Search Documents

By Jahnavi Parmar, Pranav R. T Peddinti, Saloni Pandya, P. S. Prasad

Coastal cities are in desperate need of suitable land to meet the ever-increasing demand for urban infrastructure to support commercial, residential, tourism, and off-shore activities. Countries with a lengthy coastal line, such as India, possess significant areas of wide spread highly saline soils subjected to periodic seawater intrusion. One such soil stratum was encountered at the Gulf of Cambay, Bhavnagar district, Gujarat, India. Due to the high volume of river runoff, the Gulf has a positive water balance. The relative humidity ranges from 65 to 86 percent, making the climate semi-arid to sub-humid. The high salinity, mineral content, basaltic origin, and deeper water table offered the impetus to investigate applicability of various soil treatment options for such saline soils. Admixture stabilization techniques have been shown to help with problematic soil features. The Current study aims to determine effectiveness of addition of locally available lignite fly ash (10% - 30% by weight) and cement (6% - 9% by weight) to Bhavnagar saline soil in respect of strength, electrical conductivity and CBR. In this assessment, a comparison of stabilized and unstabilized saline soil mixtures is expected to highlight the need of understanding influence of treatment on instinctive performance of stabilized saline soils, as well as assist practitioners in efficacious treatment of extreme saline soils for diverse geotechnical and construction applications.

Sep 1, 2022

By Michael Hughes, Selva Selvamohan, Ray Costa

"Cutoff walls are commonly used to mitigate underseepage problems for levee remediation projects. At abrupt changes in seepage cutoff wall depths there is a potential for water to flow around the back of the deeper cutoff wall leading to elevated seepage pressures on the landside that could result in exit gradients exceeding design criteria. This condition is referred to as end-around-effects and is a complex problem that requires detailed and time consuming 3-D numerical modeling to represent accurately. This paper presents a simple approach for assessing end-around-effects using the results of 2- D seepage analysis to determine if lateral extension of the deeper portion of the cutoff wall is required. This simplified approach provides a pragmatic solution to a complex 3-D problem. The presented procedure was used as part of the Feather River West Levee Project in Yuba City, California, to assess end-around-effects at 26 locations. The results showed that wall extensions of up to 100 feet were needed at only 2 locations.INTRODUCTIONAs the lead geotechnical consultant for the Feather River West Levee Project, AECOM were responsible for designing levee remediation works for approximately 35 miles of levee protecting the area around Yuba City, California, and communities to the north and south. Due to land use constraints, seepage cutoff walls were the main remediation alternative selected to address underseepage issues for the project.As part of the design review process, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) requested AECOM to look at 26 locations along the levee alignment where the depth of cutoff wall changed abruptly from shallow to deep, or vice versa. At these locations there was the potential for seepage pressures to pass behind the deeper section of cutoff wall and stress the blanket layer landward of the cutoff wall. A condition referred to as end-around-effects.End-around-effects involve complex 3-D ground conditions that have traditionally been addressed by laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based solely on engineering judgment. In discussions with DWR, AECOM developed a simple procedure to provide a more objective assessment of end-around-effects without the need for detailed and time consuming analysis. This procedure allows the engineer to make an informed decision of whether end-around-effects are a problem at the location of a cutoff wall transition rather than laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based on engineering judgment alone."

Jan 1, 2015

By Lori A. Simpson, Linda H. Liang

A high-rise building, consisting of two tower structures occupying the entire site, is in construction in San Francisco. The North Tower will consist of 12 and 35 stories above a one-level basement. The South Tower will consist of 9 and 22 stories over one partially below-grade level of common space; a portion of the South Tower will have a three-level basement. The towers will be supported on mat foundations bearing on native very dense sand in the footprint of the threelevel basement and on ground improved with soil-cement mixed (SCM) panels that extend through loose sand and marsh deposits into very dense sand. Shoring systems for the basement excavations include cantilevered and tiedback soldier-beam-and-lagging systems and SCM cutoff walls. Subsurface conditions include loose fill and Dune Sand and loose and soft marsh deposits overlying very dense sand of the Colma formation. Groundwater is approximately 15 to 22 feet deep; the three-level basement extends below groundwater. The site is on Market Street in San Francisco, with SF Municipal Railway (MUNI) and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tunnels running below Market Street approximately 45 and 36 feet north of the site, respectively. Both tunnels are 16.5 feet in diameter. The top of MUNI and BART tunnels are 25 feet and 63.5 feet below street grade, respectively. BART has stringent requirements regarding construction adjacent to their facilities, including disallowing adding pressure to their tunnel, lowering groundwater by more than two feet, and vibrations from construction activities. Design of the shoring and the foundations within the BART zone of influence were subject to their design requirements. The project was also subject to a peer review, as required by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. We used FLAC to evaluate stresses at the BART and MUNI tunnels and on the SCM panels. This paper will present the mitigations needed to address seismic hazards and BART restrictions and to provide adequate foundation support for a tall building with high seismic loads.

Jan 1, 2017

By Lori A. Simpson

A high-rise building, consisting of two tower structures occupying the entire site, is in construction in San Francisco. The North Tower will consist of 12 and 35 stories above a one-level basement. The South Tower will consist of 9 and 22 stories over one partially below-grade level of common space; a portion of the South Tower will have a three-level basement. The towers will be supported on mat foundations bearing on native very dense sand in the footprint of the three-level basement and on ground improved with soil-cement mixed (SCM) panels that extend through loose sand and marsh deposits into very dense sand. Shoring systems for the basement excavations include cantilevered and tied-back soldier-beam-and-lagging systems and SCM cutoff walls. Subsurface conditions include loose fill and Dune Sand and loose and soft marsh deposits overlying very dense sand of the Colma formation. Groundwater is approximately 15 to 22 feet deep; the three-level basement extends below groundwater. The site is on Market Street in San Francisco, with SF Municipal Railway (MUNI) and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tunnels running below Market Street approximately 45 and 36 feet north of the site, respectively. Both tunnels are 16.5 feet in diameter. The top of MUNI and BART tunnels are 25 feet and 63.5 feet below street grade, respectively. BART has stringent requirements regarding construction adjacent to their facilities, including disallowing adding pressure to their tunnel, lowering groundwater by more than two feet, and vibrations from construction activities. Design of the shoring and the foundations within the BART zone of influence were subject to their design requirements. The project was also subject to a peer review, as required by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. We used FLAC to evaluate stresses at the BART and MUNI tunnels and on the SCM panels. This paper will present the mitigations needed to address seismic hazards and BART restrictions and to provide adequate foundation support for a tall building with high seismic loads.

By Ali Ebrahimi, Meena L. Viswanath, John F. Beech, Mustafa B. Erten, Ming Zhu

"Excessive deformation of a cantilever sheetpile wall can occur due to dredging, excavation, backfilling, or long-term creep behavior of soil. A buttressing berm constructed in front of the wall can be considered as a mitigation technique to prevent or decrease the deformation by increasing the passive earth pressure and thus improving the wall stability. The effect of the buttressing berm on the stability and deformation of a sheetpile depends on the berm geometry (i.e., the thickness/depth and the width) as well as the properties of the sheetpile and the adjacent soils. A parametric study was conducted using a conventional limit equilibrium method. Design charts were prepared to evaluate the effect of a buttressing berm and the soil friction angle on the wall stability and deformation. These charts can be used as a tool by geotechnical engineers to make a quick estimate of the required size of a buttressing berm in case of calculated or unexpected excessive deformation of a sheetpile. An analysis of the effect of a buttressing berm on the stresses and deformation of a sheetpile was also compared with the results from finite element analysis. The results of this comparison are discussed.INTRODUCTIONCantilever sheetpile walls are commonly used to support excavations. Sheetpiles are hot rolled or cold formed sections of steel made to interlock with adjacent sections to form a continuous structure providing lateral support. Sheetpile walls can be cantilever walls or anchored with tiebacks. To construct a cantilever sheetpile wall, sheetpiles are driven by pile drivers or vibrated in to a design depth sufficiently below the depth of excavation. Excavation can then proceed in front of the sheetpile wall, which resists the earth pressure loading from behind the wall. The design depth and geometry of the sheetpile wall depend on the soil conditions, the depth of excavation, and the tolerable deformation. In certain cases, when a small buttress of soil can be left immediately adjacent to the sheetpile wall, the required depth or geometry of the sheetpile wall can be reduced or adjusted, which can significantly decrease the cost of procuring and installing the wall. Such a buttress can also serve as a short-term or long-term remedy in case of observed excessive deformation in a constructed wall. Traditional methods of analyzing the stability of a sheetpile wall do not account for the passive pressure effects of this small buttress. In this paper, a parametric study was performed for a variety of soil types and wall and buttress geometries by implementing traditional limit equilibrium methods in commercial software and design charts were created illustrating the effect of a buttressing berm on sheetpile deflection. Selected cases were then modeled in a finite element software to compare the results with the traditional limit equilibrium method. The resulting design charts can be used as a tool by geotechnical engineers looking to reduce the design geometry of a sheetpile wall or address observed excessive deformation in a constructed sheetpile wall."

Jan 1, 2016

By Tomio Tsuchiya

A construction method of bored steel H piles enclosed in soil-cement columns was developed by modifying steel H piles from the driven pile method and soil-cement walls from the earth retaining wall method, the latter of which produces cut-off walls and reduces noise and vibration during construction. In this method, as shown in Figure 1, rich mix cement paste is injected into the bottom of a borehole which is pre-excavated by a casing auger, then a steel H beam is inserted before it hardens. Since the high vertical resistance of piles created with this method has already been confirmed by loading tests, we have been investigating the applicability of this method for piles used to temporarily support building loads for top-down construction on raft foundations until the raft foundation is completed. However, in the loading tests, the bearing capacity at the lower end of the pile was measured by loading from ground surface on test piles which had friction cut to eliminate the shaft friction resistance. In other words, the loading tests neglected the effect of overburden pressure of soil above the lower end of the pile. To investigate the effect of the overburden pressure on the bearing capacity at the lower end of the pile, loading tests were carried out on a bored steel H pile of lm diameter (test pile) bored in a compacted sandy soil layer with N-value of 100 to 250 at each stage of a three-step excavation. The results show no significant change in the bearing capacity at the lower end of the pile when the depth ratio of the pile is in the range of 5.7 to 22.7.

Jan 1, 1996

By Vijaya Bhushan Rao, Ali Semercioglu, Jason Redgers

Large diameter steel water tanks with high storage capacities impart heavy loads deep into the ground, generally requiring deep foundations to adequately support them. The use of ground improvement as a sustainable and cost effective alternative is tempting but the design of the foundations for such heavily loaded, thin-shelled structures have to meet several performance requirements such as bearing capacity, limiting the specified total settlements, typically limiting the radial differential settlement to 13mm over 10m along the circumference and dishing settlement from edge to center of 1/120 as per standard API 650 Appendix B as well as the mitigation of liquefaction induced settlement risk. Any inadequacy in the soil investigation, geotechnical design, or misrepresentation of stresses of the foundations may lead to serviceability compromise or potentially catastrophic failures. Therefore, the selection of the foundation is dependent on the availability of suitable ground report and the limitations imposed by operational requirements. Two such case studies are evaluated and compared in this paper, with tank diameters ranging from 41 to 106m in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, (KSA) which were founded on two types of soils and supported on deep foundations i.e., stone columns and bored cast-in-situ piles.

Oct 1, 2022

By Hugo Meggitt, Damian R. Siebert, Wystan Carswell

Excavation-induced ground movements are a critical component in the design and construction of deep excavations in urban settings due to the potential adverse effects on adjacent structures and infrastructure. Ground movements are influenced by soil stratigraphy, soil properties, adjacent structures, and construction means and methods. The use of empirical relationships, computer models, and reliance on experience with similar excavations in similar soil conditions often provides a basis for predicting excavation-induced ground movements. In this paper, data from 21 deep excavations approximately 20 ft to 75 ft deep supported by concrete diaphragm “slurry” walls in the Greater Boston area are compared to published literature, considering how different foundation systems (e.g. shallow foundations, caissons, and piles) of abutting structures have been affected by adjacent excavations. The influence of construction method (conventional vs. top-down) on adjacent foundation movements indicate that top-down construction typically results in smaller foundation movements. INTRODUCTION Estimation of ground movements due to excavation is a challenging endeavor, even with complex three- dimensional finite element modeling and high-order constitutive models that are increasingly available in modern engineering practice. Aside from the expense of the soil exploration and testing used to inform these higher-order models, the challenges of modeling past stress history, adjacent structures, and the groundwater conditions during excavation require not only large investments of time during design but also validation from past experience (to avoid a “garbage in, garbage out” paradigm). While site conditions such as soil stratigraphy, soil properties, groundwater conditions, and as-built conditions of adjacent structures can be obtained, measured, and estimated, the effects that means and methods of construction have on ground movements are difficult to quantify. During early phase design, assessments of predicted ground movement are unable to account for all aspects of project construction, nor is it cost-efficient to fully design an excavation while project parameters such as site size and excavation depth are under consideration by the design team. While construction is in progress, benchmarking support of excavation performance and associated ground movements in the context of successfully completed projects allows for a more nuanced view of system performance and provides the opportunity for more informed decision-making (if required) as construction proceeds. For these reasons, the use of empirical relationships and the collection of historical support of excavation performance holds high value for the practicing geotechnical engineer at all phases of the project.

Jan 1, 2019

By Lawrence F. Johnsen, Felix Ferrer, Dino Tomasetti, Cassandra A. Wetzel

"A 17 story building was constructed at the Brooklyn Navy Yard on a site with a long history of development. Most recently the site supported a dewatering well and craneway to service two adjacent drydocks. The subsurface conditions generally consist of the following strata and approximate depths: miscellaneous fill and debris to 20 ft., organic soils to 35 ft., liquefiable sand to 45 ft., varved clay to 65 ft., glacial till to 95 ft. and gneiss bedrock.Hollow core bar piles replaced 18 in. diameter caissons on a 1.67:1 basis. The resulting service loads on the hollow bar piles were 600 kips compression, 21 kips lateral, 180 kips tension and 450 inch-kips moment. The top 30 feet of the hollow bar was cased with a 16 in. x 0.375 in. Grade 50 steel pipe. The piles were socketed 6 feet into bedrock. An extensive load testing program confirmed the axial and lateral load capacities. The paper will also discuss some adjustments to the installation procedure based on the load test program.PROJECTThe hollow bar piles were installed to support a 95,000 sf footprint, 17-story office building at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Brooklyn Navy Yard was first developed in the late 1700’s to build merchant vessels. The federal government purchased the old docks and adjoining 40 acres in 1801. The site was an active U. S. Naval Shipyard from 1806 to its decommissioning in 1966. At its peak in World War II it employed 70,000 people, 24 hours a day. Since 1966 the property has been converted to private manufacturing and commercial activity.The site is located between Dry Docks 2 and 3. The adjacent drydocks extend 40 to 43 feet below grade. The drydock walls are restrained by tierods extending back to deadman anchors. The site is also underlain by piles that were installed to support rail lines and a craneway. The building footprint also covered an 85 ft. wide, 70 ft. deep dewatering well which had a thick slab. The structural engineer for the project, ARUP, designed the building to span over the dewatering well.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSIn September 2014, Langan Engineering conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the project. Figure 1 provides a subsurface profile through the long axis of the site. The general soil profile was very erratic but generally consisted of miscellaneous fill and debris to 20 ft., organic soils to 35 ft., liquefiable sand to 45 ft., varved clay to 65 ft., glacial till to 95 ft. and gneiss bedrock. The fill contained numerous obstructions from the over 200 years of site development. The organic soils were mostly very weak and compressible organic silt. The depths and thicknesses of the varved clay, and sand varied"

Jan 1, 2017

By Nagarajan. D, Raja Rajan. K, Vijayakumar. T

Major bridges crossing mighty rivers must be constructed in flowing water. Constructing the sub-structure in water has been a challenging job for contractor. Special construction techniques with marine fleets to be adopted for waterfront construction. Enabling works like temporary piling platform and cofferdam used for pile and pile cap construction. Apart from this, enabling works like load out jetty to transport the materials from land to water; temporary walkway for access of workman to work location; temporary access bridge for construction vehicles movement; temporary liners for tower crane foundation; Concrete block to act as dead man anchor for barge movements were all required by the contractor for smooth functioning of site as per construction schedule. Investment in enabling works by contractor plays a significant role on profit margin of the project and of course with utmost safety. Design of enabling works for waterfront structures involves hydrological data like afflux, bathymetry survey, current force, scour depth and wave force to be taken cautiously for safe and economic design. Type of foundation and pile/well cap top level corresponding to water levels shall influence the construction scheme. Usage of geotechnical software like Wallap and Plaxis required for enabling work design to enhance the safety of the structure. Bathymetry and soil condition play a critical role in design and construction of enabling works. Water Discharge quantity in river along with water levels like low water level, high flood level, seasonal fluctuation of water levels has a great impact on design of enabling works. Establishing enabling works for waterfront construction near to an existing bridge is an additional challenge for the contractor. Along with design, constructing the enabling works in water requires special construction methodology and sequence of work. This paper shall provide insights on overview of design and construction of enabling works for waterfront construction.

Nov 1, 2022

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule. SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule.SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Mohsen Elsayed, Amr Sallam, Ahmad Mohamed, Xuebing Zheng, Mohamed Alrowaimi

The foundation is an essential component of the wind turbine that ensures continued operation under stable and safe conditions. Both shallow and deep foundations are utilized to support wind turbines including gravity spread foundation, anchor foundation, pier or drilled shaft foundation and pile and pile cap foundations. Conventional methods were typically utilized to design the wind turbine foundations. With the advances in numerical modeling in the geotechnical field, foundation designers may utilize numerical analysis to design wind turbine foundations. Geotechnical numerical packages allow modeling structural components and soil-structure interaction that is usually neglected in conventional methods. Furthermore, the subsoil conditions, geometries, stress-strain behavior, boundary conditions and load staging can be modeled, minimizing the assumptions and generalization. This results in better understanding of the stress strain behavior of the foundation leading to optimized foundation designs. This paper includes a brief review of current foundations used to support wind turbines with an emphasis on post tensioned single pier foundations. The current conventional foundation design methodologies and state-of-the-art foundation design utilizing numerical modeling of the single pier foundation will be discussed. Two case histories where the single pier foundation, designed using numerical modeling, were utilized to support the wind turbines will be presented. INTRODUCTION The foundation is an essential component of every wind turbine that ensures continued operation under stable and safe conditions. Turbine manufacturers provides load specifications for designers to be utilized for wind turbine foundations design. Loads include bending moments, torsional moments, lateral forces and vertical forces in both operational and extreme wind conditions. Essential specifications under seismic conditions might also be provided in seismic prone areas. Turbine manufacturers also include foundation design criteria including minimum rotational stiffness, minimum horizontal stiffness, maximum allowed inclination and maximum allowed lateral movement under both operational and extreme loads. Geotechnical explorations and evaluations are typically performed at early stages of the wind development projects. The field explorations usually include Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Soundings, geophysical surveys, and laboratory tests to define soils stratification system and soil strength and compressibility characteristics. The most critical soil parameters for turbine foundation design are shear strength parameters (cohesion and friction), shear modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and unit weight. The depth to the groundwater table is also a crucial parameter in design. Advanced field explorations techniques such as Dilatometer Tests and Pressuremeter Tests may also be utilized. Laboratory tests for foundation design typically include index parameters, consolidation and triaxial tests.

Jan 1, 2019

By Melinda J. Hummel, Zachary T. Smith, Nathaniel Witter, Nina F. Carney

The revitalization of Pittsburgh’s historic Strip District has led to the redevelopment of existing properties and the development of new properties. At one time, the Strip was home to wholesale market products. Now, the historical warehouse buildings are being converted to multi-use residential and commercial properties. One such property, 1600 Smallman Street, consisted of 1 to 6-story connected buildings that housed night clubs, retail shops, and office space. The lower story portion of the building, on the southwest side of the property, was torn down to make room for a new 5-story- parking garage with street level retail space. The remaining 6-story-building, on the northeast, was gutted to be renovated into high-end condominiums, keeping the exterior historical building facade.

By Venugopal B, M Kumaran, Thomas John, Vetriselvan A

The initial pile load tests are conducted to ensure the geotechnical capacity of the pile in a particular site condition. Normally kentledge method is adopted for the compression pile load tests. In this method the entire kentledge load is loaded above secondary beams which are supported by concrete blocks above the Natural Ground Level. So, it is important to ensure the SBC (for shear and settlement) of the natural ground. In one of our projects initially it was decided to go with kentledge system for initial compression load test on 56m long 1200mm diameter BCIS pile. The test load and total kentledge load were 2160t and 2700t, respectively. The soil strata mainly consisted of clay with low SPT N value and water table almost at ground level. It was suggested to replace top soil using Granular Sub-base (GSB) with good compaction in order to avoid excessive settlement of concrete blocks placed to support the kentledge weight. When the kentledge loading started, even before reaching 10% of total kentledge load, excessive settlement on the GSB layer was observed. This paper describes the problems faced during normal kentledge method and how it was overcome using the liner pile system for initial compression load tests in this particular site condition for higher test load.

Nov 1, 2022

By Anthony T. C. Goh, Zhiye Zhao, Laddu B. Jayasinghe, Hongyuan Zhou, Yilin Gui

"Ground vibrations from blasting are undesirable and they are very short in duration with high principal frequencies and high amplitude. Structural response to that kind of excitations may differ significantly from that generated by lower-frequency earthquake vibrations. In practice, the damage to nearby structures to generated ground vibrations has been controlled by various codes and regulations available. However, the existing vibrations limits are not always applicable, as they depend on the geological conditions of the site and the dynamic characteristics of the structure. This paper investigated the influence of the rock-soil interface on the response of pile foundation to ground-borne vibration from rock blasting, through numerical simulations using finite element software LS-DYNA. It is found that the slope of the rock-soil interface greatly influences the location of damage and the extent of damage on the pile. The bottom of the pile is subjected to a larger blast pressure and stresses are highly concentrated at the pile bottom. Thus, the pile bottom can fail in shear before it reaches its plastic moment capacity.INTRODUCTIONDrilling and blasting is the widely accepted method to large-scale rock breaking activities in civil engineering constructions due to its cost effectiveness, higher efficiency and ability to break hard rock. However, ground vibrations from blasting are undesirable and it can cause damage to nearby structures. In practice, the damage to nearby structures to generated ground vibrations has been controlled by various codes and regulations available. The existing vibration limits are not always applicable, as they depend on the geological conditions of the site and dynamic characteristics of the structure.Pile foundations are commonly used as foundations of high-rise buildings and bridges to transfer the heavy loads from the superstructure above through weak compressible soil strata into deeper, competent soil layers which have adequate capacity to carry these loads. In engineering practice, many piles are normally designed to carry mainly vertical loads and very little lateral loads, as typically the vertical loads (the gravity) are significantly larger than the horizontal loads such as wind loading. However, in recent years, there have been a number of reported case studies of translational soil movements that have induced stresses and bending moments that have damaged pile foundations and in some cases resulted in collapse of the superstructure. Typical lateral load include nearby construction activities such as an excavation for a basement or slope, the construction of a road embankment or a tunnel, as well as earthquakes (Abdoun 1997; Goh et al. 1997; 2003; Chen et al. 1999; Dobry et al. 2003; Boulanger et al. 2007; Black et al. 2007)."

Jan 1, 1900

By L. D. Johnson

12 groups of 12 precast prestressed (PCPS) piles were driven in the lagoon of Kwajalein Island to support a dry dock. Pre-construction investigation of the calcareous coral sands and static pile loeid tests were performed to determine if the 7.9 by 7.9 cm (20 by 20 inches) by 26 m (85 ft) long PCPS piles embedded to a depth of 16 m (53 ft) would adequately support the dry dock. Driving records for production piles indicated that the blowcounts of the piles at the fincil embedment depth became substantially less than expected as piles wssre driven further toward the lagoon end of the dry dock and decreased to as low as 2 blows/ft. A supplemental investigation that included a static load test on a production pile, the driving of an indicator pile, and restrikes indicated that the pile foundation has adequate bearing capacity. The observed bearing capacity appears to be effected by several mechanisms including breakdown of cementation between sand particles, densification of the sands during driving, and dissipation of excess pore pressures and recementation after driving.

Jan 1, 1993

By Dominic Ammon, Mark Rothbauer, Paul Landers P. E.

Across the Potomac River from the location of the DFI47 Annual Conference (October 2022), in Alexandria, VA, two large permanent anchored walls with a decorative shotcrete face were recently constructed for the North Hill project, a new multi-family and townhome development. The project was executed with a design-build approach for the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority with review by the Fairfax County Geotechnical Review Board. The project was constructed in highly variable Potomac group sediments that include high plasticity clay/silt terrace deposits overlying coarser grained materials. The soils were over consolidated and exhibited potential for slickensides from relief of horizontal stresses from past erosion. The wall system was designed to include deep soldier piles and permanent long strand anchors considering past slope instability in the area. As the construction progressed, problematic soil conditions and water issues required modifications to drilling methods. The two permanent walls spanned 800 and 1,000 feet long with a maximum height reaching 40 feet.

Oct 1, 2022

By Rouzbeh Afsharhasani, Moses Karakouzian, Brandon Kluzniak

"The Vegas High Roller is the centerpiece of a new development parcel adjacent to the Las Vegas Strip. At a height of 550 feet, the High Roller is currently the tallest observation wheel in the world. The design team conducted a geotechnical site investigation to characterize the alluvial soils and cemented layers encountered and to provide foundation design recommendations for the observation wheel, boarding platform, and temporary structures needed to erect the wheel structure. This paper presents a case history of the geotechnical design process, including development of a ground model and design parameters, high-strain dynamic axial load tests, and settlement monitoring during construction. Results indicated that design parameters were conservatively assumed and that the majority of the axial load was transferred to a near surface caliche layer, thereby resulting in insignificant settlement of the foundation system.IntroductionThe engineering of the Vegas High Roller is similar in concept to that of the London Eye and the Singapore Flyer. The wheel has 28 cabins, each with a capacity of 40 persons. The top point of the structure is 550 ft above ground level at the site.A geotechnical site investigation program was undertaken and subsequent analyses were performed to provide foundation recommendations for the observation wheel legs, boarding platform columns, and temporary structures directly associated with construction of the observation wheel."

Jan 1, 2017

By John P. Turner, Mark Jen, Bobby Daita

"The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is replacing the existing Goethals Bridge built in 1928 which is deemed to be functionally obsolete. The replacement bridge will consist of a dual cable-stayed Main Bridge crossing the Arthur Kill with elevated approach spans connecting Elizabeth, New Jersey and Staten Island, New York. The main bridge towers are supported on a group of six nine-foot diameter drilled shafts that transition into a pier cap. The anchor and approach piers are supported on two column bents with each column supported on a single drilled shaft. The 4.5 to 10 feet diameter drilled shaft foundations have permanent steel casing to rock and socketed into bedrock. Subsurface conditions consist of Passaic Formation bedrock overlain by varying thicknesses of overburden soils. The foundation design assumes permanent casing extending a minimum 2 feet into the weathered bedrock. Rock socket lengths below the permanent casing vary between one to two shaft diameters based on the quality of the bedrock. The reinforcing design was based on AASHTO LRFD minimum requirements, force demands, seismic detailing requirements and also considering the continuity between the shaft and socket.The bridge is currently under construction with approximately 70 percent of the foundations installed. Several field conditions encountered at various stages of shaft construction between casing advancement and concreting required design and construction modifications. Based on the driving method and the quality of the bedrock, the tip of the permanent casing hit refusal either above or below the design elevation, requiring modifications to the drilled shaft design and its reinforcement. This paper provides an overview of the general subsurface conditions at the site and its impact on foundation design and discusses the detailing worked into the design to accommodate tip elevation variations, as well as various foundation design modifications in response to actual conditions encountered during construction."

Jan 1, 2016