Search Documents

By Wayne S. Smith, Erik James, Jose R. Gomez

"Soil mixed seepage cutoff walls are increasingly being used in levee and dam modification projects nationwide. An important aspect of their overall quality depends greatly on the language included in the specifications. Depending on the method (e.g. vertical axis auger mixing, cutter soil mixing, or trench mixing techniques) the specifications are a blend of prescriptive and performance based contract language with differences in element construction, element connections, quality control/quality assurance, and work area restrictions. Many of the existing specifications were initially developed by contractors in whole or in part, and can contain restrictive provisions favoring the authoring contractor. In response to these challenges, basic soil mixing fundamentals were revisited and recent lessons learned incorporated, resulting in the development of a new specification for soil mixed seepage cutoff walls that provides adaptability for the various construction methods. The new specification addresses quality control, quality assurance, equipment independence (elimination of restrictive contract language), rig instrumentation.INTRODUCTIONSoil mixing has been used in the construction of seepage barriers for over 30 years. Most soil mixed project primarily use the wet-rotary-shaft, wet-rotary-end or wet-vertical panel methods (reference FHWA Deem Mixing Manual Figure 137). One of the first major soil mixing seepage barriers was constructed in the Jackson Dam in Wyoming. Since then the use of soil mixing for seepage barriers has increased significantly and this specialized domain of construction which was solely procured by RFP methods, is now increasingly being specified in projects issued for bid. The Bid documents require more careful specification writing than RFP methods because the RFP methods allowed detailed proposals by the contractor. Therefore the development of soil mixing specifications began with contractors preparing the specifications. This paper addressed some of these issues, and proposes methods to address these resulting concerns. The resolution of these issues considers several aspects: 1) Assessment of binder injection, 2) Evaluation of mixing index, and 3) Verification testing."

Jan 1, 2016

By Gerald Verbeek

There are certain concepts that seem to invite responses from some, including some in the foundation industry and even some within DFI, that are at best surprising. Business owners and their employees share the desire that their company does well and continues to operate. Maybe company growth is not always realistic but maintaining the current level of activity is in the least what they hope for. In other words, they hope that their company is sustainable, and they are fully behind that notion. But when the concept of sustainability is raised, there is, at least with some, suddenly doubt that that is a good thing. And yet, that concept only aims to achieve at a grander scale what the owners and employees desire for their company. There are many definitions of the term sustainability, but probably the most commonly used description is that framed by the United Nations in 1987. It states that sustainability is the concept of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Arguably that definition is too abstract and does not provide the type of specific goals and targets we are used to. To help with that, to some extent, in 2015 the United Nations formulated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to provide "a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future." And undoubtedly those SDGs are fodder for those that question the concept of sustainability in the foundation industry. How can our industry, they wonder, ensure that there is no poverty or hunger (SDG 1 and 2), and the climate action goal (SDG 13) immediately leads to the hot button topic of global warming. And maybe this is where advocates lose (some of) the sceptics of the sustainability concept, but hopefully they will continue to read this article that lays out why sustainability simply makes sense, also for the foundation industry and especially for DFI.

Nov 1, 2022

By Peter Faust

"The south access road to San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, known as Doyle Drive or Presidio Parkway, needs to be replaced. Built in 1936, it is the primary highway and transit linkage through San Francisco between counties to the north and south. The roadway is tucked into the natural contours of the Presidio and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, one of the nation’s largest urban parks.The old steel truss structure will be replaced by a new concrete cast-in-place bridge. The foundation design of the new bridge is based on drilled mono shafts below each bridge column. Most shafts required large diameter permanent steel casing installed under strict vibration limitations since several historic landmarks are near the project alignment. Malcolm Drilling decided to use the largest oscillator in the world to install the piles.The area occupied by the Presidio is generally hilly, sloping down northwards to San Francisco Bay. In the western half of the project route, two bluffs rise steeply to about 80 ft (25 m). The bluffs are separated by a valley 60 ft (18 m) deep and 1,500 ft (457 m) wide, which is spanned by the old and new bridge. Overburden soils in this valley are made up of artificial fill, slope debris, ravine fill and Colma Formation, a fine to medium-grained sand unit with clay beds. The Bay Muds encountered in the project area are typically soft clayey silts, becoming medium stiff with depth.The basement rocks underlying the overburden belong to the Franciscan Formation, described as shale, sandstone, serpentine and greywacke, it is extremely variable in hardness, fracturing and weathering. The material can vary from very hard to very soft, can be slightly to very intensely fractured and almost not weathered, to totally decomposed within relatively short distances both laterally and vertically. Rock strength can vary from too weak to be tested to serpentine layers with unconfined compressive strength of 15,000 psi (103MPa) or higher. Groundwater levels in the area are typically no more than 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m) below the ground surface."

Jan 1, 2012

By Arash Khosravifar

One of our research thrusts at Portland State University (PSU) centers on developing design guidelines for pile foundations in liquefiable, laterally spreading grounds. This research has been primarily sponsored by the DFI Committee Project Fund (CPF) program through four awards, totaling nearly $240,000 in financial support. DFI contributed half of this financial support, while the other half was contributed in-kind by PSU and DFI Project Advisory Board members. Leveraging the CPF funds, we secured an additional $550,000 in financial support from the National Science. Foundation (NSF), which has enabled our research group to continue exploring this topic and contributing to the broader engineering community's understanding of the behavior of pile foundations in liquefiable soils. The CPF funds have fostered collaborations with practitioners and researchers beyond PSU. Notable examples include collaborative research involving data from five large-scale centrifuge tests on pile-supported wharves by Steve Dickenson, Ph.D., New Albion Geotechnical; Nason McCullough, Ph.D., Jacobs Engineering and Scott Schlechter, Geotechnical Resources, as well as 1-g shake table tests of bridge pile shafts conducted by Professors Ahmed Elgamal, Ph.D., and Ahmed Ebeido, Ph.D., of the University of California, San Diego. In addition to these collaborations, our research has benefited from industry-university partnerships formed through the involvement of DFI Project Advisory Board members. Their support and feedback ensure that our research products are practical and imple- mentable in real-world projects. The impact of the CPF funds extends to supporting graduate students' theses, which were the basis for 17 technical publications. Some of these publications are expected to have a significant impact on the industry. For instance, our 2018 DFI Journal paper, co-authored by former master's student Jonathan Nasr, cur- rently with the Army Corps of Engineers, has been cited in the 2022 British Columbia Supplement to Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code S6:19. A noteworthy product of our study is a step-by-step design procedure for pile- supported wharf structures subjected to the combined effects of lateral spreading and inertial loads, outlined in a 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Journal of Geotechnical and Geo- environmental Engineering paper co- authored by former doctoral student Milad Souri, Ph.D., PE, Geotechnical Resources.

Nov 1, 2023

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect project-specific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project. 1. SCOPE The work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, and testing helical piles used to support foundation loads (compression, tension and lateral), and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment and materials necessary to install the required piles. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows: • The Owner is the property owner. • The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to design and oversee the overall project. • The pile designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical piles. • Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical piles, and possibly tasks associated with the project. It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development. The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of pile performance if required by the Owner or the pile designer to confirm performance of the piles subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional piles if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2015

By G. L. Sivakumar Babu, P. Chaithra

"Raft foundations which are used against differential settlements and for carrying heavy loads can still be subjected to excessive settlements even if it is safe against bearing capacity consideration. Providing additional piles under the raft can reduce such settlements to acceptable values. In addition to settlements, the piles also relieve the raft a part of the total load and thus the bearing capacity of the Combined piled raft foundation (CPRF) is improved. Parametric study of response of piled raft foundation has been conducted and the results have been presented. The study is conducted using finite element based software, PLAXIS 2D. The main objective of the paper is to evaluate the parameters that affect the performance of piled raft for an economical and effective design. It has been shown that piled rafts are an economical solution in foundation design compared to raft foundation, for the soil conditions considered in the paper.1. INTRODUCTIONThe aim during the design and construction process of high-rise building foundations in urban areas is to ensure the lifelong safety and serviceability of the new and existing buildings in the neighborhood. In order to realize this aim in a cost-optimized manner, the combined pile raft foundation (CPRF) was developed (Katzenbach et al., 2005). For the foundation of high rise buildings with good subsoil, the simplest structure considered is a raft. But when the subsoil near the ground surface has low load-bearing capacity, high-rise structures are often rested on piled foundations.A piled raft and pile group serves similar purposes, but there are essential differences between them. A pile group is a set of piles that have a pile cap. The piles would be designed to share the pile load at ultimate state. The pile cap would be designed to link the piles together but the contribution of the pile cap to bearing capacity will not be included in the design. On the other hand, a piled raft is a foundation, wherein piles are provided along with the raft so that the total load acting is shared partly by the raft and partly by piles, rather than being dominated by the piles (as in a pile group). Piled raft foundations utilize pile support for control of settlements with piles providing most of the stiffness at serviceability loads, and the raft element providing additional capacity at ultimate loading (Poulos, et al., 2011). Therefore, piles are included in a foundation for two main design purposes: to provide adequate bearing capacity and to bring down the settlements to an acceptable level."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ahmed Elmekati, Frederick C. Rhyner, Steven R. Lowe

"The current phase of the Pacific Park development (formerly, Atlantic Yards) in Brooklyn involves constructing buildings on a platform over an existing LIRR rail yard. To preserve the maximum amount of space in the already congested yard and protect the yard which remains in service during construction, high capacity foundations are being designed well above previous capacities in the area. In addition to spread footings and small mats, various diameters of drilled piles are being used at design capacities ranging up to 600 tons. The piles are generally grouted at low pressure, up to about 50 psi. Load tests for various drilled elements, including piles, tiedowns and soil anchors, have confirmed allowable side resistance (bond) stresses in dense sand ranging from 20 to 30 psi. Testing with different rigs and operators has shown that down-the-hole hammers are feasible, but the installation techniques, types of equipment and size of the pile make a significant difference. The results show that more cost-effective foundations are possible when ample testing confirms expectations.I INTRODUCTIONThe Long Island Rail Road has operated a mainline on Atlantic Avenue since the 1800s, with a terminal at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues. In the early 1900s, the mainline was reconstructed in a cut and cover tunnel section. The LIRR’s Atlantic Yard was constructed circa 1908 to service the terminal. It was depressed about 25 feet below street grade to coincide with the LIRR’s mainline tunnel under Atlantic Avenue. Record drawings indicate that the gravity retaining walls lining the perimeter of the yard and other ancillary structures had been designed for an allowable bearing pressure of five tons per square foot (tsf). Perhaps by coincidence, the mat foundation for the tower of the Williamsburg Savings Bank was also designed for five tsf in 1929.Figure 1 shows a typical geologic section through the site. The geology and subsurface conditions in this part of Brooklyn consist of fill generally five to 20 feet deep underlain by dense to very dense sand and gravel; in places, with numerous cobbles and boulders which make pile installation challenging. The sand strata that are on the order of 150 to 200 feet thick were laid down by glaciers during the last ice age and have been heavily precompressed. The sand strata are underlain in places by remnants of the Cretaceous-era Raritan Clay formation and Fordham Gneiss bedrock. Because of this, the sand strata generally provide excellent support for shallow foundations and the allowable bearing of five tons per square foot is usually easily justified."

Jan 1, 2016

By Tony Amis, Marco Barla, Alice Di Donna

"Energy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular solution around the world for Developers looking to reduce CO2 and system running costs. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures that provide both the important role of structural stability while also acting as a heat exchanger with the ground, enabling the supported buildings and or infrastructure to be heated and cooled using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems. The main advantage of this innovative technology with respect to standard geothermal plant is the reduction of the initial installation costs and construction schedule benefits, compared to installing conventional geothermal solutions, largely due to the additional use of structures which would be constructed in any case. However, it is important with respect to energy geostructures that additional aspects need careful consideration. For this very reason, several research studies have been carried out over the last decade on this subject and a number of real case studies have been monitored and analysed. The key difference with respect to conventional shallow geothermal systems are mainly related to the geometry, which is imposed by the geotechnical project, and the need to ensure that the primary structural role is always guaranteed. Special boundary conditions, the reduced depth, the influence of atmospheric external temperature can also play an important role for energy geostructures. They can affect, both energy efficiency and, the geotechnical behaviour because of the possible thermal induced mechanical effects. This paper presents a picture of the current situation regarding energy geostructures and their peculiar features, and collects available data to provide a reference framework. Data has been collected from literature and personal communications and then processed to provide easy-to-read charts useful for practical consultation at a glance. This paper provides, an indication of the distribution of such systems worldwide, their spread in time, and a global view of their actual efficiency from the structural, energy, economic and environmental point of view.1. IntroductionEnergy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular consideration around the world. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures with a dual role of providing structural stability and the ability to exchange heat with the ground, to provide low carbon heat and coolth to supporting and or adjacent buildings and infrastructure, using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems (Barla and Di Donna, 2016; Laloui and Di Donna, 2013). A closed circuit of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes is embedded in the concrete, and a heat carrier fluid circulates through them exchanging heat with the ground. The HDPE pipework circuit inside the geostructure is linked to one of the above buildings or infrastructure through a heat pump, which adapts the temperature of the circulating fluid to the heating (winter mode) and cooling (summer mode) needs. In this way, heat can be injected into the ground during summer and extracted from it during winter. In principle, all structures in contact with the ground can be used as energy geostructures. The first examples of energy geostructures date back to the eighties in Austria and were mainly piles and shallow foundations. A decade later, Henderson et al. (1999) reported on what would appear to be the first successful use of geothermal energy piles in the US, with loops incorporated into the foundation for a hotel in Geneva, New York. As was their use in this New York case history, the typical geothermal energy pile application is used in conjunction with additional closed loop boreholes to provide the required energy capacity for a structure. Interestingly the report concludes that the geothermal energy piles had a better heat transfer performance than the borehole field. The first energy walls appeared slightly later, while still today only a few experimental cas"

Jan 1, 2017

By Prakash Annamalai Rangasamy, Muthukkumaran Kasinathan

"Infrastructure development like elevated expressways, metro train and flyover are required proper foundation system to carry heavy traffic loads/significant lateral load, especially in the presence of hard stratum at shallow depth. Pile foundation under bridge pier system is widely adopted in metro projects where the piles are essentially socketed in rock. However, the drilling in hard rock is a time consuming process and needs heavy machineries which lead to delay in construction activities. In the present study, the influence of free standing height on rock socketing under lateral load is investigated. The experiments were conducted on an instrumented model pile with varying depth of socketing and for varying Lf/D ratios. The experimental results shows the load carrying capacity of the pile increases by increase in Lf/D ratio, where in the case pile without socketing (bearing on rock) is compared with 3D depth of socketing. Thus socketing the pile provides significant benefits on carrying capacity of lateral loads. Embedding the pile into hard strata reduces the lateral displacements substantially compared with pile bearing over hard strata. Form the study, it is noticed that the influence of rock socketing has significant effect in the lateral load capacity. And also, the effect of free sanding height play a major role in the lateral load capacity of the rock socketed piles.1. INTRODUCTIONA substructure carrying heavy lateral load at shallow depth, the structure has to be socketed into hard strata to enhance the efficiency of load carrying capacity. The existing field practice is to socket the end bearing piles in hard strata over a minimum depth of four times the diameter of the pile based on rock classification (IS 14593:1998). Reese (1997) developed p-y curves for analysing drilled shafts in rock under lateral loading, based on strong and weak rock criteria. The proposed p-y curve approach has the ability to simulate the nonlinearity and non-homogeneity of the rock mass surrounding the drilled shaft. Gabr et al. (2002) proposed a hyperbolic p-y criterion based on field tests on small diameter drilled socketed shafts. By considering pile as linearly elastic semi-infinite space and soil as homogeneous isotropic material, Poulos (1971) proposed solution to determine the horizontal displacement and pile head rotation. Poulos (1972) extended this elastic continuum approach to give an approximate solution by considering drilled shaft and pile bearing on rock as fixed and pinned end boundary condition. Zhang et al. (2000) developed a non-linear continuum approach for drilled shafts in a soil and rock mass by considering the effect of soil and/or rock mass yielding on the behaviour of shafts. Randolph (1981) conducted a parametric study on the response of laterally loaded piles embedded in an elastic soil continuum. The study was conducted using the finite element method and the results were fitted with closed-form expressions from which the lateral responses of piles were calculated. The solutions given by Randolph (1981) were expanded by Carter and Kulhawy (1992) from the results of finite element studies on the behaviour of laterally loaded flexible and rigid drilled shafts in rock. Desai and Christian (1977) gave a finite difference program to solve rock socketed problems by considering soil and rock mass as elastic-perfectly plastic. Zhang et al. (2000) verified the proposed finite difference method with existing field test results. Gabr et al. (2002) and Liang and Yang (2006) proposed hyperbolic p-y curves based on filed test results and verified with finite element programs. However the need of field and lab scale experimental studies to validate the existing methods of analysis is necessary."

Jan 1, 2015

By Emre Biringen

Over the past decades, there has been an increasing recognition of the strategic use of pile-supported rafts in design of heavily-loaded structures to reduce total and differential settlements. However, such a hybrid foundation construction method has not been widely utilized in many countries, including the U.S., due to code limitations. In current practice, the foundation design is based on either (i) the bearing capacity of the raft supported by the subgrade soils, or (ii) solely the pile capacity. This paper addresses the potential use of such hybrid piled-raft systems, where the structural load is shared by both by the piles and the subgrade soils directly beneath the raft, in foundation design of power plant structures. The study assessed some of the characteristics of piled-raft behavior by undertaking three-dimensional finite element analyses of two raft sizes, and various pile layout patterns, including the rafts with piles distributed evenly and only in the central area of the raft. The computer software PLAXIS 3D with the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive soil model was used to facilitate the modeling of such cases. The results presented in this paper indicate how strategically locating the piles could reduce the differential and total settlements.

By Abolfazl Eslami, Sara Heidarie Golafzani

CPT-based methods considered as complementary tools for static analyses outperform other axial pile bearing capacity predictive methods. Considering soil spatial variability and minor errors associated with procedure and operator, CPT-base methods mitigate the effect of latent uncertainties in pile design. These methods were developed based on different databases and purposes. Hence, several statistical and probabilistic attributes were defined and implemented to assess the predictive CPT-based methods’ performance via CPT and pile databases in terms of the model parameter. These features make a comparison among methods in terms of precision, accuracy, and efficiency. Furthermore, CPT-based methods can be subjected to scrutiny over their backgrounds and how they were developed via reliability analysis. In this regard, a database of sixty-two driven piles and their adjacent CPT soundings were gathered, and six commonly applied CPT-based methods were examined according to criteria other than prevailing statistical and probabilistic ones, including; (a) input variables, (b) soil behavior classification (SBC) (c) model assumption (d) Influence zone, and (e) axial loading direction. According to these introduced criteria, CPTbased methods were classified and appraised via efficiency ratio. Eventually, these reliability-based, statistical, and probabilistic criteria evaluate the understudied methods performance for the investigated compiled database and help designers select consciously appropriate predictive methods according to the site conditions.

Sep 8, 2021

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."

Jan 1, 2017

By Abid Adekunte

"In recent years, developers have had to deal with complexities associated with numerous cases of deep basement construction in built-up areas. Design and construction of deep excavation support systems in urbanised zones come with many technical challenges. Restricted working spaces often render the use of temporary struts as wall restraint systems unpopular, as working space needs to be maximised. Also, tie-back anchors are often inapplicable due to the existence of adjacent structures. Therefore, developing alternative restraint systems for deep basement structures in builtup areas is becoming increasingly important to the present day basement engineer.This paper is centred on the design, construction and monitoring of enabling works for deep basement structures on three sites in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Traditional tieback anchorage and propping systems were inapplicable on the sites. As alternatives, separate novel wall restraint systems were developed and adopted, to enable excavation on each of the three sites.Performances of the novel wall restraint systems, as well as the responses of adjacent structures were monitored. Numerical modelling and field monitoring results show the three alternative wall restraint systems to be safe and effective. The paper also highlights the advantages of the novel solutions over conventional methods.INTRODUCTIONRecently, deep basement structures have become popular components of urban building developments. As pointed out by Pearlman et al., 2004, this could be attributed to the inadequacy of surface parking spaces in urbanised zones, while underground parking facilities are also believed to improve both aesthetic and commercial qualities of urban structures.However, while the incorporation of basement structure into new urban development appeals to developers and architects, the engineering design and construction aspects of basement works typically come against a whole lot of complexities and challenges. As highlighted by Wong, 2002, engineering problems associated with basement construction in built-up areas are numerous, some of these include; complicated sub-soil conditions, dealing with excessive active pressures, complex temporary works, proximity of sensitive adjacent structures, high level hazards to construction workmen and surrounding community, inadequate working space, etc."

Jan 1, 2015

By Gianfranco Di Cicco

Seepage problems were recorded for more then 40 years at the Walter F. George lock and dam. In 2001 the Mobile district of The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers turned to the installation of a 200 feet deep cut-off in a final attempt to remedy the situation. The advertised design-built contract requested the installation of the cutoff wall in front of the concrete structure of the dam starting from 90 feet of water, cutting through a concrete lock structure, a submerged retaining wall and extending on both sides on the earthen embankments. This paper summarize the history of the project and the installation of the first recorded cut-off wall constructed under deep water, upstream to an existing dam structures and under an existing concrete lock. The technology used combined with the project's results may be considered a milestone in the marine foundation and the marine cut-off wall construction technology.

Jan 1, 2013

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 Silas C. Nichols

FHWA Interest is due to: ? An increase in successful projects in the U.S. private sector and in other countries ? Cost effective and more efficient in many circumstances ? Agency Priorities - FHWA "Vital Few" AASHTO TIG

Jan 1, 2005

By Abid Adekunte

Traditionally, designers and contractors provide additional external supports to retaining walls through the use of tie-back anchors or braces. Both approaches are known to have their shortcomings; braces limit working space within excavation areas, while tie-backs are seldom used in built-up areas where intrusion into adjacent property of non-cooperative owners has to be avoided or in situations where sensitive structures exist behind the wall. This paper focuses on the design, construction and monitoring of deep excavation support systems on two separate projects located in different ground conditions in the Republic of Ireland. On both projects, conventional ground anchorage and propping were inapplicable. This led to the development and application of two different novel solutions on both projects. Methods of wall performance monitoring on both sites also differ. Wall monitoring results show these innovative methods to be safe and effective. Advantages of the novel solutions over traditional approaches are highlighted.

Jan 1, 2010

By John Dunn, Matt Hawley, Kashif Butt, Nicholas Gura

"This paper presents the results of a static load testing program completed on helical pile foundations for the replacement of high voltage transmission line tower structures. The foundations were part of the Northeast Grid Reliability Project (NGRP) for the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) near Newark, New Jersey. Structure foundations “anchor bolts down” was a design build contract model with the superstructure as bid-build.The soil stratigraphy along the alignment generally consisted of fill over about 10 ft of organic deposits underlain by up to 260 ft of normally consolidated glacial lake clays and silts. Additional project challenges included working under/adjacent the existing live high voltage lines, narrow site access due to environmental permits, foundations in a tidally influenced area, and pile projections in the order of 10 feet to meet the 10 year flood level requirements.The helical piles were constructed of 12.75 inch diameter open ended pipe piles with 36 to 40 inch diameter helices. A total of seven static load tests (compression and tension) were completed on 60 ft and 90 ft long piles, using both welded and mechanical pile splices. To evaluate pile-soil setup in the sensitive fine grained soil and determine representative longer term installation torque factors (Kt) for the production piles, the static load tests were performed 7 to 49 days after pile installation.Helical piles were found to be the most cost effective foundation alternative for this project. The required length of helical piles was less than other alternatives for similar allowable axial capacity. Helical piles with mechanical splices were installed for the varying structure foundations including tangent and heavy deadend, to a deadend monopole. Installation of 448 production piles (34,320 linear ft) was completed in three months. The installation timeline was critical to meeting the semi-annual PSEG outage for switching the old and new structures. Helical piles employing a mechanical splice resulted in an efficient and effective foundation solution for the conditions encountered on the project."

Jan 1, 2017

By Alice Y. Tseng, Dan MacLean

"Corrosion protection of all deep foundation systems made of steel is THE issue when considering durability of the element in the long term. Protecting steel from corrosion and maintaining the steel tendon cross sectional area ensures a competent and durable system. The foundation of a building is usually difficult to repair and therefore high risk is taken when unknowingly choosing a non-adequate solution.Requirements according to EN 1990 (Eurocode 0 or EC 0) on construction durability requires a service life over 100 years. How can a service life over 100 years be achieved? How shall bare steel be protected in soil, which sometimes could be an aggressive environment to the steel? Which corrosion protection methods are commonly used in Europe and in North America?This paper will focus on hollow bars used as Micropiles, Anchor piles and Soil Nails. It gives an overview about the state of the practice in regards to corrosion protection (including head construction) and evaluates different options following the European Standards focusing on type of material and method of installation. Further the different corrosion protective methods such as thickness of grout body, coating types and sacrificial loss are listed with the pros and cons evaluated.Based not only on North American standards like FHWA “Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines”, FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 for “Soil Nail Walls“ and Post-Tensioning Institute “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors”, but also European standards like EN 14199 “Execution of special geotechnical works – Micropiles”, EN 14490 “Execution of special geotechnical works - Soil nailing”, EN 1537 “Execution of special geotechnical work – Ground anchors“, and other relevant standards, all possibilities of protecting the hollow bars and the steel quality will be introduced, discussed and compared ."

Jan 1, 2017

By Todd Nottingham

Channel deepening of major ports is challenging designers to explore innovative solutions to ensure stability of bulkheads, such as for the Oakland Inner Harbor. This particular challenge was met with the use of the SPIN FIN® Tension Pile for restraint of an HZ combination wall along the Oakland Inner Harbor Shoreline in Oakland, California. A SPIN FIN pile is a pipe pile with welded plates at the pile tip that increase pile capacity. A brief history of the project will be provided as well as results of pile load tension tests, pile strain gauge, and wall deflection under construction loads. Tension pile load deflection results will be discussed with recommendations toward establishing deflection-based ultimate load criteria. A discussion of predicted wall loads and field observed wall loads will be provided.

Jan 1, 2008