Search Documents

By Gianni O. Chieruzzi

A 400 MW, gas-fed power plant on floating piles and piled raft foundations was constructed in the Province of Moskovskaya, Russia in 2008. The subsurface is characterized by fill underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial deposits, with peat and clay interbeds, a stiff to hard, highly plastic, silty clay stratum of glacial origin, and a stratum of very dense, varved interbeds of sand and silt. More than 800, drilled concrete piles were constructed at the site. The pile length ranged from 15 to 23 meters below existing surface grade, and the pile diameter ranged from 0.9 to 1 meter. Initial analyses by others predicted total power plant settlements of 3 to 4 cm when subjected to the permanent loading conditions. Under a peer review process for the equipment supplier, subsurface investigation and testing were performed to verify the consolidation parameters used for foundation design of the power plant foundation. The parameters obtained in this investigation were used in the 3-D finite-element model ELPLA as inputs for the settlement analysis of the turbine building and power island. The ELPA analyses predicted settlements on the order of 7 cm over a period of 30 years. The actual settlements after two years of monitoring were compared against the model predictions. The rate of settlement and the recompression index were both underestimated in our model. The measured settlements have enabled us to calibrate both of these model parameters so that the model better matches the data.

By Reda Mikhail, M. Birkan Bayrak

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) State Route (SR) 167/70th Avenue East Vicinity Bridge Replacement Design-Build project is located in Fife, Washington. This $40 million project consists of replacing the existing 70th Avenue Bridge over Interstate 5 (I-5) with a single-span bridge of about 220 feet long with approach embankments. The subsurface conditions along the new bridge alignment generally consists of alluvial deposits with high potential of liquefaction overlying glacially overridden deposits. In the early stages of the project, drilled shafts were considered as the deep foundation system; however, after an additional subsurface investigation is completed at the site, driven pipe piles were selected as the deep foundation system. Bridge abutments are supported by 24-inch diameter, 80-foot-long open-end driven steel pipe piles. The pile length was determined to bypass a relatively thick liquefiable zone and to tip the piles above what could be compressible soils. The use of advanced seismic analysis was instrumental in optimizing the pile length. The dynamic testing performed on numerous piles indicated what could be unique soil setup factors compared to those measured in local projects as well as those reported in national design manuals. Detailed discussions of the pile foundations design and construction is presented in this paper.

Sep 8, 2021

By Timothy C. Siegel

This report presents the results of a synthesis on the design and analysis of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. The synthesis included an industry survey concerning the practice of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. Participation in the survey was solicited by advertisements in several trade magazines and by e-mail for the DFI membership. The survey participants numbered 150. Their professional roles include consulting engineers, specialty contractors, design engineers, government engineers, and academicians. They represent a variety of geographical areas including North/Central/South America, United Kingdom, Middle East, Caribbean, Hawaii, Japan, India, Egypt, France, Australia and New Zealand. Upon completion of the survey, several professionals in the field of liquefaction and ground improvement were interviewed for them to elaborate on the survey results. The interviews are included in the Appendix of this report. Financial support for the project was provided by DFI and Dan Brown and Associates PC. The concept of the liquefaction mitigation synthesis was developed by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee in recognition that: (a) The results of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have challenged previously longheld beliefs about liquefaction and associated mitigation techniques, and; (b) The DFI membership and the engineering/construction industry are interested to know if and how engineers and designers are subsequently adjusting their practice in consideration of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance. For more detailed information on recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance, presentations are available from the State-of-the-Art Forum: Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation that was held in St. Louis in 2012. A commentary of the state-of-practice in ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation (prepared by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) is included in this issue of the DFI Journal. The author would like to thank the participants of the survey and especially Mr. Mike Jeffries, Dr. Les Youd, and Dr. Ikuo Towhata for their willingness to share their expertise in interviews. The author also acknowledges Mary Ellen Bruce of DFI, Billy Camp of S&ME, Inc., and Marty Taube of DGI Menard (and Chair of DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) for their signifi cant contributions.

Aug 1, 2013

By Edward Jacobsen

The Oak Creek Power Plant in Oak Creek, Wisconsin is currently undertaking an expansion project. In order to supply cooling water to this facility, a 27' (8.2m) diameter tunnel will be bored, in rock; to connect to 4 vertical Intake shafts located approximately 1.5 miles (2.4km) offshore in Lake Michigan. In 2004, Case Foundation Company was awarded a lump sum contract to Install these intake shafts. When complete, the plant is expected to circulate upward of 2 billion gallons per day (7.5 billion liters) through this system. Two shafts were drilled in a (shortened) construction season in 2005 and the remaining 2 shafts and 4 liner assemblies were completed in 2006. Future connection to the tunnel, in 2007, will be accomplished by mining upward to reach the lower portion of each liner and then removing its internal bulkheads to permit the flow of the lake water into the tunnel.

May 11, 2007

By Chu E. Ho, Paul Napoli

This paper presents the performance of nineteen open-ended steel pipe piles driven through highly variable overburden soils into glacial till and schist bedrock. The piles were 16 inches in diameter and 0.656 inches thick, with yield strength of 50 ksi. The piles were designed for a service capacity of 250 kips and were driven to achieve an ultimate geotechnical capacity of at least 500 kips. Due to the large variation in the ground conditions, installed pile lengths ranged from 25 to 66 feet. Some piles were driven to refusal on the bedrock while others were terminated at final driving resistance of 2 to 7 blows/in. Two piles were suspected to be plugged during driving while others did not. Each pile was instrumented with strain gages and accelerometers near the pile top, and observed using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) to provide preliminary guidance on pile capacity achieved at end of initial drive (EOID). The influence of plugged and unplugged pile toe conditions on the interpretation of pile capacity was investigated using Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP). Characteristics of driving energy, compressive and tensile stresses developed in the steel pipe piles, and the resulting pile deformation behavior are discussed. INTRODUCTION The Hunters Point South redevelopment in Long Island City, Queens is one of New York City’s major efforts to transform former manufacturing zones into mixed developments for the middle-income community. The site is located along the eastern shoreline of the East River and Newtown Creek. The development included low to high-rise residential buildings, a public school and retail structures. Open spaces were created along the East River and Newtown Creek waterfronts in the form of a continuous park providing for recreational and community related activities. Waterfront structures included small park buildings, walkways and viewing platforms with the shoreline protected by revetments as part of the City’s flood mitigation strategy. The project was implemented in two phases, with completion of construction for Phase 1 in 2013 and Phase 2 in 2019. Based on available historical information, extensive reclamation took place between 1855 and 1898. After 1951, changes to the shoreline were made along the East River, including the removal of reclaimed land along the northern portion of the project site to allow for docking facilities. By 1977, these facilities had been demolished and backfilled to form the current shoreline configuration. The present site was temporarily used as a parking lot with stockpiles of fill mixed with construction demolition rubble, rip-rap and boulders of varying heights across the site. The existing ground surface varied significantly up to approximately 25 feet difference in elevation. The stockpiles were removed and the site was re-graded during final development of the project. This paper discusses the foundation design challenges due to the loose overburden soils and potential obstructions within the fill material, in particular, the issues relating to installation of open-ended steel pipe piles through the ground conditions encountered on site.

Jan 1, 2019

By William (Bill) H. Walton

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

Jan 1, 2017

By Nadir Ansari, Brian W. Wilson, Marina S. W. Li

"A hybrid shoring system consisting of cast-in-place soldier piles with Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM) infill panels was constructed for temporary support of a 19.8 m (65 ft) deep excavation in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Deep Mixing (DM) was completed up to 9.7 m (32 ft) in fill, peat, wood waste and clayey silt with embedment in dense till, and soldier piles constructed through the dense till extending to below final excavation level. Two trial CSM panels were installed ahead of production to assist with developing the termination criteria of the CSM panels in the dense till. The constructed depth of the CSM panels was based on interpretation of real-time monitoring data obtained through the Bauer B-tronic system. Inclinometer monitoring data from two CSM panels and two soldier piles, as well as soldier pile survey target data was used to assess and monitor the performance of the hybrid shoring system throughout bulk excavation. The objectives of this paper are to provide an overview of the design and construction aspects of the hybrid DM shoring system and to present inclinometer and pile target data to demonstrate the lateral performance of the CSM infill panels and soldier piles. This paper also discusses the merits of using real-time monitoring data as part of the engineering decision-making process for validating CSM panel construction. BACKGROUND A hybrid DM shoring design was recently completed for a high-rise development in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia for temporary support of a five level basement excavation. Deep mixing was proposed by the excavation and shoring design-build team as the preferred method to construct infill panels between soldier piles because of the speed at which the shoring system could be constructed in variable fill, peat, wood waste and overburden compared with traditional secant piling methods. The development site is generally a truncated triangle in plan, with the longest side of the triangle being approximately 115.7 m (380 ft) long and the two shorter sides being approximately 71.6 m (235 ft) (Hybrid Shoring Wall 1) to 75.0 m (246 ft) (Hybrid Shoring Wall 2) long. The site is bounded by an existing bridge off-ramp structure along its longest side, and by city streets on the other two sides, as shown in Figure 1. The truncated section is approximately 16.8 m (55 ft) (Hybrid Shoring Wall 3) long. Due to project constraints, the hybrid DM and soldier pile shoring system was only proposed for the two shorter sides of the triangle and the truncated section. Traditional secant piles were installed for the longest side. This paper focusses on the hybrid shoring system. A typical detail showing the CSM infill panel with the soldier piles is presented in Figure 2."

Jan 1, 2017

By Jesús E. Gómez

Verification and production testing of soil nails requires debonding the upper section of the soil nail to isolate the portion of the soil nail intended for testing within a specific ground type. In pre-drilled soil nails, debonding can be accomplished relatively easily because the bar can be fitted with a debonding sheath before its installation. However, debonding of hollow core bar soil nails requires special procedures to achieve the intended result. This paper is a summary of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hollow Bar Soil Nail (HBSN) Test Program, which is described in detail in FHWA-CFL/TD-10-001. The program was developed to establish a suitable debonding procedure to test hollow core bars in soil nailing applications, and to initiate a database on typical bond values of HBSNs. The investigation showed that it is possible to debond hollow core bars for testing. It was also found that hollow core bars installed in granular soils may present ultimate bond values that are significantly higher than those typically used for design of conventional pre-drilled soil nails.

Jan 1, 2011

This manual is limited to Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles constructed using a hollow stem continuous flight auger. 1.1SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS The intent of this manual is to provide guidelines for observing and documenting the installation of ACIP piles. The manual may also serve as a guide for the training of inspection personnel. It is expected that the general guidelines and procedures described in this manual for the inspection and installation of ACIP piles will be supplemented by engineering judgment, local practice, and experience. ACIP pile construction procedures will vary depending on soil, rock, and groundwater conditions. This manual represents a wide range of possible applications in a variety of projects. It is not intended to be applicable in all situations nor replace engineering judgment for any given project. Therefore, an all-inclusive inspection manual is not considered practical or desirable. This manual should not be used to interpret or replace project specifications. It has, however, been prepared to complement the Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) Piles Manual model specification (DFI, 2003).

Jan 1, 2010

By Matthew E. Meyer

The intent of this manual is to provide guidelines for observing and documenting the installation of ACIP piles. The manual may also serve as a guide for the training of inspection personnel. It is expected that the general guidelines and procedures described in this manual for the inspection and installation of ACIP piles will be supplemented by engineering judgment, local practice, and experience. ACIP pile construction procedures will vary depending on soil, rock, and groundwater conditions. This manual represents a wide range of possible applications in a variety of projects. It is not intended to be applicable in all situations nor replace engineering judgment for any given project. Therefore, an all-inclusive inspection manual is not considered practical or desirable. This manual should not be used to interpret or replace project specifications. It has, however, been prepared to complement the Augered Castin- Place (ACIP) Piles Manual model specification (DFI, 2003).

Jan 1, 2010

By Monica Prezzi

"Auger cast-in-place (ACIP} piles and drilled displacement piles are being increasingly used as foundation elements for structures, particularly in projects requiring accelerated construction or involving the rehabilitation of foundations of existing, overstressed structures. Auger cast-in-place piles (also referred to as continuous-flight-auger piles) are widely used to construct the foundations of all types of structures. There are many different types of drilled displacement piles, with the installation methods varying according to the equipment used. Depending on the specific rotary piling technology used, responses ranging from those associated with non-displacement to those associated with full-displacement piles are obtained. Conventional pile design methods do not account for how the various construction techniques involved in auger piling change the soil state around the pile during installation and, hence, cannot accurately estimate the pile resistance in a consistent way. Research on this subject, identifying the different variables that must be accounted for in design and linking these variables to installation methods, is lacking. This paper describes the different piling methods available for auger cast-in-place and drilled displacement piles, the equipment used to install them and the quality control processes typically used. It also reviews some of the design methods currently used.IntroductionDeep foundations are extensively used in geotechnical engineering practice. The wide spectrum of piling methods results in a variety of pile types. Each type behaves differently, depending on the installation or construction methods. On one end of the spectrum are non-displacement piles, the classicql examples of which are bored piles or drilled · shafts. These piles are constructed by removing a cylinder of soil from the ground and replacing it with concrete and reinforcement. On the other end are full-displacement piles, such as closed-ended pipe piles or precast reinforced concrete piles, which are typically driven into the ground. Driven piles preload the materials below the toe of the pile and displace the soil surrounding the pile shaft laterally during the installation process. Therefore, displacement piles are, in general, more likely to have a stiffer response than non-displacement piles. This is true particularly in the case of sandy soils where displacement causes densification."

Jan 1, 2005

By William D. Oder, Seth H. Hamblin, Les R. Chernatskas, Jonathan L. Ernst

Large diameter drilled deep foundations are a widely utilized solution throughout North America and the world. Numerous design and construction techniques developed over the past 100 years have made this type of foundation a robust, reliable, and efficient foundation option to support a wide variety of structures. From bridges, to marine structures, to high-rise buildings, drilled shafts are a time-tested approach for all types of infrastructure projects. Yet, what remains ambiguous in the current state of engineering practice is how to respond when a shaft is constructed that, for potentially different reasons, may or may not meet the design requirements? In this case, what are the best practices for Contractors and Engineers when a structural, geotechnical, or material integrity issue arises during construction? In our experience the answers to these questions are not widely known, but are profoundly important so that engineers can have tools available to confidently and efficiently address concerns, and provide a path forward for the project. This paper seeks to answer the above questions by presenting details of different remediation approaches using the results of several case studies where structural and geotechnical engineering methods, combined with non-destructive integrity testing (NDT), were employed to evaluate the acceptance of “questionable” drilled shafts. Through multidisciplinary techniques like Cross-hole Sonic Logging and 3-D Tomography which enhance the resolution of anomalous zones and defects in concrete, the development of concrete strength estimates from non-destructive testing data, and executing innovative structural and geotechnical analyses to evaluate the as-built conditions, drilled shafts that might have historically been rejected were ultimately accepted by the project team. This paper presents a series of unique case studies that together depict a roadmap for a comprehensive approach to reliably evaluate and guide the industry to address these types of drilled shaft construction issues.

Oct 1, 2022

By Marcel Bielefeld, Joost Bakker, Rob van Dorp

Pile load testing can be performed by a static, rapid or high strain dynamic (generally designated as dynamic) testing method. The static load test is often considered the “gold standard” of testing with the other methods merely ‘alternatives’. However, the rapid load test, as a quasi-static test, has all the positive elements of the static alternative: the direct measurement of loads and displacements. Moreover as stress wave phenomena have no influence, the interpretation of rapid load test results is more straightforward than that of dynamic testing, and also independent of the person performing the interpretation. This paper will explore the Rapid Load Testing method and illustrate the advantages and limitations through a case study in Rostock, Germany

May 1, 2022

By Karl A. Higgins

In August 2004, the long-awaited National Harbor project in the DC metro area sprang to life with the design of Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center. When the project was in its final stages of construction in 2007, it was noted as largest building development of the east Coast and the 4th largest Building project in the U.S. The final construction costs were above $900M and it served as the catalyst for the overall National Harbor development which added another $1B in construction costs over the next few years. The Gaylord Hotel is supported by approximately 150,000 linear-feet of driven precast concrete piling, one of a handful of major DC area projects in the early 2000s that were supported by this pile type. The project overall was a success, but the fast-paced construction schedule created significant challenges to the designers and contractors. Piling installation was the first major building construction task, and it did not start out well. While the test piles were installed without damage, when production pile driving began in the summer of 2005, pile head and body breakage soon became evident. Typical of most highprofile projects, there are many stakeholders involved and an equal number of opinions on why the piles were breaking. The financial and contractual implications of starting the project off awkwardly were evident to all. The pile driving criteria was scrutinized by the contractor, and the engineer’s had reservations about the size and type of the hammers used for pile driving. Ultimately, it was proven the leading cause of pile breakage was neither the pile driving criteria nor equipment, rather the pile materials themselves. The author of this paper is also the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for Gaylord National and many of the adjacent National Harbor buildings including the recently completed MGM casino. About 100 piles were damaged during Gaylord’s construction some requiring multiple piles for replacements. Over the past decade or so, rumors on the causes of the pile breakage have spread in the market, with some alleging this pile type is not compatible with the geologic setting. I have purposely avoided writing this case-study due to the controversy surrounding the subject, but now some 15 years later it seems appropriate to do so considering DFI’s annual conference location. This will be a fact-based assessment of pile breakage at Gaylord and will also include a comparison to the neighboring buildings where far fewer driven piles were damaged, once a more appropriate concrete mix design was required. The pre-cast supplier is no longer in business.

By Seth H. Hamblin, John E. Regan, Dimitrios Palantzas

"Through reliability-based calibration of larger pile load test databases, recent developments of the Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods, which include geotechnical load and resistance factors for deep foundations design, have advanced the state of practice for geotechnical engineering. These load test databases upon which the current geotechnical load and resistance factors have been developed are limited, however, and do not provide sufficient data to support the development of resistance factors for uplift (tension) pile capacity. As such, some recommended resistance factors for uplift capacity estimation methods are simply derived by reducing the recommended resistance factors for piles in compression by a factor of 0.10.The results of three (3) tension loading tests performed to failure on 508 mm (20- in) square precast, prestressed concrete piles, driven though granular soil in southeastern Massachusetts, are presented and compared to static pile capacity calculations and dynamic analyses performed using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) during installation. These results are presented along with current recommended LRFD resistance factors for driven piles under uplift (tension) loading conditions. These comparisons offer an assessment of the applicability and limitations of current resistance factors methods for piles under uplift loading and may be useful additions to the existing database for future calibrations of LRFD resistance factors for driven prestressed concrete piles in sand.IntroductionIn 2010, two (2) natural draft cooling towers were constructed by Kiewit (Kiewit) Construction Company of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey at the Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts. These massive 500 foot tall, 400 foot diameter cooling towers were designed to convert the existing “open loop” system into a “closed loop system” thereby dramatically reducing the thermal impact to Mt. Hope Bay.Based on design guidance from the German VBG Design Code and the Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC), tension (i.e. uplift) and lateral loads due to wind loads and design seismic events represented the critical loading conditions.Weighing approximately 190,000 kips upon completion, the cooling tower loads are transferred to 44 foundation nodes (i.e. pile caps) evenly spaced along ring beams which run the circular perimeter of each tower base. Each pile cap node was designed to resist a 2,000 ton compression load, 200 tons in tension (i.e. uplift), and 600 tons in the lateral direction."

Jan 1, 2015

By John P. Turner, Benjamin J. Turner

"This report describes a research project for evaluating the applicability of the widely accepted 80 percent criterion for elongation of ground anchors to anchors with unbonded lengths exceeding 100 feet. This issue is driven by several recent projects involving ground anchors for landslide stabilization in which a significant percentage of the anchors did not meet the criterion that requires measured elongation during proof load testing of at least 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation. The projects involved anchor unbonded lengths in the range of 85 to 220 feet, which is outside the range traditionally used in practice, although anchors of this length are being used more frequently for landslide stabilization. The principal objective of this research is to address whether the widely accepted criterion of 80 percent elongation is applicable for such applications, and whether other factors affect the ability of anchors to meet the criterion.Analytical methods for predicting transfer of load along the length of steel strand due to friction loss are used routinely in the prestressed concrete industry. These analytical expressions provide a rational framework for quantifying changes in load due to friction along the length of a ground anchor in terms of a ‘wobble coefficient’ (K) as defined in Aalami (2004). Values of the wobble coefficient for ground anchors can only be determined by back-calculating from load tests, i.e., fit the value of K to the appropriate analytical expression based on the known test load and measured percent elongation. The analytical basis is first developed and shown to provide a tool for evaluating results of anchor load tests to determine the magnitude of expected elongation as a function of unbonded length. Next, a database of anchor load tests is used to back-calculate values of K for anchors with unbonded lengths in the range typically used in geotechnical applications (< 100 feet). These values of K are then used to calculate expected friction loss for anchors with high unbonded lengths (100 to 250 feet) to evaluate whether the 80 percent criterion is reasonable."

Jan 1, 2017

By Charles M. Wilk, Lori Tiefenthaler

"Information presented in this paper can be used to support deep soil mixing, subsurface grouting and slurry wall technology as sustainable construction technologies. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is the default cementitious material used by Deep Foundation Institute (DFI) Members for geotechnical work. Owners, engineers and contractors can contribute to the sustainability of a geotechnical project by increasing the use blended hydraulic cements and industrial byproducts to replace some of the OPC in mix designs. Sustainability is defined as the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources. Production of cementitious materials consumes natural raw materials and energy while also generating air emissions and waste. Life Cycle Assessments can be used to compare the relative environmental impacts of one cementitious material to another. Blended hydraulic cements (BHCs) are interground (or blended) mixtures of Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) with OPC. Commonly used SCMs include fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and limestone. Examples of industrial byproducts commonly used in geotechnical work include coal combustion residuals (CCR) (aka fly ash), and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). Much of life cycle impact of these SCMs and industrial byproducts have already been borne by the industries that generated them. There is increasing awareness to LCA and sustainability of different materials used on projects. This is evident in the application of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. The savings in environmental impact with the use of SCMs and industrial byproducts can make proposed use of these materials in a geotechnical project more attractive in terms of sustainability. This paper presents (a) information that compares published life cycle assessment data of OPC, BHCs, and slag cement (SC) to illustrate the potential benefits to sustainability and (b) general strategies for positioning a geotechnical application, use, project design or cementitious material mix as a more sustainable alternative"

Jan 1, 2017

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn&apos;t stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

By Chaz Weaver, James Sheahan, Michael Mo

"The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) undertook a program to replace four bridges along approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) of US 340 in Northwest Virginia. Two of these bridges, which span Compton Creek and the Norfolk Southern Railroad respectively, are the subject of this article. HDR provided roadway and structural design as well as geotechnical engineering services for the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge while their subconsultant, Saeed Associates, provided structural engineering services in support of the HDR roadway and geotechnical team for the Compton Creek Bridge.The project is located in the Valley and Ridge Geologic Province of Virginia, on an alignment that is adjacent to the Shenandoah River. The project lies within the Beekmantown Group consisting of limestone and dolostone that are prevalent and prone to karstic activity in a band that passes through the project area and north into Central and Eastern Pennsylvania. This area has been impacted by karst limestone conditions where caves and sinkhole activity is common. Caves at Luray and Front Royal, located to the south and north of the project, respectively, are popular public attractions.Since the potential for variability of subsurface conditions can be, and often is, greater in karst terrain, the need to develop a design that provides as much flexibility as possible during construction, and then to be prepared to efficiently review and respond to construction questions is heightened. Coordination and communication among the design staff, VDOT’s design and construction staff, and the contractor was a key factor in completion of this project.Compton Creek BridgeThe alignment for the new Compton Creek Bridge is located about 125 ft (38 m) west of the existing bridge, placing it between that bridge and the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge. No information about the foundations was available for the existing bridges. Borings in the Compton Creek valley encountered extensive voids (some clay filled and some open) with numerous boulders, rock ledges and pinnacles, particularly on the north side of the creek. Geophysical and geotechnical investigations indicated that below a poor and variable upper zone of rock was a layer of more competent and consistent limestone, which appeared to contain little or no voids."

Jan 1, 2017

By Stephan A. Jefferis

I presume that the questioner is not asking about the reduction of sulfate in groundwater to hydrogen sulfide as a result of biological activity promoted by organics in the grout hardener and that the question relates to sulfate attack on cementitious grout systems. For the project in Spain presented in my paper, we used a very high pulverized fuel ash (PFA) content in the cementitious material. This gives good sulfate resistance and indeed the chemical interaction will actually cause the permeability to drop for about 50 years without any question of sulfate attack and damage to the whole thickness of the grout - of course there will be attack at the exposed face of the grout where it is in contact with the contaminated groundwater. The mix had over 75% PFA, and also a very high overall cementitious content. The mix was the contractor&apos;s design and showed excellent behavior in laboratory proving trials. In grouts as distinct from concrete, PFA gives significantly better sulfate resistance than ground granulated blast furnace slag which is often used in Europe as a component of bentonite-cement mixes for slurry trench cut-off walls.

Feb 10, 2003