Search Documents

By Mary Ellen Large

This publication of Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) is intended to provide project owners, design engineers and construction professionals with guidelines for selecting cutoff wall and barrier systems and a general introduction to their methods of construction. Three categories of cutoff wall and barrier construction technology (excavated cutoff systems, in situ techniques, and driven cutoff systems) are presented and parameters for evaluating their design and construction are discussed. The information presented was compiled from the opinions of practicing engineers and construction specialists from the DFI Slurry Wall Committee.

Jan 1, 2021

By Dinesh R. Katti

Caissons which are locally known as well foundations, which may very in diameter from 30 m to more than 30 m and in majority of the cases having depth to diameter ratio between 1 to 1.5, are normally used to support piers of long span bridges or tall structures, which transmit high magnitude of axial load, horizontal thrust and moment. On the basis of depth to diameter ratio the foundation system appears to fall in the category of shallow foundations but due to deep excavation, it is observed that part of the moment acting on the caisson is shared by due the sides due to development of passive resistance. The problem is statically indeterminate and three dimensional in nature. To ascertain the various parameters needed for design, such as moment shared by base and sides, horizontal and vertical displacement and tilt, and base and side contact pressure diagrams need to be obtained from nondimensional relations of parameters with respect to D/B ratio derived from large scale model studies conducted by Katti etal at IIT, Bombay under MOT Project between 1976 and 1988 and later on at UNEECS. On the basis of above data on attempt is made to put forward guide lines for selection of parameters for design of caisson foundations / well for following cases for opening us some discussion. The cases are cohesive soil at the side and cohesive soil, or sand or soft rock or hard rock at the base.

Jan 1, 1996

"1.0 INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines reflect the state-of-the-practice of the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) in North America. DMM is an in situ mixing process that breaks down the soil structure; injects binders, fillers and reagents into the soil; and blends them with the soil. DMM is also commonly referred to as Soil Mixing. The final properties of the treated soil in situ are a function of the composition of the native soils and groundwater, the binders introduced, the mixing methods and energy, and the conditions and time of curing. Treated soils generally have increased strength and stiffness and/or reduced permeability relative to the native soils.This document addresses DMM performed by rotating single and multiple axis mixing tools, rotating cutter wheels at the end of a rigid kelly bar, or trench mixing using a rotating cutting/mixing chain around the perimeter of a rigid bar. Binder may be injected through low or high energy (velocity) jets.The treated soils created through wet DMM are heterogeneous mixtures of binder, water, soil, and groundwater. Treated soils produced by dry DMM techniques are a mixture of binder, soil, and the water already present in the native soil.DMM applications described in this document include•,Earth retention•,Liquefaction mitigation•,Groundwater seepage control and containment isolation•,Bearing capacity improvement•,Deep foundations•,Mass stabilization and contamination containment•,Embankment, levee and dam strengthening, and stabilization•,Casing replacementThis document was developed to address deep foundations applications. Use of deep mixing for seepage control is not specifically addressed. The reader is referred to documents prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for additional information. Shallow soil mixing and the use of DMM for stabilization/solidification of contaminated soils performed at depths less than 10 feet (3 m) are mentioned briefly. Jet grouting is not covered by these guidelines."

Jan 1, 2016

By Bengt H. Fellenius

The design of pile foundations is much more commonly verified by means of a full-scale test, than is the design of other foundation units. The reason is not that our knowledge of pile behavior is more uncertain than our knowledge of other foundation types making the verification necessary, but more that the loads in a structure are more concentrated to single foundations in a structure founded on piles as opposed to structures on footings or mats. Therefore, should a pile cap fail or move, the adverse consequence of this is often drastic, as the piled structure has little freedom to transfer its need for support to other foundation units. Consequently, it becomes important to assure the design of piled foundations. In many, maybe in most instances, the static pile loading test is routine and geared toward determining an at least capacity, only. However, in these times there is an ever increasing liability of the professional, demands for increased economy of the foundation, and frequent lack of the involvement in the test of the experienced old-timer exercising good judgment. Furthermore, modern pile design is leaving the single, simple concept of capacity and requires more information from the test to assist in determining aspects of long-term behavior and settlement. Therefore, even the straight forward, routine static loading test requires improved planning, execution, and analysis.

Jan 1, 1990

By Ameir Altaee

Unconventional means and methods were utilized to install over 650 contractor-designed micro-piles for the replacement of the Bronx approach to the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge in New York City. The method utilized reverse circulation (RC) drill rods and down-hole-hammers (DHH) along with grouting through the DHH bit. The overall construction sequence of drill-down, grout-up, place reinforcing is similar to auger-grout piling. The extremely tough drilling conditions required the use of a percussive DHH. The piling subcontractor refers to this pile as a hammer-grout pile. Project background, constraints and subsurface conditions are given. The proposed means and methods as well as the collaboration between stakeholders are detailed. Results of load testing and production installation are summarized.

Jan 1, 2010

By Y. G. Li

The design and construction of the hand-dug caisson pier foundation of the Shenzhen International Trade Centre are described in the paper. In addition discussions and inquires about the load-bearing capacity of the hard bedrock are offered.

Jan 1, 2010

By W. J. Grose

The Embankment Place office development over the platforms of Charing Cross Railway Station in London has presented many interesting and unusual problems to the engineers involved with the project. The main structure is supported on widely-spaced columns which penetrate the station platforms and underlying vaults, calling for high capacity foundations built in severely restricted spaces. Hand-dug underreamed piles were chosen. Whilst a conventional design approach was taken to size the piles, a detailed appraisal of ground movements was made to explore the effects of the new building loads on the existing foundations, not only beyond the site perimeter but also those amongst the new foundations. Before construction of the pile proper could take place, it was necessary to sink a caisson through the upper unstable and water-bearing soils. This being identified as a high-risk item, a full-scale trial was carried out prior to embarking on the main works. The twenty-one hand-dug piles were 2.5m diameter, over 30m deep and belled out to between 4.5m and 6.6m.

Jan 1, 1989

By A. K. C. Chan

Recent hotel investment projects in China often involve very tight programmes for design and construction. An example given in this paper involves a 24-storey reinforced concrete hotel tower with 460 bedrooms and a 3-level podium commercial complex. The building is supported by relatively widely spaced columns and shear walls below which 88 number large diameter piers were excavated through fill, silty and bouldery clay on to dolerite and slate at depths between 15 to 3 0m below ground level. Whereas much experience has been accumulated in Hong Kong, hand-excavated pier foundation was only adopted for the first time in Dalian. This paper describes and discusses the various factors influencing the choice of the type and design of the foundation system. The criteria for determining appropriate founding levels are then explained. During installation, revisions to the acceptance procedure were made to cater for local conditions. Emphasis is placed on the role of the geotechnical engineer in making on-site decisions during construction. The advantage of the foundation system in accommodating on-site changes resulting from local complex ground conditions is demonstrated. The pier foundations were successfully completed ahead of programme.

Jan 1, 2010

By Trevor L. L. Orr

"AbstractThe background to the harmonization of geotechnical standards that has taken place in recent years in Europe has been the move to more economic and political integration following World War II that has led to the formation of the European Union. Prior to 2010 the standards used in the European countries for geotechnical design, investigation and testing and for the carrying out geotechnical work, such as the installation of piles, were the different national standards, which were not harmonized. The harmonization of geotechnical standards in Europe started in 1981 with work on a model Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design that led eventually to publication by CEN, the European Committee for Standardization, of the European Standard version of Eurocode 7 in 2004. In parallel with the work on Eurocode 7, a large number of associated harmonized standards have been, and are being, prepared by CEN and by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for geotechnical investigation and testing and for the execution of geotechnical works. Standards published by CEN must be adopted by the CEN member countries and all conflicting standards withdrawn. Hence all the CEN countries have adopted the same the harmonized text of Eurocode 7, but with National Annexes that allow national choice with regard to Design Approach and partial factor values. The adoption of Eurocode 7 and its associated geotechnical standards has removed the barriers to geotechnical activity in Europe due to the presence of different national standards. It has also enhanced the ability of EU firms to compete in the global market.Background to harmonization of geotechnical standards in EuropeThe initial moves towards the harmonization of geotechnical standards in Europe can be related to the economic and political developments that took place in the period immediately following World War II to revive the economies of Western Europe. Europe at that time was divided by a political and, in many places, a physical barrier, known as the Iron Curtain, into two very different and separate zones: communist in the east and non-communist in the west. In 1952 the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was formed, linking 6 countries: Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and establishing a common market in coal and steel. The ECSC was the first international organization to be established on the basis of supranational principles whereby negotiated power is delegated to an authority by the governments of the member states. In 1957 the ECSC became the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Common Market in the English-speaking world, with the aim to bring about economic integration. With the addition of Denmark, Ireland and the UK in 1973 and Greece in 1981, followed by Portugal and Spain in 1986, this led to the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993. East and West Germany were reunified in 1990, following the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU, and since then the numbers of countries in the EU has increased to 28, many of which are countries that were formerly behind the Iron Curtain."

Jan 1, 2014

By Silas C. Nichols

"Abstract Piling and deep foundations are a staple for transportation projects in the United States (US). Driven or bored piles have been used for everything from support of bridge foundations and retaining structures to support of culverts and embankments on soft ground. Deep foundations have been popular in the US transportation market to better handle large axial and lateral loads, extreme event loading, and to better control structure movement. However, there are challenges in the maintenance of design and construction codes in transportation for consistent and reliable structure foundation elements. A significant amount of effort continues in the US to maintain national codes and specifications at a level consistent with the state of practice, and identify and conduct research for providing safe and cost effective highway structures.IntroductionThe transportation sector in the United States has a hierarchy of design and construction codes that are used for the specification of piling and deep foundations. Any highway or bridge project on the National Highway System (NHS) must be designed and constructed in accordance with a national set of standards approved by the State Highway Departments, and that are acceptable to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). However, in any jurisdiction, exceptions are permitted with approval. Therefore, design may be governed by the national standard specification, a state standard specification and design manuals, special provisions, or guideline specifications. Any of these standards, or a combination, may be used depending on the needs of the owner agency.The FHWA and the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have worked together in the development and maintenance of geotechnical design and construction guidance and codes that support the surface transportation community. General geotechnical engineering practice in the United States lacks a singular, national design and construction code that addresses all aspects of geotechnical engineering. As a result, the AASHTO specifications provide the most complete geotechnical specifications focusing on structure foundations, retaining walls, and buried structures for surface transportation applications. This includes piling and deep foundation types commonly used for support of bridges and transportation structures.The FHWA National Geotechnical Team has published several technical guidance documents that include guideline specifications for the design and construction of driven and bored deep foundations. Reference documents published by FHWA summarize the state of practice and provide recommended design and construction guidance. These reference documents have long served as a basis for provisions included in the AASHTO specifications. Maintenance of the design code and specification, and related guidance documents for consistent use on US transportation projects requires a collaborative effort between industry, FHWA, and the member state highway departments that make up AASHTO."

Jan 1, 2014

By Jeffrey Goodwin P. E., Melih Demirkan Ph. D. P. E., Kevin Tehansky P. E.

Just an hour drive down MD 301 from National Harbor, construction to replace the Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial/Senator Thomas ‘Mac’ Middleton Bridge (HNB) began in spring of 2020. The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) contracted with Skanska-Corman-McLean (SCM) to deliver a new US 301 bridge spanning 1.9 miles from Maryland to Virginia over the Potomac River aiming to improve capacity, safety, and access of the roadway. The project area presented a geotechnical design challenge due to the installation of new bridge foundations in the problematic soils of the Atlantic Coastal Plain alluvial deposits. With the existing bridge remaining in service during construction, and the site’s logistical constraints placing new pile driving operations near existing abutments and piers, a complex instrumentation and monitoring plan was developed to ensure public safety throughout the project. This paper discusses the geological conditions of the project area, the collaborative approach of various design team members to develop an appropriate monitoring plan utilizing various instrumentation, an understanding of baseline conditional movements of the existing bridge, and impact response of adjacent construction activity to help deliver effective new bridge foundations while protecting the old ones.

Oct 1, 2022

By Paul Suver

"The closed loop standing column well (CLSCW) system uses a closed circuit of water to develop the same thermal heat exchange characteristics that are achieved from traditional open circuit standing column well that uses the ground water directly. Pipe pile and pipe anchor foundations can be used as CLSCW components for ground source heat exchange. New data gathering and analysis techniques and equipment installed in the heat pumps allow any mechanical engineer to design the system without specialty engineering equipment and certifications.CLSCW Description:Closed end steel pipe of varying outer diameter (O.D.) is installed by various technologies at varying depths depending on subsurface geology. The wells are arranged as stand alone wells or in groups joined in parallel or in series or in a combination of both. These pipes may also serve a dual function as foundation supports, deep foundation pile, anchors or earth retention components. These wells are then internally coated to minimize corrosion. The wells are then plumbed and capped to create a vessel equipped with a supply and return water line.The stand alone well or group of wells is then used as a ground heat exchanger for a ground source heat pumps located in or around the building.The ground source heat pumps provide heating and cooling to the building either with a traditional ducted distribution system or with radiant heating and cooling. These systems can reach efficiencies three times greater than traditional gas fired heat sources and five times greater than traditional air conditioning sources."

Jan 1, 2017

By Paul Suver

The closed loop standing column well (CLSCW) system uses a closed circuit of water to develop the same thermal heat exchange characteristics that are achieved from traditional open circuit standing column well that uses the ground water directly. Pipe pile and pipe anchor foundations can be used as CLSCW components for ground source heat exchange. New data gathering and analysis techniques and equipment installed in the heat pumps allow any mechanical engineer to design the system without specialty engineering equipment and certifications.

By John S. Pack

The last 25 years have seen rapid expansion in the use of helical screw pile foundations and tiebacks for new and retrofit construction of buildings and earth retention structures. An estimated $100 million was spent in 2002 on helical foundations and tiebacks in the United States alone. While design information is available in the literature, information regarding quality control, inspection and performance monitoring is lacking. Recognition of at least one manufacturer's helical foundation material by the Uniform Building Code, Standard Building Code, and BOCA (all three codes now combined into the ICC International Building Code) has given added urgency to the dissemination of reliable and practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures. This paper describes a set of such procedures that have been followed for 17 years by engineers experienced in the industry who have directly installed or been involved in the installation of over 140,000 helical foundations and tiebacks in divers soil conditions for various types of structures, including earth retention structures. Topics covered include design responsibility, building code listings and requirements, manufacturer ISO certification, manufacturing process, material and installation specifications, installation contractor certification, field placement, installation procedures, field inspection, building code inspection and performance monitoring. The paper concludes with a step by step example of practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures on a typical helical foundation project.

Jan 1, 2003

By Jr. D'Angelo, Michael M. Blendy, Shawn Downey

"A grouted helical pile was used to support new buildings in the reconstruction of a large residential development. Foundation options were complicated by urban fill underlain with variable alluvial soil. A driven timber pile and grade beam system was recommended to support the new buildings. Other foundation options are also discussed. The grouted helical pile was quoted as an alternate and ultimately won the bid based on the economics and performance of the system. Data from 8 load tests was used to develop an empirical site specific relationship for determining pile capacity based on both installing torque and installation depth. Design to incorporate tolerance on installed pile location is presented. With the three phases completed, 554 residential dwelling units supported by 3645 grouted helical piles had been constructed covering 18 city blocks on the 44 acre site. IntroductionThe Philadelphia Housing Authority reconstructed the Tasker Homes housing complex located in southern Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, adjacent to the Schuylkill Expressway in the Grays Ferry area. Keating Building Corp. and Pennoni Associates were the general contractor and the structural engineer respectively. The original Tasker Homes development was constructed from 1940 to 1941 and consisted of 44 acres of primarily two and three-story residential brick buildings. These buildings were supported by a timber pile foundation system. The structural condition of the buildings supported on the timber piles was generally good in comparison to areas outside the buildings. These areas had settled possibly up to 2-feet in places due to the heterogeneous nature of the urban fill."

Jan 1, 2005

By Gary L. Seider, Dana A. Wesolek, Fred C. Schmednecht

"A new condominium project, The Atelier, developed by Pickus Companies located at the corner of Bryn Mawr and Sheridan in Chicago, IL required an earth retention system to protect the surrounding roads, alley, and existing neighboring apartment bui lding during its construction. Slurry Systems, Inc. (SSI) and Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. designed the earth retention system using cantilevered sheet piling for three of the four sides: two sides bordering major streets and one side bordering an alley. For the fourth side, which borders an existing occupied brick building, a combination of sheet pil ing and AB. CHANCE® helical screw piers were used. SSI was actively involved in the review process of its earth retention system with the City of Chicago and quickly learned that there was no specific code for hel ical piers/anchors. (It appears that this is the case with most metropolitan cities throughout the United States). Consequently, the approval of underpinning for this project became the critical path, as much testing, calculations, meetings, and other details were required prior to its approval.SSI and AB. CHANCE® recognized that this process for underpinning approval must be seen by other contractors/suppliers who wish to use helical piers/anchors in the City of Chicago. Consequently, this project served as an opportunity to work with the City of Chicago and the City's Building Code Committee in furthering the development of the Helical Piers/Anchors Code, Section 1814. INTRODUCTION - HELICAL PIERSDefinition. A helical pier or anchor consists of one or more helix-shaped steel bearing plate(s) attached to a central steel stem (solid bar or pipe), which is installed by rotating or ""torquing"" into the ground. Each helix is attached near the tip, is circular in plan , and is formed into a screw thread with a defined pitch. Helical piers/anchors are pre-fabricated and can derive their load-carrying capacity through both end bearing and skin friction. The helical piers/anchors can be augmented with grout."

Jan 1, 2005

By Dilip Khatri

Helical pile anchors have gained acceptance over the past sixty years. Most recently they have been commonplace in the 20th century for the power utility industry in anchoring transmission towers, equipment platforms, street lighting, telephone poles, and radio tower applications. They have a strong proven industrial track record in these industries. As the cost of conventional deep pile foundations rises, the practical benefits of helical pile anchors becomes evident as a practical alternative. Noted for their uplift capacity, helical piles demonstrate equally strong compressive capacity as a structural foundation element. This paper summarizes the history, practical benefits, and technical requirements for helical piles. Significant structural testing has been completed at various universities. The practical benefits of these tests are discussed. One case example of proven performance is presented to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of helical pile anchors as suitable foundation elements.

Jan 1, 2003

By Kevin Baumgartner, Steven Babcock

A landfill in Phoenix, AZ reached capacity and was graded over in the 1970s. The property was subdivided into lots in 2007 to create a business park. However, the challenging site conditions caused by the underlaying landfill put into question the feasibility of typical deep foundation systems. Several different foundation systems were evaluated to support the proposed development. The considered systems were: drilled concrete shaft, driven piles, drilled micropiles and helical piles. Soil stability, landfill decomposition, method of installation, flexibility of design, anticipated material, and equipment costs were considered. A system of helical piles with concrete pile caps and grade beams was selected. To mitigate unknown obstructions, holes were drilled through the landfill debris at pile locations and then backfilled with screened granular material. The helical piles were installed through these backfilled holes and advanced to bear in competent native material below the landfill. This method allowed for minimal disturbance of the landfill materials and provided a strong and adaptable foundation. Additional advantages of helical piles on this site include minimal installation vibration, no grout or concrete in the deep foundation, and capacity verification for each pile via torque correlation. Two load tests were performed to verify the design.

Sep 8, 2021

By Jeff Wilkinson, Brandon Walter

"A&N Electrical Cooperative provides electrical service to the counties of Accomack and Northampton along Virginia’s Eastern Shore and to Smith Island in Somerset County, Md.A&N recently worked to improve the efficiency of power distribution to a small island community and marina on Tangier Island in the Chesapeake Bay. This improvement consisted of upgrading the existing distribution substation with a new 25 kV 2-bay box distribution structure. Earth Contact Products (ECP) collaborated with PowerServices, Inc. (PSI) to design and install a helical foundation support system as part of the substation upgrade. Feasibility EvaluationThroughout the design process, A&Nworked with its partners PSI (design) andT&D Solutions (installation) to identifycost-effective alternatives. Foundationsystems considered included cast-in-placereinforced concrete caissons, precastconcrete foundations, driven steel piles and helical piles. In evaluating all of theoptions, the greatest concern was gettingthe material onto the island, followedclosely by the availability of the equipmentto install the foundations. Clearly, cost,more specifically the installed cost, was asignificant consideration and decisionfactor throughout the process.There were several limiting factors that had to be considered during the design process, the most significant of which was that all of the material had to be barged to the site. With traditional reinforced concrete deep foundations in mind, the cost for installing these piles was projected to be nearly $2,000/cu yd ($262/cu m) of installed concrete. Given that approximately 5 to 6 cu yd (3.8 to 4.6 cu m) of concrete would be required for this structure, the cost was significantly high for this project. What’s more, because the components of the concrete mix would have to be barged and then hand mixed on site, there was concern regarding both the time required to complete the piles and the quality of the installed concrete. For the driven pile alternative, the availability, or lack thereof, of equipment and material cost resulted in a total cost estimate that was more expensive than that of the concrete piling alternative. The high material cost for the piles, which was more than double than the cost of concrete, was due to the number and size of piles needed to resist the overturning moment. Ultimately, the team selected the helical pile alternative. The decision to a use helical pile foundation system was based on many factors, not the least of which was the remote location of the project site and the difficulties associated with getting material, equipment and construction personnel to the project site."

Jan 1, 2017

By Serhan Guner, Sundar Chiluwal

Although significant research has been conducted on helical piles, there is a lack of research and official design provisions on the helical pile-to-pile cap connections. These connections may govern the global response of pile cap systems—especially in tall and light structures where uplift forces dominate the response. To improve future industry practice, the objective of this study is to understand the influence of pile-to-pile cap connections on the global behavior of concrete pile caps and develop recommendations for their efficient design. For this purpose, 108 high- fidelity nonlinear finite element simulations are conducted to quantify the influences of bracket type, embedment depths, longitudinal reinforcement percentages, shear span-to-depth ratios, and loading conditions on the load, deformation, cracking, and failure behavior of concrete pile caps. The results indicate that the design configurations involving single bracket type may result in premature concrete cracking around the anchorage zones with a 25% reduction in the uplift load capacity. The investigations also confirm that high reinforcement percentages and low shear span-to-depth ratios result in higher load resistance in all bracket types, and that the load capacities of the double and studded bracket types are similar. For applications requiring the use of lower embedment depths, it is recommended that either double or studded bracket types be used. The research findings have applicability to both helical and micro piles given that both include similar connection types. INTRODUCTION Tall and light structures may experience significant uplift forces at their foundations due to large overturning moments from wind or other lateral loads. Helical piles (e.g., Fig. 1a) can provide a cost- effective, practical, and resilient solution for resisting significant uplift forces. In order to realize the full potential of helical piles, it is imperative that the helical pile-to-pile cap connections (see Figs. 1b, c and d for examples) are properly designed to resist the applied forces. However, there is a lack of research and associated knowledge on the influence of pile-to-pile cap connection detailing on the global response of pile caps.

Jan 1, 2019