Search Documents

By John C. Niedzielski

The PHX Sky Train is a five mile long automated people mover system located at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Phase I of the PHX Sky Train includes the design and construction of 227 drilled shafts supporting three stations and approximately 9,000 feet of elevated guideway. The guideway includes a 100 foot high, 330 foot long span extending over an active taxiway, which will be the first system of this kind over an active taxiway in the world. The soil conditions in this area generally consist of alluvial Sand, Gravel and Cobbles (locally known as SGC) deposited by the nearby Salt River. The foundation system will support relatively high axial loads, lateral loads and moments due to the height of the guideway above the ground surface, where it needs to pass over existing concourse walkways, bridges, a taxiway and buildings. Drilled shaft design involves designing 4.5-foot to 9-foot diameter drilled shafts within the SGC deposits, most of which extend well below the groundwater table. There is a high potential for collapse of drilled shaft excavation sidewalls within this material. Such extreme design loading conditions, together with difficult ground conditions at the site, result in several challenges for the design and construction of the deep foundation system for the guideway and stations. A load test shaft was designed and constructed as a means to provide site-specific measurement of axial performance under these difficult conditions. Results from the load test were used to reduce the size of the drilled shafts. This paper provides an overall description of the PHX Sky Train project, a summary of the ground conditions, design requirements, load test results and construction methods and equipment used to successfully install the drilled shafts for this project.

Jan 1, 2010

By Bradley J. Fleming

Although soil improvement and its application to deep foundations is gaining popularity in the engineering community, this technique is not widely used in high seismic regions due to lack of fundamental understanding of both the behavior of improved soils under high-strain cyclic loading and the interactions between the pile, improved soil, and unimproved soil. This paper describes part of an ongoing Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project, where two identical full-scale steel pipe piles were driven at a soft clay site in Oklahoma. The soil surrounding one of these piles was improved using the cement deep soil mixing technique in order to enhance its lateral load behavior. Both piles were tested for seismic resistance using dynamic and quasi-static loading. The pile in unimproved soil provided larger displacements with limited lateral force resistance. This pile was subjected to lateral displacements of up to 400 mm, but experienced minimum inelastic actions. On the other hand, the pile in improved soil reached its lateral capacity at a displacement of 100 mm, at which point the critical region at the base of the pile just above the improved ground experienced buckling and fractured due to low cycle fatigue. Compared to the pile in unimproved soil, the improved ground increased the system strength by 42%. Although the soil was improved over 2900 mm, the effective improvement depth was approximately 1300 mm below the ground surface. In this paper, it is demonstrated that the effects of block type soil improvement of limited horizontal and vertical dimensions can be described using a simplified theoretical approach involving a modification to the well-known p-y representation of soil response. An example using this method is presented and shown to give adequate support to a standard 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile embedded in soft soil.

By Jin-Wei Huang, Bradley J. Fleming, Sri Sritharan

"Although soil improvement and its application to deep foundations is gaining popularity in the engineering community, this technique is not widely used in high seismic regions due to lack of fundamental understanding of both the behavior of improved soils under high-strain cyclic loading and the interactions between the pile, improved soil, and unimproved soil. This paper describes part of an ongoing Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project, where two identical full-scale steel pipe piles were driven at a soft clay site in Oklahoma. The soil surrounding one of these piles was improved using the cement deep soil mixing technique in order to enhance its lateral load behavior. Both piles were tested for seismic resistance using dynamic and quasi-static loading.The pile in unimproved soil provided larger displacements with limited lateral force resistance. This pile was subjected to lateral displacements of up to 400 mm, but experienced minimum inelastic actions. On the other hand, the pile in improved soil reached its lateral capacity at a displacement of 100 mm, at which point the critical region at the base of the pile just above the improved ground experienced buckling and fractured due to low cycle fatigue. Compared to the pile in unimproved soil, the improved ground increased the system strength by 42%. Although the soil was improved over 2900 mm, the effective improvement depth was approximately 1300 mm below the ground surface.In this paper, it is demonstrated that the effects of block type soil improvement of limited horizontal and vertical dimensions can be described using a simplified theoretical approach involving a modification to the well-known p-y representation of soil response. An example using this method is presented and shown to give adequate support to a standard 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile embedded in soft soil,IntroductionPilings are the preferred foundation support for many civil engineering structures including highway bridges, railroad bridges, and port wharves. These structures and their foundations are subjected to forces created by earthquakes, wind, waves, water current, vessel impact, ice, and gravity. All loads applied to the superstructure must be transmitted to the foundation where they are resisted by the surrounding soil. With significant lateral loads, use of pile foundations may be the only solution to transmit large structural loads to competent soils. Piles supported by competent soils are relatively easy to design and costs are often attainable. However, thick layers of weak soils such as soft clays are widespread in high seismic areas (e.g., San Francisco, southern Nevada, Washington, Eastern Missouri, and Arkansas), exacerbating design challenges. Soft clays reduce the lateral resistance of the pile-soil system, making the pile foundation less cost effective. In this case, the current design practice is to use an increased number of larger diameter piles, which is a costly alternative (see SDC, Caltrans 2010). An innovative and more cost-efficient solution to this problem is to improve the soil within a short depth surrounding the foundation, thereby increasing its lateral stiffness. Some well-known methods for improving soil include deep soil mixing, stone columns, and simple soft soil replacement with select granular material."

Jan 1, 2017

By Greg Canivan, Bernie Hertlein, Les Chernauskas, Joram Amir, Garland Likins, E. Anna Sellountou, Tim Kovacs, Peter Kandaris

Nondestructive testing of drilled shaft foundations via Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) is often performed as part of the quality assurance process to assess the soundness of concrete. The intent of CSL testing is to identify irregularities such as soil intrusion, necking, soft bottom, segregation, voids and other defects that could result in poor structural performance of the foundation. Over time, CSL rating criteria based on first arrival time and relative energy have incorrectly evolved to often be the sole means of determining the acceptability of a shaft. Some of these criteria have found their way into regulatory agency specifications, with acceptance values often differing from agency to agency.The purpose of this document is to review the state of the practice (including experience gained over the past 20 years), propose improved CSL rating criteria and make recommendations for additional assessment, as well as educate the industry on the proper interpretation of CSL test. CSL test results alone should not be the sole means of rejecting or accepting a shaft. A task force of industry exerts was formed to review the existing CSL rating criteria and propose improvements where appropriate. The recommendations presented herein are the consensus of the task force, which believes that they should be incorporated into future criteria, codes and specifications. This paper was produced as a joint effort between the Codes and Standards Committee, the Drilled Shafts Committee and Testing and Evaluation Committee. A task force was authorized under Testing and Evaluation Committee. The task force contributed their expertise in web-based discussions often every two weeks over a period of three years. Interested participants were invited to participate at any time. The document had two rounds of broad industry review, two rounds of DFI Technical Advisory Committee reviews, and a Public Comments process. All comments were considered in producing the final document.

Jan 1, 2019

By Abid O. Adekunte, David Greentree, David Hilton

"The construction industry is witnessing an upsurge in demand by property developers to have basements incorporated into their residential and commercial development schemes. This is attributable to perceived improvement to aesthetic and commercial values of buildings by underground space, amongst property owners. This trend is compelling more owners of buildings with no basements to explore the possibility of creating underground additional space beneath their existing buildings. The creation of a basement beneath an existing building entails the installation of a reinforced concrete (RC) underpinning system, temporary works, bulk excavation to basement formation level and construction of the basement structure, with associated aesthetic finishes.The L-shaped segmental RC underpins are a common system of choice for such underpinning works. They are multi-functional; providing vertical support to the existing superstructure, providing lateral support to earth and groundwater, supporting temporary and permanent surcharge loads from adjacent structures and services, whilst also forming part of the basement slab. This paper focuses on the first function of the Lshaped RC underpins; capacity under vertical compressive loading from the superstructure. The most common industry approach for the prediction of vertical capacities of L-shaped underpins is the oldfashioned Meyerhof’s (1953, 1963) effective width method, which is based on the traditional bearing capacity theory, whilst accounting for correction factors for eccentricity and foundation depth.The traditional bearing capacity formula is surrounded by a significant degree of uncertainty; estimates are highly user-dependent, as capacity prediction is sensitive to the chosen angle of shearing resistance (?), while there are difficulties in accurately measuring the in-situ ??value of cohesionless soils. In addition, the effective width approach has been shown to be very conservative by many research workers. The segmental RC underpins presented in this paper have been designed with an alternative less conservative method, which involves the use of a recently proposed consistent work-hardening plasticity model calibrated with field-based tests on footings of various aspect ratios and relative embedment in sand. The paper highlights the principles behind underpinning works for urban basement construction, the design of L-shaped RC underpins with the recently proposed plasticity model and the advantages of the method over traditional bearing capacity solutions and pre-existing plasticity models."

Jan 1, 2016

By Abhijit Saha

"Two analytical closed-form elastic-rigid-plastic solution methods to predict the rigid foundation behaviour on stone-column reinforced soil are compared, both of which takes into account the stone material yield within the host soil according to stress-dilatancy theory. These are the mechanistic methods developed by the author (2004, 2005) [that presently incorporates the dilatancy angle as per Schanz and Vermeer (1996)] and that developed by Pulko and Majes (2006), that takes into account the column yield as per Rowe dilatancy theory. Since optimal design of stone column necessitates optimum stress concentration on column, which is generally composed of dense gravel with/or without sand, the vertical stress on granular column is often close to its peak strength and the material dilates. To arrive at closed-form analytic solution to this complex soil-stone column interaction problem, some common assumptions like axi-symmetric soilstone column ‘unit-cell’, elastic host soil and rigid-plastic Mohr-Coulomb stone column material are combined with equilibrium and kinematic conditions. The results reflect the beneficial effect of dilatancy within the optimal range or techno-economic domain of area-ratio. The settlement predictions are compared with other analytical methods available in literature as well as with measured settlement reduction of stonecolumn reinforced ground at different subsoil conditions around the globe reported in literature.INTRODUCTIONStone columns or granular piles are frequently used in stabilization of soft clays, silts and loose silty-sands with large amount of fines. The majority of analytical methods assume infinitely wide loaded area with end-bearing columns having constant diameter and spacing that approximate to axi-symmetric conditions, and the approach is known as ‘unit-cell concept’. Several analytical solutions are available, and many of them (Aboshi et al; 1979, Balaam & Booker; 1981) are based on elastic approach considering the stonecolumn and surrounding soil as elastic materials. However, elastic methods give the ratio between the vertical stress in the column to soil (stress concentration factor) approximately equal to the ratio of constrained modulus of both materials. This ratio was found to be considerably higher than measured in the field and it is believed that elastic methods may overestimate the effects of stone columns on settlement reduction (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983). The elastic and elasto-plastic solutions presented by Balaam and Booker (1981, 1985) indicate that the problem can be idealized by assuming that the stone column is in a triaxial state and possibly yielding, such that there is no shear stress at the stone-soil interface and no yielding in the soil. Similar assumptions of stone column to be in a state of limiting equilibrium and under a triaxial stress state are considered in other methods also (Priebe; 1976, Van Impe & De Beer; 1983, Van Impe & Madhav; 1992, Saha & De; 1994, Saha; 2004, 2005, Pulko & Majes; 2006). In majority of the methods it is assumed that under load the stone-column yields at constant volume. However, the last three cases cited consider another parameter; the dilation of stone column. In Van Impe and Madhav’s (1992) and author’s (2004, 2005) method, the dilation is taken into account through the final value of the volumetric strain of column, whereas Pulko & Majes (2006) considered the stone column as Mohr-Coulomb rigid-plastic; dilating at yield in line with Rowe (1962) dilatancy theory."

Jan 1, 2015

By Chu E. Ho

This paper reviews the design of jet grouting at re-entrant corners of excavations where the diaphragm wall and secant pile wall installation were interrupted by existing utilities in the streel sidewalk. Jet grout blocks were formed to seal the gaps in the walls for excavation support, consisting of four to six columns in clusters. Jet grouting was performed around an electrical duct bank which had to be maintained. Jet grouting was executed through stratified soils using various combinations of jetting parameters for different soil strata. The installation sequence and age of the neighboring columns within a cluster will affect the jet’s ability to form subsequent columns. When jet cutting is limited next to hardened grout columns or embedded obstructions (such as diaphragm walls or secant pile walls in this case), the specific gravity (SG) of spoils would be reduced and tend toward the value of the injected grout SG. The magnitude of spoil SG is also influenced by the variability of the grout mix supplied. Specific Gravity Ratio (SGR) defined as the ratio of spoil SG to the actual grout SG at the time of jetting can be used as an indicator of successful treatment, with SGR > 1.0 indicating effective soil erosion. Verification coring and testing were implemented to confirm target column diameter and strength of grouted soils have been achieved.

May 1, 2022

By Manuel M. Reyes, Thuraisamy Thavaraj, Alex Sy

"The new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bridge features a single tower self-anchored suspension (SAS) bridge. During construction of the SAS bridge, a temporary bridge was used to support the box girders until erection of suspension cables was completed. The transfer of deck load from the temporary bridge to the suspension cables was achieved in November 2012 and the SAS bridge has become the largest of its kind in the world. The new bridge will be in service in Fall 2013.Large diameter driven steel pipe piles were used for the temporary bridge foundations at Towers D, F and G located in San Francisco Bay. At Tower D, the large diameter steel pipe piles were driven through thin overburden into bedrock using a large Menck MHU500T hammer with a rated energy of 550 kJ. As there was no precedence in driving open-ended pipe piles into the Franciscan Formation bedrock, challenges were faced with uncertainties in drivability, driving stresses, pile embedment in bedrock and pile capacity. These uncertainties were addressed by incorporating additional measures into the pile design, and by the use of dynamic pile monitoring during initial driving and re-strike. Pile relaxation was observed during pile installation.At Towers F and G, setup effect was a key issue for the piles driven into the deep soft marine sediments. Drivability analyses were conducted to predict pile run, driving stresses, selection of hammer and refusal criteria. The piles were dynamically monitored during driving to estimate pile capacities. Due to the set-up effect in the Bay Mud, the piles gained up to 3.3 times the initial capacity during the re-strike and were in excess of the design capacity.This paper presents details of the design, construction, testing and performance of the driven pipe piles at temporary Towers D, F and G. Settlement data of the temporary tower foundations while in service confirmed the satisfactory performance of the pile foundations.INTRODUCTIONThe new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge features a single tower self-anchored suspension (SAS) bridge, the largest of its kind in the world. The new east span replaces the existing double-deck steel bridge built in the mid-thirties. A span of the existing bridge had collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake but was repaired. Construction of the new east span commenced in 2008 and is expected to be completed for the Labour Day opening in 2013. Figure 1 shows a schematic (looking north) of the new bridge with its 160 m high main tower T1 in the middle, and Piers W2 and E2 at the west and east ends, respectively. The west and east spans of the SAS bridge are 180 m and 385 m, respectively.During construction of the SAS bridge, a temporary bridge, complete with towers and trusses, was used to support the box girders of the new permanent bridge until the loads from the box girders were transferred through suspension cables to the permanent bridge. The transfer of deck load from the temporary bridge to the main cable was completed in November 2012."

Jan 1, 2015

By Joel Moskowitz, Jan Cermak

"New York City has unique geologic conditions which must be considered when designing pile foundations. Where shallow foundations are not feasible, the City's subsurface conditions require a variety of deep foundation systems, ranging from high capacity rock socketed piles, to piles end-bearing on bedrock, to friction piles bearing in alluvial or glacial deposits. Pile load testing is essential in confirming pile capacities as pile analyses include assumptions on soil and soil-pile response, and pile driving equipment. Load test results must be interpreted to estimate the long-term pile behavior. Except for lightly loaded driven piles, the New York City Building Code (the Code) requires that pile capacities be confirmed by static load testing. The Code provides the number of static load tests required, test procedures, and acceptance criteria. In the last few decades, methods other than static load testing have been developed including dynamic and rapid (pseudo-static) load tests. Recently, those methods have also been employed on several projects in New York City. The traditional approach to pile load testing in New York City is discussed herein including engineering involved in the analyses of test data with examples. In addition, several projects which included non-static load testing are discussed INTRODUCTIONPile load testing complements the subsurface information and pile design by providing further data on pile-soil interaction for the selected pile type and installation method. Traditional approaches to pile load testing in New York City involve static load tests to verify the design capacity of the piles for a given minimum factor of safety.In the late 1950's, Dr. Phillip C. Rutledge summarized his views on the philosophy of pile foundations in an unpublished, in-house document. He viewed pile foundations as good illustrations of pertinent and impertinent aspects of geotechnical engineering. In the analyses of piles he divided engineering into four general types:(a) Theoretical engineering in which decisions are made based on theoretical analyses. This represents ideal engineering, in which all factors affecting the pile design are well established or, at least, few simplifying assumptions with known effects on the analyses are made."

Jan 1, 2005

By Matthias Pulsfort, Jiarui Du, Torsten Wichtmann, Achim v. Blumenthal, Diethard König, Rowena Verst

The influence of the interaction between support fluid and soil, e.g., filter cake formation, on the shear stress transfer in the soil-concrete interface of diaphragm walls and bored piles is still controversially discussed. Actual research on the soil-concrete interface using bentonite suspensions indicates that shear stress transfer is underestimated by existing standards. Investigations on the soil-concrete interface using polymer solutions are rare. Therefore, complementary field investigations and systematic laboratory studies were conducted to analyse the soil-concrete interface using both bentonite suspensions and polymer solutions. Thickness and composition of real-scale filter cakes were investigated on several slurry wall construction sites, where bentonite suspensions were used. Direct shear tests (60 mm x 60 mm) were executed for soilbentonite mixtures with varying amounts of bentonite and different granular fines representing a realistic bandwidth of in-situ filter cake compositions. Larger direct shear tests (300 mm x 300 mm) with preceding horizontal penetration, subsequent vertical tremie concrete placement, and filter cake consolidation were performed using both bentonite suspensions and polymer solutions. The results support the view that shear stress transfer in the soil-concrete interface can be described by a wall friction angle in a range of 25° to 30° for bentonite suspensions and between 35° and 40° for polymer solutions in non-cohesive soils.

May 1, 2022

By Bosco Poon, Kim Chan, Luis Raúl Castañeda, Geoff McKay

"Driven steel tubular piles of up to 2 m diameter have been used to support abutments and piers of a bridge over Nambucca River and floodplain. The bridge was designed by Arup-Aurecon Design Joint Venture (Lead Designers) with GHD leading the geotechnical design assessment in conjunction with Acciona Ferrovial Joint Venture (AFJV – Principal Contractor). Piles were to be driven through alluvium and founded on foliated Phyllite bedrock. The large diameter piles posed significant challenges on bearing capacity assessment and pile acceptance criteria, especially for anisotropic rock strength. Prior to pile driving, boreholes were drilled at each pile location, accompanied with a suite of rock index and UCS testing. AFJV and GHD oversaw geotechnical construction verification. All production piles were monitored with a Pile-Driving-Analyser to manage driving stresses and pile termination. Wave matching CAPWAP analyses were performed on 40% of the piles at the end-ofdrive, or restrike, to satisfy specification requirements and limit over-driving. This paper presents discussions on the design and construction of the driven piles with findings from the extensive dynamic pile data obtained. Based on the shaft resistance distribution and toe resistance obtained from CAPWAP analysis, the mobilised pile shaft frictions fs of the soil / rock materials, as well as the end bearing fb of the founding Phyllite bedrock, are examined. The impact of the rock fabric foliation angle on the m obilised fb, and the relationship between rock strength and the mobilised fs are outlined.INTRODUCTIONThe Bridge over Nambucca River consists of a single bridge structure, comprising single substructures and separate superstructures. The 850 m long bridge facilitates the crossing of the Northbound and Southbound carriageways of the Pacific Highway Upgrade over Nambucca River, with central median barriers, separated by a horizontal clearance of 50 mm. The bridge is required to span over the Nambucca River, which is a navigational channel, and over the adjacent floodplains, including two local access roads and the existing Pacific Highway. The bridge superstructure consists of 21 simply supported spans, each comprises four 2.25 m deep precast post-tensioned U-Girders, with two girders across the width of each carriageway. The spans of girders vary from eleven spans of 39.5m and ten spans of 41.5 m. The floodplain section of the bridge was founded on up to 2m diameter steel tubular piles, designed to be driven through alluvial sediments and weak rock to nominal refusal on sound rock. Dynamic load testing using wave matching CAPWAP (CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program) analyses in conjunction with PDA (Pile Driving Analyser) were used to verify the pile integrity and mobilised capacity. This paper discusses geotechnical aspects associated with design and construction of driven piles. The methodology developed for construction to verify pile capacity and to meet acceptance criteria is outlined. Based on the shaft resistance distribution and toe resistance obtained from CAPWAP analysis, the mobilised pile shaft friction, fs of the soil / rock materials, as well as the end bearing, fb of the founding Phyllite bedrock, are examined. The impact of the rock fabric foliation angle on the mobilised fb, and the relationship between rock strength and the mobilised fs are outlined."

Jan 1, 1900

By Bengt H. Fetlenius

The "Pile Prediction Event" at the ASCE GeoInstitute's Deep Foundation Conference in February 2002 involved prediction of drivability and capacity of three 14m long, 324mm diameter, closed-toe pipe piles driven into loose to compact fine sand to slightly silty sand. Predictors were provided the results of two soil borings and three cone penetrometer tests, as well as type and model of hammer to be used for the pile driving. A total of 33 persons submitted predictions. As to penetration resistance distribution, many predictions were far below actually observed values. As to capacity in compression, the predicted values ranged from 270KN through 2,340KN with a mean of 1,070KN. As to capacity in tension, the predicted values ranged from 100KN through 1,650KN. The maximum load applied to the compression pile in the static loading test was 1,25OKN, at which no more reaction load was available. The reaction system for the tension test failed early in the test. CAPWAP analysis on End-of-Driving blows showed capacities at the end of the driving for the push and pull piles of 670KN, and 710KN, respectively. No restrike tests were made. Additional CPT soundings indicate that the pile driving had densified the soil. Static analysis and calculations from the CPT indicated that capacities ranged from 1,000KN through 2,000KN. The paper presents the data and discusses the various methods of determining pile capacity and addresses influence of set-up Lessons useful for future similar events are indicated.

Jan 1, 2004

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

It is my great pleasure as mayor of the city of Amsterdam to welcome you today to Amsterdam, and to the 10th International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations. The history of Amsterdam has been connected intimately with your professions of geo-engineering and geotechnology, since its very first days. It is good to be aware that you are part of a very old tradition. The knowledge that we need today to build and renew the city has been gathered over a century long process so that we fortunately can stand on the shoulders of the giants before us. During the centuries people living in this part of the Netherlands have always struggled against the water. The same waters that brought the opportunity for a seafaring country to discover the world and to build an empire in the 17th century were a threat to the low lying Netherlands.

Jan 1, 2006

By Bengt H. Fellenius

.1.1 Prior to commencement of pile installation operation, submit to [Engineer] for [approval] [review], details of equipment for installation of piles. SPEC NOTE: The information requested in 3.1 .1.2 is necessary as input to a detailed wave equation analysis of the pile driving. .1.2 For impact hammers, give manufacturer's name, type, maximum rated energy and rated energy per blow at normal working rate during easy and at termination driving, mass of striking parts of hammer, mass of driving cap, and type and elastic properties of hammer cushion. .1.3 For non-impact methods of installation, such as drilling, jacking, jetting, use of vibratory hammers, or other means, give full details of characteristics necessary to evaluate performance. .2 Impact Hammer SPEC NOTE: Do not exclude a hammer type unless for very specific reason. .2.1 [Drop hammers will not be permitted.] [Diesel hammers will not be permitted.] For final driving of [TYPE] piles, provide a hammer capable of delivering to the pile a non-erratic impact stress not smaller than [VALUE] Pascal and transferring a non-erratic energy not smaller than [VALUE] Joules per blow to the pile head at normal working rate.

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1984

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016

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

This manual provides basic practical instruction on the inspection of driven piles. It covers the essential components of pile driving, such as the pile driving hammer, hammer accessories, the pile and soil, and frequently encountered test methods in an uncomplicated, yet knowledgeable, and practical manner. Insight is given into the methods of installing the foundation, dealing with the cranes which do the lifting, the hammers which do the driving, the leads that guide the hammer and pile, the compressors which provide the external power when required, and finally prevalent analysis tools and testing instrumentation and procedures which enable you, the Inspector, to do your job. This DFI Inspector's Manual for Pile Foundations will help the Pile Inspector who has limited knowledge of pile foundations. Perhaps this Inspector has been pressed into service at a moments notice; a few helpful hints and suggestions to him are desperately needed and he can look here for the basics. It is also useful for the experienced Pile Inspector as a reference guide. However, this manual is not a detailed check list of every possible scenario and detail which could ever be encountered. There are other sources available which give more detailed descriptions (and should be consulted by the Inspector when appropriate; a list of this additional reference material is provided and suggestions made in appropriate chapters of this text). The current manual is more a brief "textbook overview" with some of the more important aspects given at least some emphasis so that the Inspector has some direction and hopefully helps to produce a safe, yet economical, foundation.

Jan 1, 1997