

Riverbank erosion along the Brazos River has modified the structural support conditions for an existing bridge structure in Southeast Texas. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was completed in 1992 along Highway 99, a key corridor for the Houston area. Foundation support conditions have been altered due to natural, ongoing river morphology for three bents on the affected riverbank. Recent events include three storms within a three-year period that each exceeded the 500-year return probability. This resulted in accelerated erosion along the northern riverbank. Over forty vertical feet of soil has been removed in some locations. Drilled shaft foundations are now functioning as columns. This review considers the behavior of columns and deep foundation elements due to the modified support conditions. The review ultimately presents a rational methodology for the review of the present and anticipated future bridge configuration with respect to current strength, service, and extreme event limits, with corresponding safety factors for the design. Introduction and Background The Fort Bend Grand Parkway Toll Road Authority (Owner) oversees the State Highway 99 Judge Jodie Stavinoha Bridge over the Brazos River. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was originally designed with four southern approach spans of 115 feet; a three-span continuous river crossing with span lengths of 195 feet-235 feet-195 feet; and a single northern approach span of 115 feet. Figure 1 provides an overview of the northern portion of the bridge. Table 1 provides a summary of the original bridge substructure configuration. When the bridge was completed, the centerline of the Brazos River was located at midpsan of the main span and the northern high bank was originally located at Bent 7. Erosion process has forced the northern high bank to Abutment 9 (also called Bent 9), and the river centerline during normal flow conditions is located south of Bent 8. The overall estimated river excursion at present day is approximately 270 feet to the north from its original location. An erosion wall that was installed in 2017 limits further erosion of the north river bank within the 300-foot width of the roadway corridor right-of-way. This study was developed to better understand the existing conditions, and to forecast the need, nature, and criteria for potential future improvements.

Jan 1, 2019

By Jack Taggart, Chris Barker

Pile load testing strategies for large infrastructure projects and multi-phase building developments have historically justified cost and programme benefits for undertaking advance preliminary and working pile load testing. However, more recently piling and pile load testing strategies have included assessment of the embodied carbon to understand and present the carbon savings that can also be achieved. This paper gives an overview of the factors contributing to carbon and emissions in the construction of bored pile foundations and presents the methodology taken in assessing embodied carbon as part of the pile load testing strategy for a multi-phased building development in London. Potential embodied carbon savings for various bored pile types and load testing strategies are discussed alongside alternatives and other considerations including pile re-use and carbon offsetting to inform continual improvement for future projects.

May 1, 2022

By Peter Middendorp, David J. Tara, Gerald E. Verbeek, Jan Fischer

"For pile driving simulation the model used must be accurate for the entire process, i.e. from the start of pile driving until the pile has reached its target depth. Of the various model components (hammer, pile and soil), the soil is the most difficult to characterize accurately. This is well known, but the aspect that is not as well understood (and therefore commonly misapplied) is the fact that the soil properties and thus the soil parameters do not remain constant during the pile driving process. Furthermore, this phenomenon of soil fatigue, mainly for skin friction, as a continual change of soil resistance during pile installation, is not implemented into all commonly applied pile driving simulation software and could therefore not be taken into consideration. In this paper the effect of soil fatigue will be described by numerous research results, showing that this effect will occur regardless. Different methods to consider the change of soil resistance during pile installation will be presented, some applying soil fatigue while others merely reduce soil resistances. Using currently available wave equation software that can take soil fatigue into consideration, the importance of doing so will be shown on the basis of the back calculation of a monopile installed offshore in Germany.THEORY BEHIND SOIL FATIGUESkin friction and toe resistanceTo simulate pile installation as accurately as possible, detailed geotechnical knowledge about the mechanical behavior of the soil surrounding the pile is necessary during each step of the installation process. Therefore, to ensure ""geo-mechanical correctness"" of a pile driving simulation, the shaft friction and the toe resistance have to be recalculated at each penetration level. For the skin friction parameters this is especially important since they change significantly during pile installation because of soil fatigue. Depending on the pile and soil type, the toe resistance can experience changes as well due to soil fatigue during to pile driving. However, in this paper the toe resistance values were kept constant over the entire penetration depth.In general, the unit skin friction can be derived from measured values (CPT, qs) or calculated as a function of the horizontal effective stresses dh acting perpendicular to the pile wall of a vertically driven pile. The horizontal stresses can then be converted into the unit skin friction qs using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:"

Jan 1, 2017

By Mike Muchard

A design phase load test program was performed at the Broadway Viaduct bridge site to evaluate load carrying capacity and constructability of post grouted drilled shafts. The program included construction, instrumentation, post grouting and load testing of three drilled shafts. Two shafts included sleeve port and plate base grouting apparatus and were post grouted. The third shaft was un-grouted and served as a control shaft for comparison of the un-grouted end bearing. The shafts were 5 feet in diameter with the control shaft at 55 feet in length and post grouted shafts at 55 and 66 feet. SPT borings at the centerline of each test shaft defined geotechnical conditions at each shaft. Test shafts were instrumented with strain gages and concrete integrity was evaluated with crosshole sonic logging. Instrumentation and data acquisition was used during the post grouting operation to fully capture the shaft behavior. Finally, Statnamic load testing was performed on all three shafts to their ultimate capacity. The fine to coarse sandy soils in which the shafts were tipped in were well suited to improvement from post grouting. Grout pressures of 660 psi were achieved with 0.08 inch or less of upward shaft movement. Subsequent Statnamic load tests showed 183 to 192 percent greater end bearing in the post grouted shafts as compared to the un-grouted shaft. The overall result showed a potential savings of approximately 9 feet to 35 feet of drilled shaft length in addition to the increased quality assurance from post grouting.

Jan 1, 2009

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 Vishal Pathak, Shailesh A. Godhuly

Ground Modification System in terms of Jet Grouting for soil strengthening and mass stabilization was engaged for a power plant project in an international power project, engineered by L&T-S&L. The site Geology consist of cohesionless type of sandy alluvial deposits (silty fine sand) as the main formation. Ground water table is encountered at shallow depth. Geological interpretation is done using soil investigation data along with CPT’s. This paper discusses design and implementation of jet grout technique to improve the mechanical behaviour of soil. To distribute load evenly from superstructure, a layer of growmast (drainage blanket) is laid above jet grout columns. Settlement evaluation is done using Finite element analysis with Plaxis 2D and Settle 3D. In the project, selected equipment foundations are resting on jet-grout columns including vibratory equipment like 144MW Gas Turbine etc. The project has been commissioned in September 2021 and operating with full capacity.

Sep 1, 2022

By K. Ronald Chapman, Claus Ludwig, Doug Jenevein

"In the spring of 2005 Schnabel Foundation Company completed a $15.2 million Design/Build subcontract to underpin 11 structures, and provide 202,800 square feet of earth retention for the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor (ReTRAC) project in Reno, Nevada. Schnabel’s work was part of a Design/Build contract to depress a railroad alignment through downtown Reno. The depressed section was 2.2 miles long, 54 ft wide, and up to 35 ft deep (3.5 km long, 16.5m wide and up to 10.7m deep). The trench structure was required to be watertight. SUBCONTRACT WORK OVERVIEWEleven buildings along the track alignment required underpinning. Three types of underpinning were used, designated Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3.At four buildings the trench retaining walls were to be located directly under the exterior footings. This alignment eliminated traditional underpinning and cut-off wall techniques that could normally be used to support structures. Type 1 underpinning was used at these buildings. This underpinning system consisted of a combination of permeation grouting, hand-dug piers, and permanent tiebacks. This underpinning system became the new watertight trench walls.Five buildings were located a few feet behind the trench walls, and their exterior walls were supported by continuous footings. Type 2 micropile/pile cap underpinning (patent pending) was used to support these buildings.The remaining two buildings were also located a few feet behind the trench walls, but they had column footings along the exterior walls. At these structures traditional micropile underpinning was provided through the existing footings. This is described as Type 3 underpinning.Temporary earth retention was required on both sides of the trench along most of the alignment. This shoring supported frontage roads, private property and surcharge from the temporary railroad shoofly running parallel to one side of the trench.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSThe soil along the trench alignment consisted of river outwash deposits. The top 2 to 18 feet (0.6m to 5.5m) generally consisted of flood plain silt and sand deposits, or fine-grained fills. These fine-grained soils are underlain by the Tahoe Outwash Formation which consists of interbedded layers of sand; sand and gravel; and sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. Some of these layers encountered during construction consisted of 30 to 50 percent cobbles and boulders, with some boulders up to eight feet in diameter.A major challenge to the design and construction of the trench structures and the underpinning was the ground water table which was 10 feet (3m) above subgrade in the deepest portions of the trench. Based on specification restrictions, temporary and permanent dewatering was not feasible. As a result, the selected design and construction methods had to consider three water conditions: the anticipated groundwater level during construction (CGW), the groundwater level for permanent design (DGW), and an additional special design condition with water at street grade."

Jan 1, 2006

By P. D. Arumairaj, B. Vani

"Micropiles are small diameter cast insitu reinforced grouted piles and it has been effectively used in many applications of ground improvement. It increases the load carrying capacity of soil and reduces the settlement. It is also used in strengthening existing foundations. In this study, the effect of Solid and Hollow micropiles on the load carrying capacity of footing resting on sand is studied. The effects of solid Micropiles are investigated by conducting experimental model studies. The parameters involved in this study include the position of pile, pile length and pile spacing. Load test was carried out on a model footing resting on sand with solid and hollow micropiles. Load test trail is repeated for footing on Micropiles with varying lengths of 10, 20, and 30 times the diameter and spacing equal to 5, 4, 3, 2 times the diameter. The load-settlement behavior of each case is compared. Optimum length and optimum spacing of both the solid micropile and hollow micropile are determined. It is also observed that the effect of micropiles in the peripheral of footing resists lateral displacement of soil underneath the footing. The micropile beyond significant depth becomes redundant.INTRODUCTIONA micropile is a small diameter (less than 300 mm) drilled and grouted pile that is typically reinforced - FHWA-NHI 2005 (Federal Highway Administration-National Highway Institution). It is constructed by drilling a borehole, placing a steel reinforcing element into the borehole and grouting it. Hollow micropiles are typically reinforced by solid central bar that occupies about onethird of the hole volume. The grout is placed by gravity, under pressure methods or by a combination of both (post grouting). Thus, micropiles can be considered as small drilled-shafts that are specially drilled and grouted.Historically, micropiles have been introduced in Italy as a foundation system mainly for retrofitting and underpinning of structures that had sustained damage during World War II and access for conventional piling equipment was not possible (Bruce, 1988). The second generation of micropiles is a pressure grouted piles with a central mono all thread bar (with diameter up to 89 mm). They are installed by using either an open or cased hole drilling method.A new generation of micropiles, termed Grout injection bore micropiles (IBOR), was developed in the 1980s. The IBOR, currently named hollow bar micropiles, utilizes a continuous all-threaded hollow steel bar as the drilling and grouting conduit, which allows drilling and grouting simultaneously without the need of a casing during drilling. A sacrificial (lost) bit with openings that allow for pressure grouting of the hole is threaded onto the end of the hollow bar and is left in place following drilling. A drilling fluid (air, water, or grout) is introduced through the hollow bar and allows the spoils to flush from the borehole opening. Upon reaching the required depth, neat cement grout is then injected under high pressure into the drilled hole to fill the annulus between the bar and the soil from the bottom to the top. Due to the grouting method employed, the shape of the hollow bar micropile is expected to have a bulb shape with an enlarged base."

Jan 1, 2015

By Charles M. Wilk

"Mass stabilization involves mixing binding agents into marginal or contaminated soil to improve the subject material’s physical and/or chemical properties. This paper concentrates on the principles of soil mixing and benefits and application to new and existing rail right-of-way. Successfully applied in Scandinavia and other European countries, the soil mixing is now being applied in right of way in the northern latitudes of the U.S. and Canada. These regions have significant areas of “peaty” soils that can complicate construction and maintenance of rail and structure foundations. Mass stabilization can be used to improve the bearing strength of these soft soils for subsequent construction of railroads, pipelines, roads, and buildings. In civil engineering, the technology is often used to improve the construction properties such as bearing strength, of a marginal soil. In environmental engineering, stabilization is remediation treatment technology that protects human health and the environment by immobilizing hazardous constituents within the treated material. . The treatment is conducted while the subject material remains in-place (insitu). Mass Stabilization is often used to accomplish both civil and environmental purposes on the same project effectively addressing marginal soil while eliminating the expense of soil removal and replacement.This paper presents the principles of mass stabilization technology, implementation in the field and recent completed railway projects.The example rail projects will present the various benefits that soil mixing provides to railway construction and maintenance. Bench-scale studies and full scale implementation as well as soil construction properties before and after mass stabilization will be discussed. The paper and presentation will include information on the advantages of mixing methods and binding agent delivery systems.INTRODUCTIONNew or existing railroad right-of-ways may cross ground with low bearing capacity. Right of way subgrade undergo deflection (strain) as loads (stress) are applied (1). The amount of strain or deflection of the subgrade caused by loading of a train is proportional to the stiffness of the subgrade materials. Some soils, such as tamped ballast, are very stiff and resist loads well. Other soils such as soft clay, peat, or loose sand have low stiffness and undergo substantial movement under loads. It is very desirable to have the stiffest possible material in a track subgrade. Stiff subgrade material limits deflection under load, reducing track roughness and occurrence of track defects. Mass stabilization is a geotechnical method that can be used to improve the bearing capacity or stiffness of soil in these right-of-way. Mass stabilization involves mixing binding agents into soil subject to treatment while the soil remains in-place or insitu. Variations in the design or areas subject to treatment can be used to address transmission of vibration to adjacent structures."

Jan 1, 2017

By Mousaab Majar, Nikolaus Schneider

The technical challenges for accurate drilling positions increase with deep underground structures in inner city areas. Designed for jet grouting, specific sensors have been developed to record the alignment of rods during drilling by integrating microchips into the drilling rods. By feeding the rod with constant electric current, microchips, integrated in special couplings, can be read during the drilling process and tracked on monitors installed in the operator’s cockpit. The orientation for the drilling rod is provided by magnetic points and a compass, positioned above ground on the drilling rig. In combination with asymmetric drilling bits, it is now possible to steer the drilling hole to predetermined positions to compensate for deviations in deep bores. This type of drilling rod for jet grouting has been used in Berlin since summer 2019.

May 1, 2022

By Franz-Werner Gerressen, Manfred Schoepf

"Diaphragm walls are known as underground structural elements commonly used as retention systems for excavation pits and shafts and permanent foundation walls or elements. It can be anticipated that, with the increasing trend of utilizing more and more underground space to accommodate environmental considerations and urban/suburban development, there will be an increasing requirement for diaphragm walling in even more complex conditions. Complex and/or challenging conditions in terms of ground conditions have a major impact in regards of choosing the right tools for excavation purpose. Complex conditions in terms of space limitations, especially for inner city job sites, require specifically adapted solutions for slurry, spoil, reinforcement and concrete handling and the related logistic to ensure smooth production. Furthermore, one focus will be given to the QA/QC topics of the production process. Real time installation control, data transfer and reporting systems become more and more important ensuring the five dimensions of a jobsite. Therefore, the paper will describe the construction method and the sequence of activities required for the construction of diaphragm wall systems with the focus on the cutter technology. It will describe also the main equipment which will be needed to execute these works under the various conditions INTRODUCTION Diaphragm walls are known as underground structural elements commonly used as retention systems for excavation pits and shafts and permanent foundation walls or elements. It can be anticipated that, with the increasing trend of utilizing more and more underground space to accommodate environmental considerations and urban/suburban development, there will be an increasing requirement for diaphragm wall usage in even more difficult conditions. Of course diaphragm wall can also be used as deep groundwater barriers (Cut-Off-Walls). This market has shown that the demand for these types of walls is reaching more and more difficult soil conditions or required depths which are surpassing the current standard. The trench cutter is the most important tool for performing this work. The trench cutter itself is a reverse circulation excavation tool. It consists of a heavy steel frame with two drive gears attached to its bottom end, which rotates in opposite direction around horizontal axis. Cutter wheels are mounted onto the drive gears. As they rotate, the soil beneath the cutter is continuously being broken up, removed, mixed with the bentonite slurry in the trench and moved towards the opening of the pump suction box. The slurry loaded with soil and rock particles is pumped by a centrifugal pump which is located right above the cutter wheels, up through a hose system up to a desanding plant where the slurry is cleaned and returned into the trench."

Jan 1, 2015

By Donald Deardorff

Helical piles often rely on the final installation torque for ultimate capacity verification. When helical piles are designed using traditional bearing capacity equations for deep foundations and field monitored for a specified final installation torque, a factor of safety equal to 2 is often allowed for the design. One of the more common methods of determining torque during helical pile installation is by correlating the differential pressure across a hydraulic gear motor to a torque. Most drive head manufacturers provide multipliers to convert differential pressure to torque for different drive head models. These multipliers are based on theoretical torque equations and vary with the planetary gear ratio, hydraulic gear motor displacement and drive head efficiency. Drive head manufacturers show a linear fit between the differential pressure and output torque with no scaling effect. Previous drive head testing performed by the author has confirmed that the drive head differential pressure to torque relationship is generally linear however there is a scaling adjustment needed. This results in a variation of multipliers across the differential pressure range for a given drive head. Eight hydraulic drive heads from three manufacturers were field tested by Foundation Supportworks, Inc. to compare the torque versus differential pressure curves with varying installation equipment, hydraulic line sizes and hydraulic flow rates. Differential pressure was monitored using three methods including pressure gages, PT-Tracker and an Ashcroft AT-100. Flow and temperature was measured using a Webtech system analyzer. Torque was measured using a Pro-Dig in-line torque transducer, a TruTorque indicator and a Chance Mechanical Dial in-line torque indicator. The current testing indicates that a change in installation equipment and/or a change in hydraulic flow rate may affect the torque versus differential pressure curve of a given drive head. The results of this testing also show that some of the methods for determining torque during helical pile installations may be unconservative, thereby resulting in safety factors less than required.

By Glenn J. Rix, Eduardo Tavera, Raphael Siebenmann, Zhongjie Zhang, Robert C. Bachus, Jongwon Jung

"The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) uses a variation of the FHWA-modified Gates equation to verify the nominal pile bearing resistance, typically on smaller projects where static load tests and dynamic monitoring are not practical. An inconsistency in the resistance factors for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) penalizes the target pile capacity needed during field observation if the LADOTD dynamic formula equation is used, which is unreasonable, and has created confusion among designers, consultants, district personnel, and inspectors in Louisiana. The objectives of this project are to recalibrate the FHWA-modified Gates equation and update the associated LRFD resistance factor for pile types and local soil conditions encountered in Louisiana. Improved consistency relative to the current design approaches will be achieved if the updated resistance factor matches or exceeds the worst-case resistance factor used by LADOTD, which will reduce confusion among users. Updating the resistance factor will also serve to increase confidence in the FHWA modified Gates equation, optimize the efficiency of the piles, and reduce project costs.IntroductionThe original 1957 Gates pile driving formula (Gates, 1957) is an empirically derived dynamic formula that is used to predict pile capacity in the field during pile installation. The original Gates formula tends to over-predict pile capacity for low driving resistances and under-predict pile capacity for high driving resistances (Hannigan et al., 1998). Thus, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposed a modified version of the Gates formula that addressed this limitation. The FHWA–modified Gates equation is:"

Jan 1, 2017

By Dan Yang

Pile foundation designs are performed routinely based on geotechnical information available at the time of design, often with due consideration of large uncertainties inherent to soils and site conditions. These uncertainties frequently are the causes of piles being installed not the same as those designed, especially by factors beyond quality assurance and quality control. With a variety of both satisfactory and unsatisfactory pile test results from these nonconforming piles, the design engineers are required to examine the foundation performance as a whole against the project design requirements before signing off on them or calling for potentially costly remediation. Over the years, as-built analysis has been a consistent way of dealing with pile non-conformity and damage in our practice, avoiding many construction delays and it is an integral part of our pile foundation design. In this paper, the key elements of an as-built analysis along with several major bridge projects are presented.

Jan 1, 2010