Search Documents

By William (Bill) H. Walton

"I arrived in Chicago in 1993 with Dr. Ralph Peck’s University of Illinois bulletin titled Engineering Properties of Chicago Subsoils (Bulletin 429), which he published in 1954 with William Reed. Being an outsider, I wanted to learn from Chicago geotechnical practice leaders that included Clyde Baker, Jr., John Gnaedinger, Charles Pfingsten, Dr. Safdar Gill, Robert Lukas and Dr. Jorj Osterberg, who have influenced foundation designs for the structures that make up the contemporary Chicago skyline. One of my immediate goals was to get the Illinois Structural Engineering license to be on par with the likes of Eli Cohen, Mike Tylk, Stan Korista, Bob Halverson, Joe Burns, Ron Johnson, Bill Baker, Bob Sinn, Chuck Anderson and Dave Eckmann, who have led their structural firms in the design of the skeletal core and frames of many of Chicago’s iconic buildings (and for many other buildings around the world). From my time with GEI Consultants (GEI), then on with STS Consultants (STS, and now AECOM), and now back with GEI, I have had the opportunity to analyze and design foundations and, with the help of many skilled foundations and building constructors, to verify that predicted foundation performance matches actual movement data. The theme of Chicago’s foundation design practice is to assume and verify. In 1948, Peck published the History of Building Foundations in Chicago (Bulletin 373) that was updated in 1998 by Baker, Pfingsten and Gnaedinger, who meticulously documented hundreds of Chicago’s foundations, and have shown the value of advanced analyses and testing to advance the deep foundation design practice that includes a variety of high-capacity driven and drilled deep foundations. Mehmet Uyanik, Peck and Baker have made Chicago’s subsurface into a full-scale foundation test laboratory. They confirmed soil mechanics principles like Terzaghi’s 1-D consolidation theory when early foundations bearing on sand-clay crust over soft to medium silty clays (e.g., Auditorium, Masonic Temple, Monadnock Block and Old Board of Trade buildings) took 40 to 60 years to consolidate clay 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m). They also confirmed proven increases in bearing pressures based on measured performance of deep foundations bearing on the glacially derived hardpan clay till and in solid dolomite that underlies Chicago."

Jan 1, 2017

By Frank Rausche

Why testing What tests can be done Dynamic load testing Loading device Measurements Analysis Examples

Jan 1, 2001

By Axel J. Pollak

Since the late 1960's the Interstate Division for Baltimore City (IDBC) has been planning and developing the Interstate Highway System for the city to meet regional planning goals. The principal goals are to provide convenient access to the central business district and the port while diverting through traffic away from these congested areas. Interstate Route 95, an eight-lane highway carrying north-south traffic, has headed the city's priority list; during the 1970's its construction proceeded steadily from both east and west towards the harbor. Closing the final 8800-ft (2670-m) gap under the harbor will complete Interstate 95's construction. This final portion, known as the Ft. McHenry Tunnel project, will be built in nine construction contracts. Construction costs of the complete project are expected to exceed $700 million, making it the costliest single project in the Interstate Highway System. Full funding is being provided initially by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Maryland Department of Transportation will re-pay the 10 percent local share from toll receipts within the first three years of operation.

Jan 1, 1989

By William H. Walton, Joel Dellaria, Jeffrey R. Hill

The City of Chicago has a world-renowned skyline and is known for its provocative architecture. The subsurface conditions in the city have allowed for construction of these significant structures. The skyline is supported on caissons as they are called in Chicago or drilled shafts in other locations. Despite the significant strides the industry has made in advancing the drilled shaft, the use of other specialty geotechnical construction techniques like micropiles has not been overlooked in Chicago and the surrounding areas. Micropiles have been utilized to underpin famous existing historic structures like Orchestra Hall any many others. Engineers have used 200 to 600 kip micropiles to underpin compromised, inadequate, or damaged caissons. The paper will discuss the use of drilled shafts, micropiles, and ground improvement over the last 30 years in Chicago using a curated collection of case histories. It will also examine advancing the industry beyond its current technical limitations using these techniques. INTRODUCTION 20,000 years ago, glaciers from the Chicago region left behind sheets of glacial clay till underlain by dense, over consolidated glacial till below: limestone bedrock, found about 100 ft below street level. An unusual feature in this profile is the soft Chicago Blue Clay. Chicago has been called the birthplace of the Skyscraper and drilled shaft foundation, both of which came about in the 19th century. After the Great Fire of 1871, tall new structures were built rapidly and designing a successful foundation was trial and error. The first deep driven wood pile and caisson foundations bypassed the problem layer and found solid support on hardpan till or bedrock below (Schock and Risberg 2013). Once the drilled shaft foundation became acceptable to the Chicago engineering and construction community, building heights and complexity grew dramatically. As the city grew, building foundations were being repurposed. There was also the need to underpin structures for additional loads and shallow foundations for adjacent construction. Hand-dug drilled shafts were an option for some of these restricted access and low headroom sites but a new technique, micropiles, would prove to be the future of retrofit and hard to construct foundations. Micropiles were introduced on a limited basis to the United States market in the 1970s and 80s. In the early 1990s, the Chicago market began to latch onto micropiles and their use has grown significantly as a solution to the most complex foundation problems a maturing skyline has to offer.

Jan 1, 2019

By Akshay Sakhuja, M. S. Karthika, R. Vignesh

"The bridge across River Mandovi in Goa is a cable stay bridge structure proposed parallel, along existing bridges for regulation and reduction of vehicular traffic; the entire bridge structure is supported on pile foundation socketed in rock. This paper describes drilling related issue encountered during execution of pile where bed rock varies considerably from factual geotechnical investigation, which in turn affected the productivity of bored piles socketed in rock then chiseling is advocated for rock socketing with limited number of blows based on penetration resistance of rock encountered or equivalent energy principle to increase the productivity and also to avoid excess chiseling which otherwise would have fractured the rock mass below and around the pile tip resulting in increased settlement of pile subjected to design load. Contractor decision on socket length have been taken without compromising either quality or productivity; the paper presents various procedures and the equipment involved for installation of pile in rock along with the conclusion related to termination of pile in rock and also the lessons learned in process.INTRODUCTIONPile foundations are generally used to transfer heavy loads in deeper bearing stratum if the soil immediately beneath the base of the foundation does not have sufficient capacity. The bridge across River Mandovi, Goa is in its construction phase as a part of the development plan of Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (GSIDC). The project was awarded to M/s. L&T Construction, Heavy Civil Infrastructure; subsequently the geotechnical investigation was awarded to M/s L&T Geostructures.The client has specified the foundation of the bridge as rock-socketed. Rock socketing is generally done to achieve higher bearing pressure through concrete-rock shear interface which many building codes permit. The design and construction of rock socketed pile foundation entails a detailed analysis and judgement on the superstructure loads, predominant geological conditions as well as ground water levels. The termination of pile is normally based on thumb rule of half to three times the pile diameter into the rock. Quite often the criteria is based on chisel penetration rate (Gandhi,1990) In fact, this is the key factor to consider appropriate and economical depth of embedment of pile into rock stratum which necessitates enormous understanding on the type and quality of rock strata encountered which may significantly influence the selection of suitable rotary rig for pile installation. Such criteria are site specific and also applicable for the set of equipment used for the particular project."

Jan 1, 2015

By Brandon M. Robinson, Osman F. Besler, Dominik Gaechter

With the increase in population over the last decade, and anticipated population growth over the coming years, Norway is making significant investments in the Country’s infrastructure. Part of this investment in development starts with the Intercity development project in South-East Norway, which is the largest transport project in Norway. The Intercity Development project consists of 270 km (167 mi.) of new doubletrack rail, capable of train speeds reaching 250 km/h (155 mph). The new stations are centrally located in the major cities, in South-East Norway, to provide the benefit to as many citizens as possible. The goal of the project is to reduce the increase in traffic, which is coupled with an increase in population, and reduce the travel times between the cities. The Intercity Development Project has an anticipated completion date of 2034. The Sandbukta-Moss-Såstad (SMS) project, part of the Intercity development, includes 10 km (6.2 mi) of new double-track railway and is situated on the Østfold Line, near the city of Moss, Norway shown in Fig. 1. The 10 km SMS-section covers three open stretches and two tunnels, including 630 m (2,066 ft) substructure for double-track railways on the open line at Sandbukta. The Moss tunnel is a 1720 m (5,643 ft) long tunnel from Sandbukta to Moss center, including a 420 m (1,378 ft) long concrete culvert. The new Moss station includes an 800 m (2,625 ft) long station area. The Carlberg tunnel is a 2350 m (7,710 ft) long tunnel from Kleberget to Carlberg, including a 200 m (656 ft) long concrete culvert.

Sep 8, 2021

By Edmund Cardoza

In the spring of 1993, construction began on an ambitious building project in Boston, Massachusetts. The Shriners organization committed to offer state-of-the-art adolescent burn treatment and rehabilitation in its Boston facility by expanding in a most unusual way. In short, the concept included installation of caisson foundations and perimeter slurry wall panels to enable construction of a completely independent structure around and above the existing, continually functioning, hospital. Two distinct phases of work were detailed in the Contract Documents. At the completion of the first phase, patients will be moved into the new building, above, and demolition of the old structure, beneath, will be performed. In Phase I, sections of the slurry wall and caissons, located outside the footprint of the existing building, were planned. The next phase of the work includes the installation of the remaining caissons and slurry wall. Once excavation is completed, the balance of the new hospital structure will be constructed from the bottom upward, connecting to the under side of the new structure.

Jan 1, 1994

By Dominic Parmantier, Jason Page

"In the past, the designers of DSM have analyzed various failure modes and then specified a minimum unconfined compressive strength (UCS) for the soil-cement. The specified minimum UCS reflected the compressive stress in the soil-cement under design loads and an appropriate factor of safety. With the increased use of finite element analysis for the design of DSM applications where allowable strain as well as stress are considered, there is a growing trend for designers to specify a modulus and occasionally a tensile strength for the soil-cement in addition to the UCS. This paper compares the relationship of modulus and tensile strength to UCS for soil-cement from a recent DSM project with unique testing requirements. These results are compared to published data. The case is made that designers should utilize published relationships to characterize the required strength and stiffness by a single acceptance criterion: UCS.INTRODUCTIONAs the use of DSM has increased in popularity so has the use of service state deformation analysis in lieu of more traditional failure mode analysis. Most DSM designers are interested in the appropriate modulus values and occasionally tensile strength values of soil-cement as well as simply the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of soil-cement.Although there are numerous published correlations between the UCS, tensile strength and modulus of soil-cement, some DSM project specifications are produced which have acceptance values for tensile strength, modulus, and UCS. If this specification of multiple strength properties is consistent with the nature of soil-cement, then there is really no harm except for the expenditure of client money on unnecessary testing. If however the multiple strength properties specified are inconsistent with the material properties of soil-cement, then the specifications can create the expectation that the DSM contractor can somehow create a custom soil-cement with tensile strengths and modulus characteristics which are unachievable.This paper presents a brief summary of a project in Burnaby, B.C. which specified minimum values for the tensile strength, modulus, and UCS of the soil-cement. A comparison of those test results to published correlations between the UCS and the tensile strength is presented. Additionally, a comparison of modulus derived from two different methods of testing is presented along with a comparison to published correlations between UCS and modulus for soil-cement."

Jan 1, 2015

By George W. Little, John Councilman

"The selection, evaluation, and modification of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers, completed by the slurry trench excavation method, can be one of the most critical and challenging tasks to ensure the cutoff wall meets the design performance criteria. Contractor mix designs should incorporate all available geotechnical data, including subsurface soil characteristics, groundwater information, and potential site contaminates. However, the pre-construction mix design can have limitations if subsurface data is limited or shows variability from initial investigations. Placement of the seepage barrier material needs to be evaluated during construction to identify in-situ performance. In one particular case study, the self-hardening cutoff wall mix design was evaluated over a one year period followed by a year and a half installation period, in which, a number of adjustments were made to the laboratory mix design during construction due to performance in the field. Installation for the selected mix was monitored on a real-time basis, using quality control data, as well as early strength and permeability results to determine if adjustments to the self-hardening mix were necessary. Evaluation of early results and relationships between strength and permeability were used to make adjustments prior to achieving the final test results for 28-day strength and permeability. Test results of the installed mix illustrated a direct correlation between strength and permeability. Achieving a minimum unconfined compressive strength was necessary to meet the minimum permeability of the seepage barrier. Other determinations conclude that the thorough development of a pre-construction mix design can have limitations even when all geotechnical data and site conditions are taken into account. Understanding early indicators and key strength and permeability relationships are necessary to determine seepage barrier performance and limitations.IntroductionThe evaluation of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers was reviewed for one particular case study where a mix was developed using available geotechnical background information, including considerations for impacted groundwater. Following development of the laboratory mix design, the seepage barrier wall was installed over a one and a half year period, where the contractor mix design was evaluated and modified to accommodate field conditions affecting performance. The objective of the project was to cutoff and collect impacted groundwater and prevent the migration of contaminants to the creek running adjacent to the project. The self-hardening seepage barrier wall was installed using the slurry trench excavation method along 4700 ft of alignment and extended to depths ranging from 20 to 85 ft below ground surface, where it tied in with a low permeability stratum or competent bedrock."

Jan 1, 2016

By Tsuyoshi Honda, Kazuhiro Kaneda, Masayuki Imai, Kazuo Konishi, Kunio Higashinaka

"In recent years, the demand for measures to control liquefaction of existing airport runways and harbor structures has increased. However, from the perspectives of constructability and cost, application of grid-form deep mixing walls to these types of structures requires the formation of wider grid spacing as compared with conventional designs. In this research, we focused on the extent of liquefaction and ground surface settling when grid spacing is made wider than conventional designs. We conducted centrifuge model tests, and confirmed the liquefaction suppression effect when grid-form modifications involving wide grid spacing are adopted under asphalt pavement. The tests were conducted under conditions that included changing the grid spacing and groundwater level. When the groundwater level was high, an increase in water pressure was observed, even within the grid. However, when the groundwater level was low, the increase in water pressure inside the grid was suppressed. We also found that if the generation of water pressure can be suppressed, the amount of settling due to liquefaction can also be controlled.INTRODUCTIONOne construction technique used as a countermeasure to liquefaction is grid-form deep mixing walls. Grid-form deep mixing walls are a construction technique for which improved grid-shaped wall bodies are built into the ground below the surface using a deep mixing method. This construction technique minimizes shear deformation by surrounding liquefied ground with improved wall bodies, thereby preventing liquefaction (Fig.1). With conventional designs, grid-form deep mixing walls determine the grid spacing that can deter liquefaction based on a ratio of the grid spacing L to the improved depth H (ratio = L/H). Ordinarily, designs are implemented with an L/H ratio of 0.8 or less (PWRI, 1999).In recent years, a demand for measures to control liquefaction of existing airport pavement and harbor structures has increased. However, when liquefaction countermeasures are implemented at these types of facilities and structures, the construction work must be implemented while the facilities and structures remain in service. Therefore, temporal and spatial constraints must be considered. In addition, unlike conventional liquefaction countermeasures, performance requirements are such that, even if some degree of liquefaction is allowed, the performance is acceptable as long as the amount of settlement is within a predetermined value. Therefore, if grid-form deep mixing walls are applied to these structures, grid spacing that is wider than conventional standards is desired."

Jan 1, 2015

By Shawn Downey

A helical pile with in-situ grouted shaft was used to underpin the existing slab of a large retail store in the Edmonton, Alberta Canada area. The existing structural slab did not have the capacity to support the increased load requirements. The design to upgrade the capacity specified a drilled shaft as the deep foundation to underpin a portion of the slab. A helical pile was quoted as an alternate and ultimately won the bid based on the advantages of the system. After an ASTM D1143 Quick Load Test confirmed the axial compression capacity, 723 helical piles with grouted shafts were installed in 3 weeks underpinning 40% of the 93,000 ft2 (8,660 m2) building.

Jan 1, 2003

By Steven D. Scherer

The highest earthquake risk in the United States east of the Rockies is along the New Madrid Fault System, which extends for 193 km (120 miles) through the Central Mississippi Valley from northeastern Arkansas, through southwestern Missouri, western Tennessee and western Kentucky to southern Illinois. Historically, this fault has generated some of the most powerful earthquakes in U.S. history, notably three Magnitude 8 events in 1811. Apart from the West Coast, this region experiences more earthquakes than anywhere else in the United States, with more than 200 events recorded along the fault annually. These events are typically of much lower magnitude than those experienced in California. Most are too small to be felt. However, should a significant event occur, damage can be expected to be widespread because of the underlying geology. In recent years, earthquake preparedness and seismic upgrade of vulnerable structures has become a focus for a number of State Departments of Transportation, including those in Illinois and Missouri where there is a potential for future damage. This paper presents three case histories illustrating three different techniques used to retrofit interstate highway bridge foundations bearing on potentially liquefiable soils. Friction minipiles were installed at the approach span of the I-57 bridge crossing the Mississippi River near Cairo, Illinois to provide additional support to the pile caps in the event of liquefaction of the underlying sands during a seismic event. In St Louis, Missouri, rock-socketed minipiles were installed to increase the capacity of drilled shaft foundations supporting a section of Interstate 64. In Mounds, Illinois, compaction grouting was used to densify loose sand deposits beneath a pile-supported interstate bridge on I-57.

Jan 1, 2001

By James W. Niehoff

"Prior to 2003, most high rise structures in Honolulu, Hawaii were supported on driven pile foundations, extending through shallow coral strata and bearing in competent formations at depths of 100 ft (30 m) or greater. In 2003, the 40-story Hokua Tower became the first building in Hawaii to use continuous flight auger (CFA) piles for support. These piles derived most of their capacity from side shear in the shallow coral formations, which reduced their required lengths to less than 100 ft (30 m) sand significantly increased their capacity. Not only did CFA piles prove to be more efficient and cost-effective than driven piles, but the reduced noise and vibration associated with their installation made them and drilled piers the foundations of choice for most mid- to high-rise projects going forward. Because drilled foundations were new to Hawaii, it was necessary to develop effective design parameters for the unique soil and rock conditions found within this urban area. While drilled foundations were found to have many advantages over driven piles, construction techniques had to be modified to compensate for extensive voids in the coral formations. This paper presents a compendium of the data derived from numerous full scale, instrumented load tests conducted during the past decade and provides guidance for the design and installation of CFA and drilled pier foundation systems in areas having geologic settings and history similar to that of Honolulu.INTRODUCTIONThe State of Hawaii is one of the most remote areas in the world, lying nearly 2400 miles (3800 km) from the nearest continental land mass. In spite of this vast distance, the population of the islands has grown to over 1 million people, the majority of whom live within and in close proximity to the City of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu. The city is densely populated with over 400 high rise apartments, condominiums, hotels and office buildings located within 5 miles (8 km) of the city center (Fig.1). Nearly all of these buildings have been constructed within the past 50 years."

Jan 1, 2016

By Peter J. Nicholson

"IntroductionDuring my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I’m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of “tie-backs” as they were called in the United States, or “ground anchors” as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970’s. Subsequently in the 1980’s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into “Pin Piles” now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12” or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into “Cement Deep Soil Mixing” earlier on, known simply as “soil mixing”. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the “Big Dig” we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I’ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes."

Jan 1, 2017

By Peter J. Nicholson

During my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I?m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of ?tie-backs? as they were called in the United States, or ?ground anchors? as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970?s. Subsequently in the 1980?s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into ?Pin Piles? now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12? or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into ?Cement Deep Soil Mixing? earlier on, known simply as ?soil mixing?. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the ?Big Dig? we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I?ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes.

By Pratter P., Boley C.

Polymers are well established in geotechnical applications, for example in ground improvement, where the polymers act as a binder that, when cured, holds the grains together by adhesive and cohesive forces. The subject of this research work is an innovative composite of polymers and gravel, which differs from conventional grouting materials due to its adjustable material properties. With these specific properties, the semi-rigid material can be optimally adapted to the local ground conditions and the individual framework conditions of a construction project. For the characterization of the composite material, stateof- the-art methods, such as image processing by segmentation, are presented. Segmentation is suitable for quality assurance and monitoring of laboratory samples and soil samples directly from ground improvement on the construction site. The load-bearing capacity of the innovative material can even be increased to the order of magnitude of concrete. For this reason, the soil mechanical laboratory tests in this research had to be modified and even expanded by rock mechanical laboratory tests. Based on the experimental investigations, the importance of this innovative material for practical application is demonstrated by a calculation example from construction practice, which shows that even difficult ground conditions can be handled with it.

May 1, 2022

By Hubert Law, Dan A. Brown, Kyle M. Rollins

"Soil mixing and jet grouting provide a means to significantly increase the lateral resistance of pile group foundations with relatively little investment of time, effort, and expense compared to the cost for additional piles necessary to produce the same increased resistance. Comparative field testing conducted on full-scale pile groups before and after treatment of small soil volumes showed significant improvement in lateral resistance. The lateral resistance of the pile group increased by 60% due to soil mixing and by 180% due to jet grouting. To provide additional understanding regarding the influence of the soil mix strength, depth of improvement and width of improvement, a series of parametric studies were performed using a 3D finite element model. This set of “virtual load tests” was then combined with the results from the actual field tests to help develop a simplified model to account for observed behavior. In general, the testing and analysis indicate the pile group and the surrounding improved soil block generally act as an equivalent “super pile”. The passive force, side shear and base shear on the improved soil surrounding the pile group itself increased lateral resistance. This increase in resistance from the soil block can be added to the lateral resistance of the pile group.INTRODUCTIONThe lateral resistance of pile groups is often critical to the design of bridges and high-rise structures subject to seismic, wind, wave and landslide forces. Typically, when analyses indicate that the lateral resistance of a foundation is inadequate, additional piles, drilled shafts or micro-piles are added to increase the lateral resistance. Furthermore, an expanded pile cap or connecting beam is often required to structurally connect the new piles to the existing pile group. While this approach provides the required lateral resistance, it may also be relatively expensive and time consuming. An alternative approach is to use soil improvement techniques to increase the strength and stiffness of the surrounding soil and thereby increase the lateral resistance of the pile group. The improved zone could potentially be relatively shallow because the lateral resistance of piles is typically transferred within 5 to 10 pile diameters. For example, the soil around the periphery of the foundation could be relatively easily improved for an existing foundation as illustrated in Fig. 1(a) using a variety of soil improvement techniques. Alternatively, the soil under the foundation could be improved for a new foundation or even for an existing foundation with a technique such as jet grouting (see Fig. 1(b)). Improving the soil under the foundation would have the potential for producing greater increases in lateral resistance because the improvement would reach interior piles. In addition, the process of creating a cemented “soilcrete” zone around pile foundations could potentially produce a zone which would behave like a reinforced “superpile” with increased structural stiffness."

Jan 1, 2015

By Renzo D. Verastegui, T. C. Michael Law, Sitotaw Y. Fantaye, Alfredas Daugiala

"When completed, 520 Park Avenue will amend the Manhattan skyline and be one of the most prestigious high rise towers in New York City. The 52-story condominium building is located on a 60 by 100 feet lot on East 60th Street between Park and Madison Avenues. The geographically complex site is bounded by two fragile 5-story masonry buildings on the east and west, a mid-rise building on the north, and a New York City subway tunnel on the south. To add to this complexity, the ambitious development required 70 to 80 feet of excavation, mostly below groundwater level in highly permeable rock, to accommodate four levels of cellars. The new building also cantilevers 24 feet over a five-story historic building on the east. The limited footprint of the building coupled with large compressive and tensile axial loads, considerable base shear and over-turning moments, and the required deep excavation, presented unique foundation challenges. This paper describes how the challenges were solved with an innovative combination of permanent secant pile walls and drilled shafts.INTRODUCTIONThe project site is located at 45 East 60th Street, on the block bounded by East 61st Street to the north, East 60th Street to the south, Park Avenue to the east, and Madison Avenue to the west. As shown in Fig. 1, the site is surrounded on three sides by buildings sensitive to differential settlement. In addition, a NYCT underground subway structure lies below East 60th Street approximately 13 feet south of the site. The base of the subway structure is approximately 42 feet below the street.The project consisted of constructing a 52-story tall building. A portion of the superstructure cantilevers 24 feet over an adjacent five-story historic building. The underground construction for the new building involved a four-level basement, extending about 60 feet below ground surface. The excavation subgrade is much deeper than both the subway structure and the adjacent shallowly-founded building foundations."

Jan 1, 2016

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Frank Rausche, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

The Top-Loaded Bi-Directional Test (“TLBT”) is a new method to apply bi-directional loads to a deep foundation element with the loading source located above the foundation head. In the TLBT reusable load assembly, loads are applied to the foundation using the R-System which consists of two stacked steel plates located at the geotechnical resistance balance point or at the foundation base connected to the load assembly via vertical elements. The top plate or the Shaft Bearing Plate (“SBP”) will transfer loads to the foundation upper portion, and the bottom plate or the Base Bearing Plate (“BBP”) will transfer loads to the foundation lower portion as well as the foundation base. At the surface, above the foundation head, a hydraulic jack is located between a Top Load Assembly (“TLA”), and the Bottom Load Assembly (“BLA”). The TLA and BLA are connected to vertical elements which are consequently connected to the R-system. As the jack is pressurized and expanded at the surface, the R-System plates are separated, and the foundation is bidirectionally loaded. This paper presents a brief description of the conventional Bi-Directional Load Test (“BDLT”) including benefits and limitations followed by the TLBT method introduction including its benefits and advantages over other testing methods.

Sep 8, 2021

By Anthony L. Reynolds, Clifford J. Wren

"The adoption of a significant pile testing regime, the use of Eurocode 7 as the design standard, the development of lean construction techniques, and lateral thinking in overcoming some considerable construction challenges allowed Stent Foundations to construct the foundations for the new Wembley Stadium, London, on time and within budget. In addition to the piling works for the main stadium, and after significant design development, a large number of extra piles were required to raise the new iconic roof Arch to its final position some 133 metres above the ground. A 1,400m long contiguous bored pile wall was also constructed to allow for excavation and formation of the new pitch. INTRODUCTIONHjstorjcal lntrodyctionWembley Stadium is the 'home of English football'. As long ago as the 1880's, Wembley Park leisure grounds had football pitches and running tracks.In 1918 the British Government began planning a British Empire Exhibition with a stadium as its centrepiece. The Exhibition area covered 219 acres and the area on which a former abandoned tower called Watkins Folly had stood was chosen as the site for the new stadium (http://www.wembleystadium.com).The Empire Stadium, as it was originally known, was designed by architects Sir John Simpson and Maxwell Ayerton and the engineer Sir Owen Williams. It took just 300 days to complete at a cost of £750,000 ($1.4m), and was built using 25,000 tons of ferro concrete, 1,000 tons of steel, and over half a million rivets.The Empire Exhibition was a remarkable event, containing fountains, lakes, gardens, and many pavilions, each representing the architectural style of the countries exhibiting. It was opened on 23rd April 1924 and the final attendance was over 27 million, with 4.5 million admissions to the Empire Stadium alone."

Jan 1, 2005