Search Documents

By Xiong Houjin

In the excavation works of some deep foundation pits within the boundaries of Guang­dong Province of China, though some measures, such as steel sheet piles, diaphragm walls, etc. were taken to protect the walls, the construction of the excavation works was often accompanied by damage of buildings and public facilities, surface settelment. sand boil and collapse of piles. When these happened, only chemical grouting could be used as the most efficient measure for rushing to deal with or rescue the emergencies. Besides, the application of chemical grouting protection wall technique also palys a very important role under the geologic conditions of the coastal areas of Guangdong Province, when applied in the mucky oystershell layer wealthy in water and the deep mud layer, it can not only achieve good results, but also reduce the cost significantly. In this paper, we discuss the water-tight and earth retaining functions of chemical grouting protection wall in weak formation, and introduce the applicable ranges of chemical grouting protection wall in the excavation of deep foundation pits. Some technological principles and design considerations of the construction of chemical grouting protection wall are presented. Different types of protection wall are also introduced.

Jan 1, 1991

By Jose L. Garcia

The following document aims to cover all issues concerning the three main methods employed for the in-situ survey of concrete pile integrity. Within it are described both sonic coring and low-strain tests and the frequency and time domain analysis of their results, which are the most advanced techniques currently in use in Spain. The survey techniques described were developed and began worldwide deployment in the 1960s, but it was not until the 1980s that they saw large scale implementation in Spain, largely thanks to the miniaturisation of electronics and computer equipment that made them easier to use on-site. Sonic coring, echo and frequency-response testing or mechanical impedance tests are spreading further every day. However, there appears to be a need for standardisation of the testing methods, as well as their implementation, interpretation and the presentation of results. The goal of these Spanish recommendations is to serve as a guideline for test standards and to provide examples for a correct and commonly agreed interpretation of test results, as well as settling any differences in the evaluation of defects detected in foundation works.

Jan 1, 2006

By Rozbeh Moghaddam, William D. Lawson, Priyantha W. Jayawickrama, Hoyoung Seo, James G. Surles

"This study provides calibration of resistance factors (?) for design of driven piles to implement Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for bridge foundations using Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) Test data. The basic research approach was to compile a database of published full-scale load tests including projects from the Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) historical archive and projects from neighboring state DOTs. Load test results from neighboring states were leveraged by performing new geotechnical borings with TCP tests at the project sites. The final dataset consisted of 30 load tests performed on precast square concrete piles, with pile widths ranging from 356 to 508 mm and penetration depths ranging from 5.2 to 25.5 m, driven in soils. Ultimate capacities for each load test were interpreted based on Davisson, 5%, and 10% settlement criteria. These measured ultimate capacities were compared against predicted capacities estimated from TCP blow count values (NTCP) and design charts following the procedures outlined in TxDOT’s Geotechnical Manual. From the comparisons, statistical parameters of the biases (??= measured capacity/predicted capacity) such as mean and coefficient of variation were obtained. Resistance factors (?) for LRFD were then determined using Monte-Carlo simulations for each ultimate capacity criteria with the target reliability indices of 2.33 and 3.00.INTRODUCTIONThe Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has used the Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) test since its development in the 1940s. The TCP test is an in-situ penetration test to characterize the materials encountered during geotechnical exploration. Texas currently maintains over 53,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory (FHWA 2016), and most of these bridges plus other transportation infrastructure in Texas are supported by foundations designed using the TCP test and its associated foundation design method. The Oklahoma DOT adopted the TCP test and foundation design approach in the 1970s, so the foundations for most of the 23,000 bridges in Oklahoma’s inventory were also designed using the TCP method. With this significant body of experience, the TCP method has been viewed as a straightforward, relatively easy-touse foundation design method that consistently yields safe, serviceable, economical, and maintainable foundations. TxDOT’s deep foundation design method is documented in the TxDOT Geotechnical Manual (TxDOT 2012) and currently employs the allowable stress design (ASD) approach. However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has mandated that the states begin to implement the LRFD method in place of the older ASD approach (Densmore 2000). This paper presents resistance factors at ultimate limit state (ULS) for design of driven piles using the TCP test, resulting from efforts to be in compliance with the FHWA policy."

Jan 1, 2017

By Balu E. George, Subhadeep Banerjee, Shailesh R. Gandhi

"A three-dimensional analysis of laterally loaded helical piles installed in cohesionless soil is presented. Finite Element Analysis was conducted using commercially available Plaxis 3D AE version, assuming Mohr-Coulomb failure for soil. Pile is modelled as plate elements with a single helical blade attached to a hollow shaft. The ultimate load for various configurations is examined considering deformation criteria. The Bending Moment distribution and maximum lateral deflection are also discussed. It was observed that the ultimate lateral load carrying capacity increased by presence of helical blade and the maximum deflection also got reduced. The diameter of the helical blade was found to have significant effect on the lateral deflection, maximum bending moment and the ultimate load. However, the observations from the study suggest that the presence of helical blade seizes to produce considerable effect after a certain depth. Difference in failure pattern with regard to the distribution of soil resistance observed for different geometries considered for numerical analysis are also touched upon.INTRODUCTIONHelical piles or screw anchor piles have gained popularity due to fast installation, instant use, and other advantages over the traditional piles. They are usually used to support structures like solar panels, light houses, and other light structures which are subjected to uplift loads. However, such structures are often subjected to significant lateral loads as well. Under lateral loads, the response of helical piles can be different from that of a conventional pile due to the presence of the bearing provided by the helical blade. However, the proper design remains a concern due to lack of work carried out on the lateral capacity of helical piles.The lateral performance of helical piles is significant because they can act as efficient alternative to conventional piling systems in many applications.The lateral load capacity of screw anchor piles with different number of helices were examined by Mittal et al. (2010) by experiments in sand. They found that the lateral load capacity of piles increases with addition of helical blades. Prasad and Rao (1996) examined the lateral capacity of helical piles in clay by experiments on model piles and found that the lateral capacity of helical piles were more than that of the straight shaft piles. It was observed that the lateral capacity increase with embedment depth and shear strength of soil. Sakr (2009) studied lateral performance of two section helical piles in soft soil. The investigation by Prasad and Chari (1999) reported that the pressure distribution across the diameter is not uniform for circular piles, but it is maximum at the centre and almost zero at the two edges.Puri et al. (1984) after conducting model tests on single-helix, two-helix, and three-helix anchors installed in sand, proposed a mathematical model that was fashioned after Matlock and Reese’s elastic theory model. Elkasabgy and Naggar (2015) investigated he lateral performance of full scale large capacity helical piles in structured cohesive soils and reported the modulus of sub-grade reaction to be non linear."

Jan 1, 2017

By Damian R. Siebert

Risk-reduction measures implemented during the design and construction of a 21-story pile-supported building adjacent to a below-grade 100-year-old sewer structure were keys to a successful foundation system. Avoiding damage to the existing sewer structure during construction activities and the future ability to access the structure post-construction were the main concerns for the utility owner. Clear communication and a deliberate design process between all parties ? utility owner, building owner, structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, architect, and contractor ? were integral to the project?s success. This collaborative process helped all parties to understand the risks, both real and perceived, and to develop mitigation measures to reduce the risks. Bringing together all parties to engage in dialogue and encouraging open communication throughout the project were paramount to its success. By implementing the joint design plan, using mutually-acceptable construction techniques, and careful monitoring, the building foundation was successfully installed and all parties? risks were averted.

Jan 1, 2011

By Bengt H. Fellenius

"ABSTRACTAn example from a guidelines document for the Eurocode is discussed that addresses design for geotechnical strength of piled foundations in settling soil, generating drag force and downdrag. A modified example of geotechnical response is then analyzed in a failure mode, Ultimate Limit States (ULS), and stationary long-term state, Serviceable Limit States (SLS). It is shown that the Eurocode principles, when applied to correctly determined forces, results in an irrational and costly design. The results of the analysis of the modified example are applied to eight different codes pertaining to piled foundations from USA, Canada, Europe, and other countries. Several of the codes require that the drag force be included as a load in a ULS design, which an absurd and costly requirement, in some codes, in one case made even worse by combining drag force with live load. A major weakness of almost all codes is their minimal treatment and sometimes total absence of aspects of settlement of piled foundation. In contrast, my main argument is that design for capacity, whether in working stress approach, or by LFRD or ULS approaches, is not always safe unless a thorough settlement analysis shows that the design also meets the requirements of the SLS.1. INTRODUCTIONFirst, there were analysis, design, and construction establishing a State-of-Practice, SOP. Then, came codes and specifications summarizing the SOP, as interpreted by a committee. When the state-of-art, SOA, was not understood by that SOP-interpreting committee, the codes and specifications are uneconomical and, sometimes, also unsafe.The paper first presents an example quoted from two commentaries on the Eurocode 7 on design for geotechnical strength by the Eurocode (1997). The example is then modified to a more realistic case and analyzed in failure mode (ultimate limit states, ULS) and in the context of settlement (serviceability limit states, SLS). The analysis results are then applied to eight codes addressing piled foundation design and changes necessary for the referenced codes and specifications to be closer to the SOA are identified."

Jan 1, 2014

? Hollow Stem Auger ? Drill Bits ? Leads/Torque Arm ? Hydraulic Gearbox ? Hydraulic Power Unit ? Grout Pump ? Crawler Crane

Jan 1, 2000

By M. R. Madhav

The ultimate pullout capacity of single batter piles has been presented in literature in three contradictory trends. These trends are: the pullout capacity of a single batter pile increases, remain almost constant, or decrease with increasing the inclination angle of the pile. The present paper presents a theoretical study which explained these trends in terms of existing initial stress condition and the earth pressure coefficient at rest. The paper also presents a form of guideline for predicting the pullout capacity of inclined piles based on simple field and/or laboratory tests.

Jan 1, 2010

By J. A. Yeats

This paper describes the loading to 25MN of a 1.2m diameter bored cast-in-situ test pile founded in the Thanet Sand which was base grouted. The pile was sleeved over the major portion of its length to test primarily the base response of the pile. The results are presented and compared with similar pile load tests in Thanet Sand.

Jan 1, 1989

By Masanoub R. Fujioka

A brief discussion of the methodologies involved in dewatering practices, particularly as used in Hawaii in coralline formations. A description of early dewatering practices includes a number of case histories; later dewatering practices also are detailed with case histories. There were disasters and some successes. Grouting generally was not successful. Deep wells are technically feasible and generally the economical solution to deep basement construction.

Jan 1, 1986

By Nuno Cruz

"The concrete overbreak estimation for bored piles provides the quantification of the shaft’s expansion beyond its theoretical volume. There are stability analysis methods that can be employed before and after concrete pour but as for the moment of decision, during pile cast, the most common method still consists in measuring the rising of the concrete level in order to compare its poured volume with the theoretical pile section volume. This is a determinant parameter to monitor, not only because it assesses the bored shaft stability but also because it represents a direct cost. When analyzing the estimation methods commonly applied on-site it becomes evident that these are often affected by human errors that lead to misleading results. The objective of this paper is to identify those errors and discuss a subject which is usually overlooked. As a general conclusion, it was ascertained that most errors derive from inaccurate volumetric data, working procedures and gauging equipment. By acknowledging these widespread practices deep foundations contractors will be in a better position to make informed decisions on how to correct and improve bored pile stability.GENERALBackgroundWhen executing bored piles, the estimation of its concrete overbreak allows a swift appraisal of the excavation stability during the drilling process. This is simply obtained from the proportion of the poured volume of concrete over the drilled shaft theoretical volume, as shown in equation [1].Where CO = concrete overbreak percentage, Vc = volume of poured concrete, Vr = pile’s theoretical volume. This calculation not only provides a general idea of the shaft’s expansion from its theoretical volume, but also the outline of the excavated column’s geometry. For the latter, the outline will be as accurate as the number of measurements taken for each partial known volume of poured concrete. This means that for each load placed inside the excavation there is a corresponding rising of the concrete level. The profile of the definite pile is then plotted (see Fig. 1) and allows inferring about how stable remained the shaft walls up to the moment of casting.The technological developments in this area have provided other methods for determining pile stability before and after pile cast, such as ultrasonic echo sensing, cross-hole sonic logging or thermal integrity profiling systems. Notwithstanding, concrete overbreak assessment remains as common practice and confers the advantage of providing stability information during the process of pile casting."

Jan 1, 2017

By J. Pei

The studies of dynamic measurements using stress wave theory has commenced in China. This paper introduces some practical experiences using "CASE method" in Shanghai showing applications of dynamic measurement to determine ultimate bearing capacity of pile, the change of capacity due to set up, determining the optimum bearing layer during pile driving, the efficiency of hammer system and integrity of pile and discussions of method concered.

Jan 1, 2010

By A. Holeyman

The displacement compaction piles described in the paper are installed using a heavy casing or tube and an internal drop hammer. The casing which initially is closed at the bottom by a sand plug displaces the surrounding soil during the driving. Additional sand is rammed down through the casing during the extraction of the casing. The applications and limitations of the method are reviewed in the paper. The importance of checking the sand compaction piles during and after the installation is stressed. Indications of the compaction of the surrounding soil during the driving can be obtained by comparing the initial and the redriving logs of the casing as well as from the volume of sand added. A method to estimate the increase of the mean cone resistance as measured by CPT tests in sandy and silty soils is presented. The governing parameters are the volume of the added sand, the granulometric index and the initial cone resistance.

Jan 1, 2010

By Y. C. Han

The advances in seismic design considering soil-structure interaction or soil-pile-structure interaction are described using a substructure approach. The nonlinearity of soil is considered approximately using a boundary zone model with non-reflective interface, and computer programs are available for practical applications. The validation of model is confirmed with dynamic tests on piles in the field, and the results for a single pile are used to compare with the predictions in this study. The liquefaction for sand soil layer can be accounted for, and a case of liquefaction is discussed. Two practical examples are examined, a vacuum tower structure supported on foundation of steel pile group and a table top structure supported on foundation of concrete pile group. To illustrate the effects of soil-pile-structure interaction on the seismic response of vacuum structure, different base conditions are considered, rigid base, i.e. no deformation of the foundation; linear soil-pile system; and nonlinear soil-pile system. The method introduced can be applied to the design of tall buildings, bridges, industrial structures and offshore platforms with soil-pile-structure interaction under seismic or dynamic loads.

Jan 1, 2010

By Matteo Montesi

Deep foundation elements are often used as discrete elements in externally supported earth retaining structures such as soldier piles and lagging walls, secant/tangent pile walls, anchored walls, etc. These structures can be designed using different approaches such as conventional limit equilibrium methods, finite element/difference analyses, and soil spring (p-y) analyses which are contained in various commercially available computer programs used by engineers worldwide. Although these programs usually undergo various degree of verification and validation, users must be aware of each program’s limitations and conditions in which each design approach should or should not be used. These programs may incur difficulties when non-continuous deep foundation elements are used as part of the retaining system and in cases of non-uniform geometry where closed-form solutions are not available. Design input parameters such as passive arching width, wall-to-soil friction, and p-multipliers (pm) are not always given enough attention which may result in potential design deficiencies. This paper presents the main features of various earth retaining structure design approaches and discusses their advantages/disadvantages. The paper addresses some of the limitations and difficulties that may be faced with when utilizing non-continuous discrete deep foundation elements and identifies key elements that are sources of potential deficiencies and errors. An example comparing the design outcomes using different design approaches is presented. INTRODUCTION Earth retaining structures are used to retain soil and create or maintain a difference in ground elevation between grades in front and behind the retaining structure. Deep foundation elements have been used for decades to support earth retaining structures. Earth retaining structures that are supported by deep foundation elements are typically referred to as externally stabilized system (O’Rourke and Jones, 1990). An externally stabilized system uses an external structural element, in contrast to internally stabilized systems which rely on reinforcements installed within and extending beyond the potential failure mass. The design of externally supported retaining structures can be accomplished using different approaches, which can be challenging under certain conditions. Each approach has been discussed extensively in available literature, and is well summarized in the and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The objective of this paper is to present the most widely used design approaches and discuss their limitations and difficulties in one concise and brief document, giving the reader a good source for comprehensive understanding of the various design approaches, supported by a technical example. This paper is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all available design methods and formulations available in the literature.

Jan 1, 2018

By Arturo Ressi di Cervia

Construction of the drilled shafts for the Brightman Street Bridge Replacement Project were not only challenging due to working over the water but were also challenged by changed soil conditions, concurrent work being performed by an adjacent contractor on the same project, environmental restrictions and severe winter conditions. A total of 36 x 8 feet diameter drilled shafts with 7.5 feet rock sockets were installed for the East and West bascule piers. This project also included Osterberg Cell load testing on two production drilled shafts at each the East and West bascule piers. The results from the load test program were used to fine tune the design of the drilled shaft rock sockets. From a constructability standpoint the reverse circulation drilling method with a pile top drill rig proved to be an excellent choice for drilling the overburden and rock sockets of the large diameter deep drilled shafts.

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl A. Higgins

In 1976, Prof. G. G. Meyerhof published a famous article in the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering titled ?Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations?. This article presents the authors opinions on calculating pile capacities in clays and sands, group capacities and pile settlement. A portion of the article presents correlations of shaft friction and end bearing to the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value. Subsurface exploration via the Standard Penetration Test is the most widely used exploration tool in the United States, so correlations of pile capacity to N-value are significant to the practice of geotechnical engineering. Meyerhof?s SPT-N correlations are relatively simple calculations compared to other pile capacity computation methods presented in the article or found in other text books (such as the a-method, b-method, Nordlund, Vesic, Meyerhof?s semi-empirical, others) and therefore are popular amongst practicing geotechnical engineers. At the time these correlations were published by Prof. Meyerhof, utilization of dynamic testing with the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) was not widespread in geotechnical engineering practice. Prof. Meyerhof?s correlations appear to be based upon conventional static pile load testing of instrumented piles. Dynamic pile measurements to estimate a pile?s static capacity provides certain advantages over conventional static load testing, namely the determination of unit shaft friction values at discrete intervals along the pile, and the unit end bearing support value. The author has compiled a database of driven, displacement piles tested with dynamic methods (ref. ASTM D4945, Test Method for High-Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles). The data was collected between 2002-2010 and is comprised of displacement piles driven into coastal plain sediments in the mid-Atlantic states of Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. In layered soils, dynamic testing in particularly helpful as it reveals the differences in unit shaft friction for varying soil types. One hundred ninety (190) piles are included in the database, with a corresponding 1,373 discrete shaft friction and 190 end (toe) bearing measurements. The pile type typically consisted of 12 and 14 inch square, prestressed, precast concrete piles; however, a significant number of piles were steel HP 12 or 14 inch sections. The database was sorted based upon soil type, and then correlations of shaft friction and end bearing were derived in the same or similar manner as Meyerhof?s original 1976 publication. The new correlations are compared to Meyerhof?s original values.

Jan 1, 2011

By Morgan L. Race, Matthew R. Glisson

"Most driven pile projects have plumbness limits from 0.25 in/ft (21 mm/m) to 0.5 in/ft (42 mm/m) to control bending stresses. For two projects, the project teams performed static load testing to evaluate performance of piles with sweep. One project, located in Grand Forks, North Dakota, used 9.625-inch (244-mm) diameter piles with a wall thickness of 0.395 inch (10 mm) and lengths ranging from about 130 to 160 feet (40 to 49 m). Measured pile sweep (lateral offset distance of the pile toe from the pile top) was between 12 and 17 inches (305 to 432 mm). Static load testing indicated that the piles could support the design load with axial deflection of less than 1 inch (25 mm) but only provided about 80 to 90 percent of the ultimate resistance at axial deflections of about 1.9 to 1.7 inches (49 to 43 mm), respectively. The other project, located in Shakopee, Minnesota, used 9.625-inch (244-mm) diameter pile but with a wall thickness of 0.352 inch (9 mm) and lengths around 50 to 90 feet (15 to 27 m). The measured sweep varied between about 20 and 63 inches (508 and 1,600 mm) for 9 of 214 piles driven at the site. Load testing indicated that these piles could provide the required design resistance with less than 0.3 inch (8 mm) of axial deflection and support the required ultimate resistance with about 0.5 to 0.6 inch (13 to 15 mm) to of axial deflection.INTRODUCTIONAnyone who has observed a significant number of piles has seen that, inevitably, the pile is not perfectly straight after driving. In spite of the best efforts of contractors, there are a whole host of reasons for piles to end up out-of-plumb or to have a curve, sometimes referred to as pile sweep. Most project specifications set limits for plumbness typically between 0.25 in/ft (21mm/m) and 0.5 in/ft (42mm/m) (USACE, 1991; PDCA, 2007; MnDOT, 2016; MoDOT, 2016). Closed-end pipe piles, including monotube or tapertube, are the only pile type that allow actual measurement of the final alignment of the pile.As Nadeem, et al. (2015) note, buckling failure of long, slender piles is the predominant mode of pile failure in soft soils. Pile sweep is just one source of buckling failure in long, slender piles. The nonlinear buckling analysis showed that increasing slenderness ratio and/or increasing degree of curvature decreases the loadcarrying capacity of a driven pile. Nadeem, et al. (2015) considered solid, steel pile with lengths from 24 to 66 feet (7.5 to 20 m), diameters from 9.75 to 26 inches (244 to 660 mm), initial bends from 2 to 6 inches (50 to 150 mm), and half- and quarter-sine shapes."

Jan 1, 2017

By Ramon Varghese, A. Boominathan, Subhadeep Banerjee

Pile raft foundation system has been accepted as an economic foundation design for high rises and heavily loaded structures. Seismic response analysis of PR foundation systems involves complex pile-soil-pile interaction as well as raft-soil-pile interactions, for which simplified methods have limitations. Kinematic rocking of a pile group is known to be influenced significantly by the pile configuration. The presence of an embedded pile cap, or a raft, as in the case of a piled raft can further alter the dynamic characteristics of a pile group-soil system. In the present study, frequency dependent kinematic response factors are evaluated for piled raft foundation, using the substructuring approach based ACS SASSI program. Performance of the numerical analysis methodology is first evaluated with results from analytical and experimental studies reported in literature. The effect of pile layout on kinematic response is then studied for a piled raft in clay system based on a centrifuge shaking table test reported in literature. Kinematic response factors and horizontal impedances were determined for varying pile spacing ratios. The influence of raft has been found to increase kinematic translation by up to three times in the piled raft in clay system. Pile configuration is found to play a significant role in kinematic rocking of piled rafts. The presence of raft is observed to significantly reduce dynamic rotational stiffness coefficient in the dimensionless frequency range of 0.23 to 0.6, and increase damping coefficient after a dimensionless frequency of 0.4, for all pile configurations studied. The effect of an embedded raft is hence an important consideration while evaluating foundation input motion as well as impedances of piled raft foundations. INTRODUCTION The Piled raft foundation (PR), is a composite foundation system that facilitates load sharing between pile and raft. It is an economic foundation option for high rises and heavily loaded structures. Soil structure interaction (SSI) in PR system involves raft-soil-pile, and pile-soil-pile interactions which needs to be considered in static or dynamic SSI analysis. The effect of pile can have substantial influence on foundation input motion, for seismic analysis (Di Laora et al. 2017). Piles are observed to depress a wide spectrum of the seismic excitation (Fan et al., 1991, Di Laora & de Sanctis, 2013). Although kinematic response of pile groups have been extensively studied in the past, the influence of the presence of raft on kinematic response characteristics of pile groups has not received much attention.

Jan 1, 2018

By K. Rainer Massarsch, Bengt H. Fellenius

"Abstract Vibrations generated during the driving of piles or sheet piles can affect buildings or installations in the ground. However, observed building damage is not always caused directly by dynamic effects, but can also be related to foundation conditions. The importance of geotechnical conditions is usually not taken into consideration in most vibration standards. This paper describes how building foundations, and in particular mixed foundation types, are especially sensitive to ground vibrations. A method is presented for assessing the risk of settlement due to vibrations in granular soils. Also, a simple concept is proposed for estimating settlements in the vicinity of driven piles.1. INTRODUCTIONUnder unfavorable conditions, the installation of piles or sheet piles can cause damage to buildings or other structures on the ground. Frequently, such damage is attributed to vibrations of the building itself. In many countries, national or international standards are used to assess the risk of vibration damage to buildings. As such standards are often prepared by engineers with little or no geotechnical knowledge, the effects of ground conditions on vibration propagation and damage to building foundations are generally not recognized, and damage criteria based solely on the dynamic response of buildings neglect the importance of damage mechanisms governed by geotechnical conditions. One potentially important damage mechanism is differential settlement below buildings, especially when these are founded on loose granular soils. When seeking guidance in the literature, little or no information can be found regarding methods to assess permissible levels of ground vibrations with respect to risk for settlement.This paper focuses on building damage that can be attributed to foundation conditions. In the case of ground vibrations due to pile and sheet pile driving, differential settlements are of particular importance as the ground vibrations attenuate relatively rapidly from the source. Consequently, settlement below part of the building, which is located close to the vibration source, can be significantly larger than at a distance further away.Piles are often a cost-effective foundation solution for buildings on loose and compressible soil, frequently located in urbanized areas. Sheet piles are commonly used as support for deep excavations. While impact driving is most commonly used to install piles, vibrators are frequently used for driving (and extraction) of sheet piles. It is important to recognize the fundamental differences between impact and vibratory driving. During impact driving, the pile is subjected to stress waves of short duration. The driving process creates vibrations, which radiate from the shaft and/or the toe of the pile into the soil. The larger the intensity of the stress wave, the larger the dynamic force and the intensity of ground vibrations. In addition to the vibration intensity, which often is expressed in terms of particle velocity, also the vibration frequency is important. When the dominant frequencies of the generated vibrations harmonize with the resonance frequency of buildings or building elements, the risk of building damage increases."

Jan 1, 2014