Search Documents

By Donald A. Bruce

The construction of major structures in karstic limestone terrains poses difficult problems to designer and contractor alike. This reflects the inherent variability of such conditions, and also the significant impacts caused by the construction processes themselves. Three case histories are provided of recent projects in the United States: the sealing of a major inflow into a quarry, the improvement of a highly loaded bridge pier foundation, and the installation of high capacity micropiles. Emphasis is placed on problem assessment and execution verification.

Jan 1, 2002

By Sugie Prawono

Jacked pile is the only piling system in which the load capacity of the pile, at any penetration depth, could be monitored directly during its installation process. Each installed pile could have a graph of jacking load versus depth of penetration. For safety purposes, the maximum applied jacking load during installation of a pile could be assumed as the minimum load capacity of the pile. This load capacity will increase with time since the drop in soil strength due to the installation process will recover later on. In order to determine accurately this jacking load, a research was carried out by comparing the load capacity of a pile at certain depths to the jacking load recorded during the installation process. The load capacity could be calculated using cone resistance, qc, and local friction, fs, from Dutch Cone Penetration Test. A graph could be drawn of the load capacity against the depth. By applying a correction factor, a, to the data of local friction, the calculated graph could be matched to the graph of recorded jacking load. The a factor is found to depend on the soil type, which is in this case, represented by the magnitude of cone resistance. The soil type is divided into 3 categories according to qc values (qc < 500 Kpa; 500 Kpa < qc < 2000 Kpa and qc > 2000 Kpa). Graphs of the a factor versus depth and a sample of calculation are presented in this paper for easy application.

Jan 1, 1999

Since the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has accelerated seismic upgrading of their bridges. Many structures can be improved with the simple addition of hinge seat restrainers. Others require modification of column bents and superstructure to column connections. Often, footing retrofits are necessary, which require the addition of tension/compression elements (compression piling and tiedowns anchors) to resist overturning moments substantially larger than those originally used for footing design. These footing retrofits may include doweled reinforced concrete footing extensions or new pile caps which transmit forces to either driven steel or drilled concrete piles. In some cases, installation of these traditional piling elements is expensive, impractical or impossible due to: low overhead clearance, ground obstructions, high water table, noise or vibration sensitivity, or the inability to laterally expand the existing plan dimensions of the footing. In the latter case, one practical option is to attach small diameter drilled and grouted tension/compression piling elements (Pin Piles) to the existing footing. The footing may be strengthened with dowels and added concrete thickness or there may be a reduced shear span due to the installation of larger or jacketed columns. A reduction of elements is available with a Pin Pile alternative, particularly when the selection of traditional standard piles is governed by the reduced tension/uplift capacity available from the traditional elements, since Pin Piles exhibit superior uplift performance.

Jan 1, 1993

By Robert Fernie

Demographics and Infrastructure demands have led to a significant increase in construction of: deep basements for buildings and, trough structures for Highway and Rail/Metro. Concrete embedded walls used for temporary works can be incorporated into permanent works and because of this (and geological conditions) tend to be favoured in UK. This paper considers British practice in the provision of diaphragm (slurry) walls secant (true and pseudo) piled walls contiguous piled walls Plant utilisation, construction techniques, reinforcement placement, connections, propping, water tightness, tolerances, general UK practices and their relation to design practices are discussed. [ ]

Jan 1, 2000

By Shawna Munn, Jakub Hudler

This paper outlines the use of tunneling headwall softeyes for transit construction projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) over the past decade. Due to spatial constraints, tunnel boring machines were used to construct the underground tunnels requiring the design of launch and exit shafts with headwall softeyes to facilitate tunneling operations. Variable ground conditions and shaft geometries lead to the development of innovative headwall and tunnel softeye design applications using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) elements (beams, reinforcing bars, and tiebacks). This paper outlines the challenges and benefits associated with designing and constructing shafts using various systems. Lessons learned throughout design and construction of more than 20 structures over the past 10 years are outlined. The constructability challenges with using FRP and design performance are also discussed. For over a decade, the City of Toronto has been expanding its metropolitan transit network with a variety of new transit construction projects. Two recent projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) for underground infrastructure include the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension and the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project. These add a total of 31 new stations and 18.6 km (11.5 miles) of underground transit (TTC 2017) (EllisDon 2016). Due to ground conditions and spatial constraints of existing surface infrastructure, these projects utilized tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to construct the underground tunnels requiring the design of various types of shafts and headwalls to facilitate underground tunneling operations. To allow for tunneling through the headwalls, these shafts were designed with “softeyes” - a section of the wall without metal reinforcement that allows the TBMs to tunnel through.

Jan 1, 2018

By Bas R. Hemmen

GeoBrain is a facility at GeoDelft with the purpose to provide society with all relevant geo-engineering knowledge and experience in a structured way. On the basis of the available knowledge and experience engineers, decision makers and construction supervisors can come to a fast, reproducible and objective choice, taking into account the consequences. The paper presents examples from the GeoBrain experience databases and forecasting models developed for foundation engineering and directional drilling, or: "GeoBrain Foundations" and "GeoBrain Drilling". GeoBrain is closing the gap between theory and practice. It is aimed directly at reducing uncertainty and the costs of failure, thereby increasing the quality of profession and minimising the risk in geo-engineering works.

Jan 1, 2006

By Dennis W. Boehm

The building boom of the late 1970&apos;s and early 1980&apos;s has all but used up most of the better sites across the more populated metropolitan areas of the United States. This means that current buildings and other types of structures are being founded on more marginal sites. The use of marginal sites has placed ever-increasing quality control on the installation of the deep foundation systems utilized for these sites. Several remedial techniques are available for the repair of the deep foundation systems. These include minipiles, compaction grouting and jet grouting. Eight case histories are cited where these methods have been utilized to repair deep foundations.

Jan 1, 1999

By Mait Mets

In Estonia, the deformations monitoring of 1500 buildings are currently under investigation, buildings on pile foundations make up 10 per cent of these. In the following text we will be considering the behaviour of pile foundation buildings in various parts of Estonia, in differing geotechnical conditions.

Jan 1, 2002

By A. Eslami

In recent development of piled raft design, the contribution of both raft and piles to tolerate the loads is taken into account, depending on the stiffness and contributions of involved elements i.e.; piles, raft and surrounding soil. The piles are usually required not to ensure the overall stability of the foundation but to act as settlement reducers. One alternative method of foundation design is therefore to introduce piles purely as a means of improving or enhancing the stiffness of the base soil by structurally disconnecting the piles from the raft. In this paper, two and three dimensional finite element analysis of disconnected pile-raft systems are performed on three case studies including a 12-storey residential building in Iran, a 39-storey twin tower in Indonesia, and the 256m height of Messeturm tower in Frankfurt, Germany. The analysis include different geometrical parameters, e.g., pile spacing and embedment length, arrangement and raft thickness for foundation system to obtain the optimized design functions and to clarify the role of each parameter and method of analysis. The parametric study results and comparison to a few field measurements indicate that by concentrating the piles in the central area of the raft foundation leads to the optimum design with the minimum total length of piles. This achievement can be considered as a criterion for project cost efficiency. On the other hand, disconnected piled-raft systems can significantly reduce the settlements and raft internal bending moments. Finally, the comparison indicates that simple and faster 2D analysis has almost the identical results to 3D analysis which is complicated and time consuming.

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1989

By Darrell L. Beddard

The Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, 1989 at 5:04 PM, Pacific Daylight Time. It measured 7.1 in magnitude and was felt from Los Angeles north to the Oregon state line and east to western Nevada. The epicenter of the earthquake was located along the San Andreas Fault, in the Southern Santa Cruz Mountains just north of the City of Watsonville, California. It was the largest earthquake to occur in the San Francisco Bay area since the 1906 earthquake. A total of 87 aftershocks of Magnitude 3.0 or larger were recorded within 21 days after the seismic event. As a result of this earthquake thirteen State-owned and five locally-owned bridges were closed to traffic. Three of the most publicized State-owned structures closed to traffic were Struve Slough Bridge, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and Cypress Street Viaduct. Struve Slough Bridge was twin slab bridges that collapsed and were rebuilt and open to traffic three months after the earthquake. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge experienced collapse of upper and lower spans at Pier 9 and was reopened to traffic one month after the earthquake. The Cypress Street Viaduct experienced collapse of 48 bents that resulted in the upper roadway falling onto the lower roadway.

Jan 1, 1995

By George Piscsalko

There are numerous methods currently available to assess the integrity of drilled shaft and ACIP piles. Each method has its advantages and limitations. This paper will compare the various available methods as well as introduce a new method for assessing integrity of drilled shafts and ACIP piles. This new method, known as Thermal Integrity Profiling, determines the integrity of the shaft both inside and outside the reinforcing cage by measuring the hydration temperature of the concrete along the length of the shaft. These temperature measurements can be made by either passing a thermal probe through a standard Cross Hole access tube, or from embedding thermal wires within the shaft. This Thermal Integrity Profile method will be described in detail and one case history will be presented. Additional testing methods which will be compared include low strain Pile Integrity Testing and Cross Hole Sonic Logging. Advantages and limitations for each method will be discussed.

Jan 1, 2011

By Donald Bruce, Mark Harris, Wesley Schmutzler, James Sanders

"This paper evaluates the history, construction and most importantly the performance of two remedial seepage cutoff walls installed in two major dams in the United States. Beaver Dam, on the White River in northwest Arkansas, was completed in 1966 and seepage through the karstic limestone under the embankment was apparent almost immediately upon filling of the reservoir. Several attempts to stop the seepage by grouting were unsuccessful. In 1994 a cutoff wall consisting of secant piles drilled with 32"" diameter down-the-hole hammers to a maximum depth of 185'?was completed and the seepage was reduced to a negligible amount. It has been over 20 years since the completion of the cutoff wall, and all indications are that the cutoff wall is performing as expected. Walter F. George Lock and Dam on the Chattahoochee River near Fort Gaines, Georgia, was completed in 1963 and suffered the same problem as Beaver Dam due to the limestone on which the dam was founded. Cutoff walls were installed in both embankments (1980s) and solved the problem in these areas, but under-seepage at the concrete lock, dam and spillway structures increased to the point that remediation was essential. The cutoff wall had to be installed through 110'?of water and another 100'?into rock upstream of an active dam that continued to generate electricity during the construction of the cutoff wall. A secant pile wall, in combination with a diaphragm wall, was completed in front of these structures in 2004. It has been over 10 years since the completion this cutoff wall and, again, the cutoff wall is performing as expected. The paper describes the construction of these cutoffs, but focuses on the long-term performance in terms of controlling seepage and piezometric levels.BEAVER DAMBeaver Dam is located on the White River, 609 miles above its mouth, in Carroll County, Northwest Arkansas. The construction of the dam and Beaver Reservoir was authorized on September 1954 by the Congressional Flood Control Act for purposes of water supply, flood control and hydroelectric power generation. The dam site was selected in 1957: construction began in November 1960 and was completed in June 1966. (FIG. 1)"

Jan 1, 2017

By G. G. Goble

Significant progress has been made in the past decade in determining the load bearing capacity of pile foundations. Developments in the means of prediction of pile capacity as limited by soil strength have been substantial, particularly in the use of dynamic methods. The use of currently available equipment, analytical procedures, and practices in the field, will often produce material economies on a job by allowing increased loads with proven factors of safety. This approach justifies the minimum number of piles required for a safe foundation in a wide range of job sizes and soil conditions. To avoid exposing the reader to excessive detail in the body of this paper, technical topics have been covered more thoroughly in several appendices. I. Wave Equation Analysis of Piles Appendix A II. Dynamic Monitoring and the Pile Driving Analyzer Appendix B III. Case Method Capacity Calculation Appendix C IV. Case Pile Wave Analysis Program Appendix D 1 Preliminary Analysis In designing driven pile foundations, there must be a close relationship between design, construction control procedures, driving practices, and the size of the job. Small commercial buildings or residences involving loads that are only a fraction of the pile capacities do not justify the expense of detailed design processes or elaborate construction controls. Nevertheless, some preliminary analysis of the job requirements and a limited subsurface investigation must be made to understand existing conditions and the possible foundation solutions. In other words, it is necessary to determine that driven piling is the best overall choice of foundation.

Jan 1, 1988

By Mohammed Sakr

The use of helical piles as a deep foundation option has considerably increased in the recent years to support a variety of loads, from small loads for several applications such as residential housing, solar farms, utilities and retrofit projects, to large loads for many applications such as commercial, power transmission lines, oil facilities and industrial applications. Therefore, it is necessary to qualify and quantify their axial capacities and performance characteristics. This paper presents the first full-scale axial compression and tension (uplift) testing program executed on large capacity helical piles installed in cohesionless soils. A total of eleven pile load tests using either single or double-helix piles with shaft diameters that varied between 324 mm to 508 mm (12¾ in to 20 in) were carried out, including seven axial compression tests and four tension (uplift) tests. The results of the axial compressive and tensile pile load tests as well as field monitoring data of helical piles installed in dense sand are presented in this paper. Based on the results of this study it was found that helical piles have developed significant resistance to axial compressive loads up to about 2920 kN (656 kips) and tensile loads up to 2900 kN (652 kips).

Jan 1, 2011

By Karl A. H iggins, James P. Racine

"Displacement Cast-in-Place (DCIP) piles are not a common deep foundation type in the Washington, DC Metro Area market. As a result, less regional data is available for these foundations compared to other alternate deep foundation types. Displacement cast-in-place piles (DCIP) differ from traditional Auger Cast-In-Place (ACIP) piles in that the pile annulus is formed by pushing a partially-flighted, auger bit to depth via a large mandrel. The auger bit includes a displacing body near the bottom of the tooling. Therefore, little to no spoils are generated during installation and the soil around the annulus is largely densified in-place due to the displacing body being slightly larger than the mandrel it is attached to.Due to this densification, one would expect that the theoretical DCIP capacities (compression or tension) would be greater than an ACIP pile (assuming a pile of similar length and diameter). After 20 static load tests and the installation of over 6,000+ piles on the MGM National Harbor Casino Project, the differences in pile support characteristics between DCIP and ACIP piles of same size and depth was small. The performance of both pile types depended on the density and type of soil within the bearing stratum. In some early cases of DCIP use, the performance exceeded expectations and appeared to be more in line (or better) than typical capacities obtained from driven displacement piles. Other times, the tip elevations could not be achieved or were so difficult to achieve that installation delays occurred and/or significant additional engineering effort was required to address piles short of their requirement embedment.This paper will discuss the limitations of DCIP pile installation in dense Coastal Plain soils and will present the lessons learned during this project. The paper will also compare the DCIP pile type to both conventional ACIP and driven displacement piles utilizing regional and site-specific load test and installation data."

Jan 1, 2017

By Alan B. Wagner

The River Tower is a proposed 27-story condominium building in the heart of downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA). The tower will be over 100 m tall, and will have a ground area measuring 15 m by 40 m. The structure will be constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Certain transfer girders and stabilizing diagonals will be constructed of post-tensioned concrete. Vertical loads will be transmitted through an arrangement of columns, bearing walls, and elevator and stair cores. A mat foundation will be used to connect and integrate these load-carrying elements. The site&apos;s geologic profile includes 8.4 m of compressible estuarine (organic) deposits. To control settlement, the mat will be pile-supported. These deposits are underlain by moderate-strength inorganic deposits that extend to bedrock at 32 m.

Jan 1, 2002

By William Babcock

Augered, Cast-In-Place (ACIP) piles can be an economical, reliable, versatile foundation system. They have also been a part of projects that were behind schedule and the subject of lawsuits. The ACIP pile is a specialty system that is more workmanship dependent than most deep foundation systems and is especially vulnerable to the problems and abuse of poor specifications and contract language. Many of the original specifications were based on grouting methods, and numerous misconceptions have followed the method. The Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) has been the leader in debunking the mystique that has hovered over the method and attempted to standardize the industry through publication of the manuals describing the method and how it should be inspected. DFI should be applauded for taking the lead and producing a reference document that can be used to educate the specification writers, designers, inspectors, and owners. It must be must appreciated that there have been other organizations that would not acknowledge ACIP piles as a legitimate member of the deep foundation family. Some consultants and designers have gone to the extreme of making it policy to not recommend the method for use. This presentation is one practitioner&apos;s view of the causes of problems as they can be traced back to the contractual conditions. It is intended to provide a broader and different perspective than those provided by the technical specialists. It does not necessarily reflect the position of the DFI or any of the organizations associated with the ACIP pile industry. It is intended to further the spirit of partnering on every ACIP pile project, to further the acceptance and promote the use of this unique system, for the benefit of all the parties. It should be recognized, however, that all of the participants can and do play a role in getting a project into trouble. My view is that projects that get into trouble usually have an early flaw that leads the project to the edge, and the project participants blindly follow the original mistake right over the cliff like lemmings. This instinctive reaction may be a survival tactic by going along with the group, because any one party that departs from the program or shows a position of weakness is a candidate for sacrifice.

Jan 1, 1997

By Ekhlaq A. Khan

"The new third Bridge over Narmada River at Bharuch which was recently completed is characterized by some aesthetically appealing elevations of the pylon and large size of the deck. This paper gives an insight to design and construction technique adopted for foundation construction of Extra-dosed span - 3 rd Narmada Bridge at Bharuch over river Narmada, Gujarat. Site being located in intertidal zone had its unique geological characteristics and own set of difficulties during construction.INTRODUCTIONThe Indian subcontinent offers diverse subsoil conditions. With current modern and future trend of long span bridges the substructure design often demands large size foundations. The foundation of theses bridges are usually deep and large in size. The execution of such foundations in maritime environments often involves important temporary works, in order to provide a safe workplace, comply with environmental requirements and achieve high quality standards.Often Pile foundations are preferred solution now a days, but due to various statutory and environmental regulations their construction poses a challenge. With better equipment and corresponding quality control, construction of large diameter pile foundation has emerged as a faster and reliable option.OVER VIEW OF THE PROJECTThe first two lane bridge on NH-8 (Vadodra – Mumbai) known as Sardar Bridge was constructed in 1977, subsequently an additional two lane bridge was constructed in 1999-2000, 29 m downstream of the first. In view of rising volume of traffic and as part of upgradation of NH8, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) proposed to construct 3rd new 4 Lane Bridge 100 m downstream of 2nd Narmada Bridge, based on Central Water and Power research Institute (CWPRS) study and recommendation.The general layout (fig. 1) of the 3rd Narmada bridge has 8 spans of 144 m and 2 spans of 96 m with total length of 1344 m, supported by132 nos. of 1.5 m diameter piles of about 50 m depth. The substructure has leaning “Y” shaped lower pylon of height 30 m together with cast in situ pier diaphragm. The piles are of M40 and superstructure & pylon of M50 grade of concrete."

Jan 1, 2017

By Philip Bonanno

The first major project in Boston&apos;s new access to Logan Airport was an Immersed Tube Tunnel which extended 3,600 ft. from South Boston to East Boston across Boston Harbor. Twelve tube sections, 300 ft. long x 80 ft. wide x 40 ft. high, were lowered into an excavated trench which was then backfilled. The depth of the trench at mid-channel was approximately 100 ft. below mean high tide. At the East Boston end the tube terminated close to the present shoreline. At the South Boston end the tube terminated approximately 600 ft. inland from the shore line where a ventilation building was required. The depth to subgrade from existing ground at the ventilation structure was approximately 85 ft. The soil profile at this location consisted of 50 ft. of miscellaneous rubble fill, 25 ft. of Boston blue clay, and 10 ft. of glacial till. A small amount of weathered argellite existed at the north end of the structure. Part of the Morrison Knudsen, Interbeton, J.F. White, Joint Venture contract to construct the Immersed Tube Tunnel (ITT) was the construction of a cofferdam at the tube/ventilation building interface. The ventilation building was to be built as part of another contract. The construction of the cofferdam and the excavation to the building subgrade was the responsibility of J.F. White Contracting Company.

Jan 1, 1994